Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

[econoodle]

I did some sim testing and wanted to see some progression figures.

I saw a cool one which was a-rod hitting 12 HRs and taking a big regression hit, -6, down to a 75 overall and 3 potential with a big downward turn. so that looks good, but after seeing the Progression numbers around the league, its making me think it was just random and not just because of his previous years numbers.

I saw 3 young guys, mid 20's =who had TERRIBLE years. We are talking 186. 2 HRs and 18 RBIS in 420 abs for one guy, .221 in a full year for another and like numbers for the third guy.
They all went up either 4 or 5 points.

Now, if this is partly based on potential and age, i could see it evening out and not going up at all once you add in the bad numbers in the previous season.
But these guys shouldn't be jumping into star status.
Kind of sucked the realism out of it.

What trends have you guys seen in this regard?

[pistolpete]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

I think in the franchise notebook it says young players really need to excel for a period of time to really become stars. This actually makes sense to me.

I've generally heard, not seen yet, that progression is slow but sure.

I'm going to keep my eye out for breakout years and use the franchise editor to do with those players as I wish, but not every rookie of the year becomes a star.

[econoodle]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

I think in the franchise notebook it says young players really need to excel for a period of time to really become stars. This actually makes sense to me.

I've generally heard, not seen yet, that progression is slow but sure.

I'm going to keep my eye out for breakout years and use the franchise editor to do with those players as I wish, but not every rookie of the year becomes a star.

thats what I noticed as an issue, they didn't need a bit of a period to break out. these guys who did terribly, who by the way had bad REAL seasons in 11 in real life, really jumped up in ratins without showing any reason to do so.

[pistolpete]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

thats what I noticed as an issue, they didn't need a bit of a period to break out. these guys who did terribly, who by the way had bad REAL seasons in 11 in real life, really jumped up in ratins without showing any reason to do so.

Hmm, I suppose maybe I can't always take 2k12 at it's word. Weird.

Anyways, I think I simmed once and thought that some of the prospects actually developed a little sluggish for decent years. I know if someone who is 23 hits 20 HRs he shouldn't all of a sudden become a 90 OVR, but a progression of 3 or 4 points seemed a little light.

[econoodle]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

Hmm, I suppose maybe I can't always take 2k12 at it's word. Weird.

Anyways, I think I simmed once and thought that some of the prospects actually developed a little sluggish for decent years. I know if someone who is 23 hits 20 HRs he shouldn't all of a sudden become a 90 OVR, but a progression of 3 or 4 points seemed a little light.

yea, I'll do another tester, but if its overly randomized, that'll bite.

after seeing the progression, I am wondering if A-rod even hitting 30-100 would have still dropped 5 points.
Should he have? I don't know, maybe a bit, but not 5. I'll check another sim test.

[Yeats]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

Progression was hard-coded and player-specific in previous 2K games, their NFL series for example. If you simmed several years 3-4 times, the exact same players would end up as 99 overall superstars, while another group of players would never rise above 65-70.

It takes a half-hour or so to test, but why not give it a go? Select a half dozen players, some name players and some unknowns. Take note of their starting overalls. Turn injuries off, sim 3-4 seasons and then check their overalls again. Repeat that process 3-4 times. You'll get a pretty clear idea if the progression is hard-coded or not.

[kpkpkp]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

I dont think you understand the system correctly.

If a players potential arrow is pointing up (regardless of how many stars they have) then they are going to up in the off season. Even if they have a bad season. If their arrow is pointing down they are going to regress in the off season, even they hit .500 with 60 HR's.

If a player has an above average season it will either increase their gains, and slow their losses.

If a player has a below average season it will either slow their gain or increase their losses.

So this guy who hit .186 with just a few RBI's probably had a potential arrow pointing up with 4 or more stars. And thus he gained 4 or 5 OVR points. If he had hit better he might have gained 6 ot 7 OVR points.

The progression/regression system is working fine. I have found nothing wrong with it so far.

