MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Just tried one sim of my own with training for pitchers set to improve the velo/ctrl/break. I only saw control improve, no movement on velocity or break. Just a quick look so far, but I'm not seeing that training makes a difference for those two attributes.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Just tried one sim of my own with training for pitchers set to improve the velo/ctrl/break. I only saw control improve, no movement on velocity or break. Just a quick look so far, but I'm not seeing that training makes a difference for those two attributes.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing.

It's probably good to know so that people don't waste time trying to train untrainable attributes. Certainly they can still use that training for control.

I think this set up is an improvement over last year, but I would like to see the possibility of guys losing velocity as they age. Velocity and pitch break don't seem to progress or regress at all with everything I've seen so far.

[JayD]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Don't you guys think that a pitchers velocity should slightly decrease as they get older?

[sink4ever]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

I would like progression overall to be more dynamic. Before it was pretty steady and linear. Now it seems that some don't move at all, and the attributes that are changeable are affected by performance. I would like to see velo and movement change for some guys, but not all.

[consecutive27]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

What do you want to know specifically about overalls? How many As?

The top 5 or so players at each position.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

I would like progression overall to be more dynamic. Before it was pretty steady and linear. Now it seems that some don't move at all, and the attributes that are changeable are affected by performance. I would like to see velo and movement change for some guys, but not all.

Completely agree. Velocity needs to be affected by injuries and age. Everything should be affected by injuries and age, really. I don't think that athletes steadily get better or worse throughout their careers. It seems like there's more of a quick spike to the peak, then a maintenance of that (barring injury) then possibly a gradual decline, or possibly a steep decline.

I've never really liked how The Show handles progression/regression, but maybe this is a little better. Hopefully it is.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Completely agree. Velocity needs to be affected by injuries and age. Everything should be affected by injuries and age, really. I don't think that athletes steadily get better or worse throughout their careers. It seems like there's more of a quick spike to the peak, then a maintenance of that (barring injury) then possibly a gradual decline, or possibly a steep decline.

I've never really liked how The Show handles progression/regression, but maybe this is a little better. Hopefully it is.

In the sense that this type of progression shouldn't lead to all pitchers throwing 98 mph in 5-7 years down the road, it's an improvement. Of course, some things don't seem to decline with age although they should (like velocity). I don't think ratings in the game have ever been affected by previous injuries have they?

I would also like to see fielder arm strength and reaction get a similar treatment to the attributes that start maxed out early in a career and decline slowly over later years.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

In the sense that this type of progression shouldn't lead to all pitchers throwing 98 mph in 5-7 years down the road, it's an improvement. Of course, some things don't seem to decline with age although they should (like velocity). I don't think ratings in the game have ever been affected by previous injuries have they?

I would also like to see fielder arm strength and reaction get a similar treatment to the attributes that start maxed out early in a career and decline slowly over later years.

Unfortunately no, and I don't know of any game that does (though I don't play a large variety of sports games). I've mentioned this in the Madden forums as well, but I don't like how any game handles progression/regression. It's certainly not limited to just The Show.

I think all physical attributes should deteriorate due to age and specific injuries. Shoulder injuries should zap velocity/arm strength. Knee/leg injuries should affect speed. Head/face injuries due to line drives/hit by pitches could possibly affect the /9 attributes and/or clutch, vision, discipline for hitters.

There should be a cumulative effect of multiple injuries (ala what happened to Griffey).

I just feel the game is very static regarding these things (including pitcher stamina/versatility, position versatility, etc.). I want it all to be more dynamic. But maybe there's a reason it's not done. Maybe the game just can't do it, or video games in general.

[tessl]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

I think you're mistaking the effects of the new morale system for progression. The changes you're seeing after 7 at bats don't have anything to do with progression/regression most likely.

It shouldn't make any difference if games are played or simmed. The statistical output is being used to drive progression. You are sort of advocating a hypothesis with little to no evidence (in this case that simming and playing give different results with progression)...where's the evidence for that claim? The devs have never stated that and it wouldn't make sense for this to be the case if progression is based on performance (not user performance).

If you have data to formulate a case with, by all means present it...

