Talent Changes

[injury log]

Originally Posted by spark240

What is your basis for thinking this?

From reading a lot of scouting reports. By 'full', I certainly don't mean 'entirely made up of', I just mean there's a lot of low/mid/high 80s velocity pitchers there who rely mainly on command to get by.

I just headed over to the Nationals Farm Authority site, where I knew I could find scouting reports on minor league pitchers, and the first page I found was a list of who they considered the top prospects on short-season Vermont, 2006 (I've left out the hitters):

1. glenn gibson LSP: high-80s fastball, with projection (not terrible velocity for a lefty)
2. jack spradlin LSP: "the purest definition of a finesse pitcher"
3. zech zinicola, RRP: low-90s fastball, two other pitches; [not exactly a power reliever, but a good mix of pitches];
4. cory van allen LSP: low-90s fastball, but straight; projectable;
5. zach baldwin LSP: "soft tossing lefty"
6. aaron jackson RSP: "soft tossing righty"

So half of the top pitching prospects on the team are soft-tossing finesse types. If these are the top guys, I'd have to guess the other pitchers on the staff aren't throwing in the mid-90s.

I don't have anything besides this kind of anecdotal evidence to offer to support the claim; it's an impression I've arrived at from reading a lot of reports similar to the above. If you have reason to disbelieve what I'm saying, I'd be interested to hear why, of course.


The source:
farmauthority.dcsportsnet.com/?p=740

[rasnell]

All of this info from RonCo is outstanding as usual. Very interesting to read.

[Erithtotl]

The game does a good job of reflecting major league talent and the unpredictability of players at the macro level, that is, on average. But the way it handles individual players is not so great. I think some people are thinking along the same line but I want to give an example. I actually task-killed my game and reloaded after this event happened, partially so I could turn off scouting and determine exactly the magnitude.

In my current fictional league (coaches turned off), Sergio Mendoza is my prize young catcher. At age 24 he won rookie of the year, playing 136 games, and hitting .299/.342/.552 with 43 doubles, 31 hr, and winning rookie of the year. These numbers were right in line with his minor league stats. In the first two weeks of his second season, I get the dreaded talent drop message. But what amazed me was the magnitude:



On a 20 point scale:

Work Ethic 12, Intelligence 11
Pre-drop
Talent/Actual Contact, Ga, HR, Eye, K
14/11 17/17 14/14 14/9 8/4

Post Drop
8/10 / 9/15 11/7 9/7 8/4

So, he droped 6 points in contact, 8 in gap, 5 in hr, 2 in eye.

His talent drop was so severe that his actual skills declined significantly at the same time, and are set to drop further in the near future.

All in a split second, without injury. And this isn't a minor league prospect, this is a 24 year old player with a full, very successful season under his belt. He went from up and coming major league star to career AAA catcher in the blink of an eye. It would be as if one day without warning, Brian McCann became Jose Molina, permanently.

Rick Ankiel might be an example of something like this, though even then you could consider that more of a career ending injury. I can't think of another example of a hitter who utterly collapsed after his first season, especially in a case where in retrospect you couldn't look at his past numbers and see them as a mirage (guys with flukey BABIP rates or other extenuating circumstances). And this isn't a once in a lifetime thing, I've had it happen to many other established young players.

The thing is, such a mega drop isn't even necessary to simulate reality. Conceivably,with enough randomness one guy could get hit multiple times in the same season or over a couple of seasons with small drops that would eventually cause him to decline early, or he could get hit by a major injury. But this kind of mega drop without explanation is just not good simulation, especially with the frequency that it happens.

As another poster mentioned, I think talent drops would be much better served by relating them closer to injury. Nearly every major collapse or decline in player talent, especially young players, can be attached to injuries in real life.

Let me append my post by saying I think this is a much bigger problem with players who are already established in the majors. Big drops on guys in Rookie or A ball doesn't bother me so much.

[monte213]

Originally Posted by Erithtotl

His talent drop was so severe that his actual skills declined significantly at the same time, and are set to drop further in the near future.

Or....did his actual skills decline to the point they affected his potential? That's how I view it.

Aside from the significant drop in power, I see only subtle drops in his 'actual' ratings in the other categories telling me something must have happened that he actually slipped alittle. Why would a ROTY seemingly on the brink of stardom suddenly fall apart? I don't know maybe that's the part of the process that needs to be ironed out in the game a bit. Although, looking back in history, there are quite a few ROTYs that didn't go on to great careers.

