Originally Posted by Mets Man
Thanks for the research, very useful.
I've been toying around with these settings myself. I don't really go by hard data in my analysis, so I imagine I would be less accurate than you.
But first difference, I have my AI Evaluation Settings as: 32/44/16/8 and the Current Ratings turned off, but Star Overall Ratings on. The reason being, I want to make it like real life where most people judge current ability on current performance. Yes, scouting has a bit to do with how good you think a player current is, but actual statistical performance has a way of swaying/biasing opinion. That's why I also have the Star Overall Ratings take into account AI Evaluations, so good statistics will inflate a player's overall value. Also, when it comes to contract time, I feel that in real life, statistics are what people mostly go by when assessing how much a person is worth, not necessarily scouts opinion.
My development modifiers as:
Batting Ageing: .235
Batting Development: 1.000
Pitcher Ageing: .375
Pitcher Development: .880
Talent Change: 38
My justification? Well, I feel that batters drop off a cliff too predictably once they hit their 30s. Yes, I suppose in real life, most batters do drop off in their 30s. I just feel that I like to still have some sustaining ability for some players into their early 30s. With .250, I felt that 30+ year old players were obsolete, so when it came to long term contract time, you never bothered to give a contract to a player into their 30s. I wanted it such that you'd have some of the best players in your league to be 31 to 32 years old. And maybe have a few players who were still playing at a high level when they're 33-36, although rarely. I guess its my old school thinking. When I think about players in their 80s like Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn and a few others that were still hitting over .300 into their mid to late 30s. Also, the steroid era with old guys still performing (the steroid era went a little too far with aging stars).
I suppose modern day, people are aging very quickly so that most people start to become horrible by 32 or 33 years old.
With the pitching modifiers, I didn't want to go as far as you did in terms of old pitchers. I like that I have old pitchers that can still be effective. From what I understand, pitchers develop later than batters in real life. I'm wondering, don't they have sustaining ability into their 30s? Aren't old pitchers (I mean 32-34 years old) still very effective in real life? I'm thinking about Roy Halladay the last couple of years.
I always thought that a ballplayer's (Batter and Pitcher) prime was in the ages 27-32 roughly. So, I would naturally assume that a player who is 32 years old would remain elite. I found that with your development settings (.250, 1.000, .375, .900), most players that were 31 and 32 were way off their primes and into the decline phase. To the extent that all the Top Players in the league were between 25-29. Almost nobody in their 30s cracked the top list of players.
Finally, I don't like the Talent Change Randomness, I find it's way too prevalent on the high settings. I fiddled around with it and even found that lowering to as low as 30 still produces lots of randomness. I do like diamonds in the rough and some late draft picks, sleepers becoming stars. But I don't like the fluctuations that occur with high settings because it makes it such that there aren't many consistent good performers, to the extent that you don't become accustomed to the good players in your league because they keep changing so often. I like having household names in my league with occasional new household names emerging and some players having off years. But overall, I feel that game is almost random enough to produce that even without the Talent Change Randomness.
|