From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

[MLB Bob]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

I dont know if your talking to me or not sorry. What I am saying the numbers the stats none of it matter to me throw it all out. If i start my franchise and sim ahead no matter the circumstances I think the same guys will decline at the same age no matter what at the same rate. I dont care what the rate is or when it happens it just ruins it all for me when it feels like everything was predetermined day one of the franchise.

its a computer program, of course its pre programmed. I dont think they have ever claimed or attempted to say that each player has a dynamic aging curve that is randomly selected from 100's of possibilities. Maybe thats something they should work on but sounds awfully complicated and more owrk than we think. But it would add some diversity..

[thescottyglasgow]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

its a computer program, of course its pre programmed. I dont think they have ever claimed or attempted to say that each player has a dynamic aging curve that is randomly selected from 100's of possibilities. Maybe thats something they should work on but sounds awfully complicated and more owrk than we think. But it would add some diversity..

It doesnt seem that difficult to me to have it randomized when players will regress or have it actually based on the stats or reflected in the stats. I dont even need to use Trout ummm Machado for example I think he declines a little early too. Why wouldn't sometimes they decline at age 34 sometimes 30 sometimes 32 and every once in a while 28 or 38... instead it seems like its a set age no matter what for every player when they are going to start declining. and with trout Im only complaining its predetermined he is still 70's across the board at minimum and plays HOF ball. I just really hate when I have Trout and Machado playing better than Wieters and Davis and no matter what they will decline before. Again this is last year I haven't even bothered testing this year because it has been like that forever but from what I hear its the same.

[MLB Bob]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

It doesnt seem that difficult to me to have it randomized when players will regress or have it actually based on the stats or reflected in the stats. I dont even need to use Trout ummm Machado for example I think he declines a little early too. Why wouldn't sometimes they decline at age 34 sometimes 30 sometimes 32 and every once in a while 28 or 38... instead it seems like its a set age no matter what for every player when they are going to start declining. and with trout Im only complaining its predetermined he is still 70's across the board at minimum and plays HOF ball. I just really hate when I have Trout and Machado playing better than Wieters and Davis and no matter what they will decline before. Again this is last year I haven't even bothered testing this year because it has been like that forever but from what I hear its the same.

I agree it would add depth and an "unknown" element to having it more random but nothing is easy to program. Thats a bit much to say you dont think it would take much.

Also each position has the attributes weighted differently. If Trout is a CF and any hit to his speed will lower his overall more than say a 1B and with 3b any decline in power and arm or fielding would make him show more effects than a LF or 1B. I agree that a randomness would be a nice addition.

[redsox4evur]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

It doesnt seem that difficult to me to have it randomized when players will regress or have it actually based on the stats or reflected in the stats. I dont even need to use Trout ummm Machado for example I think he declines a little early too. Why wouldn't sometimes they decline at age 34 sometimes 30 sometimes 32 and every once in a while 28 or 38... instead it seems like its a set age no matter what for every player when they are going to start declining. and with trout Im only complaining its predetermined he is still 70's across the board at minimum and plays HOF ball. I just really hate when I have Trout and Machado playing better than Wieters and Davis and no matter what they will decline before. Again this is last year I haven't even bothered testing this year because it has been like that forever but from what I hear its the same.

Yea, I think the dev team admitted it was screwed up last year and fixed it for 15. Why don't go to Redbox and rent the game in order to test it out and save you some money and see if it has changed.

[thescottyglasgow]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Yea, I think the dev team admitted it was screwed up last year and fixed it for 15. Why don't go to Redbox and rent the game in order to test it out and save you some money and see if it has changed.

Oh it was not a game breaker for me just a mode breaker... I still own the game I just haven't tested years in advance in a franchise. The franchise mode seems the same I have only been playing Diamond Dynasty but I did one year of franchise and it was the same thing players updated through email monthly with some progression changes is all that mattered. From what the other poster was saying about Shields it seems it is the same in the future too nothing changed in this mode at all.

Sorry also I didnt mean to make it seem easy to program or anything like that I have no clue about that stuff. It just seems to me that would be a fundamental part of this mode considering its supposed to be your own personal random world.

[redsox4evur]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Oh it was not a game breaker for me just a mode breaker... I still own the game I just haven't tested years in advance in a franchise. The franchise mode seems the same I have only been playing Diamond Dynasty but I did one year of franchise and it was the same thing players updated through email monthly with some progression changes is all that mattered. From what the other poster was saying about Shields it seems it is the same in the future too nothing changed in this mode at all.

Sorry also I didnt mean to make it seem easy to program or anything like that I have no clue about that stuff. It just seems to me that would be a fundamental part of this mode considering its supposed to be your own personal random world.

Ok...from the post I quoted it seemed to me that you hadn't played 15 yet. And I haven't either for that matter. But I figured the new progression "system" would have changed this.

