Should I buy 2k15 given the regression bug?

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by joosegoose

I said it in another thread, but I think it would be really helpful to compare age distributions. Take the current ages of active NBA players and chart them, and do the same for a franchise 5-6 years down the line. Bonus points for also charting player overalls vs age. I think seeing this information would be really eye opening to those that think it's pretty realistic. The league gets so much younger over the years.

The thing is, the league *is* really young. Take a look at the guys who play the most minutes: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...15_totals.html

There are *12* guys among the top 100 in minutes played who are older than 32, and only 20 guys 32 or older that have played at least 250 minutes and have an above average PER, compared to well over 100 that are 18-31. And, if you want another stat, the oldest team in the NBA averages 30 years old (the Grizzlies). While I'll agree that the age curve should probably be smoother and the hits should tend more towards stamina and durability than shooting (though in my tests really only moving shooting dipped dramatically), I don't think it's in need of a fix. Maybe some light tuning, but it's not gamebreaking by any stretch.

Here's an age curve I found that was published by the APBR metrics forum, which is pretty hardcore into this stuff. This is from 2011:

Look at the steep drop in minutes and WS/48 after age 32. 2K isn't that far off.

[swishfury]

The decline maybe seen on the numbers but some players still play that well. Mostly the regression is on the physical aspect of the player depending on how much you play him together with the training intensity. They added physical attributes which contributes to the stats and if that changes whether +/- it affects the rating of the player.

[darkknightrises]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

The thing is, the league *is* really young. Take a look at the guys who play the most minutes: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...15_totals.html There are *12* guys among the top 100 in minutes played who are older than 32, and only 20 guys 32 or older that have played at least 250 minutes and have an above average PER, compared to well over 100 that are 18-31. And, if you want another stat, the oldest team in the NBA averages 30 years old (the Grizzlies). While I'll agree that the age curve should probably be smoother and the hits should tend more towards stamina and durability than shooting (though in my tests really only moving shooting dipped dramatically), I don't think it's in need of a fix. Maybe some light tuning, but it's not gamebreaking by any stretch. Here's an age curve I found that was published by the APBR metrics forum, which is pretty hardcore into this stuff. This is from 2011: Look at the steep drop in minutes and WS/48 after age 32. 2K isn't that far off.

Yeah but 32 is a big difference then the like 28-30 that you see the drop of in this game plus with the minutes part of it is that there are some guys that are still pretty good that are older but don't play a lot of minutes because they have a good team and or because they want to keep there minutes down so they will be more fresh all year long.

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by swishfury

The decline maybe seen on the numbers but some players still play that well. Mostly the regression is on the physical aspect of the player depending on how much you play him together with the training intensity. They added physical attributes which contributes to the stats and if that changes whether +/- it affects the rating of the player.

The PER stat I referenced above covers like 5% of the league. I think it's hard to quantify what's "fair" for an OVR drop, but most metrics show huge declines in player effectiveness after 32. It seems like it's more the way older guys in the league are rated at the start of the roster (Wade at 88 OVR is a prime example) effects what we think about what guys should be rated in the future.

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by darkknightrises

Yeah but 32 is a big difference then the like 28-30 that you see the drop of in this game plus with the minutes part of it is that there are some guys that are still pretty good that are older but don't play a lot of minutes because they have a good team and or because they want to keep there minutes down so they will be more fresh all year long.

At least according to that curve the peak is 26 or so. Starting the drop at 28 isn't unfair.

And, btw, age curves like that are always slanted because of what's called "survivor's bias." Basically, the age curve doesn't take into account guys who were contributors at 28 that are out of the league by 32. So, in reality, the numbers may even be slightly worse.

