[kq76]

You've all heard it before:

OOTP Customer: All my players are basically dying once they hit 35. This is not realistic!
OOTP Staffer: It is realistic. Look at the historical data of how many players played in the majors after that age.

The problem, however, is not so much how many of those old players there still are in the majors. It's how good those old players still are. In OOTP those vets might still be on a roster, but in real life, if those old players are not playing, then they're usually passed on for younger cheaper players with at least some potential. It's not enough to just look at the curve and say, "well, the tail stretches out as far as it should". You need to look at the curve in 3 dimensions.

I guess what goes on in the game is that every day the game asks itself whether each player improves, degrades, or stays the same. Usually they stay the same, but every once in awhile you'll see them change.

What I think doesn't go on is that the decision of whether the player improves, degrades, or stays the same differs with each player of the same age. That is, I think the chances of whether Joe Blow at age 35 changes are the exact same chances that every other player at that same age changes.

People are not like that though. Whether it be by blessing at birth, how we take care of ourselves afterwards, or some external factor, we each age differently.

So, what I think the game needs is a longevity factor. Then, when the game asks itself whether that player improves, degrades, or stays the same that day, it should factor in both the player's age and his current longevity factor. The better a player's longevity factor, the less likely he'll degrade that day.

Some people have also noted that there's a similar problem at the other end of the curve. Well, you could do the same thing and call it the emergence factor. The better the player's emergence factor, the more likely he'll develop that day.

Whether these ratings or factors are visible or hidden, I don't care. I just think they might help.