[CujoMatty]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

For anyone defending how the game handles regression.

If it is a good system that represents real life than it makes no sense to me why R.A Dickey was rated an 84 out of the box In mlb 15. In mlb 14 he had dropped from mid 80s to 64 last year by the all star break. This year same thing.

So basically if the regression system is to be defended as realistic. 1. Dickey should have never been the same rating in 15 as he was 14. In the game he regressed 20 points in less than a year.
2. He should be rated a 60 next year. The only way it makes sense to me is if mlb 16 ratings are somewhat close to what he finished 1 year in mlb 15.

I think we all can agree that's not going to happen. He's not going to be a 60 in the default roster next year. I promise.

[Knight165]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

For anyone defending how the game handles regression.

If it is a good system that represents real life than it makes no sense to me why R.A Dickey was rated an 84 out of the box In mlb 15. In mlb 14 he had dropped from mid 80s to 64 last year by the all star break. This year same thing.

So basically if the regression system is to be defended as realistic. 1. Dickey should have never been the same rating in 15 as he was 14. In the game he regressed 20 points in less than a year.
2. He should be rated a 60 next year. The only way it makes sense to me is if mlb 16 ratings are somewhat close to what he finished 1 year in mlb 15.

I think we all can agree that's not going to happen. He's not going to be a 60 in the default roster next year. I promise.

Well...that's not really how the ratings for players on default rosters work.
Last 3 weighted....which still includes his phenomenal 2012 Met season still factoring in.

...and 2-5 with a 5.49 ERA....if he keeps it up....he will be a 60 if he's lucky.

But I think Lorne gave him some extra love on '15 anyway....nothing about his 2014 season screamed the ratings he got(I'm not going to even discuss the ridiculous OVR rating that most of these talks surround...what an inherently irrelevant rating that they never should have put in the game in the first place)

M.K
Knight165

[thescottyglasgow]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Well...that's not really how the ratings for players on default rosters work.
Last 3 weighted....which still includes his phenomenal 2012 Met season still factoring in.

...and 2-5 with a 5.49 ERA....if he keeps it up....he will be a 60 if he's lucky.

But I think Lorne gave him some extra love on '15 anyway....nothing about his 2014 season screamed the ratings he got(I'm not going to even discuss the ridiculous OVR rating that most of these talks surround...what an inherently irrelevant rating that they never should have put in the game in the first place)

M.K
Knight165

I couldnt agree more that the overall ratings dont matter and individual players I am not worried about. The point of this whole topic is that there is a set age for every player when they will regress no matter the circumstances. The numbers dont matter, the players numbers dont matter, it all just has to do with there being a set age for each individual on when they will regress no matter what.

[MLB Bob]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

I couldnt agree more that the overall ratings dont matter and individual players I am not worried about. The point of this whole topic is that there is a set age for every player when they will regress no matter the circumstances. The numbers dont matter, the players numbers dont matter, it all just has to do with there being a set age for each individual on when they will regress no matter what.

The discussion has been made every year and theres a few trains of thought. One is that stats and previous performance should have nothing to do with how a player regresses. Those people see it as just because you are great one year doesnt mean you will be great the next year or decline less because that player was or has been great.

The other group thinks that because a player was great one year he should not decline and maybe even get better ratings wise. The argument with this is when would a player ever decline if his ratings just went up after every good year? It would have to be predetermined.

Now the other request thats being discussed is that it should be random. I agree there should be some randomness and maybe also based on circumstance (ie injuries,injury severity, "player profile")

I just like anything that adds depth. I just think people stating regression is bad all have different reasons, valid or not, and are talking about many different things.

[MLB14]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

I don't see why they just can't decrease potential after a certain age and base how much on injuries and a little weight on their past years performance.

So the equation would be balanced something like this..

Age matters most
Injuries matter
Performance matters least

That would determine how much their potential changes per year.

[taterskin]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Trout went from a 92 or 93 to low 70's on my rtts in one season too. Age 34. Same thing happened to Brandon Belt. The progression is broken past 7 or 8 years. Hitters are declining while pitching is ridiculous. Every team has an entire rotation of pitchers throwing 95 mph plus and rated in high 80s to high 90s. rosters are ridiculously unbalanced with excessive pitching....especially closers. I wanted to play through and break some of the records but the progression is too much to handle.

[thedudedominick]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

I don't mind the players losing attributes, but I feel like performance should slow it down.

I understand we don't want guys playing to be 50 just because they string together a bunch of good seasons, but there is a middle ground.

A guy that is 95 when he's 32, shouldn't be just a 75 no matter what the next season. If he continues to perform maybe slow the regression down. I mean if a guy goes 18-5 with a 2.5 ERA he probably shouldn't drop more than 5 overall. It would allow guys who have those late career surges to continue it into their late 30s, instead of being minor league guys by the time they are 35.

