The Longevity Factor: The Key to Unlocking the Aging Curve

kq76 · 04-18-2006, 02:05 PM

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.

andymac · 04-18-2006, 02:17 PM

I disagree. When the game looks for players to either improve or degrade it most certainly looks at age. The main problem I have seen is that the old players degrade far too rapidly. Instead of a slow degrade starting at age 31-32ish...they get to 35-36 and drop off a cliff.

kq76 · 04-18-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

I disagree. When the game looks for players to either improve or degrade it most certainly looks at age. The main problem I have seen is that the old players degrade far too rapidly. Instead of a slow degrade starting at age 31-32ish...they get to 35-36 and drop off a cliff.

I should have made myself clearer. I think it does currently look at age. I just think that that's all it looks at.

Even if the decline started earlier (I'm not sure there is a problem 31-35), you could still have a problem with no quality players after a certain age without a longevity factor.

mrbill · 04-18-2006, 02:45 PM

Right, there's two ways to look at a player who has managed to get to 37 without declining:

1) The OOTP6 way - He's just gotten lucky on every coin flip until now, but his chance of a talent drop today is the same as every other 37 year old that may already be in decline

2) The "longevity factor" way - He's got some personal characteristic that has given him better odds of not losing talent, so he's gotten somewhat lucky to not decline by now, but he's also got a better chance of keeping his talent than the 37 year old that's already falling apart

This would give the historical simmers a way to keep the 42 year old Rocket around longer than 3 months. Obviously he has a special ability to not break down, and what takes him out of the game is going to be himself and not his physical condition.

andymac · 04-18-2006, 03:06 PM

Ah, ok. I understand what you are saying now. I'm not sure if a longevity rating is the way to go, but there probably does need to be some sort of adjustment to the aging algorhythms.

sean-patin · 04-18-2006, 03:15 PM

there at least needs to be some improvement for the rare specimen (actually, maybe not so rare anymore) such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Julio Franco..... guys who can stay around basically forever and still be good (w/ the exception of Franco above, but he was still productive at 47!)....

dodgecharger1968 · 04-18-2006, 05:48 PM

One thing that's bugged me, and I'd like to know if anyone has numbers on this, but when guys decline, isn't their eye/patience the last thing to go? For that matter, isn't this something that correlates with age (maturity, experience, umpire respect, pitcher respect, more pivotal lineup position...) as much as any "natural" talent? I don't know, it just seems kinda funny to be looking at 2 17 year-old kids with a 12 in eye, and saying this one's got an 8 talent there, and that one'll never improve much.

dankrzyz · 04-18-2006, 06:41 PM

I agree that decline is first seen or most drastic in particular categories or characteristics. Example: SP doesn't have the endurance and pitch speed later in his career, but continues to be effective. I think we could all think of a few examples like this. I think that it sometimes comes out in previous versions of OOTP, but I wonder if that's just a coincidence. Is there some sort of method, if even mild?

But does this carry over into what I call "personality" attributes - like team loyalty, wants to play for winner, etc? It's quite common for a player to be loyal to his team through his career, but then get a big bump into "wants to play for winner" as his career winds down.

Dogzilla · 04-20-2006, 08:35 PM

Looking at baseball-reference.com, it's amazing to me how many average to good players decline and retire at age 32-35. I guess if they start declining even a little, they can be replaced by a 23-year-old making the league minimum.
But there are a lot of exceptions, and I hope the programmers take this into account--some players are still improving in their early 30's, and some see no significant decline until much later.

swampdragon · 04-20-2006, 11:58 PM

The cliff is one of the worst features of OOTP6. I would echo the desire to do something about it in the 2006 release.

mbd · 04-22-2006, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Looking at baseball-reference.com, it's amazing to me how many average to good players decline and retire at age 32-35. I guess if they start declining even a little, they can be replaced by a 23-year-old making the league minimum.
But there are a lot of exceptions, and I hope the programmers take this into account--some players are still improving in their early 30's, and some see no significant decline until much later.

Definitely need to fix the "cliff". And definitely need to give each player their own "aging curve". I think even Microsoft Baseball advertised this about their franchise engine.

The fact that 36-year-olds on average perform worse than 34-year-olds doesn't mean they should all drop off a cliff at the same time. Roger Clemens and Julio Franco are real people. The most frustrating thing about "the cliff" is importing a league like 1998 and watching Roger dwindle to nothingness instead of at least having a shot at pitching for 8 more great seasons.

Aordolin · 04-22-2006, 09:44 PM

i dont think there is a problem with the way way players are aging. I think I have seen a realistic number of late 30s 40ish players in my leagues. The only issue I have is that everyone retires practically before they can get there, even the good ones so you never see a good one because they all quit. So fix the the retirement logic, the aging is pretty good imo.

