Does player experience matter? Veterans vs rookies?

[tarek]

I've read so much info on HC09 but am having trouble figuring out if this has been discussed before. I think ebon touches on it in his thread and I know he has a system where he continually has starters and their up and coming backups with the focus on player development. So with that, here are some questions:

All things being equal, does a players experience and age play a factor? E.g player A is a 24yr old 3rd year player, and player B is a 22year old rookie. Say they have near identical ratings and play knowledge of your playbook. The 'veteran' is ever so slightly a lesser player. So who will do better performance wise? There are arguments for both, and even real world considerations would differ based on whether a team is competing or purely rebuilding.

So that essentially means, is a veteran sometimes a better option by simple virtue of the fact that they have been in the league longer than a younger player:rookie?

[Skarecrow]

I have anecdotal evidence that seems to support both outlooks. I don't know that anybody has done (pseudo)scientific testing on this.

given that it is a video game, and video games are based on math, we have to go by the portions of the mathematical formulas that the developers have shared with us. We obviously don't have the exact algorithms they use to determine performance, but we do have (presumably) the numbers that they plug into those algorithms.

if the rookie and the veteran have similar numbers for physical development, intangible development, and playbook learning, I would assume that they'd perform similarly, since so far as I am aware "physical development, intangible development, and playbook learning" are the 3 (groups of) stats that are supposed to improve as a player becomes a veteran.

long story short, unless there is some hidden multiplier in the performance algorithms that give an extra bonus to veterans -purely because they are veterans and for no other reason-, I would expect players with similar stats should perform in a similar fashion.

[Byron Yatch]

I will say this much on the subject...

I have seen plenty of veterans come into the league on 08 and dominate(like ricky williams, shaun alexander, and a couple others). But the ONLY TIMES this has TRULY HAPPEN is when a COACHING STAFF enables it.

By that I mean. If you have a rookie with a high potential, or a veteran with a high overall, they should perform the exact same amount, as long as they have a good coaching staff.

ON A BAD COACHING STAFF THOUGH, its almost IMPERATIVE to have a vet who is already developed in order to get any kind of production.

In other words, if you have a decent staff, rookie vs vet doesnt matter, its the attributes like was stated earlier. ON A BAD STAFF THOUGH, you cant bet on being that successful(RIGHT AWAY) with a rookie, even with a high potential. Thats because he still has to develop and theres no one there to teach him the game. A vet already knows what he's capable of and does the job for any team.

Hope that helps....

[Mike3207]

Performance impacts all players on that team, the positional special skills impact all players at that position. No difference is made between rookie and veteran, both will be productive given a chance to start.

Look at the CPU teams like the Colts and Patriots-both are Play Knowledge teams. The get all players to learn their playbook, have the OC max out passing, DC max out defense, HC learn the basic and special coach skills, and all the players benefit.

Production has a bigger impact than experience. I'll see CPU teams bid on a high production player like Charles Tillman all day long, but ignore a player that has not reached 40 Production.

Age-well you will pay less and less years for a veteran over 32. Some of it is that speed players(HB,WR,DB) have their speed ratings drop, but also teams will go for the younger player since he will cost a lot less.