Nearly every major collapse or decline in player talent, especially young players, can be attached to injuries in real life.

Really? Have you looked at the first 5 rounds of any draft in the last 10-15 years? Alot of players there that never even sniff the majors.....that's a lot of injuries. Fact is, players don't pan out for hundreds of reasons, the main one being they just aren't as good as people thought when they were drafted. Every first rounder that doesn't make the major leagues was the 18/20 potential across the board guy that became a 9/20 potential guy within two years of minor league ball. And every guy in that organization is scratching their head wondering why.

And we need to be left scratching our heads to some degree as well. I've said it before, we can't know too much about the development process. I still haven't heard a good alternative yet either. Stunt development by injuries? Guess I can expect every first rounder to become a star....unless of course, they suffer an injury in the minors in which case I'll just release him. Leave a drafted 18/20 power potential static over the course of his career? Talk about the frustration of having that guy in your system when he doesn't pan out. If he isn't going to hit for power in the big leagues like they expected then drop the value. Potential is variable, it changes over time.

I think we are spending way too much time focusing on the 'why' in this case when we really don't need to. Maybe it's because given the nature of the game we are forced to pay more attention to the players in our minor league systems because not many of us have probably sat down and tried to figure out why player 'x' in *insert favorite real life team here* didn't make the big leagues. There's too many of them to go through anyway

[Erithtotl]

Originally Posted by monte213

Or....did his actual skills decline to the point they affected his potential? That's how I view it.

Aside from the significant drop in power, I see only subtle drops in his 'actual' ratings in the other categories telling me something must have happened that he actually slipped alittle. Why would a ROTY seemingly on the brink of stardom suddenly fall apart? I don't know maybe that's the part of the process that needs to be ironed out in the game a bit. Although, looking back in history, there are quite a few ROTYs that didn't go on to great careers.



Really? Have you looked at the first 5 rounds of any draft in the last 10-15 years? Alot of players there that never even sniff the majors.....that's a lot of injuries. Fact is, players don't pan out for hundreds of reasons, the main one being they just aren't as good as people thought when they were drafted. Every first rounder that doesn't make the major leagues was the 18/20 potential across the board guy that became a 9/20 potential guy within two years of minor league ball. And every guy in that organization is scratching their head wondering why.

And we need to be left scratching our heads to some degree as well. I've said it before, we can't know too much about the development process. I still haven't heard a good alternative yet either. Stunt development by injuries? Guess I can expect every first rounder to become a star....unless of course, they suffer an injury in the minors in which case I'll just release him. Leave a drafted 18/20 power potential static over the course of his career? Talk about the frustration of having that guy in your system when he doesn't pan out. If he isn't going to hit for power in the big leagues like they expected then drop the value. Potential is variable, it changes over time.

I think we are spending way too much time focusing on the 'why' in this case when we really don't need to. Maybe it's because given the nature of the game we are forced to pay more attention to the players in our minor league systems because not many of us have probably sat down and tried to figure out why player 'x' in *insert favorite real life team here* didn't make the big leagues. There's too many of them to go through anyway

I have to feel like you didn't really pay attention to my post.

You keep talking about minor leaguers. I don't care about minor leaguers, that's not my point. This guy was an established star in the majors and age 24, and then collapsed utterly. One day he was fine, the next day, terrible. You spend 80% of your post discussing minor leaguers who didn't work out. This guy already worked out. That's my point.

And as for RoY who didn't go on to great careers, again, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a guy who was an all-star quality catcher in his first season, and then became AAA fodder in his second without an injury. That does not happen. There have been lots of questionable RoY winners, but they were questionable at the time, it's just that the voters for the awards don't know how to evaluate statistics.

Again, my point is, that this player's collapse does not model reality in any way, and thus it's a incorrect design decision in my opinion. And since this happens with established players pretty frequently (it's happend at least 3 times to me in the 6 seasons of the current game I'm playing), it should be reexamined in the game engine.

[monte213]

Originally Posted by Erithtotl

Again, my point is, that this player's collapse does not model reality in any way

So then please tell me what reality is. Because if you have player development in real life nailed down, I would love to hear. Just please don't tell me players don't just fall apart that quickly.

