Regression is Still Really Bad
-
I've had numerous instances of players that are in their late 20s-early 30s for no reason just begin to regress. Even players that have only played 6 or 7 seasons and won an MVP are regressing by upwards of 10 overall points per season. I don't think this was what was intended with the regression system for 25 and some tweaks might need to be looked at.
-
There is a age progression/regression dice roll for each player. That's the reason.
-
I've heard of the 10 year cliff from past seasons. So, guys like Soto will take a big dump at 29/30 regardless of how they are playing.
-
@StinkyMcPooter_XBL said in Regression is Still Really Bad:
I've heard of the 10 year cliff from past seasons. So, guys like Soto will take a big dump at 29/30 regardless of how they are playing.
Not always. It's random. Dice roll.
-
The saving grace is that in Franchise at least one can go in and manually adjust the attributes of any and all players.
That said, I suppose this issue has been raised several times over the years. I really don't know how SDS could implement regression in players without incurring some degree of upset feelings. However, players in MLB do in fact often experience regression after six or seven seasons with the MLB team, especially if they spent two or three previous seasons laboring in the minors.
Therefore, it cannot be claimed that SDS's model for regression "has no reason" behind it. Certainly with pitchers, today's max effort game is causing pitchers to break down after only three or four seasons, which is why we've likely seen the end of the 300-game winning SP and likely are going to see the demise of pitchers getting huge financial deals in free agency, as well over half the contracts so awarded end up as a lead weight hung across the neck of the team that paid the money.
The reality for even position players is almost as grim. In the modern era of baseball, starting way back in 1902, there have been about 6,500 position players who have suited up for an MLB team. That's over the course of 121 years, so it's amazing that the tally is that small, but the math makes sense as that ratios out to about 54 players per season who cracked an MLB lineup as a position player. Even if we use the 30 team current format, that is 1.8 positional player rookies cracking a lineup for the first time.
Each of these rookie players can expect a total career length of 5.6 years, with one in five having just a single year career! The reason why MLB players still consider the market skewed is that it takes six years for a player to reach free agency, which means for the majority of players, they never play long enough to reach free agency. Their first three years of a contract is a renewable rookie form. Seasons four, five and six feature binding arbitration, and so for the majority of players, these two to three years represent the most likely and only time they get to advance the pay scale of their contract past the renewable structure.
The influence of Sabermetrics has diminished the perception of value in retaining veteran players past their free agency. Certainly there are some players who retain excellent talent and production and earn big money in free agency, but these are the exceptions -- the top ten percent at best. There are also a ton of six year veterans who have gone through all three years of arbitration contracts, can still outperform most every rookie, but are not being signed by MLB teams because their price tag isn't deemed worth the extra WAR they would bring to the roster.
With these hard and true real life numbers, it would seem that SDS has tried hard to mimic real life in their game code. It seems harsh, but if you look at yearly rosters, you'll find that even an elite World Series winning team -- say the 2021 Braves -- will within just a few seasons have nearly all of those players gone from their rosters, most not even playing professional baseball. There is only one player remaining with the Braves from that 2021 roster -- Ozzie Albies. He is 28 and has earned nine years of MLB service time. Still, his production is showing clear signs of regression.
-
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in Regression is Still Really Bad:
The saving grace is that in Franchise at least one can go in and manually adjust the attributes of any and all players.
That said, I suppose this issue has been raised several times over the years. I really don't know how SDS could implement regression in players without incurring some degree of upset feelings. However, players in MLB do in fact often experience regression after six or seven seasons with the MLB team, especially if they spent two or three previous seasons laboring in the minors.
Therefore, it cannot be claimed that SDS's model for regression "has no reason" behind it. Certainly with pitchers, today's max effort game is causing pitchers to break down after only three or four seasons, which is why we've likely seen the end of the 300-game winning SP and likely are going to see the demise of pitchers getting huge financial deals in free agency, as well over half the contracts so awarded end up as a lead weight hung across the neck of the team that paid the money.
The reality for even position players is almost as grim. In the modern era of baseball, starting way back in 1902, there have been about 6,500 position players who have suited up for an MLB team. That's over the course of 121 years, so it's amazing that the tally is that small, but the math makes sense as that ratios out to about 54 players per season who cracked an MLB lineup as a position player. Even if we use the 30 team current format, that is 1.8 positional player rookies cracking a lineup for the first time.