[econoodle]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

I dont think you understand the system correctly.

If a players potential arrow is pointing up (regardless of how many stars they have) then they are going to up in the off season. Even if they have a bad season. If their arrow is pointing down they are going to regress in the off season, even they hit .500 with 60 HR's.

If a player has an above average season it will either increase their gains, and slow their losses.

If a player has a below average season it will either slow their gain or increase their losses.

So this guy who hit .186 with just a few RBI's probably had a potential arrow pointing up with 4 or more stars. And thus he gained 4 or 5 OVR points. If he had hit better he might have gained 6 ot 7 OVR points.

The progression/regression system is working fine. I have found nothing wrong with it so far.

this is where i get off the train.
after two horrible seasons at the ML level, he should not be in the 80's.
if anything his bad seasons should have stunted his progress.
It shouldnt be coded in there that he MUST go up.

[kpkpkp]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

this is where i get off the train.
after two horrible seasons at the ML level, he should not be in the 80's.
if anything his bad seasons should have stunted his progress.
It shouldnt be coded in there that he MUST go up.

I dont think it is encoded for him to "Must go up."

But if this particular player had say 4 or 5 stars with an upward trend arrow.. it means he was likely to improve regardless of how good/bad his season was. If anything maybe he could have improved even more had he not had a lowsy season hitting only 18 RBI's.

But lets say this player had an upward arrow and only 3 stars, he probably wouldnt have gone up much if at all.

Also just because he noticed this guys OVR progress to 80 after a bad season, does not necessarily mean the guy had good hitting stats. Maybe his contract and power ratings were 70 and 65... hence the bad batting numbers... but his fielding/throwing ratings might have been in the 80's... and thus his OVR averaged out to 80.

I think people put too much stock in OVR ratings.

And like I said, in my opinion I think the progression/regression system works fine. If anything I like that a low rated player can have lowsy seasons, but break out the next season if they have lots of potential..

I mean guys gotta break out at some point.

[TheNumber35]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

I dont think it is encoded for him to "Must go up."

But if this particular player had say 4 or 5 stars with an upward trend arrow.. it means he was likely to improve regardless of how good/bad his season was. If anything maybe he could have improved even more had he not had a lowsy season hitting only 18 RBI's.

But lets say this player had an upward arrow and only 3 stars, he probably wouldnt have gone up much if at all.

Also just because he noticed this guys OVR progress to 80 after a bad season, does not necessarily mean the guy had good hitting stats. Maybe his contract and power ratings were 70 and 65... hence the bad batting numbers... but his fielding/throwing ratings might have been in the 80's... and thus his OVR averaged out to 80.

I think people put too much stock in OVR ratings.

And like I said, in my opinion I think the progression/regression system works fine. If anything I like that a low rated player can have lowsy seasons, but break out the next season if they have lots of potential..

I mean guys gotta break out at some point.

OVR is overrated...its as simple as that. People put wayyyy too much stock into it as an indicator of how good a player is. Example: Brandon Inge is a 70 OVR in the default rosters and I think Don Kelly is a 67 or 68. This is because Inge has a very high defensive rating at 3rd base (and maybe other positions as well?) Kelly has equal if not better batting ratings and is no slouch in the field. In my experience, Kelly is by far and away the better player in the game. But because his OVR is higher, people assume Inge is better. Simply put, perhaps the player is so good in his other aspects that it outweighs the stat you're looking at (in this case batting.)

[kpkpkp]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

OVR is overrated...its as simple as that. People put wayyyy too much stock into it as an indicator of how good a player is. Example: Brandon Inge is a 70 OVR in the default rosters and I think Don Kelly is a 67 or 68. This is because Inge has a very high defensive rating at 3rd base (and maybe other positions as well?) Kelly has equal if not better batting ratings and is no slouch in the field. In my experience, Kelly is by far and away the better player in the game. But because his OVR is higher, people assume Inge is better. Simply put, perhaps the player is so good in his other aspects that it outweighs the stat you're looking at (in this case batting.)