I'd imagine some attributes should even continue to rise as a player gets older while the athletic attributes drop. His vision and discipline should be at it's peak when a guy is late in his career, but his power, speed, fielding should be the things that take a hit. Not just across the board drops. I mean a guy like Trout when he loses his athleticism in his 30s will most likely become a DH or 1B to prolong his career.

Lowering just certain attributes would allow you to decide whether that 36 year old who can't run anymore but can still be semi-productive with the bat is worth keeping around as a DH or 1B, or if you want to move in another direction. I mean look at Pujols, he's a shell of what he used to be but at 35 he still is around a .250/ 25-30 HR guy. In the game if you had a great hitter in his 20s, by the time he's 35 you are lucky if he can even hit .150

[CujoMatty]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

Well...that's not really how the ratings for players on default rosters work.
Last 3 weighted....which still includes his phenomenal 2012 Met season still factoring in.

...and 2-5 with a 5.49 ERA....if he keeps it up....he will be a 60 if he's lucky.

But I think Lorne gave him some extra love on '15 anyway....nothing about his 2014 season screamed the ratings he got(I'm not going to even discuss the ridiculous OVR rating that most of these talks surround...what an inherently irrelevant rating that they never should have put in the game in the first place)

M.K
Knight165

As a jays fan I can totally agree about Dickey. I can't stand him. But my point wasn't just to be about him. All the older players plummet like crazy, regardless of in game production. I honestly don't see how anyone agrees with a player dropping 20 plus points in a half a year. I like that there is a regression system but the results are so pre determined regardless of any other factors than age.
Dickey can be amazing in my game and he's inevitably going to drop.

I could see if he was playing terrible dropping to a 70 by the end of the year and then having to make a decision to call it a carreer. That would be pretty cool actually. As is as right now Dickey could be having a Cy young season and be mid 60s by the all star break. I dunno maybe I'm wrong but that seems so dumb to me. If he was playing awesome and dropped from an 84 to 78 because of his age by the end of year you would be in a situation were a desicion of "ok do i give Dickey 1 more year" type situation which would be super cool.

The way it is now I know Dickey is going to be a crutch. No matter what. No matter how he performs. I better deal him before I play game 1. I just don't like that pre determined outcome at all.

[Knight165]

Re: From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

As a jays fan I can totally agree about Dickey. I can't stand him. But my point wasn't just to be about him. All the older players plummet like crazy, regardless of in game production. I honestly don't see how anyone agrees with a player dropping 20 plus points in a half a year. I like that there is a regression system but the results are so pre determined regardless of any other factors than age.
Dickey can be amazing in my game and he's inevitably going to drop.

I could see if he was playing terrible dropping to a 70 by the end of the year and then having to make a decision to call it a carreer. That would be pretty cool actually. As is as right now Dickey could be having a Cy young season and be mid 60s by the all star break. I dunno maybe I'm wrong but that seems so dumb to me. If he was playing awesome and dropped from an 84 to 78 because of his age by the end of year you would be in a situation were a desicion of "ok do i give Dickey 1 more year" type situation which would be super cool.

The way it is now I know Dickey is going to be a crutch. No matter what. No matter how he performs. I better deal him before I play game 1. I just don't like that pre determined outcome at all.

That's your loss then.
First....Dickey still performs pretty well even with his age degradation. Sometimes VERY well.
...and while nothing will stop his age 40 drops.....they aren't
-pre determined ......not as set numbers anyway. Both training AND performance will alter his drops. It's not going to be enough to satisfy you guys.....but it's dependent on a few things.
If he goes 12-12 with a 4.80 ERA...his drops will be different than if he goes 15-7 with a 3.45 ERA....
-They also don't necessarily mean that he will be a bum. Either in the current season or the next.

There is a variance in the game....a definite randomness in player performance regardless of ratings. I think SCEA put the random factor into performance rather than on the chance of ratings changes(for the exact reason that YOU immediately rid yourself of Dickey......so that guys will have a chance to get a surprise player.
In my instance it's Eric Young Jr. 50 games into my season..with his crappy high 50's mid 60's contact...he is hitting almost .400 in 170 or so AB's. If you looked at his ratings only, you'd never give him a chance. I did...and it's paying off.

--A 20 point drop in OVR(groan).....doesn't mean a 20 point drop in individual ratings....it's 10-12 usually for that drop at that age.
While it starts at age 34(usually...there are some that don't)...it's usually a progressively steeper drop as they get older....which is in line with the numbers that fangraphs and other sites show as being the case.

It could be more random......I want everything to be more "random" in the game.....(maybe just less predictable)....but like I said...they already did this in a way.

M.K.
Knight165