Players progressing, declining, etc.

[Gagnon39]

I've looked everywhere and can't really find any definitive answers on this. I know that a player's performance affects his ratings as well as his happiness/morale. However, Kris Bryant is "happy," for me, is playing very well of late but yet he has dropped to an 88 overall. I think he was a 90 to start the season. His contact vs lefties has dropped by three points. It just seems to me that there's little rhyme or reason on how this works.

Additionally, I hope SCEA takes another look at this aspect of the game in MLB 17. I don't really like the fact that players stats dictate whether their rating increase or not. A player does not become better because he performs well and has good numbers. A player performs well and has good numbers because he gets better, if that makes sense.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gagnon39

I've looked everywhere and can't really find any definitive answers on this. I know that a player's performance affects his ratings as well as his happiness/morale. However, Kris Bryant is "happy," for me, is playing very well of late but yet he has dropped to an 88 overall. I think he was a 90 to start the season. His contact vs lefties has dropped by three points. It just seems to me that there's little rhyme or reason on how this works.

Performance matters, but to a point.

It can certainly help. It's probably, for example, helping 36-year-old Chris Davis keep his All-Star level ratings for hitting. However, he is still declining. However, that decline would likely be rapid...like it is for poor Eric Young, Jr., who's also 36...and ready for the knackers yard.

Perhaps Bryant is just slowing down right now. Also, if he's struggled to this point but with a spurt in most recent action, it might not be enough, yet, to "reverse" the earlier declines.

Quote: Originally Posted by Gagnon39

A player does not become better because he performs well and has good numbers. A player performs well and has good numbers because he gets better, if that makes sense.

That cart is put before the horse so much that I think the horse is used to pushing instead of pulling it by now.

Seems to be a common thing in sports games.

Understandable because the stats can be (but not always...especially if without a lot of sample size) the evidence of skills having previously improved (if not the "traditional" stats, things like batted ball velocity, batted ball type, walk/K/chase/contact rates, etc.), so it's probably "easier" (especially if just using the "traditional" stats and not tracking/evaluating Statcast-type data) and "seemingly the same difference", but it would be nice for skills to move independent of stats or even take the influence of non-traditional stats (a guy ripping the ball at average of 98 MPH at a 45% LD rate while hitting .210 is NOT hitting poorly. He's just unlucky.)

[Gagnon39]

I feel like Inhave some kind of setting off or screwed up. Bryant was a 89 to start the week and proceeded to go nuts. He just had a 5-RBI game and is leading the NL in RBIs. He's "on fire," yet... he's now dropped to ann 86. So weird.

[Unlucky 13]

I just finished a whole season with the Cubs, and other than the rating that drops because taking walks is nearly impossible, I didn't have that happen to any of my young players, Bryant included. They tended to increase until they hit the plaueau where their stats seemed to tell the game they belonged at.

My biggest issue was that slightly older players have HUGE declines, no matter how well they play. Ben Zobrist dropped off a cliff at age 34, despite playing extremely well all season for me. It was to the point that I decided that I needed to move him and his contract in the offseason. Looking at the older players in the FA pool, I'm going to really avoid anyone above around age 32 until they patch the game a bit with regards to this. Guys seem to be taking a nose dive at a much earlier age than they really should be.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Unlucky 13

My biggest issue was that slightly older players have HUGE declines, no matter how well they play. Ben Zobrist dropped off a cliff at age 34, despite playing extremely well all season for me. It was to the point that I decided that I needed to move him and his contract in the offseason. Looking at the older players in the FA pool, I'm going to really avoid anyone above around age 32 until they patch the game a bit with regards to this. Guys seem to be taking a nose dive at a much earlier age than they really should be.

I don't mind 30-something guys sometimes falling apart. Sometimes it's a cliff instead of a gentle slope. The problem I have is that it still seems based on service time instead of age. That's why sometimes guys like Harper fall apart at 29 because they've been playing 10-11 years (since they started at 19).

But a 34-year-old dropping, sometimes hard, can make sense (the flip side of that is my 33-year-old with 0.something service showing increases!). I mean, in the real game, contracts to 30+ players have the same risk.

Playing well doesn't stop the aging process and some players age faster than others, even in the real game. If he plays well in-spite of his aging, that's the blessing. Asking for a reversal or halting of aging is really wishing on a star. It can happen, though, even in The Show (though I really want to see a player in any game emulate the Julio Franco curve...)

