Right aging and random talent modifiers for modern day MLB League

[CubbyFan23]

One major "issue" when it comes to all of this, is that in real life, a team like the Yankees will give at-bats to Derek Jeter until he's basically 100% worthless. In OOTP, they immediately recognize rating drops and will adjust playing time accordingly.

While there are guys like Jeter (killing the ball this year, but in past years) that could squeak out some .650 - .700 OPS seasons for another 4+ years, the AI will send them to the bench or cut them as soon as their ratings drop. Obviously, a slew of factors influence teams NOT doing this in real life, such as popularity, not having "ratings" that accurately portray a player at an exact point in time, etc.

[phightin]

Originally Posted by CubbyFan23

One major "issue" when it comes to all of this, is that in real life, a team like the Yankees will give at-bats to Derek Jeter until he's basically 100% worthless. In OOTP, they immediately recognize rating drops and will adjust playing time accordingly.

While there are guys like Jeter (killing the ball this year, but in past years) that could squeak out some .650 - .700 OPS seasons for another 4+ years, the AI will send them to the bench or cut them as soon as their ratings drop. Obviously, a slew of factors influence teams NOT doing this in real life, such as popularity, not having "ratings" that accurately portray a player at an exact point in time, etc.

Nice point and I agree with you about that. I guess the expectation for me anyway isn't that OOTP has to exactly mirror the real life age distribution, but just at least come somewhat close. The Jeter thing is a good example, but then there still certainly are productive players even stars in their mids 30s throughout the league. I don't need the game to have exactly that range but at least some more than it currently does now.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by CubbyFan23

One major "issue" when it comes to all of this, is that in real life, a team like the Yankees will give at-bats to Derek Jeter until he's basically 100% worthless. In OOTP, they immediately recognize rating drops and will adjust playing time accordingly.

While there are guys like Jeter (killing the ball this year, but in past years) that could squeak out some .650 - .700 OPS seasons for another 4+ years, the AI will send them to the bench or cut them as soon as their ratings drop. Obviously, a slew of factors influence teams NOT doing this in real life, such as popularity, not having "ratings" that accurately portray a player at an exact point in time, etc.

Very good point. This applies in many aspects for OOTP. People often ask OOTP to be smarter than real life but then criticize it for the unemotional good sense not to sign Pujols for 10 years at age 32. In OOTP IQ Jeter may have been waived well before hit 3000.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by phightin

Nice point and I agree with you about that. I guess the expectation for me anyway isn't that OOTP has to exactly mirror the real life age distribution, but just at least come somewhat close. The Jeter thing is a good example, but then there still certainly are productive players even stars in their mids 30s throughout the league. I don't need the game to have exactly that range but at least some more than it currently does now.

At the very least reduce aging mods to 0.900.

[Cras]

Originally Posted by RchW

At the very least reduce aging mods to 0.900.

After reading this heavy thread, that was going to be my first attempt. It seems that players need to last just a bit longer than they do. And it really came to my attention lately, where I had some stud players and once they hit 30, they started to fall apart. At first I was thinking this was due to injuries, where they just destroyed the guy's ability to keep it together and produce. But now I saw a trend where that wasnt so much the case, but rather the skills just were not there. I, being the sentimental schlep that I am, still kept them around, and just couldn't trade the guy who had been my ace for so long, who got his first injury of his career, and was never able to get it back. He now is in the bullpen, not at all possessing the talent/skill required to hold down a spot in the starting rotation.

It doesnt seem to far off, but just enought that it got my attention. I did consider that it was just a sample size issue, and just my rotten luck that these guys were falling apart earlier than I had expected, but there is some data here that definately points to careers petering out a bit earlier than they should.

This is a quality thread, no doubt.

[henry296]

One other thing I've noticed anecdotally is that young players especially top prospects get called up to be backup / utility players because their ratings are beter than the other backups. I'm not sure if that impacts development or not, but is part of why there are more younger players.

[phightin]

Went back over the data and found some more information that's even more compelling.

2012 MLB Top Hitters aged 30+ out of 105: 44 total equals 41%
2022 MLB Top Hitters aged 30+ out of 105: 25 total equals 23%!!!!!!!!!

That is one drastice decline. The thing I noticed when going through the actual numbers was that in 2012 you had a variety of age ranges in the 30+ category. For instance some were 30-32 but there were others that were 34-38 older. Not as many but a solid base to go off of.

In 2022 out of the 25 most were 30-32 with no one really above 34. I did think I saw one 34 but that was about it.

I'm trying a new sim with the new patch and age mods set to .900. Will give the results soon.

[henry296]

I ran that test last night with agin and development both at 0.9. Started a fictional 2012 MLB league and I know have history to 2045. How did you define top 105 players and I check my league.

[phightin]

Defined them through VORP

Interesting enough I ran another test with the new patch last night and got a younger trend and average age in 2012. I think this may be due to the new roster set but I plan on doing a third right now to make sure.

[Eiskrap]

I think you'll need to go a lot further than .900 aging.

Based on my latest with development at 1.000 and ageing at .150 my graphs look like the below (this is also with default injuries which seems like it might have an impact):





It still looks like the ability of the batters takes a hit at around age 34, however they hang on a lot better. And it certainly doesn't look like the ageing has gone too far.

