Player progression, or lack thereof.

[Jr.]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Stamina for sure . . . speed as well.

It actually strikes me as quite unrealistic that those two only go down. Since you can see 18 year-olds in the minors, it is conceivable that they could get slightly faster for the first year or two . . . and definitely, they should not be losing speed so quickly.

The stamina thing I really do not get. Pitchers do get switched form relievers to starters later in their career, and pitchers definitely can get stronger and learn to use their arms more efficiently once they get in the league, leading to longer outings. It does not make sense stamina only goes down.

The whole idea for the stamina rating for pitchers is bad. A pitcher's stamina is relative to how they've been training. So a pitcher that's only thrown out of the bullpen won't go out and throw 80 pitches, but he could easily be stretched out over a few outings to get to that point and beyond. While a starter can immediately go into the bullpen and usually sees an uptick in velocity and movement due to not having to save themselves for a longer outing.

[canes21]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Yeah I think they did progression/regression pretty well overall. The only issue I have is stamina ratings for pitchers only going down

Agreed. I like the variety provided. I feel like more people want a more predictable system, but I am against that. In that hat same franchise I've got a top 5 prospect who has progressed like 2 points the whole franchise so I've seen my old players progress at 34 and up and I've seen young potential studs no really get any better. Thankfully I have a handful of guys that are getting better and even a few surprises with their potential and overalls rising.

[disk]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

I think the progression model for this year has been one of the few good improvements (or lack of improvements) I see a lot of players still producing late into their 30s, or actually get better in their mid to late 30s. Prospects who turn into superstars in one franchise flame out in another. My only complaints are the guys who are slow to develop still develop (if that makes sense) so I get a lot of 30+ year old rookies who tear it up for 6 years then retire because they are 35+ without a contract even tho they are 90+ overall with A potential and everything still increasing.

[Jr.]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

I think the progression model for this year has been one of the few good improvements (or lack of improvements) I see a lot of players still producing late into their 30s, or actually get better in their mid to late 30s. Prospects who turn into superstars in one franchise flame out in another. My only complaints are the guys who are slow to develop still develop (if that makes sense) so I get a lot of 30+ year old rookies who tear it up for 6 years then retire because they are 35+ without a contract even tho they are 90+ overall with A potential and everything still increasing.

Your last point is why I go through and edit ages/potentials each season. It's a bit tedious but provides more longevity.

[bigsteve15]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

I like the randomness with progression in this game. Madden's progression is so lame. Build up xp points spend them on whatever..I like when the game has its own complex formula for profession that are based on many factors. I've been playing the show franchise for a few years and the most consistent obvious way to progress a player is to put them in single A. I always put my high potential young players there and they progress slowly but surely.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Operation Sports mobile app

[gman2774]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Sadly, I've never made it far enough in a franchise to notice player progression all that much. I like to try and play every game of my franchise. That being said, is it possible to see a scenario in this game similar to what has gone on this year with the Dodgers and Corey Bellinger? Can you have a rookie or an unexpected player have a huge year?


Sent from my iPad using Operation Sports

[The Chef]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Sadly, I've never made it far enough in a franchise to notice player progression all that much. I like to try and play every game of my franchise. That being said, is it possible to see a scenario in this game similar to what has gone on this year with the Dodgers and Corey Bellinger? Can you have a rookie or an unexpected player have a huge year?


Sent from my iPad using Operation Sports

Honestly I don't believe it's possible. If you have a high power rookie who struggles with vision or contact then maybe you can get somewhat close while completely sacrificing batting average and strikeouts but I haven't seen anyone blow up season 1 that I didn't edit to match their success rate in real life, ie. Bellinger and Judge.

[BigOscar]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Honestly I don't believe it's possible. If you have a high power rookie who struggles with vision or contact then maybe you can get somewhat close while completely sacrificing batting average and strikeouts but I haven't seen anyone blow up season 1 that I didn't edit to match their success rate in real life, ie. Bellinger and Judge.

Not a rookie, but last year I had Yasiel Puig absolutely explode from a 76 to an 83 in one year, +10 or so to each of his hitting attributes, as high as +13 power v lefties. Major league players who do really well can sometimes have that reflected in their ratings, not seen it happen to players outside the majors though (and I played every game, if that matters). Garret Richards also exploded for me as well on that save after winning the Cy Young with an ungodly amount of strikeouts, he got +16 k/9 in that season, the biggest increase I think I've ever seen in one year.

It's not quite Judge/Bellinger type increases, but still pretty huge

[The Chef]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Not a rookie, but last year I had Yasiel Puig absolutely explode from a 76 to an 83 in one year, +10 or so to each of his hitting attributes, as high as +13 power v lefties. Major league players who do really well can sometimes have that reflected in their ratings, not seen it happen to players outside the majors though (and I played every game, if that matters). Garret Richards also exploded for me as well on that save after winning the Cy Young with an ungodly amount of strikeouts, he got +16 k/9 in that season, the biggest increase I think I've ever seen in one year.

It's not quite Judge/Bellinger type increases, but still pretty huge

I don't doubt that they can progress after a monster year, I assumed the question was is it possible to take a young player who doesn't yet have great ratings and turn in a season like Judge or Bellinger are and then get the increase and imo I don't think so as the lower initial ratings will prevent them from achieving the big numbers that would lead to a big jump in ratings following the season.

[BigOscar]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

I don't doubt that they can progress after a monster year, I assumed the question was is it possible to take a young player who doesn't yet have great ratings and turn in a season like Judge or Bellinger are and then get the increase and imo I don't think so as the lower initial ratings will prevent them from achieving the big numbers that would lead to a big jump in ratings following the season.

