Early Regression

[Cavicchi]

Re: Early Regression

It's not bad at all. Some players can keep up an elite level of play well into their late 30s and plenty of players have great years up until they are 27-28 years old and hit a wall. Who knows that next season they don't get a significant bump up basically making their regression a virtual bad season for the player? There are countless players who are budding superstars in their mid-20s that never turn into anything more than a good player. Why can't it be like that in The Show? Not every A potential player should be Hall of Fame worthy.

First off, I have to say there are way too many A-rated players in the game. An OF being 99 at age 35 would be a rear occurrence in real baseball, so I would rather not see any make it to 99 in the game, better to have none than one too many. Actually, an argument could be made whether or not Kemp is a 99 now. In my opinion, 99-rated position players should be rare, at least for the present time. The first question is what makes up a 99 rated player. I think, and it's just my thought on this, a 99 OVR should be reserved for a position player who can do it all, hitting and fielding and maybe base running as well., such as Mantle and Mays in their prime.

[Tweeg]

Re: Early Regression

Maybe Sale will end up like Tommy Hanson. I don't see how this is that far fetched at all.

[Fuimus Troes]

Re: Early Regression

Some things people have said in this thread are true: "in real life" some players dominate in their early-mid 20's and then flame out or level down. Think of K-Rod or Carlos Marmol. I'm sure there are plenty of players that fit this category.

What's frustrating is not knowing if the game is designed to have that absolute randomness in it. I wish a dev would clarify that for us.

I remember the ps2 Madden when Katzenmoyer and David Boston were rookies. They ALWAYS followed a tightly scripted progression vector, and always declined at about the same age. I don't want THAT level of predictability, but just an idea of how the engine works.

Final thought: I don't think this is in there, but some players resurrect their careers, too. If the game crashes careers (like Stanton's), it would be cool if comebacks were a possibility, too.

[Threeebs]

Re: Early Regression

First off, I have to say there are way too many A-rated players in the game. An OF being 99 at age 35 would be a rear occurrence in real baseball, so I would rather not see any make it to 99 in the game, better to have none than one too many. Actually, an argument could be made whether or not Kemp is a 99 now. In my opinion, 99-rated position players should be rare, at least for the present time. The first question is what makes up a 99 rated player. I think, and it's just my thought on this, a 99 OVR should be reserved for a position player who can do it all, hitting and fielding and maybe base running as well., such as Mantle and Mays in their prime.

Weren't there like 44 players rated 99 in last year's game? I think the... was it 17?.. this year is a huge improvement. But you shouldn't get hung up on the overalls.

Everyone wants accurate simulation statistics and in order to produce what Matt Kemp is producing IRL, you have to rate him accordingly. The reason he's a 99 is because of his damn near accurate SCEA ratings and the fact he's a CF. I see no problem in this at all. 99 is just a number and there are better 99's than others.

Take my word from it when I say for the most part SCEA did a pretty good job with their rated players. I've noticed this while combing through my recently downloaded OSFM V2 for edits of some SCEA players that weren't quite done right. It's mostly changing pitcher's K/9 that are inaccurate and minor tweaks to durability and a handful of hitters. I may have even added a 99 or two (Dickey got bumped to a 99 to help combat regression and last one more year in the bigs) but it doesn't bother me at all...

[geisterhome]

players keep the level only few years after they peak. so stanton who has a high rating at the beginning will peak with like 23 then keep his rating 2/3 years and decline. same with Mike trout or any player reaching his peak early. I say it's the result of a poor regression system, nothing replicating real life. you can't compare those guys with kemp or others and say there is variation since they are good until late in their careers cos he is older at the start, that's absolutely due to some randomness in the regression system. don't think there is much of it.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2