Rogers Hornsby Still playing at 51 - Page 2

swampdragon · 06-05-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogmax11

Stolen base totals, as well as the arc relative to aging, are off-the-charts wrong.

That's why I asked about the injury setting. If injuries are set low, it may be that the setting interferes with the normal aging arc. The two should not be unrelated, and I'm hypothesizing that there is a relationship in this game. If you check injury proneness in the editor, you'll see varieties of proneness, probably related to earlier injuries. This should all gradually increase as players get older and get hurt.

Qrusher14242 · 06-05-2006, 03:07 PM

Well i set at Very low. Anything higher, and i kept getting a lot CEI's. At normal i had Cobb, Ruth, Joe Jackson, and Sam Crawford get CEI's. Just not that fun with all those injuries. Man, cant imagine what would happen if i turned them off, they'd play till they're dead lol. In 6.5, if i turned off injuries they wouldnt play this long.

BTW, he's still going at age 57.

Here's his ratings and his player page:

redmarkYankees · 06-05-2006, 05:48 PM

A pinch-hit grand slam at the age of 57?

fauteuil7 · 06-05-2006, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

Well i set at Very low. Anything higher, and i kept getting a lot CEI's. At normal i had Cobb, Ruth, Joe Jackson, and Sam Crawford get CEI's. Just not that fun with all those injuries. Man, cant imagine what would happen if i turned them off, they'd play till they're dead lol. In 6.5, if i turned off injuries they wouldnt play this long.

BTW, he's still going at age 57.

Here's his ratings and his player page:

I was all for this at the beginning of the thread, but now it seems a little ridiculous. Tommy John is usually over 40 when I start whatever year I start in, and I hate having him retire immediately even though he played longer in real life so I am certainly for players going on into their late 40's, but anything over 50 pushes the level of realism (diminishes the level of realism? You know what I'm trying to say...).

bp_ · 06-05-2006, 06:48 PM

I'd like to see the occasional player reach these late levels of their career but there has to be some hitting skill degradation along the way. If the game doesn't do that then it isn't as good as it can be in this area.

metsgeek · 06-05-2006, 07:23 PM

I think it needs some minor tweaking. Perhaps make 48-50 the absolute concrete wall that they hit

OakDragon · 06-05-2006, 07:28 PM

Just looked at those last screenshots. Something is definitely wrong there. I don't mind players playing late in their careers, as long as they're still viable. (I don't think an age limit should be automatically imposed.) But, that guy should've retired in '43. His stats after that are silly. No team would have kept him around if he was performing like that. Has this been brought up in the support forum?

Unless... he didn't somehow become the manager, did he, lol.

boilermaker · 06-05-2006, 07:50 PM

Sounds like a great opportunity to run tests on the Aging/Dev. Speed modifiers.

Qrusher14242 · 06-05-2006, 07:52 PM

lol, he lasted until 62. In one of his last years, he got 25 ab's and got 4 hits. Not sure why anyone would sign him.

Big Six · 06-05-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

lol, he lasted until 62. In one of his last years, he got 25 ab's and got 4 hits. Not sure why anyone would sign him.

Hmmm...a few possible reasons come to mind:
1. The GM thought it would be cool to sign a player whose career began before he was born.

2. Rogers wanted to retire with full Social Security benefits without ever having to have another job.

3. His team wanted to increase its following among older fans by signing a player they would relate to more easily. Attractive fiftysomething women holding signs that say "MARRY ME, ROGERS!" come to mind.

4. If Virtual Rogers wasn't as big a jerk as Real Rogers was, he could provide "veteran leadership" in the clubhouse. Someone apparently forgot to tell the GM that "Civil War veteran" wasn't the sense in which the term was meant in this particular case.

Gastric ReFlux · 06-05-2006, 08:36 PM

What were his final numbers?

I began running a postwar replay this evening, and Hank Greenberg won't retire so far. He's 45 now in 1956, and keeps signing minor league contracts to play. The only thing I can figure is that he wants 500 homers, he's at 489, he was at 463 at the end of 1952, his last somewhat productive year.

I'm beginning to wonder if Markus added any sort of milestone goals to the player logic.

Gastric ReFlux · 06-05-2006, 08:38 PM

Okay, it just turned over to 1957 and Hank Greenberg retired.

QuestGAV · 06-05-2006, 09:54 PM

Keep in mind the sample we're looking at here as well. If a Franco, Paige, etc. can play effectively into their late 40s in 100ish years of MLB history I don't think it's unrealistic to see outliers playing into their early 50s in the thousands of years of history that we're generating. Having guys play into their 60s is probably a stretch from a biological standpoint though.

Qrusher14242 · 06-05-2006, 10:10 PM

His Career stats and his fielding stats for his last years

Scoman · 06-05-2006, 10:13 PM

So the moral to the story here is,if you want realilistic career numbers based on the true major league baseball numbers in the 100 yrs plus of baseball,you leave injurys on normal,if not,you get this silliness.

Le Grande Orange · 06-05-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redmarkYankees

Almost like the game is trying to create DHs. HOF-calibre players - in a non-DH era - should retire, rather than pinch-hitting for several years.

Either that or they should go down to the minors to finish out their careers there. Plenty of examples of that in the earlier days of the minors.

The most famous of these is Joe "Iron Man" McGinnity.

