Player progression, or lack thereof.

[Gagnon39]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

You're kind of making your own point here. Rizzo's attributes are decreasing even though he's playing well, which shows that progression/regression isn't really based on performance. Despite him winning the MVP, his skills are deteriorating, which is normal for an aging player. Rizzo isn't getting better by winning the MVP, he won the MVP because of his skills and now they're slowly deteriorating. I don't really have a problem with progression/regression. Sometimes it seems like it's performance related, but I still think there's quite a bit of relative randomness to it, which I like.

Rizzo's 28.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheWarmWind

I actually really like the variance in progression I've seen in my carry over. It makes me think there is another layer to progression that we just don't see. I've seen guys just have "off" years, where despite having great potential and performing well, they actually regress. These guys might come back and have a great year of progression the next year. I've seen guys that make very little progression for a long time, then suddenly burst forward in ratings one year. I've seen longshots progress to MLB quality and I've seen near MLB quality languish for years in the minors. I've seen late bloomers (think like Josh Donaldson) and I've even seen prospects just not pan out at all. I do wish there was more rhyme or reason to it (I talk about that in the wishlist thread) but overall I'm actually pretty happy with the results. Now regression on the other hand, that pisses me off. Way to consistent and uniform, should be more performance based.

Ditto. There are lots of different career arcs in the game. I've seen guys progress significantly from role players to borderline All Stars in their early 30, guys progress quickly and flame out, and guys take a really long time to get major-league ready, despite having POT and age on their side.

I've also seen the "off year" phenomenon where a guy will regress one year but have a bounce-back year and progress.

Within the scope of a season, there are ups and downs, too. I've seen guys lose a few points in a category after the first update and then recoup at least some of those points later in the season due to individual and team performance.

I'm pretty happy with it. The only thing I don't like is P stamina. After 5 years of simming, you have SP on many teams with high-60s stamina because nobody's stamina progresses. That's untenable, so I fix that with an annual pre-season adjustment for players under 25. Other than that, I like the sysetm.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gagnon39

Rizzo's 28. Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

I know. Maybe his prime was earlier? The game is just providing some variation. Besides, if he's producing, what does it matter? You could always just focus on stats instead of looking at attributes.

[Comduklakis]

there may be some variation in progression for players in their 20s, but once guys hit 27/28 they regress FAR too fast. And it's almost universal in my experience.

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Comduklakis

there may be some variation in progression for players in their 20s, but once guys hit 27/28 they regress FAR too fast. And it's almost universal in my experience.

I have 5 players over 28 on my MLB roster in my franchise. All are progressing at the moment including guys that are 33+. In my experience in 4 seasons the season has provided great variety in.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

I have 5 players over 28 on my MLB roster in my franchise. All are progressing at the moment including guys that are 33+. In my experience in 4 seasons the season has provided great variety in.

Yeah I think they did progression/regression pretty well overall. The only issue I have is stamina ratings for pitchers only going down

[NimitsTexan]

Stamina for sure . . . speed as well.

It actually strikes me as quite unrealistic that those two only go down. Since you can see 18 year-olds in the minors, it is conceivable that they could get slightly faster for the first year or two . . . and definitely, they should not be losing speed so quickly.

The stamina thing I really do not get. Pitchers do get switched form relievers to starters later in their career, and pitchers definitely can get stronger and learn to use their arms more efficiently once they get in the league, leading to longer outings. It does not make sense stamina only goes down.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by NimitsTexan

Stamina for sure . . . speed as well. It actually strikes me as quite unrealistic that those two only go down. Since you can see 18 year-olds in the minors, it is conceivable that they could get slightly faster for the first year or two . . . and definitely, they should not be losing speed so quickly. The stamina thing I really do not get. Pitchers do get switched form relievers to starters later in their career, and pitchers definitely can get stronger and learn to use their arms more efficiently once they get in the league, leading to longer outings. It does not make sense stamina only goes down.

The whole idea for the stamina rating for pitchers is bad. A pitcher's stamina is relative to how they've been training. So a pitcher that's only thrown out of the bullpen won't go out and throw 80 pitches, but he could easily be stretched out over a few outings to get to that point and beyond. While a starter can immediately go into the bullpen and usually sees an uptick in velocity and movement due to not having to save themselves for a longer outing.