Cras · 04-24-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aordolin

i dont think there is a problem with the way way players are aging. I think I have seen a realistic number of late 30s 40ish players in my leagues. The only issue I have is that everyone retires practically before they can get there, even the good ones so you never see a good one because they all quit. So fix the the retirement logic, the aging is pretty good imo.

I would like to see them remove retirement completly. Have a guy file for retirement and have a retirement pool, much like the FA pool. That way you can go back, hire them as a coach, or even bait them out of retirement. Maybe you can delete them from the pool after X amount of years they go without getting a new baseball job, as player/coach/scout/manager/etc. X can be set in the options menu.

andymac · 04-24-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cras

I would like to see them remove retirement completly. Have a guy file for retirement and have a retirement pool, much like the FA pool. That way you can go back, hire them as a coach, or even bait them out of retirement. Maybe you can delete them from the pool after X amount of years they go without getting a new baseball job, as player/coach/scout/manager/etc. X can be set in the options menu.

Not a bad idea. I am assuming these guys are going to be sitting in the database anyway, so it shouldn't really bloat the league file or anything.

Splitter24 · 04-25-2006, 06:30 AM

In EHM you can hire an aging player to be a coach or scout as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in OOTP at some point, if not in the initial release.

f.montoya · 04-25-2006, 06:59 AM

Markus has stated that there are now hidden ratings such as work ethic. I would believe that this would be perfectly suited to attaining a believably extended career if coupled with avoiding injuries to some extent. We all know that players in any sport, like Karl Malone, with an excellent work ethic, can make long careers for themsleves.

RonCo · 04-25-2006, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f.montoya

Markus has stated that there are now hidden ratings such as work ethic. I would believe that this would be perfectly suited to attaining a believably extended career if coupled with avoiding injuries to some extent. We all know that players in any sport, like Karl Malone, with an excellent work ethic, can make long careers for themsleves.

When did Markus say that? I must have missed it. I've always heard that Markus has said there were no hidden ratings.

f.montoya · 04-25-2006, 09:19 AM

He said it. Trust me. But the bigger picture is how to get the rare "special" players to 40+ without it just being random. Also, getting players to have more gradual deterioration of skills beginning in their early 30's. Now, if there's a rating such as "work ethic", it would make sense that players with the best work ethic could prolong their careers beyond the norm. Whether this is Markus' intention or not isn't clear yet. We'll just have to wait and see.

Bluenoser · 04-25-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aordolin

i dont think there is a problem with the way way players are aging. I think I have seen a realistic number of late 30s 40ish players in my leagues. The only issue I have is that everyone retires practically before they can get there, even the good ones so you never see a good one because they all quit. So fix the the retirement logic, the aging is pretty good imo.

I agree, I don't see a problem at all. The numbers look realistic to me.

The thing with saying this -

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd

The most frustrating thing about "the cliff" is importing a league like 1998 and watching Roger dwindle to nothingness instead of at least having a shot at pitching for 8 more great seasons.

- is, you have the realize the game doesn't have one iota who Roger Clemens is, it doesn't recognize names. So if you import a 1998 season and Roger Clemens dwindles at 35 while someone like Sidney Ponson sticks around to 41 or 42 then the game is functioning properly because the realism of some players lasting into their 40's is there.

RonCo · 04-25-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceM

you have the realize the game doesn't have one iota who Roger Clemens is, it doesn't recognize names. So if you import a 1998 season and Roger Clemens dwindles at 35 while someone like Sidney Ponson sticks around to 41 or 42 then the game is functioning properly because the realism of some players lasting into their 40's is there.

If a player has a rating for "work ethic" and it's being used to prolong careers, then one can say that the game _does_ recognize those players. Call him Roger or call him Sidney, it doesn't matter. For a historical simmer, it seems that it would be important that a rating like this (if it exists) be made editable.

I'm still interested in where Markus said a longevity code existed...not that I don't trust anyone, but it would be interesting to parse his comments myself.

04-18-2006, 02:05 PM	#1
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,001	The Longevity Factor: The Key to Unlocking the Aging Curve 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. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

04-18-2006, 02:17 PM	#2
andymac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Effingham, IL Posts: 5,725	I disagree. When the game looks for players to either improve or degrade it most certainly looks at age. The main problem I have seen is that the old players degrade far too rapidly. Instead of a slow degrade starting at age 31-32ish...they get to 35-36 and drop off a cliff. __________________ June Madness: Links FTB: andymac