[joosegoose]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

The thing is, the league *is* really young. Take a look at the guys who play the most minutes: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...15_totals.html There are *12* guys among the top 100 in minutes played who are older than 32, and only 20 guys 32 or older that have played at least 250 minutes and have an above average PER, compared to well over 100 that are 18-31. And, if you want another stat, the oldest team in the NBA averages 30 years old (the Grizzlies). While I'll agree that the age curve should probably be smoother and the hits should tend more towards stamina and durability than shooting (though in my tests really only moving shooting dipped dramatically), I don't think it's in need of a fix. Maybe some light tuning, but it's not gamebreaking by any stretch. Here's an age curve I found that was published by the APBR metrics forum, which is pretty hardcore into this stuff. This is from 2011: Look at the steep drop in minutes and WS/48 after age 32. 2K isn't that far off.

The league is absolutely young. No dispute there. My issue is that it gets even younger...significantly younger. Pretty soon I should have the time to do it and I'll chart a comparison. Fairly confident 2014 and 2020 will be very different (as least when using default rosters).

Also don't think it needs a complete overhaul. If the non-physical stats were tweaked to drop more gradually (honestly I think you could slightly reduce the physical decline as well) I think things would be just about perfect.

I also have no issue with the age the typical player starts to decline. Sure, I'd like to see more variability but the age players begin their regression phase is right in line with the typical player. That age curve you posted looks good, right in line with what I've seen/come to expect.

If I'm reading it properly, though (definitely not a given), I don't see how that age curve is that close to 2k15. The curve shows that your average 20 year old is as good as he is in his age 35-36 season. The only possible way that could happen in 2k15 (assuming a player spends nearly his entire career under the 2k15 aging curve, so current veterans don't count) is if a player peaked at LeBron/Durant overall levels.

In 2k15, a 20 year old rookie that is 73 overall and peaks at 80 overall will be back to his rookie attributes around age 30. Obviously this will change a bit depending where he peaks, but even an 85 overall peak player (likely has been an all-star at some point) will be back to square one at 32. That age curve shows a steep drop after 32 like it should, but the only players I see (again, assuming they have gone through 2k15 aging almost their whole career) that are even receiving minutes at/after the age of 32 are guys who were at least all stars at some point. At least this is what I've seen with my testing/simming.

[joosegoose]

Quote: Originally Posted by swishfury

The decline maybe seen on the numbers but some players still play that well. Mostly the regression is on the physical aspect of the player depending on how much you play him together with the training intensity. They added physical attributes which contributes to the stats and if that changes whether +/- it affects the rating of the player.

The thing is, adjusting guys with training type/intensity to get different results is of little concern to me as the cpu has no control over that. Unless you do 30 team control (which I know some are more than willing to do) that's not going to affect how the league progresses/regresses. The same applies to how guys play--has no affect on the vast majority of games around the league that are simmed.

[mrprice33]

Quote: Originally Posted by joosegoose

The league is absolutely young. No dispute there. My issue is that it gets even younger...significantly younger. Pretty soon I should have the time to do it and I'll chart a comparison. Fairly confident 2014 and 2020 will be very different (as least when using default rosters). Also don't think it needs a complete overhaul. If the non-physical stats were tweaked to drop more gradually (honestly I think you could slightly reduce the physical decline as well) I think things would be just about perfect. I also have no issue with the age the typical player starts to decline. Sure, I'd like to see more variability but the age players begin their regression phase is right in line with the typical player. That age curve you posted looks good, right in line with what I've seen/come to expect. If I'm reading it properly, though (definitely not a given), I don't see how that age curve is that close to 2k15. The curve shows that your average 20 year old is as good as he is in his age 35-36 season. The only possible way that could happen in 2k15 (assuming a player spends nearly his entire career under the 2k15 aging curve, so current veterans don't count) is if a player peaked at LeBron/Durant overall levels. In 2k15, a 20 year old rookie that is 73 overall and peaks at 80 overall will be back to his rookie attributes around age 30. Obviously this will change a bit depending where he peaks, but even an 85 overall peak player (likely has been an all-star at some point) will be back to square one at 32. That age curve shows a steep drop after 32 like it should, but the only players I see (again, assuming they have gone through 2k15 aging almost their whole career) that are even receiving minutes at/after the age of 32 are guys who were at least all stars at some point. At least this is what I've seen with my testing/simming.

You are reading it correctly, and that would be an interesting test.