Here's my Chris Davis from my MLB14 carryover Marlins - May 2023:




I know I'm lucky and shouldn't expect every veteran hitter to stay up this well, even if they keep playing well as Davis is doing. I extended him knowing full well his cliff could/should be coming - but it hasn't yet. He's really blocking a young 1B prospect too, lol. He might retire before he cliffs at this point. Hopefully, he can reach 600 HR. That would be awesome.

That said, if I see a 30-something that can help my team, I'm offering on them. I will be reasonable with the length until they show their decline phase to me (so I can see what it looks like), or that they are avoiding it (like Davis), but I'm not avoiding talent.

[RogueHominid]

I've come to really like the progression and regression system after five seasons. I think I'm in the minority there.

There are regular checkpoints in the season when players' ratings go up or down, and when you get a 3-point dock at one of those checkpoints, it can seem drastic.

The upside for me is that aside from the "cliff" moment, many of these ups and downs can be affected by performance. I've had players lose several points in a category during a season through poor performance and then make those points back up in subsequent seasons through increased performance.

I've seen hitting and fielding attributes go up and down several points for the same player over multiple seasons.

I think the trick is not to overreact to the small fluctuations, but to watch for general trends, and to keep your eye on the bottom line.

I don't look at the OVR so much, so I don't care if Kershaw is a 93, a 95, an 99, or whatever. I know that for my ace and with his pay, I want his major attributes in the 80s or mid 70s, and as long as they're in that range, he's an elite pitcher, no matter the OVR.

Same for Bryant. If his CON/PWR vs. LHP goes from 70/70 to 55/70, he's still a high-damage hitter vs. LHP and he's going to perform in those matchups.

I don't intend that as a refutation of your position; I'm just saying that over a few seasons, I've started to look at progression and regression differently and to focus on different things when assessing players. I also don't trip on whether an established player is an A or B POT. If their ratings are right, they're going to dominate regardless.

The only time you have to worry is when you start seeing hitters losing 6+ points in major categories in a season. 3-5 points can be swings in a career of ups and downs, but more than 5 points in multiple categories and you're likely looking at the end for that player. If you see a pitcher losing 6+ points across the board, too, that's a sure sign.

In my franchise, Bryant has put up MVP numbers every season and is still absolutely dominant. His fielding is the same as it was in season 1, and he's pretty much the same hitter.

[consecutive27]

I have gone through about 10 seasons in franchise mode and I am seeing what you guys are talking about. There are usually small fluctuations for many players based on performance, but these are often reversed later in the season or in the next season depending on performance. When players are very young, like in the first three or four years after you draft them, players generally improve based on their potential, pretty much no matter what. After a few years performance starts to take more of an effect on progression and you may see the potential of some players drop a little bit, and others will rise a little bit. If you see an A potential player go down to a B, they probably went from a 90-91 to an 88-89 potential. It can be annoying, but not a big deal.

Players do seem to start their end of career decline around 10 or so years of service time. This decline may be slowed somewhat by performance, but once it starts, you can't really avoid it. I wish this was based more on age, as well as prospects coming in younger and sometimes better so it does not take them so long to become serviceable MLB players. This is not always the case, but is a trend especially later on in franchise mode. However, with the system as it is, I think it works well enough and you still see some nice career stats from star players. I have seen Stanton and Harper with over 500 home runs and Cabrera with over 600. I have seen a few pitchers with over 3000 career strike outs. Some guys have very nice ratings in their mid 30's, not always, but a fair amount of the time they do.

I do wish some great players would stick around a few more years instead of retiring at age 35 or 36, especially if they are still rated and playing well. For example, I saw Rizzo hit about .315 with 42 home runs (for the Tigers) in his mid 30's, and then retire at the end of the year. Yes, players could retire after a great year (Ortiz), but usually they will hang around a few more years.

[TheWarmWind]

I've always said the system needed work. Progression and regression should also mostly take place in the off season. I agree that it should be more based on age, but this is not always the case in baseball. Still, better than guys like bryce dropping off in the late 20s just because of service time.

I would also love if there were an option to make true ratings hidden, and what you see based on the 20/80 scale and the quality of your scouts and coaches. In the end I'd prefer my opinion of a players performance on the field to have more impact on decisions. I'm in 2017 and Bautisita's ratings are dropping like a rock in all categories, but if I were to judge it based on his field performance, I'd have to say the only thing he's lost is some speed, a little arm, and endurance. He's still an excellent batter, perfect for the DH, and still one of my best.