Progression & Regression in Franchise

[1908_Cubs]

Re: Progression & Regression in Franchise

What’s prospect generation look like?



In past games, it seemed like a lot of prospects were repetitive, and often the draft class would end up with a lot of 24-year-old guys in the draft.

The ages of the prospects seem to be...a bit better? At least so far. I've noticed what feels like more 18-22 year olds and less 24 year olds in the draft. They still pop up at that age, but so far it feels less. I'm still seeing some generated prospects who come up as rookies at age 30-31 (meaning I missed editing a few) as viable MLB players, but it has felt like this is less of an issue.

In terms of "reptitiveness" I've seen more repetitive names. This probably had a lot to do with the new commentary team; there are less base names, and thus more chances to repeat. I've moved into 2028 in my franchise and the "Wirth" surname seems to be quite popular; at least every other year an 80 FV prospect pops with that name. Impressive family, the Wirths. As the new commentary team gets older and adds lines, this will be naturally improved again. This just the price you pay having a new commentary team.

Still noticing that there are a lot of OF/SS prospects who get A potential, but have incredibly low base stats, and have 90+ speed/steals.

Thankfully there's enough tools in game to fix most/all of this. But it would be nice if it mirrored real prospect development a bit better in the future.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

[moTIGS]

Re: Progression & Regression in Franchise

The ages of the prospects seem to be...a bit better? At least so far. I've noticed what feels like more 18-22 year olds and less 24 year olds in the draft. They still pop up at that age, but so far it feels less. I'm still seeing some generated prospects who come up as rookies at age 30-31 (meaning I missed editing a few) as viable MLB players, but it has felt like this is less of an issue.

In terms of "reptitiveness" I've seen more repetitive names. This probably had a lot to do with the new commentary team; there are less base names, and thus more chances to repeat. I've moved into 2028 in my franchise and the "Wirth" surname seems to be quite popular; at least every other year an 80 FV prospect pops with that name. Impressive family, the Wirths. As the new commentary team gets older and adds lines, this will be naturally improved again. This just the price you pay having a new commentary team.

Still noticing that there are a lot of OF/SS prospects who get A potential, but have incredibly low base stats, and have 90+ speed/steals.

Thankfully there's enough tools in game to fix most/all of this. But it would be nice if it mirrored real prospect development a bit better in the future.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Thanks.

Unfortunate to hear about the high-potential, low-stat speed demon archetype still being common. I suppose those players do exist in real life, but they’re annoying in the game (for me, at least) because the way progression works, those guys never actually reach their potential. Real-life teams take gambles on them because sometimes they do pan out.

Total pipe dream, I know, but I would love a college baseball game that gave us the ability to save draft classes, a la the old NCAA Football/Madden draft classes. As far as I know, we’ve never had a college baseball game and MLB game simultaneously from the same company.

[Funkycorm]

Re: Progression & Regression in Franchise

What’s prospect generation look like?

In past games, it seemed like a lot of prospects were repetitive, and often the draft class would end up with a lot of 24-year-old guys in the draft.

It is ok and improved over 20 but where it was at last year.

Since not all player scouted go into the draft, the age issue is still there and is amongst the edits I do. You can run the same draft multiple times and get different fringe players.

Most every RF and LF are super fast great base stealers but have no power so editing is needed for this as well.

Still get a lot of C, 1b, and 3b that come out with overalls in the 40s but 85+ potential so again editing is needed.

The same dynamic as always as far as talent spread. All of the good position players to in the first 2 rounds and you can reliably find food pitching talent later on.

There are some better generated prospects in terms of talent and overall but overall a lot of editing is still needed after the fact to make the classes viable long term.

I would love the ability to edit prospects on the sign draft pick afterwards. It would be a huge QOL improvement for someone like me who edits to improve.

[franch1se]

Re: Progression & Regression in Franchise

Regression unfortunately is still the same. I have to keep editing players in franchise on my team who are a tad older who keep going down despite having great years. Yu Darvish is 3-0 with an ERA around 2.00 but keeps going down because he's 35.

[Funkycorm]

Re: Progression & Regression in Franchise

Regression unfortunately is still the same. I have to keep editing players in franchise on my team who are a tad older who keep going down despite having great years. Yu Darvish is 3-0 with an ERA around 2.00 but keeps going down because he's 35.

You have to look at the big picture when it comes to progression and regression. The above happening is still a thing but there are plenty of exceptions that were not there prior. Going 10 years in, players like Harper, Lindor, and others who are around 36 or so are still rated around 80-82. Yes, this is not all star caliber but for 10 years later you would expect that as 74-77 is the average player rating.

I saw Lindor go into free agency in the 2031 off season and was 81 overall. But he did not have all decreases in categories. He has an increase in both contact and vision because he performed well over the course of the entire previous season.

These crazy drops still happen but they are less extreme. In previous games, I could almost guarantee that 10 years in to a sim, players like Harper and Trout are in the low 70s taking up huge sums of money in payroll. They are now still in the low 80s and more than serviceable at this point. Still shells of what they were but it is 10 years later.

Performance helps. Regression seems to be more toned down in those players signed to long term contracts if I had to narrow it down some. They get more chance to play which impacts ratings, and are less likely to be replaced or not signed.

Another positive is that players are signed to new contracts at around 76 or more overall giving them a chance to play.

If I had to truly summarize, I would say regression is slightly improved. Still plenty of room for growth in this area.