Maybe I did miss the point of your post but let's face it, you just needed a place to rant. In that case, you have my sympathies and my shoulder if needed

BTW - How did the next few seasons turn out with him?

[jbone]

Originally Posted by Erithtotl

I have to feel like you didn't really pay attention to my post.

You keep talking about minor leaguers. I don't care about minor leaguers, that's not my point. This guy was an established star in the majors and age 24, and then collapsed utterly. One day he was fine, the next day, terrible. You spend 80% of your post discussing minor leaguers who didn't work out. This guy already worked out. That's my point.

This has happened to me, too, frustrating to be sure. A guy is 4.5 stars one day and by the end of the year 1 star. There have been some guys, however, who have followed this pattern - at least one - Fernando Tatis has a monster year one year and then just collapsed. Or Rick Ankiel is another example. From time to time, this does seem to inexplicably happen IRL as well (just ask the Cardinals )

[jbone]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Leave scouts' opinions out of the discussion. I don't care what one or another scout thinks. I care what is "real" in the computer's model of a human being. That alone should be enough to provide fog of war and proper development. Add scouting error to the discussion later, and then everyone is happy.

I agree, in a pure gaming sense these two need to be separated, but now the "real" potentials need be more based on "real" player occurrances. Take this example.

Joe is a young professional manager currently managing at a very low level in a company. We will grade him on an ability/potential scale of 1-20

Joe is:
Great with numbers but not yet very knowledgable about business (8/20)
A poor writer but could become okay with practice (2/9)
Is very personable but not yet completely refined interpersonal skills (10/18)

We can see that Joe has potential, but what are Joe's odds of someday becoming a CEO (Major League Star Player)?

It would be based on the following factors:
Does he work for an organization that nurtures his talent and gives him good guidance? (coaches)
Does Joe stay healthy, or does he live a lifestyle which puts him at risk to negatively effect his job performance? (durability)
Etc.

Now, as Joe's job performance increases or decreases, we may decide to change our perception of Joe's odds of becoming a CEO (potential bumps/drops)? If Joe gets fired from two jobs, then we might begin to think that he may not have such a great future in the business world and should become an economics professor instead (potential drop) If Joe does a great job managing and gets two promotions, then we all of a sudden may become even more enthusiastic about Joe's future and find him even more likely to one day become a CEO (potential spike). Joe becomes more confident and motivated.

In other words, even if a scout's personal perceptions may vary from person to person, Joe's overall potential is changing based upon his experiences, confidence level and development. Even in ootp, the "real" potential of a player is still just an ever fluctuating perception.

As Bill Simmons recently wrote, now that Lebron has taken over a big game like he did against the Pistons, he knows he can do it once and will get able to access that and do it again in the future. In Simmons' opinion he just took over the Eastern Conference for the next ten years. "A stronger Michael Jordan" is Simmons' perception, whereas before many people envisioned him as maxing out as a great but not-quite-Jordanesque level of player. So in Simmons' eyes, Lebron just got a bump in potential (as opposed to his ability/skill increasing, which it didn't because it was just one game).

In this way, a player's potentials should rise and fall based upon his experiences and how they shape his career (i.e., if he plays well, stays healthy, gets good coaching, works hard, is smart, gets playing time, is challenged but not overwhelming, is lucky, etc.). And when guys like LeBron and "Joe" succeed, they become more confident mentally that they can attain success, and that not only drives our perceptions, but their own, which ultimately creates the spike in potential.

[Erithtotl]

Originally Posted by jbone

This has happened to me, too, frustrating to be sure. A guy is 4.5 stars one day and by the end of the year 1 star. There have been some guys, however, who have followed this pattern - at least one - Fernando Tatis has a monster year one year and then just collapsed. Or Rick Ankiel is another example. From time to time, this does seem to inexplicably happen IRL as well (just ask the Cardinals )

Tatis is the closest thing I can come to an example of this, but Tatis also had a bunch of injuries after his two productive years (his year after his big year wasn't bad). And that emphasizes my other point. Tatis didn't just collapse. The year after his monster year he suffered through an injury prone year where he hit only .253, but with a .379 OBP and a .491 slugging, an excellent year for a 3rd baseman. His problem was that he had all those injuries and lacked the work ethic or the luck to overcome them. And Ankiel clearly had some kind of mental problem that would be be implemented as an injury. Again, if the massive talent collapses were associated with injury, it might make some kind of sense, but this guy was healthy as can be, and his talent and ability collapsed in one day, rather than over a period of several months.