I agree, not convinced it would be possible unless you were playing on far too low a difficulty. Random growth shoots would be a huge asset to the development system, same for random explosions in potential, so a mid C potential draftee could potentially become a major league star every now and again, like someone like Kevin Kiermaier in real life. It's all a bit too static and slow at the moment, in real life people do sporadically make huge leaps completely out of the blue like Bellinger and Judge, or even more interestingly someone like Daniel Murphy or Justin Turner in their mid 20's

[Shergie51]

Player progression, or lack thereof.

Your last point is why I go through and edit ages/potentials each season. It's a bit tedious but provides more longevity.

Wait a minute...u edit their potentials? So how can you comment one way or the other about regression/progression? You are disagreeing with anyone that has a problem with it, but if u are manually editing players that means you have a problem with it too. Otherwise there would be no need to change anything.

I do the same thing, thats why I would never comment on it. I'm just confused as to why you are so opinionated/defensive about this when you are manually editing players.

That's like going in raising everybody's power 10 points and then disagreeing with people who say the power ratings are too low. Lol

If im wrong about something or failed to see something I sincerely apologize.

[Jr.]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Wait a minute...u edit their potentials? So how can you comment one way or the other about regression/progression? You are disagreeing with anyone that has a problem with it, but if u are manually editing players that means you have a problem with it too. Otherwise there would be no need to change anything.

I do the same thing, thats why I would never comment on it. I'm just confused as to why you are so opinionated/defensive about this when you are manually editing players.

That's like going in raising everybody's power 10 points and then disagreeing with people who say the power ratings are too low. Lol

If im wrong about something or failed to see something I sincerely apologize.

The starting point is messed up a lot. Guys that are 70 OVR with D Potential don't make sense. Same with 25 year olds in the draft. Those are the things I change.

That's not really a problem with progression/regression, but more the drafted player creation algorithm

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Honestly I don't believe it's possible. If you have a high power rookie who struggles with vision or contact then maybe you can get somewhat close while completely sacrificing batting average and strikeouts but I haven't seen anyone blow up season 1 that I didn't edit to match their success rate in real life, ie. Bellinger and Judge.

I agree with those saying that some variety is a good thing in progression/regression, but one of the big issues to solve is the problem of linearity of progression. As it is right now, and especially with the attributes that don't progress at all (STAM, ARM STR, SPD, movement and control ratings on each pitch type) you have to choose whether to cheat a player toward his ceiling or to simply deal with the fact that a gradual linear progression of a few points per season does not allow for that 50 OVR guy to become that 85 OVR toast-of-baseball type guy the next season. Yes, the vast majority of players need that 3-6 years of seasoning in the minors while making incremental gains, but I would like to see something of a wild card/rapid progression/bust factor incoporated at a very low percentage of occurence. And I know I am getting greedy now, but maybe a little Bret Boone factor? Meaning that a guy who gets a 50-->85 OVR progression one year gives most or all of it back the following year. That would better simulate your 1996 Brady Andersons and 1973 Davey Johnsons etc.

Another issue that we've had to deal with is too much regression for 30+ year-olds. It used to be a lot worse (guys losing 30 points of overall during the season), but it's still overpowered and makes it unwise to sign anyone over the age of about 32 or 33. There are tons of MLB players, depending on their skill set, that get huge contracts after this age and quite a few provide good value on the deal. Without a more accurate regression model for aging players, there really is no realism to the free agent market.

And one final thing before I turn this into a full-blown wish list--what of our suggestions in previous years about position players being taught new positions? Or pitchers learning new pitches? Or consolidating two pitches and/or dumping their worst pitch? Fluctuations in velocity that may or may not accompany an injury? Without these types of skills to be gained and lost, the progression/regression system with always be a shadow of what it could potentially be.

[Shergie51]

Player progression, or lack thereof.

The starting point is messed up a lot. Guys that are 70 OVR with D Potential don't make sense. Same with 25 year olds in the draft. Those are the things I change.

That's not really a problem with progression/regression, but more the drafted player creation algorithm

Oh its the drafted player creation algorithm!

But wait...

If the progression algorithm makes sense to you and produces differentiation and randomness among drafted players, why would it matter what the starting point is?

I think it makes more sense that the entire progression/regression/ovrs/potentials ALGORITHM is inconsistent and confusing to people.

Again, I wouldn't know because I control and edit my potential's and overalls from The start as well. I also raise or lower players attributes 2-4 points every month based on performance/rewards/allstar/etc.

In doing so The game is more enjoyable to me, but at the same time I'm not going to come here and disagree with people saying progression is off to them.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Jr.]

Re: Player progression, or lack thereof.

Oh its the drafted player creation algorithm!

But wait...

If the progression algorithm makes sense to you and produces differentiation and randomness among drafted players, why would it matter what the starting point is?

I think it makes more sense that the entire progression/regression/ovrs/potentials ALGORITHM is inconsistent and confusing to people.

Again, I wouldn't know because I control and edit my potential's and overalls from The start as well. I also raise or lower players attributes 2-4 points every month based on performance/rewards/allstar/etc.

In doing so The game is more enjoyable to me, but at the same time I'm not going to come here and disagree with people saying progression is off to them.



Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

When the OVR/POT make sense from the start, I think progression works fairly well. Sure there are issues and could be better, but I'm enjoying it. The main issue I have is the starting point for a lot of the generated prospects that you draft. In those cases, I go in and fix it myself.