If you play some games in manage mode on default sliders I'm sure you will get similar issues. It isn't a conspiracy, they have stated stats based progression is in the game.

As of April 21st for just a few teams.

polanco ecstatic +3 CONvsL no change rhp
Mercer happy +3 CONvsL -1PWRvsL no change rhp
Kang ecstatic -3 CONvsR -3 CONvsL -2 PRWvsL
Harrison happy -2 CONvsL no change rhp
Adams happy -3 CONvsL -2PRvsL no change rhp
Carpenter ecstatic -1 CONvsR -1PWRvsR -3 CONvsL
Goldschmidt ecstatic-1 CONvsL -3 PWRvsL no change rhp
Gosselin ecstatic +3 PWRvsL no change rhp
Segura ecstatic -3 CONvsL no change rhp
Pollock happy +2 PWRvsR -2 PWRvsL
Peralta ecstatic +1 CONvsL +2 PWRvsL no change rhp
Spangenberg satisfied -4 CONvsL no change rhp

I see no relationship between morale and progression or regression and why would morale impact most vsLHP? I suspect what they have done is fail to account for only 30% of MLB pitches faced being vsLHP which has resulted in extreme progression/regression in a small sample size.

Regarding the difference between the sim engine and the game engine it has been known for years there are two different engines. Different engines = different stats. Different stats = different progression/regression.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

If you play some games in manage mode on default sliders I'm sure you will get similar issues. It isn't a conspiracy, they have stated stats based progression is in the game.

As of April 21st for just a few teams.

polanco ecstatic +3 CONvsL no change rhp
Mercer happy +3 CONvsL -1PWRvsL no change rhp
Kang ecstatic -3 CONvsR -3 CONvsL -2 PRWvsL
Harrison happy -2 CONvsL no change rhp
Adams happy -3 CONvsL -2PRvsL no change rhp
Carpenter ecstatic -1 CONvsR -1PWRvsR -3 CONvsL
Goldschmidt ecstatic-1 CONvsL -3 PWRvsL no change rhp
Gosselin ecstatic +3 PWRvsL no change rhp
Segura ecstatic -3 CONvsL no change rhp
Pollock happy +2 PWRvsR -2 PWRvsL
Peralta ecstatic +1 CONvsL +2 PWRvsL no change rhp
Spangenberg satisfied -4 CONvsL no change rhp

I see no relationship between morale and progression or regression and why would morale impact most vsLHP? I suspect what they have done is fail to account for only 30% of MLB pitches faced being vsLHP which has resulted in extreme progression/regression in a small sample size.

They devs have stated (Victor_SDS to be specific) that progression doesn't occur until a minimum threshhold of at bats is reached, which you are nowhere near. Perhaps what you are seeing is hot/cold streaks? Again, the idea of progression kicking in during April of the 1st year is either absurd or a bug. You should submit a bug report if you are certain about what you're seeing being faulty progression.

You've also presented a very small sample, so it's not clear whether these are only the cases that fit what you think is happening or whether this is indicative of the league as a whole. Are most of the players unchanged? Is it just these few that have changed? What is happening to other attributes besides contact?

Regarding the difference between the sim engine and the game engine it has been known for years there are two different engines. Different engines = different stats. Different stats = different progression/regression.

The issue isn't whether the game engine and the sim engine can produce different stats from one another. The issue is whether .280 15 HR 85 RBI from played games is seen any differently by the progression system than .280 15 HR 85 RBI from simmed games. I would guess that players with the same stats would progress the same, whether those stats were obtained by playing or simming.

The game engine doesn't particularly matter because most people play their games and the stats they get will be unpredictable and a result of their skill level and slider settings. The sim engine is more important to study because the user doesn't have control over the outcome in simmed games and the league context is heavily dependent on what other (simmed) teams are doing. My focus is studying simmed games and played games for people who run franchises.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

The stats in 2036 are very encouraging. Thanks for posting that. What is the distribution of overall ratings like?

The top 5 or so players at each position.

Here you go...

