Players Burning Out

[trojanfresh]

I am not sure if its just the type of players that I get or if I push them too hard to young but has anyone noticed that players who start hot at 23/24 and put up solid years until say 27/28 then just drop and crash ratings and stat wise. I feel like this happens way to much on my team. I only promote players before the age of 25 if they are proven at AAA level but i swear anyone who is proven and is solid from 23 to 27/28 almost always just crash, not fade away but instantly below average.

Is this just a mechanics of the game reflecting real life or do i really have to wait until 25/26 to start calling on these guys to play in the Majors.

[Drstrangelove]

There's a setting that can make players age at faster or slower speeds on the Players and Facegen tab. Check your settings.

Iirc, the game does set an age of ~28 as a "peak" so that players do start declining then. What numbers are you talking?

1) How many started hot at 23/24?
2) How is that being measured? (WAR, FIP, OPS+, ratings, etc.)
3) When did they each decline and by how much?

Irl, most players do not play 4-5 years, much less, 4-5 solid years. They're skill level is marginally high enough to get time in the majors. Then, they're moved out, back to the minors or left unsigned. Here's data from one of my seasons which I split in groups sorted by pitcher earned WAR. (You can sort it by OVR and get similar results.) Pitcher OVR is calculated using 65/20/10/5 settings and scouting is not perfect . The first number is the # of pitchers, the second is the average OVR rating, the last is the average WAR earned that season:

1) 4, 74, 8.2, 28

These numbers mean: number of players in group = 4, average OVR is 74, average WAR of 8.2, average number of innings per 1 WAR earned is 28. (Since the group of 4 pitchers with an average OVR of 74, earned 32.7 WAR in 921 innings. (32.7/4=8.2; 921/32.7=28)

1) 4, 74, 8.2, 28
2) 12, 66, 5.3, 40
3) 10, 63, 4.4, 44
4) 35, 58, 3.4, 54
5) 16, 53, 2.7, 63
6) 21, 51, 2.2, 67
7) 23, 54, 1.7, 77
8) 50, 50, 1.3, 85
9) 67, 47, 0.8, 99
10) 194, 39, 0.2, 203
11) 112, 36, -0.2, negative
12) 34, 36, -0.9, negative

So, when the OVR declines, WAR earned per IP tends to decline, and not just decline do so in a somewhat predictable manner. E.g., an OVR decline from 74 to 58 (22%), has a WAR decline from 54 to 28 (52%.) [That is, it takes 54% more innings to earn the same amount of WAR.]

A 63 to 50 decline (21%) leads to a 85 to 44 (48%) decline. A 58 to 47 decline (19%) leads to a 99 to 54 (45%) decline. And, a 53 to 39 decline (24%) leads to a 203 to 67 (67%) decline. Somewhere around an OVR of 37-38 it breaks even. So, a player who is 27 and has a rating in the mid 50's can be earning 1.7 - 3.4 WAR, but if they drop off by just 10 points, that can drop them below 0.5 WAR per year. A superstar that drops 16 points from 74 to 58 is still highly valuable. A good pitcher who drops 16 points from the low 50's to the high 30's is borderline gone.

[Drstrangelove]

Avg		IP per	
OVR	chg	WAR	   chg
 75 		 35 	
 63 	-16.1%	 50 	-42.9%
 54 	-14.8%	 80 	-60.0%
 44 	-18.2%	 135 	-68.8%
 35 	-20.7%	 387 	-186.7%

A different look: Column 1 is grouped: all the pitchers with an OVR in the 70's, then all the pitchers in the 60's, 50's, 40's and 30's. The change is the reduction on OVR rating from the above row. The IP per WAR is next, then the next change is the increase IP per WAR (reduction in rate earned per inning.) A bit more obvious is that earned WAR begins to rapidly diminish in the mid 40's. Small declines in pitcher OVR from the mid to upper 40's or low 50's can wipe out most of the earned WAR.

[RonCo]

That data serves to support that overall ratings at least correlate to overall value, but doesn't seem to touch on the OP's real point, which is that his ratings are crashing at age 27-29.

I do agree that you need to quantify what "crash" means before you can address the question, though.

[NoOne]

it's in first post.. setting for aging.

there's a long thread that will be useful to look up. someone did some good research and compared various settings in ootp to RL results and matched up an aging curve quite well.. you'll have to google for it "site:www.ootpdevelopments.com" with some key terms..

fwiw, the default is really good too. heck of a lot less hassle. also, who knows how it jives with other things and how the custom age curve, while likely fine, may cause other issues that aren't easily identified nor traced back to the cause.

the few things i deviate from default over the years gets slimmer and slimmer with better results. you'd think i'd wisen up, but i'll never have a 6000hr leaguel. i actually test for steroids in my leagues and care about the enforcement. i don't let the dummies ruin their livers with thoroughly unproven supplements, either. creatine? creastupid, lol.

in spite of all that, even if you slow down the aging, you can still experience what you are experiencing.

i avoid it by looking to trade between 29-32ish. i rarely keep players into 30's unless high work ethic and rated well, so that a small-to-medium drop can be endured and still tradeable or useable etc. important to keep eye on the 10/5 rule too. avoid that like the plague.. nothing worse than the player dictating things. even without the custome aging settings i mentioned, the defaults are excellent and accurate.

[Brad K]

I've noticed that historical with player development on no one who had their career after 30 has a career. So I don't play that way anymore.

[NoOne]

whiskey and cigarettes daily and in large quantities will do that to you... they liked their amphetamines too.

[David Watts]

Just curious, would you say it's better to burn out, or to fade away?

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Just curious, would you say it's better to burn out, or to fade away?

My my, hey hey. (Or vice versa.)