I'm not complaining about losing the player. I'm complaining about the way it happens in the game is not realistic. You don't just wake up one day and forget what you could do fine yesterday. And, again, this is not an isolated occurance, it has happened to me 3 times in 6 seasons and I can only assume it happens for the AI at similar frequency, so that means 15 players a year or so, rather than 1 or 2 every 5 years as might be the case by the few examples we have been able to come up with.

[Erithtotl]

Originally Posted by monte213

So then please tell me what reality is. Because if you have player development in real life nailed down, I would love to hear. Just please don't tell me players don't just fall apart that quickly.

Maybe I did miss the point of your post but let's face it, you just needed a place to rant. In that case, you have my sympathies and my shoulder if needed

BTW - How did the next few seasons turn out with him?

I'm not trying to rant. I'm trying to document what I feel is a badly implemented game design decision. Like other people in this thread, I feel there is an error in the talent modeling and would like to see it corrected in a future version. If such examples are not documented, then nothing will be done.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Erithtotl

Let me append my post by saying I think this is a much bigger problem with players who are already established in the majors. Big drops on guys in Rookie or A ball doesn't bother me so much.

They need to bother you because from the model's perspective you don't get to have it right in just one place. It's either right or it's not.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by jbone

I agree, in a pure gaming sense these two need to be separated, but now the "real" potentials need be more based on "real" player occurrances. Take this example.

Joe is a young professional manager currently managing at a very low level in a company. We will grade him on an ability/potential scale of 1-20

Joe is:
Great with numbers but not yet very knowledgable about business (8/20)
A poor writer but could become okay with practice (2/9)
Is very personable but not yet completely refined interpersonal skills (10/18)

We can see that Joe has potential, but what are Joe's odds of someday becoming a CEO (Major League Star Player)?

It would be based on the following factors:
Does he work for an organization that nurtures his talent and gives him good guidance? (coaches)
Does Joe stay healthy, or does he live a lifestyle which puts him at risk to negatively effect his job performance? (durability)
Etc.

Now, as Joe's job performance increases or decreases, we may decide to change our perception of Joe's odds of becoming a CEO (potential bumps/drops)? If Joe gets fired from two jobs, then we might begin to think that he may not have such a great future in the business world and should become an economics professor instead (potential drop) If Joe does a great job managing and gets two promotions, then we all of a sudden may become even more enthusiastic about Joe's future and find him even more likely to one day become a CEO (potential spike). Joe becomes more confident and motivated.

In other words, even if a scout's personal perceptions may vary from person to person, Joe's overall potential is changing based upon his experiences, confidence level and development. Even in ootp, the "real" potential of a player is still just an ever fluctuating perception.

As Bill Simmons recently wrote, now that Lebron has taken over a big game like he did against the Pistons, he knows he can do it once and will get able to access that and do it again in the future. In Simmons' opinion he just took over the Eastern Conference for the next ten years. "A stronger Michael Jordan" is Simmons' perception, whereas before many people envisioned him as maxing out as a great but not-quite-Jordanesque level of player. So in Simmons' eyes, Lebron just got a bump in potential (as opposed to his ability/skill increasing, which it didn't because it was just one game).

In this way, a player's potentials should rise and fall based upon his experiences and how they shape his career (i.e., if he plays well, stays healthy, gets good coaching, works hard, is smart, gets playing time, is challenged but not overwhelming, is lucky, etc.). And when guys like LeBron and "Joe" succeed, they become more confident mentally that they can attain success, and that not only drives our perceptions, but their own, which ultimately creates the spike in potential.

I respectfully disagree with this interpretation in just about every way possible. The CEO-to-be always had the potential to be a CEO, but his work experiences enabled or stunted the growth of his "ratings" (which, in OOTP, are the only things that affect his daily performance) to the point where either he grows into them or doesn't. The things he does does not affect his _potential_ to be a CEO, they only affect the _probability_ he has of achieving that level.

