Quote:
Originally Posted by phightin
I rate by VORP so all of the top 20-30 pitchers are usually starters. Interesting enough the average age of top pitchers IRL has gotten considerably lower over time. Doing several sims the average age of the top 10 pitchers in the MLB for 2012 was 27 top 20 27.9. When you look at real life with guys like Hamels, Kershaw, Strasburg, etc it makes perfect sense. While guys like Halladay can certainly be effective into their mid-30s they are the exception rather than the rule.
I find with .375 and .900 for pitchers you get as close to a realistic distribution that you can. For instance the average age of the top 10 pitchers in 2035 was 27.3 top 20 was 28.5. There certainly were several starters in the top 42 of my league who were in their 30s about 15 in the top 42 and several in their mid to late 30s one even in their 40s. When looking at the overall top 105 pitchers through VORP the average of guys aged 30+ is 40%, you get that consistently with those settings. Also the peak for most guys is 27-29 which I can live with.
I pointed out the problem is though whether you have the settings at .375 .875 or use .900 there arent enough guys aged 33+ and 35+. However there is really no easy solution to this. If you use .875 for development I found there to be seasons where you had over 50% of pitchers in the top 105 for VORP aged 30+ and too many guys overall throughout the league pitching into their 40s. Pitchers even good ones with long careers should start to retire in their late 30s, 40 should be rare. This in my mind was way too many even if you got extra guys to cover the 33+ 35+ range.
With .900 I found it at least keeps the numbers down to 40% overall each year for the 30+ guys and close to a realistic distribution. While you still can not cover the age ranges 33+ 35+ guys at least are having realistic career spans and their peak is 27-32 which is good enough for me.
|
I didn't mean that the Top 10 list of pitchers are relievers. That list will almost always put starters on there, very rarely will you see a reliever on that list no matter how good they are. What I meant was, I found not enough very good/elite starters were in their 30s, but there were too many very good/elite relievers that were over 35. If you sort with just starters, you'll be hard pressed to find a highly rated 34+ player. But if you sort by all relievers, you'll find plenty highly rated 34+ players.
I'm curious, if you found that there were too many old old pitchers that were too effective, why did you decide to edit the pitcher development modifier instead of the pitching aging modifier?
In most cases, whenever I feel that old players are too effective for too long, I lower the aging modifier. Whenever, I feel that young players are too effective, then I lower the development modifier. You seemed to have done the opposite. Any reason for that?