Franchise Player Ratings Decline

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

But is this just a random case of low regression or does it happen each sim?

It's normal. The extreme drops only happen at 35 plus. I love it just would like to see it a little more random.

[MrOldboy]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

It's normal. The extreme drops only happen at 35 plus. I love it just would like to see it a little more random.

For just Felix or every player? People are saying Trout at 99 ovl is dropping to the 80s before he hits 30 yrs old though.

[PhillyWhat2011]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

At what age does the decline usually start?

It's very slight at 34 and then heavy from 35 on. I just started a franchise with the Reds and Aroyo was a 64 after spring training and went down 12+ in everything.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

For just Felix or every player? People are saying Trout at 99 ovl is dropping to the 80s before he hits 30 yrs old though.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I think he is an aberration. I tested it and think I am on to something. It works like this...

Players try to hit their potential. They have until 31 or so to do it. For those prospects that start higher and hit their potential early, they had to "cap" it somehow. My guess is they built a "time limit" as to how long they can be at that level before regressing. For most players that is great. A player hits his peak at 27....6 years later at 33 starts regressing.

The problem is Trout is 20 and a 99. So the system lets it play out for 6 years and then the regression starts. I tested it by lowering his attributes to 96 and simming in a 2 years he was a 99 and regression did not start until 28.

[etched Chaos]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

If they put in a set period of time before regression then that's ridiculous. How can you arbitrarily decide that a player will be good for x amount of years and then decline. For the likes of Trout, Harper and anyone an all-star before 24, they'll be dropping like stones before they've even hit their 30's. It also means that unless you trade for these elite players, you'll never have a chance to acquire them in their prime, because by the time they hit free agency they'll be on the cusp of decline as such no good player will risk it.

[PhillyWhat2011]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

I have ZERO issues with the Trout regression. He's 20 and a 99 AKA, the best in the game. I wouldn't like it if he maintained this rating for 15 years in the game. Him regressing to like an 88 is fine with me. I also wonder how much of his regression had to do with training.

[MrOldboy]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Like I said earlier in the thread, I think he is an aberration. I tested it and think I am on to something. It works like this...

Players try to hit their potential. They have until 31 or so to do it. For those prospects that start higher and hit their potential early, they had to "cap" it somehow. My guess is they built a "time limit" as to how long they can be at that level before regressing. For most players that is great. A player hits his peak at 27....6 years later at 33 starts regressing.

The problem is Trout is 20 and a 99. So the system lets it play out for 6 years and then the regression starts. I tested it by lowering his attributes to 96 and simming in a 2 years he was a 99 and regression did not start until 28.

That makes sense. So maybe as a solution for those who don't want to see him drop so fast, drop his ratings a bit so he hits his potential later.

Maybe this could be a way to prolong the life of some of the players that people feel are regressing too quickly as well.

[etched Chaos]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

I have ZERO issues with the Trout regression. He's 20 and a 99 AKA, the best in the game. I wouldn't like it if he maintained this rating for 15 years in the game. Him regressing to like an 88 is fine with me. I also wonder how much of his regression had to do with training.

Except those early 20's elite stars tend to be elite for a long time. See Griffey Jr., A-Rod, Pujols, Miggy, Bonds, Rickey etc etc. The reason they stay elite is that experience in baseball is a very tangible advantage, barring a serious injury that curtails a career completely, you'll find those early bloomers stay in the limelight for a longtime.

To want a regression because a 21 yr old with 99ovr shouldn't be that good for a longtime is to ignore the precedence set by actual baseball. Even the big bodied sluggers who fell off a cliff lasted until their early 30's before it kicked in. To think that Trout an athletic CF with few weaknesses will regress in his 20's is stretching the bounds of reality.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

If they put in a set period of time before regression then that's ridiculous. How can you arbitrarily decide that a player will be good for x amount of years and then decline. For the likes of Trout, Harper and anyone an all-star before 24, they'll be dropping like stones before they've even hit their 30's. It also means that unless you trade for these elite players, you'll never have a chance to acquire them in their prime, because by the time they hit free agency they'll be on the cusp of decline as such no good player will risk it.

Not true. Harper does not start as high ratings wise. He progresses in the normal curve. The ONLY player that this seems to happen with is Trout. I'm assuming the limit was to prevent a player from hitting his potential early and then staying there too long.

Its just a hypothesis, I don't know for sure.

[etched Chaos]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Not true. Harper does not start as high ratings wise. He progresses in the normal curve. The ONLY player that this seems to happen with is Trout. I'm assuming the limit was to prevent a player from hitting his potential early and then staying there too long.

Its just a hypothesis, I don't know for sure.