Same thing with LeBron. He always had the potential to take over a playoff series. Per Simmons, he's now grown into that potential, and it's now _more likely- that LeBron will eventually be a mega-star MVP of the NBA championship series. In other words, Simmons is performing the role of scout in that discussion.

Your point about opportunity is a good one. A guy with great potential/talent who never gets an opportunity would never grow his ratings in OOTP. This shouldn't affect his peak potential...he's the same guy he was yesterday. But the probability of him growig into that potential should fade as time goes by.

[RonCo]

To get the idea of game design for talent development into the right frame of reference, you need to stop playing the part of "scout" and start playing the part of "God". I'm fine with ratings ebbing and flowing on a day-to-day basis based on whatever arbitrary model the designer wants to use...biorhythms, streaks, bolts of lightning, whatever...but in accordance with comments of Erithtotl and others, a model that has a _lot_ of guys waking up one day to find themselves fundamentally worse baseball players than they were yesterday is flawed in an elemental way. We are not talking about the model of a scout's opinion here. We're not talking about the possibility that he meets those talent levels. We're not talking scout's perspectives. We're not talking about the player's mother's viewpoint. We're not talking about the player's ego-centric view of his ability. We're talking about the hard-coded fact of life about his _real peak potential_. This is what is in code at any one time. It is a "physical" piece of code defined by a charged element on you hard-drive. It defines the player's _actual_ peak potential performance. In real people, this _does_ change, but it doesn't change often, and that change is _almost always_ caused by something external to the player (injury, drug abuse [self-inflicted injury], lack of opportunity).

Note, I'm not saying talent/potential changes should never happen at all. aging obviously affects some potentials. Speed, for example...you can pretty well guarantee that a player will be physically incapable of running as fast at age 37 as he was at age 27. But that's a steady slide, probably tied directly to the steady gaining of weight that will accompany aging. Again, not a hard-coded drop that happens overnight.

As I've said before, I would recommend a change in the fundamental approach to what ratings and talent mean. But since that almost certainly won't happen, using the OOTP paradigm, my supposition is that talent/potential drops should be rare, and that ratings growth to peak should be the primary tool of the development engine. When that is done, almost any career path can be modeled, and the uncertainty of who is going to develop can be maintained (hence providing the standard OOTP game theory quandries that we've all grown to know and love.

[Erithtotl]

Originally Posted by RonCo

To get the idea of game design for talent development into the right frame of reference, you need to stop playing the part of "scout" and start playing the part of "God". I'm fine with ratings ebbing and flowing on a day-to-day basis based on whatever arbitrary model the designer wants to use...biorhythms, streaks, bolts of lightning, whatever...but in accordance with comments of Erithtotl and others, a model that has a _lot_ of guys waking up one day to find themselves fundamentally worse baseball players than they were yesterday is flawed in an elemental way. We are not talking about the model of a scout's opinion here. We're not talking about the possibility that he meets those talent levels. We're not talking scout's perspectives. We're not talking about the player's mother's viewpoint. We're not talking about the player's ego-centric view of his ability. We're talking about the hard-coded fact of life about his _real peak potential_. This is what is in code at any one time. It is a "physical" piece of code defined by a charged element on you hard-drive. It defines the player's _actual_ peak potential performance. In real people, this _does_ change, but it doesn't change often, and that change is _almost always_ caused by something external to the player (injury, drug abuse [self-inflicted injury], lack of opportunity).

Note, I'm not saying talent/potential changes should never happen at all. aging obviously affects some potentials. Speed, for example...you can pretty well guarantee that a player will be physically incapable of running as fast at age 37 as he was at age 27. But that's a steady slide, probably tied directly to the steady gaining of weight that will accompany aging. Again, not a hard-coded drop that happens overnight.

As I've said before, I would recommend a change in the fundamental approach to what ratings and talent mean. But since that almost certainly won't happen, using the OOTP paradigm, my supposition is that talent/potential drops should be rare, and that ratings growth to peak should be the primary tool of the development engine. When that is done, almost any career path can be modeled, and the uncertainty of who is going to develop can be maintained (hence providing the standard OOTP game theory quandries that we've all grown to know and love.

