From a 92 rating to 74 just because he's 34??

[Potatoes002]

I'm not going to convince anyone at this point as the argument has been beaten around for a few months now. But still, my view on the issue is this:

The game needs more randomness. Some players should completely fall apart in their 30's, dramatically. Some should slowly level off. Some should also have a late surge (Jose Bautista) later in their careers.

I just have a problem seeing a guy hitting .315, but then losing 15 points in contact/power/discipline etc. over the course of a year. There is no reason for that being so severe when they are producing. You don't see high rated players in MLB 14 THE SHOW who had great years in 2014 lose that much of their rating over to this year's game. Production does matter a little in regression in this year's game, but not near enough.

I'm okay with physical attributes like speed being depleted over time, as that is realistic with age/injuries.

While people keep asking why it matters what his rating is if the player is still producing, there comes a point where the player is almost useless because of how fast the regression is.

I want the roster in my franchise to look like the stock roster regarding the older players. I just don't see that with the individual attributes falling off a cliff.

[cmutat17]

Quote: Originally Posted by cts50

I have studied the new progression system a lot lately and personally, I love it. People need to research aging curves before they come on here bitching about their favorite players regressing in OVR rating. Like, someone was just whining about Trout losing OVR points when he simmed out into his age 30 season... And Shields losing points once he was 34... Um...what exactly did you expect? Trout should just stay 99 forever? Sorry, but it doesnt work that way.

You could have just typed what's bolded instead of insulting a few people.

Quote: Originally Posted by cts50

Or how about some examples... Albert Pujols. Clear peak at age 28-29...steady decline since. Josh Hamilton. Clear peak at age 29....steady decline since. Josh Beckett. Clear peak at around ages 27-31....steady decline until retirement. Miguel Cabrera. Clear peak around ages 27-30.....probably headed for a steady decline. CC Sabathia. Clear peak around ages 27-30....steady decline since. Derek Jeter. Long time as an elite player, and then a steady decline from age 32 until retirement. I can keep going.

Okay, genius are these examples of a 'steady decline'......

[MLB Bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by cmutat17

Okay, genius are these examples of a 'steady decline'......

What are their stats? If the ratings arent translating to a massive decrease in stats, the overalls or individual ratings arent a big deal. Its what the player can do all together. So what was his stats before and after decline?

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Potatoes002

I just have a problem seeing a guy hitting .315, but then losing 15 points in contact/power/discipline etc. over the course of a year. There is no reason for that being so severe when they are producing. You don't see high rated players in MLB 14 THE SHOW who had great years in 2014 lose that much of their rating over to this year's game. Production does matter a little in regression in this year's game, but not near enough. I'm okay with physical attributes like speed being depleted over time, as that is realistic with age/injuries.

Because making a roster based on the past and predicting the future (progression/declining) are two different things.

What if it goes the other way? In real life, the player falls apart but in your franchise, he's still going strong? Jay Bruce is an example. In my franchise in 2017, he's still an All-Star - in real life, he hit .217 in 2014 and is hitting .223 now and has fallen into bad habits at the plate according to some scout reports I've read (too uppercut pull happy, etc) - so who knows what he'll be in 2017.

He's also doing this (irl) at 28 - a "prime" year.

As far as physical ability - how many NON-physical abilities are their in ratings? Vision, Discipline, and Clutch. Everything else relates to a physical skill. Power? Bat speed? Bat control? Range? Control? Movement? Velocity? Those are all physical abilities.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

What are their stats? If the ratings arent translating to a massive decrease in stats, the overalls or individual ratings arent a big deal. Its what the player can do all together. So what was his stats before and after decline?

Not to mention that Dickey still looks useful. His /9 are iffy, but his pitches (Velocity/Control/Movement) still look serviceable as a long reliever.

His OVR is suffering because his fielding abilities are trash and if he's playing with Dickey, that 41 HR/9 doesn't even matter (HR/9 has no impact on played games, only simmed games), which is also hindering his OVR.

Speaking OVR, I'd take Dickey over Colon even though they are both 67.

[thescottyglasgow]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Because making a roster based on the past and predicting the future (progression/declining) are two different things. What if it goes the other way? In real life, the player falls apart but in your franchise, he's still going strong? Jay Bruce is an example. In my franchise in 2017, he's still an All-Star - in real life, he hit .217 in 2014 and is hitting .223 now and has fallen into bad habits at the plate according to some scout reports I've read (too uppercut pull happy, etc) - so who knows what he'll be in 2017. He's also doing this (irl) at 28 - a "prime" year. As far as physical ability - how many NON-physical abilities are their in ratings? Vision, Discipline, and Clutch. Everything else relates to a physical skill. Power? Bat speed? Bat control? Range? Control? Movement? Velocity? Those are all physical abilities.

That would be great for me if some guys would flame out before 28 some random players would just never be good and are just awful... but the point has nothing to do with any of the ratings or who is better or worse or how they are performing for you. It is the progression/regression being extremely drastic at certain ages no matter what and having nothing to do with reflecting the players real time performance in the franchise at all. I think that is the best way I can sum it up.

[jlindzzz]

honestly players start regressing after they reach their max potential. if they keep doing well at their max potential they may plateau for a couple of years. if they are struggling, they will see downgrades. to me, it's really annoying as an avid franchise mode player as when I get into the 2020s, players like Trout and Kershaw are diminishing. for example there is no reason an age 28 Trout should be 87 overall... granted of course, anything can happen, but truly, it diminishes what these players can do in their careers in franchise mode as they are left to die in free agency by the age of 33 or so, when in reality they have a good 3-7 years left in the tank. I really hope MLB the Show addresses this in the future, as this mountain-effect in player progression has really begun to grind my gears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cmutat17]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

What are their stats? If the ratings arent translating to a massive decrease in stats, the overalls or individual ratings arent a big deal. Its what the player can do all together. So what was his stats before and after decline?

Bartolo Colon: 13-8, 2.79 (ERA), 128 (K), 210.1 (IP) 67 overall at the end of the season


RA Dickey: 8-17, 4.31 (ERA), 126 (K), 200.2 (IP) 67 overall at the end of season.