Catcher
Andres Rosado - SF - 93 OVR
Roosevelt Jordan - SD - 93 OVR
Henry Yoshida - HOU - 92 OVR
Matt Lopez - SEA - 89 OVR
Cliff Cronin - PHI - 87 OVR

First Base
Chris Downey - HOU - 89 OVR
Diego Anaya - CWS - 88 OVR
Alexis Guzman - COL - 87 OVR
Bobby Jones - NYM - 86 OVR
Barton Reyes - ATL - 85 OVR

Second Base
Miguel Molina - BAL - 96 OVR
Branden Quevedo - SD - 92 OVR
David Gonzalez - BOS - 90 OVR
Ray Watt - COL - 89 OVR
Clarence Sutton - PHI - 89 OVR

Third Base
Dave Stroud - HOU - 95 OVR
Chester Jorgensen - CHC - 90 OVR
Reggie Prater - WAS - 85 OVR
George Hillman - PIT - 84 OVR
Danny Henderson - TOR - 84 OVR

Shortstop
Marcos Delgado - CWS - 91 OVR
Julio Berroa - ARI - 89 OVR
Nelson Tejada - HOU - 87 OVR
Will Burch - MIL - 87 OVR
Patrick Worthing - BAL - 87 OVR

Left Field
Nathaniel McNeil - NYM - 90 OVR
Rafael Barrera - BAL - 89 OVR
Phillip Oh - SEA - 88 OVR
Johnny Rowe - WAS - 88 OVR
Ramon Perez - TOR - 87 OVR

Center Field
Roosevelt Abercrombie - CHC - 95 OVR
Adrian Perez - CIN - 94 OVR
Luke McCain - LAA - 93 OVR
Chet Lake - SF - 92 OVR
Fernando Montanez - DET - 90 OVR

Right Field
Tyson Knotts - PHI - 92 OVR
Carlos Velasquez - NYM - 91 OVR
Nathaniel Ishikawa - ATL - 90 OVR
Mario Benitez - ARI - 88 OVR
Johnny Holt - BOS - 88 OVR

Starting Pitcher
Brian Paolucci - WAS - 95 OVR
David Frese - DET - 92 OVR
Scott Roche - LAA - 92 OVR
Edgar Hernandez - HOU - 92 OVR
Benji Cortes - STL - 90 OVR

Closer
Bruno Guardado - COL - 96 OVR
Felipe Valenzuela - NYY - 94 OVR
Darrell Malone - SEA - 93 OVR
Brook Thomas - MIL - 92 OVR
Sal Corbett - NYM - 91 OVR

[ComfortablyLomb]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Don't you guys think that a pitchers velocity should slightly decrease as they get older?

It should, at least for fastballs, and probably earlier than most people think. The MLB aging curve on velocity is maintaining through mid/late 20s, then starting to lose, with the loss accelerating through a pitcher's 30s. Obviously some pitchers lose earlier and some later, some quicker and some slower... but that's the overall curve. There is a pretty good article about it on Fangraphs:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitch...-introduction/

A noteworthy takeaway from that article is also that pitchers tend to adapt to their velocity decline by adding additional pitches to their repertoire.

Another (more depressing) article discussing how early velocity decline occurs and really stressing the significance of losses in a pitcher's 20s:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/72512952/major-league-baseball-pitchers-velocity-peaks-at-an-early-age

[tessl]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

They devs have stated (Victor_SDS to be specific) that progression doesn't occur until a minimum threshhold of at bats is reached, which you are nowhere near. Perhaps what you are seeing is hot/cold streaks? Again, the idea of progression kicking in during April of the 1st year is either absurd or a bug. You should submit a bug report if you are certain about what you're seeing being faulty progression.

You've also presented a very small sample, so it's not clear whether these are only the cases that fit what you think is happening or whether this is indicative of the league as a whole. Are most of the players unchanged? Is it just these few that have changed? What is happening to other attributes besides contact?



The issue isn't whether the game engine and the sim engine can produce different stats from one another. The issue is whether .280 15 HR 85 RBI from played games is seen any differently by the progression system than .280 15 HR 85 RBI from simmed games. I would guess that players with the same stats would progress the same, whether those stats were obtained by playing or simming.

