Older Player Development

[endgame]

I'm aware this has been, and likely still is being, discussed but wanted to check in on any personal experiences. Can we safely say that a, let's say, 35-37 yr old player with an OVR 34 POT 79 will not likely change much?

I know this is driven largely by the initial character creation, which seems to overlook initial ages relative to OVR/POT gaps, but sooner or later some players do reach this kind of plateau. Granted, sometimes it's less obvious like a player sitting at 42/64 (and those may have altered over the years, I don't know). But as a general observation, do most of you consider this 'veteran' player status pretty much topped-out?

[Nutlaw]

Yeah, that's a very safe assumption.

[1998 Yankees]

I have often seen this in my game - see below for an example. At some point, I stop paying attention to potential ratings because it's just "too late" to achieve them, say, by the player's early 30's. After that, it's overall rating only that I look at.

Look at my example below. This pitcher is 37, still has average movement (ratings scale 20-80) but below average control and terrible stuff. Even the potentials for control and stuff are average. However, he still has great potential for movement and is excellent at fielding his postion. These numbers seem to be keeping his potential rating high. This fellow is a free agent; based on his actual ratings and age, I would not touch him with a ten-foot pole.

The way that I think of potential is just that, potential. Your example and mine below say to me "this guy has (had?) talent and could still be great if he wasn't being dragged down by the nagging injuries that come with advancing age." Then, of course, age catches up with him altogether and he no longer even has any potential. Eventually all numbers are red.

It's amazing how a willing mind, sold on this game, can rationalize what probably is a design flaw by imagining up a satisfactory resolution. My head scout, who has excellent ratings himself, should not be rating this player as having any potential whatsoever. Not at 37. He's too old to turn it around at this point. I have never seen anyone like this do so in my game, to answer your question.

[endgame]

I like the way you think. You articulate an ability to preserve a genuine human element to the gaming experience that I, personally, find essential.

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

...I stop paying attention to potential ratings because it's just "too late"...

Often the case with me as well, demonstrated by starting this thread, but find my threshold for patience waning. I've started, perhaps without merit, to lower that 'too late' point on an individual player basis that sometimes includes players as young as 26-28. On a related note, this age group can contain a good number of players who have the appearance of having met their ceilings by being at or within a point or two of their potential; often from the initial player creation; just as dead in the water, but on a different raft.

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

It's amazing how a willing mind, sold on this game, can rationalize what probably is a design flaw by imagining up a satisfactory resolution.

A worthy comment on the trick bag that is OOTP; both the beauty and potential - pardon the wordplay - for stunted evolution. What provokes the imagination adding richness to the experience can also generate the pattern of applying a panacea to shortcomings better addressed with loud voices of discontent. At times, it becomes difficult to balance the benefit of either path.

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

my head scout, who has excellent ratings himself, should not be rating this player as having any potential whatsoever.

Agreed. The scouting evaluations should, at a rather arbitrary but appropriate interval, determine whether age itself should drop the potential's ceiling across specific skills.

[endgame]

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that, on the other hand, I do look at potential as being that "possibility" - in older and younger player alike - of performance at that level in any given game. I've always enjoyed the idea that regardless of existing ratings, as IRL, a player in OOTP was always capable of producing a game or a season outside the realm of expectations, albeit an anomaly. In the current version, it's easier for me to take the imaginative leap during both a pre-game predictive look and a post-game evaluation examining whether a player truly demontrated his potential during that performance. In that light, I think the enduring existence of higher potentials provide additional meaning to the experience.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by endgame

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that, on the other hand, I do look at potential as being that "possibility" - in older and younger player alike - of performance at that level in any given game.

Actually, after giving it some thought, this is a better way of looking at it - "lingering potential," meaning that he is still capable of an outstanding performance, albeit rare. Overall, however, his performance will usually be poor. That's better than my rationalization of "nagging injuries."