Agree with you %100. It likely will never happen, but I always thought an interesting model would factor current athletic ability, athletic potential, work ethic, intelligence, injuries, and a big chunk of randomness to determine player development, with no 'potential ratings' in skill related categories. The game could adjust those 'randomness' factors by real world knowledge (like the idea that players with extensive 'old players skills' (high BB and HR, low BA) have early peaks, as do heavier players, while all around athletes tend to age better. So when you look at a prospect you'd see the following:

How good the guy is now at baseball stuff. How athletic he is. Your scouts estimate of how well he could 'grow into his body', so to speak. Your team estimates of how hard a worker he is and how smart he is. That's it. No knowledge of when he is going to peak or what his hard ceiling is.

To me that would be a truly innovative and challenging growth model. But it would take a rewrite of an engine that for the most part does a good job of meta-simulating real world talent development, even if it falls short in a few areas right now (as documented here).

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Erithtotl

And Ankiel clearly had some kind of mental problem that would be be implemented as an injury.

I don't see how OOTP's injury implementation would ever capture what happened to Ankiel- 'Steve Blass disease' isn't in the injury database (and nor should it be!). Ankiel wasn't injured; he just, all of a sudden, woke up one day and couldn't pitch. In the past, pitchers haven't recoverd from the Blass problem, and it's an example of where a talent hit is warranted, absent injury. That said, this Blass thing is rare.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by injury log

I don't see how OOTP's injury implementation would ever capture what happened to Ankiel- 'Steve Blass disease' isn't in the injury database (and nor should it be!). Ankiel wasn't injured; he just, all of a sudden, woke up one day and couldn't pitch. In the past, pitchers haven't recoverd from the Blass problem, and it's an example of where a talent hit is warranted, absent injury. That said, this Blass thing is rare.

I think all he's saying is that a designer could implement the sudden loss of a talent associated with Steve Blass disease in the same framework as if it were an injury. You could say the same thing about things like the onset of cancer or diabetes or any other external disease.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I think all he's saying is that a designer could implement the sudden loss of a talent associated with Steve Blass disease in the same framework as if it were an injury. You could say the same thing about things like the onset of cancer or diabetes or any other external disease.

My understanding, though I have no concrete info, is that while injured a player's ratings gradually decline (this from repeatedly scouting a player over the course of a long term injury). That doesn't correspond to what happened with Ankiel, which was essentially instantaneous; one day, in the playoffs, he threw 5 WPs in an inning and could never throw strikes again.

[Khrog]

I believe that the modeling system currently in place is effectively, but perhaps not perfectly modeling what it is designed to do. The model is designed to model overall league ratings/potential changes and produce an accurate number of ML talent. The individual occurences are bound to be more extreme because of several factors. The factors that stick out most in my mind are the limited sample size of players. The draft in most OOTP leagues are 25 players or less. In real world, the draft is much more expansive and there are tons of minor leagues and international leagues not present in most OOTP systems. I find that this makes a major impact on the "realism" factor that I am completely okay with. Why? Gameplay! In any game, especially a computerized one, gameplay is the ultimate goal. The game MUST be fun to have a good product and sometimes realism...hell, all the time, realism is sacrificed to make it so.

The other factors that cause discrepancies are the current rating/potential system used to model actual players. The system could expand and add raw talent or athleticism or tweak/hide the personality ratings or any number of changes, but we would have to face up that the changes might not be beneficial to accurately modeling the results across the entire league. We may end up with a more accurate "average" player, but sacrifice the good development probability fields that the current system does so well.

[Elendil]

The rapid talent changes are in there to help model the actual degree of consistency in player performance that happens in MLB. I agree with Ronco that there's something odd in the way this is conceptualized in the game, but if the result matches what happens in MLB, I'm not overly concerned about it.

BTW, under Global Setup you can change the frequency of random talent changes (even reduce it to zero). So if you don't like the way the game does this, you can change it. However, you'll probably end up with players becoming *too* consistent year to year, compared to MLB.

[Erithtotl]

It's my understanding that messing with the talent change frequency would make the problem worse, not better, because it does not effect severity of change, but rather just the frequency.

While ultimately I'd like to see a reworking of how development is handled, I think seperate sliders for talent change severity and injury severity would go a long way towards me being able to tweak the game the way I'd like. For example, in both cases I'd likely INCREASE frequency, but decrease severity, to create more short to medium term injuries (and fewer of the 8 month variety) and more subtle talent decreases and increases (and fewer massive, Rick Ankiel variety collapses).