The game engine doesn't particularly matter because most people play their games and the stats they get will be unpredictable and a result of their skill level and slider settings. The sim engine is more important to study because the user doesn't have control over the outcome in simmed games and the league context is heavily dependent on what other (simmed) teams are doing. My focus is studying simmed games and played games for people who run franchises.

You can check it yourself. You don't have to take my word for it. Something is wrong with the way they are calculating progression vs lhp.

I use manage mode and I stand by everything I said about sim vs gameplay engines being different which will result in different results for stats which, now that we have stat based progression, means simmed progression will differ from games played.

What that means for a franchise is my players will have different progression from players on the other 29 teams in the league since my games are played and every other team's games are simmed. But it's in the game. Nothing can be done about it. It's a shame because the other developers did such great work on lighting, graphics, budgets, morale, animations, classic stadiums etc.

[consecutive27]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Here you go...

Catcher
Andres Rosado - SF - 93 OVR
Roosevelt Jordan - SD - 93 OVR
Henry Yoshida - HOU - 92 OVR
Matt Lopez - SEA - 89 OVR
Cliff Cronin - PHI - 87 OVR

First Base
Chris Downey - HOU - 89 OVR
Diego Anaya - CWS - 88 OVR
Alexis Guzman - COL - 87 OVR
Bobby Jones - NYM - 86 OVR
Barton Reyes - ATL - 85 OVR

Second Base
Miguel Molina - BAL - 96 OVR
Branden Quevedo - SD - 92 OVR
David Gonzalez - BOS - 90 OVR
Ray Watt - COL - 89 OVR
Clarence Sutton - PHI - 89 OVR

Third Base
Dave Stroud - HOU - 95 OVR
Chester Jorgensen - CHC - 90 OVR
Reggie Prater - WAS - 85 OVR
George Hillman - PIT - 84 OVR
Danny Henderson - TOR - 84 OVR

Shortstop
Marcos Delgado - CWS - 91 OVR
Julio Berroa - ARI - 89 OVR
Nelson Tejada - HOU - 87 OVR
Will Burch - MIL - 87 OVR
Patrick Worthing - BAL - 87 OVR

Left Field
Nathaniel McNeil - NYM - 90 OVR
Rafael Barrera - BAL - 89 OVR
Phillip Oh - SEA - 88 OVR
Johnny Rowe - WAS - 88 OVR
Ramon Perez - TOR - 87 OVR

Center Field
Roosevelt Abercrombie - CHC - 95 OVR
Adrian Perez - CIN - 94 OVR
Luke McCain - LAA - 93 OVR
Chet Lake - SF - 92 OVR
Fernando Montanez - DET - 90 OVR

Right Field
Tyson Knotts - PHI - 92 OVR
Carlos Velasquez - NYM - 91 OVR
Nathaniel Ishikawa - ATL - 90 OVR
Mario Benitez - ARI - 88 OVR
Johnny Holt - BOS - 88 OVR

Starting Pitcher
Brian Paolucci - WAS - 95 OVR
David Frese - DET - 92 OVR
Scott Roche - LAA - 92 OVR
Edgar Hernandez - HOU - 92 OVR
Benji Cortes - STL - 90 OVR

Closer
Bruno Guardado - COL - 96 OVR
Felipe Valenzuela - NYY - 94 OVR
Darrell Malone - SEA - 93 OVR
Brook Thomas - MIL - 92 OVR
Sal Corbett - NYM - 91 OVR

Nice. I counted 18 position players at 90 and above. The default rosters have 17 I think. There are a bit more starting pitchers at 90 and above in the default roster. If that leads to a little bit more offensive output league wide then fine. Better than last year. I can see myself getting deep into franchise and RTTS this year. Looking forward to seeing what scouting is like. Thanks for the info.

[jfeev215]

Re: MLB 16 Progression/Regression Discussion

Tessi, I could be wrong but are you perhaps looking at the player ratings with the negative/positive effects of the coaching staff? Every year MLB the show include coaches that have positive and negative attribute ratings, if you have a coach that provides a +1 for hit pwr and two other coaches that combine for -2 in the some attribute type players will lose one attribute point there. Again I'm not sure but that could be the cause in your particular case.