04-18-2006, 02:45 PM	#4
mrbill All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: LA, CA Posts: 982	Right, there's two ways to look at a player who has managed to get to 37 without declining: 1) The OOTP6 way - He's just gotten lucky on every coin flip until now, but his chance of a talent drop today is the same as every other 37 year old that may already be in decline 2) The "longevity factor" way - He's got some personal characteristic that has given him better odds of not losing talent, so he's gotten somewhat lucky to not decline by now, but he's also got a better chance of keeping his talent than the 37 year old that's already falling apart This would give the historical simmers a way to keep the 42 year old Rocket around longer than 3 months. Obviously he has a special ability to not break down, and what takes him out of the game is going to be himself and not his physical condition. __________________ UBL - Best Online League Evar! - Los Angeles Dodgers: 25 seasons, 13 NL West titles, 4 WC, 8 NL Titles, 5-time Champs LBB v5 league (retired) - Detroit Tigers/Commish: 19 seasons, 18 straight AL Central titles, 2006, 2008, 2014, 2015 Champs! NGBL v6 league (dead) - Texas Rangers: 10 seasons, 4 AL South titles, 2 Wild Cards, one WS app

04-18-2006, 03:06 PM	#5
andymac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Effingham, IL Posts: 5,725	Ah, ok. I understand what you are saying now. I'm not sure if a longevity rating is the way to go, but there probably does need to be some sort of adjustment to the aging algorhythms. __________________ June Madness: Links FTB: andymac

04-18-2006, 06:41 PM	#8
dankrzyz Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 305	I agree that decline is first seen or most drastic in particular categories or characteristics. Example: SP doesn't have the endurance and pitch speed later in his career, but continues to be effective. I think we could all think of a few examples like this. I think that it sometimes comes out in previous versions of OOTP, but I wonder if that's just a coincidence. Is there some sort of method, if even mild? But does this carry over into what I call "personality" attributes - like team loyalty, wants to play for winner, etc? It's quite common for a player to be loyal to his team through his career, but then get a big bump into "wants to play for winner" as his career winds down. Last edited by dankrzyz; 04-18-2006 at 06:42 PM.

04-18-2006, 03:15 PM	#6
sean-patin Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 205	there at least needs to be some improvement for the rare specimen (actually, maybe not so rare anymore) such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Julio Franco..... guys who can stay around basically forever and still be good (w/ the exception of Franco above, but he was still productive at 47!)....

04-18-2006, 05:48 PM	#7
dodgecharger1968 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 223	One thing that's bugged me, and I'd like to know if anyone has numbers on this, but when guys decline, isn't their eye/patience the last thing to go? For that matter, isn't this something that correlates with age (maturity, experience, umpire respect, pitcher respect, more pivotal lineup position...) as much as any "natural" talent? I don't know, it just seems kinda funny to be looking at 2 17 year-old kids with a 12 in eye, and saying this one's got an 8 talent there, and that one'll never improve much.

04-20-2006, 08:35 PM	#9
Dogzilla Major Leagues Join Date: May 2004 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 421	Looking at baseball-reference.com, it's amazing to me how many average to good players decline and retire at age 32-35. I guess if they start declining even a little, they can be replaced by a 23-year-old making the league minimum. But there are a lot of exceptions, and I hope the programmers take this into account--some players are still improving in their early 30's, and some see no significant decline until much later.

04-20-2006, 11:58 PM	#10
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,509	The cliff is one of the worst features of OOTP6. I would echo the desire to do something about it in the 2006 release. __________________ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis

04-22-2006, 09:44 PM	#12
Aordolin All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 586	i dont think there is a problem with the way way players are aging. I think I have seen a realistic number of late 30s 40ish players in my leagues. The only issue I have is that everyone retires practically before they can get there, even the good ones so you never see a good one because they all quit. So fix the the retirement logic, the aging is pretty good imo.

04-25-2006, 06:30 AM	#15
Splitter24 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Willsboro, NY Posts: 2,895	In EHM you can hire an aging player to be a coach or scout as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in OOTP at some point, if not in the initial release. __________________ Currently Reading: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen "Well, the game is afoot. I’ll take anal bum cover for 7,000." - "Sean Connery" SNL Celebrity Jeopardy R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008

04-25-2006, 06:59 AM	#16
f.montoya Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,077	Markus has stated that there are now hidden ratings such as work ethic. I would believe that this would be perfectly suited to attaining a believably extended career if coupled with avoiding injuries to some extent. We all know that players in any sport, like Karl Malone, with an excellent work ethic, can make long careers for themsleves. __________________ Fidel Montoya Asahi2 Baseball League ex-Commissioner(Historical League Since 2004) Ex-Web Host Current Mod Maker??

04-25-2006, 09:19 AM	#18
f.montoya Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,077	He said it. Trust me. But the bigger picture is how to get the rare "special" players to 40+ without it just being random. Also, getting players to have more gradual deterioration of skills beginning in their early 30's. Now, if there's a rating such as "work ethic", it would make sense that players with the best work ethic could prolong their careers beyond the norm. Whether this is Markus' intention or not isn't clear yet. We'll just have to wait and see. __________________ Fidel Montoya Asahi2 Baseball League ex-Commissioner(Historical League Since 2004) Ex-Web Host Current Mod Maker??