Each of these rookie players can expect a total career length of 5.6 years, with one in five having just a single year career! The reason why MLB players still consider the market skewed is that it takes six years for a player to reach free agency, which means for the majority of players, they never play long enough to reach free agency. Their first three years of a contract is a renewable rookie form. Seasons four, five and six feature binding arbitration, and so for the majority of players, these two to three years represent the most likely and only time they get to advance the pay scale of their contract past the renewable structure.
The influence of Sabermetrics has diminished the perception of value in retaining veteran players past their free agency. Certainly there are some players who retain excellent talent and production and earn big money in free agency, but these are the exceptions -- the top ten percent at best. There are also a ton of six year veterans who have gone through all three years of arbitration contracts, can still outperform most every rookie, but are not being signed by MLB teams because their price tag isn't deemed worth the extra WAR they would bring to the roster.
With these hard and true real life numbers, it would seem that SDS has tried hard to mimic real life in their game code. It seems harsh, but if you look at yearly rosters, you'll find that even an elite World Series winning team -- say the 2021 Braves -- will within just a few seasons have nearly all of those players gone from their rosters, most not even playing professional baseball. There is only one player remaining with the Braves from that 2021 roster -- Ozzie Albies. He is 28 and has earned nine years of MLB service time. Still, his production is showing clear signs of regression.
The problem with regression in this game "mimicking real life" is the draft is far from mimicking real life. We get 7 new players a year. In real life teams get 20 draft picks and a pool of money to sign international players which usually is around 40. That's 60 new players every year in real life. We get 7. When you have 60 a year you can better afford to have 90% of them fail.
-
@sullivanspring_MLBTS said in Regression is Still Really Bad:
@PriorFir4383355_XBL said in Regression is Still Really Bad:
The saving grace is that in Franchise at least one can go in and manually adjust the attributes of any and all players.
That said, I suppose this issue has been raised several times over the years. I really don't know how SDS could implement regression in players without incurring some degree of upset feelings. However, players in MLB do in fact often experience regression after six or seven seasons with the MLB team, especially if they spent two or three previous seasons laboring in the minors.
Therefore, it cannot be claimed that SDS's model for regression "has no reason" behind it. Certainly with pitchers, today's max effort game is causing pitchers to break down after only three or four seasons, which is why we've likely seen the end of the 300-game winning SP and likely are going to see the demise of pitchers getting huge financial deals in free agency, as well over half the contracts so awarded end up as a lead weight hung across the neck of the team that paid the money.
The reality for even position players is almost as grim. In the modern era of baseball, starting way back in 1902, there have been about 6,500 position players who have suited up for an MLB team. That's over the course of 121 years, so it's amazing that the tally is that small, but the math makes sense as that ratios out to about 54 players per season who cracked an MLB lineup as a position player. Even if we use the 30 team current format, that is 1.8 positional player rookies cracking a lineup for the first time.
Each of these rookie players can expect a total career length of 5.6 years, with one in five having just a single year career! The reason why MLB players still consider the market skewed is that it takes six years for a player to reach free agency, which means for the majority of players, they never play long enough to reach free agency. Their first three years of a contract is a renewable rookie form. Seasons four, five and six feature binding arbitration, and so for the majority of players, these two to three years represent the most likely and only time they get to advance the pay scale of their contract past the renewable structure.
The influence of Sabermetrics has diminished the perception of value in retaining veteran players past their free agency. Certainly there are some players who retain excellent talent and production and earn big money in free agency, but these are the exceptions -- the top ten percent at best. There are also a ton of six year veterans who have gone through all three years of arbitration contracts, can still outperform most every rookie, but are not being signed by MLB teams because their price tag isn't deemed worth the extra WAR they would bring to the roster.
With these hard and true real life numbers, it would seem that SDS has tried hard to mimic real life in their game code. It seems harsh, but if you look at yearly rosters, you'll find that even an elite World Series winning team -- say the 2021 Braves -- will within just a few seasons have nearly all of those players gone from their rosters, most not even playing professional baseball. There is only one player remaining with the Braves from that 2021 roster -- Ozzie Albies. He is 28 and has earned nine years of MLB service time. Still, his production is showing clear signs of regression.
The problem with regression in this game "mimicking real life" is the draft is far from mimicking real life. We get 7 new players a year. In real life teams get 20 draft picks and a pool of money to sign international players which usually is around 40. That's 60 new players every year in real life. We get 7. When you have 60 a year you can better afford to have 90% of them fail.
Now that is an outstanding point. I give you that one entirely!
