 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Game & Site Questions » Declining players
tysok
How do players decline?
It seems, as we've discussed, that players seem to get to about age 35 or 36 and just fall off the map and become useless. But how does ABE decide who or how much a player declines?
Judging from what I've seen I would say that every player just starts a major free fall at 34 or 35 regardless.
This seems more in line with an aging backup (bench) player. Wouldn't the "decline" of skills for a player be somewhat of the inverse of the "improvement" of skills for a player?
For instance, you have 35 year old C. He's going to decline of course, but by how much? If he gets 100 ABs all year he may take the kind of free fall we're seeing wholesale now, but if he was a full time player his skills should errode way more slowly.
This brings up another thought having to do with tanking a season. It seems that a 28 yo player shouldn't necessarily be able to stay constant through this season if he never plays (sitting him on the bench so the 18 yo can play).
This would probably be bigger to program, but very "real" in its application. Naturally if a player is good he has to continue playing to retain that level just as a bad player needs to play in order to attain that level. It would give a more representative curve to the players in all. If a 28 yo could lose some skill by sitting him too much it may deter wholesale tanking as well as possibly promote trading of a good bench player since he may end up useless later... (Basically the old "I want to play" type problem).
What brought this up is how little I worried about sitting these 30, 33, and 35 yo "B" overall rated pitchers... mainly the 30 yo though since the other 2 have sucked for a couple seasons... but still if I expected that the 33 yo could become a B- or C+ overall rating I may rather keep him pitching instead of pitching a staff of rookies. :)
Declining players
December 13, 2002 at 11:45PM View BBCode
I had just thought of this as I was glancing through my roster and I don't recall anything being posted onthe subject...How do players decline?
It seems, as we've discussed, that players seem to get to about age 35 or 36 and just fall off the map and become useless. But how does ABE decide who or how much a player declines?
Judging from what I've seen I would say that every player just starts a major free fall at 34 or 35 regardless.
This seems more in line with an aging backup (bench) player. Wouldn't the "decline" of skills for a player be somewhat of the inverse of the "improvement" of skills for a player?
For instance, you have 35 year old C. He's going to decline of course, but by how much? If he gets 100 ABs all year he may take the kind of free fall we're seeing wholesale now, but if he was a full time player his skills should errode way more slowly.
This brings up another thought having to do with tanking a season. It seems that a 28 yo player shouldn't necessarily be able to stay constant through this season if he never plays (sitting him on the bench so the 18 yo can play).
This would probably be bigger to program, but very "real" in its application. Naturally if a player is good he has to continue playing to retain that level just as a bad player needs to play in order to attain that level. It would give a more representative curve to the players in all. If a 28 yo could lose some skill by sitting him too much it may deter wholesale tanking as well as possibly promote trading of a good bench player since he may end up useless later... (Basically the old "I want to play" type problem).
What brought this up is how little I worried about sitting these 30, 33, and 35 yo "B" overall rated pitchers... mainly the 30 yo though since the other 2 have sucked for a couple seasons... but still if I expected that the 33 yo could become a B- or C+ overall rating I may rather keep him pitching instead of pitching a staff of rookies. :)
khakurat
it's the kind of thing you see mainly with injuries in real life, but oj anderson, jim plunkett, george blanda, sonny jergenson and rich gannon are all examples of players that one team or another had given up on and then went on to perform as well as they ever had or better with a different team. yeah, i know it's all football, but it's all i could come up with spur of the moment.
anyway, i'm not sure it'd be good to start penalizing players for not playing, because there really isn't a mechanism to give them a chance to come back. i do agree that player decline ought to be gradual for a bit before falling off completely.
