First off, I understand this is long, but it's been a bit of a work in progress.
I would like to start an open discussion of player ratings and how others perceive how they should work. I think it’s safe to say that pretty much everyone thinks 2K does them wrong, but how do they get them right? While we may not convince 2K to change their ways, it should at least be an interesting discussion.
<O
</O
First off, I think player progression needs to be redone. I think some sort of basic “lifeline” needs to be established for all players. A typical player’s career will form a curve in which they spend the first few years figuring things out, then spend the next several years slowly getting better, Then the peak for a few year, then they slowly start to come down, then they reach an age where you see them digress much faster. (To give an example, between the ages of 30 and 35, Willie Mays hit between 37 and 52 HR’s every year, the next two years he hit 22 and 23).
<O</O
To be more realistic, 2K should come up with several different life lines, but they should all be the same basic curve shape. Some players may be flatter, some players may be sharper. Some players may have many good years, while others may have a small peak. Player A may flame out when he hits 33, while player B may play at a high level until he’s 37. A Hall of Fame caliber player may have a different life line than your regular player, but most importantly, he would have a higher potential. It wouldn’t be to hard to look at the careers of different types of players and come up with these. <O></O>
<O</O
For sake of argument, lets keep it real basic, but understand that it would be much more detailed. This is just for a players power (Home Run) potential.
Age 21-25: 80% of Max
Age 26-29: 90% of Max
Age 30-34: 100% of Max
Age 35-36: 90% of Max
Age 37-37: 85% of Max
Age 38-38: 80% of Max
Age 39-39: 70% of Max
Age 40-40: 60% of Max
<O</O
This is just for Home Runs because I wouldn’t expect each stat to be impacted the same. I don’t think Rickey Henderson at age 45 was as low as 60% of his peak speed…maybe still 80 or 90%. However, you could argue that from age 21-34 he was at 100%.
<O</O
Typically things like speed, arm strength, reactions aren’t things that are learned as a player develops as they are natural abilities, but they are things that deteriorate as a player gets older. I would expect these categories to start out at or very close to 100% until peak and then digress afterwards.
<O
However, things like Power, Contact, Jumps, Pitchers control, Pitchers effectiveness, Stamina, etc. are things that you would see follow this path. There aren’t too many players that come to the big leagues and lead the league in HR’s or Batting average their first year. It happens occasionally (Price Fielder, Mark McGwire), but it’s rare.
<O
So you take a rookie in the game who has a high potential rating and say has the ability at his peak to hit about 45 HR’s and hit .300.
<O
Well when you run him through this metric you’d see that:
From age 21-25 he’s going to hit 30-ish HR’s and hit in the .280-.290 range. Then as he matures, from 26-29, you see him hit about 40 HR’s and about .295-ish. Then in his peak, he’s at the 45 .300 mark. And then he comes back down and by the time he’s old and close to retiring. He’s back at .270-.280 and 25-30 HR’s….basically like a Frank Thomas type.
<O
To add randomness to this, for each year, you have a possible variance, in which I would use a random number generator to get. For power, say this variance has a possible +/- 10% window. So that 45 HR guy, at his peak could hit 50 or could hit 40 in those years.
<O
I created a simple formula in excel and ran some numbers through it. I basically used the %’s above, but smoothed them out a little in smaller yearly spreads and used a possible variance of +/- 10%.
<O
I ran a player with 45 HR potential through this matrix 12 times (each time randomizes the variance by year).
<O
Looking at the 12 scenarios for a 16 year career (ages 25-40):
He hit as many as 733 HR’s and as few as 599. The average was 684.
<O
I did the same thing for a guy who is goaled to be a .300 hitter. His high was .315, his low was .260 and the average was about .295.
<O
I definitely need to tweak my flow, but I really think this is something 2K needs to do a better job of. I think this process would lead to better projected stat’s and keep solid players coming through the ranks.
<O
If you have these life lines determined, then all you have to do is project potential numbers for players to pan out a career. You combine the potential with the numerous lifelines and you end up with all sorts of players. You could litterly plug in Albert Pujols last seasons stat’s at the right point in his a career and project out the way he would finish his career, but every time you did it, it would be different.