Trout fits the profile of some of the all-time great hitters, who started off as elite very early and then carried that production into their 30's. To think they'll cap his ability to a set amount of time is to ignore the historical precedence that baseball has set for us.

I'm really hoping your hypothesis is wrong because someone like Trout should be good for a damn long time, otherwise they've deliberately ignored history to level the playing field.

[seanjeezy]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Like I said earlier in the thread, I think he is an aberration. I tested it and think I am on to something. It works like this...

Players try to hit their potential. They have until 31 or so to do it. For those prospects that start higher and hit their potential early, they had to "cap" it somehow. My guess is they built a "time limit" as to how long they can be at that level before regressing. For most players that is great. A player hits his peak at 27....6 years later at 33 starts regressing.

The problem is Trout is 20 and a 99. So the system lets it play out for 6 years and then the regression starts. I tested it by lowering his attributes to 96 and simming in a 2 years he was a 99 and regression did not start until 28.

This is what I suspect as well, Montero was a 99 by year 2 and his regression started in year 5 (he dropped to a 95). This actually makes sense, peak performance usually lasts 3-4 years (aka a player's prime). However, there are anomalies like Trout and Felix (who is still a 99 btw) who are successful at a young age and are expected to maintain that success well into their careers. So in short, the 3-4 year peak model is an accurate length of time, it just needs to occur in a specific time frame (mid to late twenties).

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Trout fits the profile of some of the all-time great hitters, who started off as elite very early and then carried that production into their 30's. To think they'll cap his ability to a set amount of time is to ignore the historical precedence that baseball has set for us.

I'm really hoping your hypothesis is wrong because someone like Trout should be good for a damn long time, otherwise they've deliberately ignored history to level the playing field.

I am sure it is not a deliberate thing that they did to "level the playing field."

It is code that needs to be written for ALL players. We do not want players progressing until 35 again or all A's to hit 99. I am sure this is a special circumstance. At CD it was brought up and Ramone mentioned in a post that he was a 99 at age 31. So I am guessing something changed in the code or possibly the roster file.

[MrOldboy]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Trout fits the profile of some of the all-time great hitters, who started off as elite very early and then carried that production into their 30's. To think they'll cap his ability to a set amount of time is to ignore the historical precedence that baseball has set for us.

I'm really hoping your hypothesis is wrong because someone like Trout should be good for a damn long time, otherwise they've deliberately ignored history to level the playing field.

Yes, but they had to have something in the logic so that players would regress. I think the regression is a bit steep personally, but it makes sense to do so.

They would have had to build in player specific logic for Trout's case to not follow the normal regression formula.

Its not ideal, but its what we got so now we need to work around it if we don't want to follow the rules. Lowering Trout might prolong his progression like Tabarnes said, so maybe this is what is needed with Trout so he doesn't regress unrealistically.

[etched Chaos]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

This is what I suspect as well, Montero was a 99 by year 2 and his regression started in year 5 (he dropped to a 95). This actually makes sense, peak performance usually lasts 3-4 years (aka a player's prime). However, there are anomalies like Trout and Felix (who is still a 99 btw) who are successful at a young age and are expected to maintain that success well into their careers. So in short, the 3-4 year peak model is an accurate length of time, it just needs to occur in a specific time frame (mid to late twenties).

Actually I could list a deluge of players who's peak exceeded 3-4 years easily. You could look at the current rosters and find alot of players with peaks over 5 years, let's list a few eh?

CC
Braun
Pujols
Miggy
Halladay
Berkman
Holliday
ARod
Jeter
Rollins
Fielder
etc etc...

The problems lies in injuries and mediocre talents stringing together a season or two of good production or late bloomers who have played too many years to parlay that late start into a notable peak.

The best players will tend to give you 5-7 years of elite production, injuries excepted. The truly elite who came up early enough will give you over a decade of elite production.

[etched Chaos]

Re: Franchise Player Ratings Decline

Yes, but they had to have something in the logic so that players would regress. I think the regression is a bit steep personally, but it makes sense to do so.

They would have had to build in player specific logic for Trout's case to not follow the normal regression formula.

Its not ideal, but its what we got so now we need to work around it if we don't want to follow the rules. Lowering Trout might prolong his progression like Tabarnes said, so maybe this is what is needed with Trout so he doesn't regress unrealistically.

I don't see why any ability cap is needed, surely they should have a regression algorithm that has more to do with age, durability and prior injuries that will prevent a 20 year old phenom ending up a bench player by 28. Not to mention some sort of randomness that allows the occasional player to be great into his late 30's, otherwise we may never see someone like Mo in game who is elite well past the usual prescribed age for regression.

Then you have your Jamie Moyer's who make the whole concept of regression look redundant. To think he had a CG SHO in his mid 40's.