December 14, 2002 at 03:59AM View BBCode
players definitely lose something by sitting, they are certainly apt to be rusty. however, they often are able to come back after not playing for a stretch, for whatever reason, and after some initial period weak periods of play, are able to perform at or near their old levels. not always though.it's the kind of thing you see mainly with injuries in real life, but oj anderson, jim plunkett, george blanda, sonny jergenson and rich gannon are all examples of players that one team or another had given up on and then went on to perform as well as they ever had or better with a different team. yeah, i know it's all football, but it's all i could come up with spur of the moment.
anyway, i'm not sure it'd be good to start penalizing players for not playing, because there really isn't a mechanism to give them a chance to come back. i do agree that player decline ought to be gradual for a bit before falling off completely.
jer2911
December 14, 2002 at 04:47PM View BBCode
I was just noticing the same thing tysok. I had been looking at some of the old (31) guys I had traded away a few seasons back and noticed that it wasnt until they turned 35 that they really started to decline. BUT, it may sort of be the inverse of the improvement curve, because they improve a lot 4 or more years before they reach their "prime" and then it almost levels out. So it does seem to work slightly the same way.
tysok
But the main thing was the wholesale decline. It doesn't seem that there's a difference between not playing and being an everyday player. Some real major league players can be productive even up to 40 yo, I haven't seen any here... but most of those 40 yo are close to everyday players... for instance I think (Molitor, Gwynn, Brett, Ryan). They were outstanding to begin with of course, but even the outstanding SD players seem to die at 36 (Sadowski on my team is an example... still rated as a solid player but couldn't hit off a tee earlier this season.
December 14, 2002 at 07:45PM View BBCode
That would be my point Khak, there's no way to get them back up so it's a major deterent to just sit them forever. It wouldn't be a huge number that they'd need, say if a hitter got less than 100 AB he would definately be a pure bench player... I have a couple platoon players that have 300 ABs each, enough to keep them sharp.But the main thing was the wholesale decline. It doesn't seem that there's a difference between not playing and being an everyday player. Some real major league players can be productive even up to 40 yo, I haven't seen any here... but most of those 40 yo are close to everyday players... for instance I think (Molitor, Gwynn, Brett, Ryan). They were outstanding to begin with of course, but even the outstanding SD players seem to die at 36 (Sadowski on my team is an example... still rated as a solid player but couldn't hit off a tee earlier this season.
khakurat
December 14, 2002 at 08:50PM View BBCode
point taken tsok. as to the declining players, are you saying that if a guy keeps playing regularly on past 34-35 he should have a shot at keeping his abilities, more or less in tact, and then be able to extend his career into his early forties? i could certainly see that. he might lose a step, maybe a little power, his arm might not be what it was, but he could still be productive, as you said. and, as you stated initially, it would give people a reason to keep guys like that in the game and not completely throw in the towel.
tysok
For an example, if a player starts declining at 35 yo. If he sits on the bench, maybe just 100 - 200 ABs he goes through a normal decline like we have, say a total of 20 pnts decline a year. But if he got up to 300 or so he may decline a total of 15 or 16. And if he were an everyday player with 400+ he may just get 9 or 10 pnts decline...
Basically exactly what you said. I definately think it shouldn't be a wholesale decline, but the same AB IP percent chance as we have with youngsters.
Perhaps the possible decline of a 28 yo would be something to look into with the "lesser" injuries question... where an injury hurts overall performance for a time and rebuilds again with experience.
December 14, 2002 at 11:02PM View BBCode
Exactly. The more he plays as he gets older the less he should decline comparitavely.For an example, if a player starts declining at 35 yo. If he sits on the bench, maybe just 100 - 200 ABs he goes through a normal decline like we have, say a total of 20 pnts decline a year. But if he got up to 300 or so he may decline a total of 15 or 16. And if he were an everyday player with 400+ he may just get 9 or 10 pnts decline...
Basically exactly what you said. I definately think it shouldn't be a wholesale decline, but the same AB IP percent chance as we have with youngsters.
Perhaps the possible decline of a 28 yo would be something to look into with the "lesser" injuries question... where an injury hurts overall performance for a time and rebuilds again with experience.
Jizzy
December 15, 2002 at 07:15AM View BBCode
Bert Naktenis said he's going to play 'til he's 50 then Jim Martin retorted That he will be a starter on the all-star team when he's 51. They're competitive like that. :)Pages: 1