Players peaking and declining too early? - Page 2

PSUColonel · 02-12-2010, 01:49 AM

What is the best modifiers if you are using feeders? Any consensus?

Markus Heinsohn · 02-12-2010, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

What is the best modifiers if you are using feeders? Any consensus?

It's a matter of personal preference, and also it makes no difference if you use feeders or not IMO. I always play & test with the default modifiers and like the results...

PSUColonel · 02-12-2010, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

It's a matter of personal preference, and also it makes no difference if you use feeders or not IMO. I always play & test with the default modifiers and like the results...

good to know. I'm currently using both aging at .600 & both development at .700, but I haven't really tested. My talent change is at 70, and I am using the default injury file at high (modern day)

Malleus Dei · 02-12-2010, 01:45 PM

Play with the settings until you find the ones you like best.

PSUColonel · 02-12-2010, 02:04 PM

That seems to be the response. I am just wondering what gives a realistic modern day result?

Malleus Dei · 02-12-2010, 06:55 PM

Run tests and see. One man's reasonable is another man's irritating

bailey · 02-12-2010, 11:06 PM

It's easy to run 100 year sims to determine if the career stats look right. I can look at the leaderboards. But how do you judge if careers are aging 'correctly'. I look at a few in the HOF to see where they 'peaked', but, I don't see any problem. Highest VORP year seems to be about 25-26, then after a decline, I see a few high VORP years after age 30. I use the defaults for everything, except K's, HBP, and BB are set to .900 and BABIP is lowered to .301. I don't use minor leagues or finances and stats look great!

Markus Heinsohn · 02-13-2010, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

That seems to be the response. I am just wondering what gives a realistic modern day result?

Well, even baseball 'experts' have no clue how aging/development in reality exactly works, no research has yet shown at what age players really peak or start to decline on average. They only have estimates (which is around the ages 27-29 usually), and OOTP recreates these very well with the default settings.

PSUColonel · 02-13-2010, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, even baseball 'experts' have no clue how aging/development in reality exactly works, no research has yet shown at what age players really peak or start to decline on average. They only have estimates (which is around the ages 27-29 usually), and OOTP recreates these very well with the default settings.

Those are exactly th ages of peak I am looking for Markus. And you say feeders won't make any difference?

Markus Heinsohn · 02-13-2010, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Those are exactly th ages of peak I am looking for Markus. And you say feeders won't make any difference?

Right.

PSUColonel · 02-13-2010, 07:58 AM

Here is what I think works best

Batter aging: .850

batter development: .850

Pitcher aging: .850

pitcher development: .800

joe_44850 · 02-21-2010, 08:35 AM

modifiers around .85 to .92 seem to work pretty well for me. The thing you have to realize, though, is that major league baseball (historically speaking) has fleshed out that most hitters and pitchers are not very consistent. You can hit .361 one season, and .243 the next (Norm Cash), or 50 home runs to 18, etc. etc. There have been very, very few consistent players over the course of a 15 year span (exception:Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb), so I don't mind the randomness at all. I feel like that makes things a bit more realistic, and when you do have a player that plays at a high level for 15 years or so, it is so unique you really value that even more. Nothing would be more boring than knowing your player that hit .285 last year would hit .284 - .287 the next. Aging, development, and randomness really help to offset predictability.

And of course, this is all subjective and just my opinion

02-12-2010, 11:06 PM	#27 (permalink)
bailey Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 428 Thanks: 19 Thanked 56x in 37 posts	It's easy to run 100 year sims to determine if the career stats look right. I can look at the leaderboards. But how do you judge if careers are aging 'correctly'. I look at a few in the HOF to see where they 'peaked', but, I don't see any problem. Highest VORP year seems to be about 25-26, then after a decline, I see a few high VORP years after age 30. I use the defaults for everything, except K's, HBP, and BB are set to .900 and BABIP is lowered to .301. I don't use minor leagues or finances and stats look great! __________________ FoolX: Las Vegas Wildcats

02-21-2010, 08:35 AM	#32 (permalink)
joe_44850 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 66 Thanks: 4 Thanked 15x in 11 posts	modifiers around .85 to .92 seem to work pretty well for me. The thing you have to realize, though, is that major league baseball (historically speaking) has fleshed out that most hitters and pitchers are not very consistent. You can hit .361 one season, and .243 the next (Norm Cash), or 50 home runs to 18, etc. etc. There have been very, very few consistent players over the course of a 15 year span (exception:Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb), so I don't mind the randomness at all. I feel like that makes things a bit more realistic, and when you do have a player that plays at a high level for 15 years or so, it is so unique you really value that even more. Nothing would be more boring than knowing your player that hit .285 last year would hit .284 - .287 the next. Aging, development, and randomness really help to offset predictability. And of course, this is all subjective and just my opinion __________________ Southerners are very strange about that war -- Shelby Foote

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-12-2010, 01:49 AM	#21 (permalink)
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,985 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 163 Thanked 234x in 140 posts	What is the best modifiers if you are using feeders? Any consensus?

02-12-2010, 02:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,985 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 163 Thanked 234x in 140 posts	That seems to be the response. I am just wondering what gives a realistic modern day result?

02-13-2010, 07:58 AM	#31 (permalink)
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,985 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 163 Thanked 234x in 140 posts	Here is what I think works best Batter aging: .850 batter development: .850 Pitcher aging: .850 pitcher development: .800