The File

[AndyP]

Any ideas what is going on? I can only speak for my team, but based on other people's comments I get the impression that I'm not the only one who thinks things are a little wonky right now.

Why are players under the age of 23 so regularly peaking?

Why are injuries and injury ratings so out of proportion and/or falling inexplicably?

Why are player ratings, for no rhyme or reason, diving?

why did so many prospects suddenly peak last spring training?

I might be missing more, but just trying to great a brainstorming session to fix some things.

My biggest beef right now - functionally developing players is completely out of whack. The standard player development model (60 A ball, 65 AA, 70 AAA) works somewhat, but guys are rushing through it so fast and then sometimes backpedaling or stalling out even though they're are demolishing at that level- that I really don't envy anyone who takes a rebuilding approach. And then sometimes, completely out of left field (Brett Wallace is my example of this) some guy becomes a super star. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like I have any real control over it - it's just completely randomn.

[Scott]

I dont understand how you guys don't understand this.

BBM 2011 sucks. Plain and simple

[AndyP]

I dont understand how you guys don't understand this.

BBM 2011 sucks. Plain and simple

lol, I sure hope that isn't what we conclude looking in to this. That would not be good for the future of the league.

I'm looking over some of the settings and what not, this thread is by no means to bitch or complain - but some of these things that have happened this season need to be looked at to make sure they don't continue or become worse.

[hokeyrules]

well I am in another leageut aht doesn't use 2011 because of the reasons you said. They use 2010 instead, because it seems to solve the problems that were listed. However I also know you can not switch to 2010 file now, so it is best to just let things ride out, it affects everyone, aka Jemile Weeks and Stanton for me.

[mike]

well I am in another leageut aht doesn't use 2011 because of the reasons you said. They use 2010 instead, because it seems to solve the problems that were listed. However I also know you can not switch to 2010 file now, so it is best to just let things ride out, it affects everyone, aka Jemile Weeks and Stanton for me.

It does what it does to keep teh percentages right of player overall. The only to change that would be to fix teh percentages which we can do. Although then inflation will happen. Try getting ahold of Houston GM on the sportsmogul boards he knows a lot more about this game than I do especially when it comes to that.

---

Also I'm wondering when you made the file who's rosters did you use. If you used Clay's thats why everyone and their grandma peaks at 24 or and then declines at 32 exactly. If you uses HGM's as the base then thats why you are seeing the declines because the game is still trying to compensate.

[Jordan]

Andy: I understand what you said about players rushing through the minors so quickly. I have an infielder, Nathan Cussen, he was hitting about .350 in every level (I had just drafted him) I had to keep moving him up even though I didnt want to. I let him sit on the majors bench in sept. during the 40man call up, and even though he never had an AB it dropped his peak a lot. Rebuilding here is really though to do, idk how Dejota did it.

Mike: I believe Dejota spent a lot of time editing the rosters before the season started.

[dejota]

Why are players under the age of 23 so regularly peaking?

Why are injuries and injury ratings so out of proportion and/or falling inexplicably?

Why are player ratings, for no rhyme or reason, diving?

why did so many prospects suddenly peak last spring training?

I haven't noticed players peaking under the age of 23 very much. That said no baseball player peaks before 23, IMO. I have been annoyed by the mass peaking during the offseason, but most everyone has a bday during that period or no bday and therefore defaults to Jan 1st. I increased the avg peak start by 10% but it seems each 10% only counts for 1/2 of a year so it may have done absolutely nothing.

In the original file setting edits I set each 'Variation During Development" to +10% (Aging Randomness, Draft Predictability, and HOF Careers)

I made a mistake by increasing the aging randomness, it's why we're experiencing seemingly more random career paths. I think if we lowered that setting a bit our player's career projections would be a bit more predictable.

Lastly, I didn't notice players peaking during ST as much as the sim from FA to ST am I missing something?

Thoughts?

[dejota]

I think I've found the issue.

When the file was created we had 2995 players on the file. Not even three years later we're down to 2004 players. Here's how the losses break down:

Total: -991
90+ Overall (2.2%): -21.8
80-89 Overall (13.3%): -131.8
90+ Peak (7.9%): -78.3
80-89 Peak (33.2%) -329

So basically every team has lost at least 1 90s player, 4 80s players, 2.5 top prospects and 10 average to above average prospects. I'd imagine have to drop over 500 players across the board would supersede much of the player development model Clay has spent the past decade+ working on.

I'm currently simming our original file 20 years into the future (so no players will still be around or effective enough to draw any conclusions) to see where the total player population is at that point. Until then I'm not sure we draw too many conclusions about sliders, etc.

[dejota]

Okay, upon even further review it would appear that if I'm right about the population being the culprit for the seemingly random nature of the file then we should be out of the woods. We're currently a little overinflated still, but after simming into the future it seems the game levels out with a total population of about 2200 (+/- 150) which would mean the massive exodus of players should be coming to an end which means the normal talent projection models will take back over as the primary talent determinate.

In layman's terms the game's new dropoff feature is kicking into overdrive since we've lost 500 players a year over the past two seasons. Therefore, it's overriding and erasing many of the player's positive developments. As a result we see what seems like completely random and consistent dropping off of talent. That would suck if it were for no reason, but for every 100 players that retire (no matter what their rating) we 3 90s players must drop.

The point is, like we predicted when the original talent questions were raised, it'll take about 3 years for everything to return to the normal levels. If you look at the base file on BBM you'll see there's only 2000 players. The entire model is dependent on having about that quantity of players, so by starting w/ 3000 we forced it to do too much.

Thoughts?

[mike]

Like we discussed in the chatbox. I'm pretty sure it was the inflation (which is what I had said when I had joined). Although I didn't realized we have a population inflation aswell. Since that problem is almost gone I think we are good to go. If anyone is really still worried just don't pick up any 90 rated players because they are slightly inflated right now by a percentage point so we will see a few drop down to an 89 or lower.