Excellent point on Inge.

I was just playing the Tigers last night in a new Red Sox franchise I had started.

Inge is rated 70 OVR, but his contact/power ratings were in the 50's or something. I think he was the only guy on the Tigers that didnt shell me

[wudl83]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

But we must take the OVR into account because the AI will use it for their lineups etc.
For that the OVR is not overrated.

[Schreck]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

This discussion is done every single year in every sports game. It's obviously incredibly important, but I think people get way too caught up on the production side being the reason ratings should go up. If a guy rated at 70 OVR hits .300 with 30 homers, does it necessarily make sense that he should improve 10 points or something?

Take Jacoby Ellsbury last season, he blew up and hit 32 homers, batted 315 or something and stole a ton of bases. All that after a horrible season where he did nothing while he was in, and battled injuries forever. Nobody saw that coming, especially the homers. Nobody expects him to do it again either, so would it make sense to suddenly jump his power ratings a bunch because of 1 outlier season? I don't think so, but who knows, maybe he does it again and we see he is a legit power guy.

The point is, progression should not be based on production. From one year to the next a player's base skill set generally does not change all that much, they have a certain level of potential production, from there millions of factor affect the actual results. The competition they face, weather, turf or grass, park size, nagging injuries, marital issues, mistress issues, how intensely they trained in the offseason, nutrition, sleep, etc.

[wudl83]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

This discussion is done every single year in every sports game. It's obviously incredibly important, but I think people get way too caught up on the production side being the reason ratings should go up. If a guy rated at 70 OVR hits .300 with 30 homers, does it necessarily make sense that he should improve 10 points or something?

Take Jacoby Ellsbury last season, he blew up and hit 32 homers, batted 315 or something and stole a ton of bases. All that after a horrible season where he did nothing while he was in, and battled injuries forever. Nobody saw that coming, especially the homers. Nobody expects him to do it again either, so would it make sense to suddenly jump his power ratings a bunch because of 1 outlier season? I don't think so, but who knows, maybe he does it again and we see he is a legit power guy.

The point is, progression should not be based on production. From one year to the next a player's base skill set generally does not change all that much, they have a certain level of potential production, from there millions of factor affect the actual results. The competition they face, weather, turf or grass, park size, nagging injuries, marital issues, mistress issues, how intensely they trained in the offseason, nutrition, sleep, etc.

Yep you are right. And because you are right I do not understand why the sport games nowadays always have so deep rating numbers. In my opinion it would be MUCH easier when there only were grades:
A - excellent
B - good
C - satisfactory
D - adequate
E - inadequate
F - fail
I do not understand why we should need such deep ratings that go from 25-99.

And with this grade system you can rate verything:
contact, power, speed, acceleration, the fielding ratings, fielding ability at a position, control and movement of a pitch, composure, and so on and so on.

Also this would make roster editing much easier.

But the main point is that it all would be much easier to see through...

[HammerOfGod]

Re: Player Progression: Is It Just Random?

Yep you are right. And because you are right I do not understand why the sport games nowadays always have so deep rating numbers. In my opinion it would be MUCH easier when there only were grades:
A - excellent
B - good
C - satisfactory
D - adequate
E - inadequate
F - fail
I do not understand why we should need such deep ratings that go from 25-99.

And with this grade system you can rate verything:
contact, power, speed, acceleration, the fielding ratings, fielding ability at a position, control and movement of a pitch, composure, and so on and so on.

Also this would make roster editing much easier.

But the main point is that it all would be much easier to see through...

I understand this viewpoint, but as you stated, these would not be deep ratings, and it would kind of take away the individuality of each player.

I'd also like to add onto this saying that another reason I like the wide range of ratings is that in this game, ratings clearly matter very much, unlike what you see in many other sports titles. I'm looking at you EA football titles.