Having a look around the league it looks a lot better as well. From the top 20 list the majority of these are still 24-30 however you get the occasional 34 pop up. There are a number of 33-36 year old players having good seasons hitting .280 with 25 HRs. I do also have a 43 year old who played a season at DH with a .240 .370 .440 line. He looks like an anomaly but I quite like having him around.

I'm going to look at pitchers now, but this is looking like a decent starting point.

[Cras]

wow, no kidding. .150 instead of .900?!? I didn't expect to see such a small change from such a drastic alteration of the modifier. Perhaps some more fidelity should be added to this system in the future.

[Eiskrap]

For pitching it may be that .150 aging is a little too far, but it doesn't look miles off:

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Eiskrap

I think you'll need to go a lot further than .900 aging.

Based on my latest with development at 1.000 and ageing at .150 my graphs look like the below (this is also with default injuries which seems like it might have an impact):





It still looks like the ability of the batters takes a hit at around age 34, however they hang on a lot better. And it certainly doesn't look like the ageing has gone too far.



Having a look around the league it looks a lot better as well. From the top 20 list the majority of these are still 24-30 however you get the occasional 34 pop up. There are a number of 33-36 year old players having good seasons hitting .280 with 25 HRs. I do also have a 43 year old who played a season at DH with a .240 .370 .440 line. He looks like an anomaly but I quite like having him around.

I'm going to look at pitchers now, but this is looking like a decent starting point.

I think you have to balance development vs aging. If development is too early players drop off early. This is why your aging modifier has to go so low. You can see that in the AB/age OOTP line.

[phightin]

Impressive stuff from everyone. Right now I'm going to see what .900 does but it may very well have to be .150 for ageing. I'm not sure how development would account for all of this by balancing it out by id rather not touch that default. I just do not want to make things more complicated than they already are, but if someone wants to try by all means.

I've run another 2012 sim and I've established some targets for the top hitters in the league. This is based on VORP

Targets for realistic ranges of top 105 batters based on VORP in modern day MLB setting:

Average Age: 28.5-29
Median: 28-29
Top 10: 27.5-28.2
Top 20: 27.8-28.2
Top 30: 27.7-28.4
Top 40: 28-28.7
Top 50: 28.3-29
Top 60: 28.5-29.2
Top 70: 28.3-29.4
Top 80: 28.65-29.4

These are the ranges for prime players. More Importantly though is looking at the percentage of players 30+ who are among the top 105 hitters in the league. Based on my findings the range would be:

Top 105 hitters 30+ based on modern day settings: 36-43 (34%-41%)

IMO 41% might be a bit too high, the ideal number seems to be right around 35-36%.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Eiskrap

...(this is also with default injuries which seems like it might have an impact)...

Absolutely. Lowering injuries from "Classic" to "Low" will do more to keep players productive longer than dropping the aging down to .5, maybe even to .15.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by phightin

Impressive stuff from everyone. Right now I'm going to see what .900 does but it may very well have to be .150 for ageing. I'm not sure how development would account for all of this by balancing it out by id rather not touch that default. I just do not want to make things more complicated than they already are, but if someone wants to try by all means.

I've run another 2012 sim and I've established some targets for the top hitters in the league. This is based on VORP

Targets for realistic ranges of top 105 batters based on VORP in modern day MLB setting:

Average Age: 28.5-29
Median: 28-29
Top 10: 27.5-28.2
Top 20: 27.8-28.2
Top 30: 27.7-28.4
Top 40: 28-28.7
Top 50: 28.3-29
Top 60: 28.5-29.2
Top 70: 28.3-29.4
Top 80: 28.65-29.4

These are the ranges for prime players. More Importantly though is looking at the percentage of players 30+ who are among the top 105 hitters in the league. Based on my findings the range would be:

Top 105 hitters 30+ based on modern day settings: 36-43 (34%-41%)

IMO 41% might be a bit too high, the ideal number seems to be right around 35-36%.

Jut to confirm I checked MLB 2011 using OPS+ and WAR and got 37% and 34% respectively. Over 40% might have been likely around 2005.

There is definitely a problem in your league(s). My perception is that the created players are way too good. This suppresses the use of 30+ players and is compounded by early drop off due to an early peak.

Regarding Dev and Aging modifiers, I've played hundreds of seasons and never had to go more than 15% plus or minus on these modifiers. To me this is a big red light that something is wrong with player creation or possibly injuries are destroying 30+ players. I don't think the modifiers themselves are the root cause.

Just my

PS I have the opposite problem in my recent league where 49% of the top 105 batters are 30+. This matches well with the results on the age distribution curve.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by RchW

PS I have the opposite problem in my recent league where 49% of the top 105 batters are 30+. This matches well with the results on the age distribution curve.

What setting was this at for age/dev?

[joefromchicago]

I think the problem (if there is a problem) was identified by Cubbyfan: the players don't age too quickly, they just get benched by the AI as soon as their skills start to diminish. As long as everyone is running simulations on this issue, try this: set every AI manager to "favor veterans" in their strategy preferences and see what happens.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by oman19

What setting was this at for age/dev?

See below. That is a little misleading as I tweak it once every 5-10 years. I think the Dev speed was 0.850 earlier which has led to my lack of 20 somethings.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I think the problem (if there is a problem) was identified by Cubbyfan: the players don't age too quickly, they just get benched by the AI as soon as their skills start to diminish. As long as everyone is running simulations on this issue, try this: set every AI manager to "favor veterans" in their strategy preferences and see what happens.

Another good point.