I would like to start an open discussion of player ratings and how others perceive how they should work. I think it’s safe to say that pretty much everyone thinks 2K does them wrong, but how do they get them right? While we may not convince 2K to change their ways, it should at least be an interesting discussion.
<O
</OFirst off, I think player progression needs to be redone. I think some sort of basic “lifeline” needs to be established for all players. A typical player’s career will form a curve in which they spend the first few years figuring things out, then spend the next several years slowly getting better, Then the peak for a few year, then they slowly start to come down, then they reach an age where you see them digress much faster. (To give an example, between the ages of 30 and 35, Willie Mays hit between 37 and 52 HR’s every year, the next two years he hit 22 and 23).
<O
</OTo be more realistic, 2K should come up with several different life lines, but they should all be the same basic curve shape. Some players may be flatter, some players may be sharper. Some players may have many good years, while others may have a small peak. Player A may flame out when he hits 33, while player B may play at a high level until he’s 37. A Hall of Fame caliber player may have a different life line than your regular player, but most importantly, he would have a higher potential. It wouldn’t be to hard to look at the careers of different types of players and come up with these. <O
></O><O
</OFor sake of argument, lets keep it real basic, but understand that it would be much more detailed. This is just for a players power (Home Run) potential.
Age 21-25: 80% of Max
Age 26-29: 90% of Max
Age 30-34: 100% of Max
Age 35-36: 90% of Max
Age 37-37: 85% of Max
Age 38-38: 80% of Max
Age 39-39: 70% of Max
Age 40-40: 60% of Max
<O
</OThis is just for Home Runs because I wouldn’t expect each stat to be impacted the same. I don’t think Rickey Henderson at age 45 was as low as 60% of his peak speed…maybe still 80 or 90%. However, you could argue that from age 21-34 he was at 100%.
<O
</OTypically things like speed, arm strength, reactions aren’t things that are learned as a player develops as they are natural abilities, but they are things that deteriorate as a player gets older. I would expect these categories to start out at or very close to 100% until peak and then digress afterwards.
<O
However, things like Power, Contact, Jumps, Pitchers control, Pitchers effectiveness, Stamina, etc. are things that you would see follow this path. There aren’t too many players that come to the big leagues and lead the league in HR’s or Batting average their first year. It happens occasionally (Price Fielder, Mark McGwire), but it’s rare.
<O
So you take a rookie in the game who has a high potential rating and say has the ability at his peak to hit about 45 HR’s and hit .300.
<O
Well when you run him through this metric you’d see that:
From age 21-25 he’s going to hit 30-ish HR’s and hit in the .280-.290 range. Then as he matures, from 26-29, you see him hit about 40 HR’s and about .295-ish. Then in his peak, he’s at the 45 .300 mark. And then he comes back down and by the time he’s old and close to retiring. He’s back at .270-.280 and 25-30 HR’s….basically like a Frank Thomas type.
<O
To add randomness to this, for each year, you have a possible variance, in which I would use a random number generator to get. For power, say this variance has a possible +/- 10% window. So that 45 HR guy, at his peak could hit 50 or could hit 40 in those years.
<O
I created a simple formula in excel and ran some numbers through it. I basically used the %’s above, but smoothed them out a little in smaller yearly spreads and used a possible variance of +/- 10%.
<O
I ran a player with 45 HR potential through this matrix 12 times (each time randomizes the variance by year).
<O
Looking at the 12 scenarios for a 16 year career (ages 25-40):
He hit as many as 733 HR’s and as few as 599. The average was 684.
<O
I did the same thing for a guy who is goaled to be a .300 hitter. His high was .315, his low was .260 and the average was about .295.
<O
I definitely need to tweak my flow, but I really think this is something 2K needs to do a better job of. I think this process would lead to better projected stat’s and keep solid players coming through the ranks.
<O
If you have these life lines determined, then all you have to do is project potential numbers for players to pan out a career. You combine the potential with the numerous lifelines and you end up with all sorts of players. You could litterly plug in Albert Pujols last seasons stat’s at the right point in his a career and project out the way he would finish his career, but every time you did it, it would be different.
Comment