He first played pro baseball in the Southern League in 1893. After playing the next year in Kansas City, he dropped out for a couple of years. He returned to baseball in 1898, playing for Peoria. He was brought up to the majors in 1899 and played some ten seasons in the big leagues, including two 30-win seasons and pitching both games of a doubleheader three times in 1903. His last major league season was in 1908, when he was 38.

After his major league stint, he played in the Eastern (now International) League for four seasons which included a 30-win season. He followed this up with several seasons of baseball on the west coast, mostly with the Northwestern League. He took another break from pro baseball after WWI, this one of four years, before returning and playing for Danville of the Three-I League. McGinnity finished up his baseball career in 1925, at age 54, posting a 6-6 record for Dubuque of the Mississippi Valley League.

His 422 innings pitched and 11 shutouts he posted in the 1909 season are still records in the International League. His total W-L record in his professional baseball career was 482-357.

OakDragon · 06-06-2006, 01:05 AM

Things like this happening are just silly, though. Playing into one's fifties is one thing. Being kept on an ML team when you're hitting under .200 is quite another. Heck, for 4 straight years he didn't even get a hit! There is definitely a player management AI bug in there somewhere.

fauteuil7 · 06-06-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoman

So the moral to the story here is,if you want realilistic career numbers based on the true major league baseball numbers in the 100 yrs plus of baseball,you leave injurys on normal,if not,you get this silliness.

I ran a sim overnight from 1905 to 1961 with injuries and fatigue set to low but the batter aging speed to 1.250. I just took a quick look at the stats and nothing seems absurdly out of order (apart from the fact that you can't delete any career stats from before the sim started...ugh). I'm at work now but will post some of the leaderboards later if anyone's interested.

redmarkYankees · 06-06-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fauteuil7

I ran a sim overnight from 1905 to 1961 with injuries and fatigue set to low but the batter aging speed to 1.250. I just took a quick look at the stats and nothing seems absurdly out of order (apart from the fact that you can't delete any career stats from before the sim started...ugh). I'm at work now but will post some of the leaderboards later if anyone's interested.

Definitely interested. I was looking at doing injuries off 1871-1900, very low 1901-1919, low 1920-1942; but was thinking of a lower ageing speed than that, maybe 1.075 (7.5% faster decline?).

redmarkYankees · 06-06-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OakDragon

Things like this happening are just silly, though. Playing into one's fifties is one thing. Being kept on an ML team when you're hitting under .200 is quite another. Heck, for 4 straight years he didn't even get a hit! There is definitely a player management AI bug in there somewhere.

This sim is with the Arod-Garlon DB, or TigerFan's quickstart?
Just wondering if the combination of a DB which deletes some of the marginal players, and a setup which makes fictional rookies into complete scrubs has too little depth - meaning declining (or declined) veterans are getting contract offers because they're still better than the alternative.

06-05-2006, 03:07 PM	#22
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	Well i set at Very low. Anything higher, and i kept getting a lot CEI's. At normal i had Cobb, Ruth, Joe Jackson, and Sam Crawford get CEI's. Just not that fun with all those injuries. Man, cant imagine what would happen if i turned them off, they'd play till they're dead lol. In 6.5, if i turned off injuries they wouldnt play this long. BTW, he's still going at age 57. Here's his ratings and his player page: Attached Images

06-05-2006, 05:48 PM	#23
redmarkYankees All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,283	A pinch-hit grand slam at the age of 57? __________________ In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. George Orwell

06-05-2006, 06:48 PM	#25
bp_ Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 2,804 Blog Entries: 1	I'd like to see the occasional player reach these late levels of their career but there has to be some hitting skill degradation along the way. If the game doesn't do that then it isn't as good as it can be in this area. __________________ Commish: Over The Mound

06-05-2006, 07:23 PM	#26
metsgeek Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Norwood, MA Posts: 5,450	I think it needs some minor tweaking. Perhaps make 48-50 the absolute concrete wall that they hit __________________ Commissioner - PBRL - Just finished 2009 109 seasons and still running strong!!!

06-05-2006, 07:28 PM	#27
OakDragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: San Jose, CA USA Posts: 3,495	Just looked at those last screenshots. Something is definitely wrong there. I don't mind players playing late in their careers, as long as they're still viable. (I don't think an age limit should be automatically imposed.) But, that guy should've retired in '43. His stats after that are silly. No team would have kept him around if he was performing like that. Has this been brought up in the support forum? Unless... he didn't somehow become the manager, did he, lol. Last edited by OakDragon; 06-05-2006 at 07:29 PM.

06-05-2006, 07:50 PM	#28
boilermaker All Star Starter Join Date: May 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,956	Sounds like a great opportunity to run tests on the Aging/Dev. Speed modifiers.

06-05-2006, 07:52 PM	#29
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	lol, he lasted until 62. In one of his last years, he got 25 ab's and got 4 hits. Not sure why anyone would sign him.

06-05-2006, 08:36 PM	#31
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	What were his final numbers? I began running a postwar replay this evening, and Hank Greenberg won't retire so far. He's 45 now in 1956, and keeps signing minor league contracts to play. The only thing I can figure is that he wants 500 homers, he's at 489, he was at 463 at the end of 1952, his last somewhat productive year. I'm beginning to wonder if Markus added any sort of milestone goals to the player logic.

06-05-2006, 08:38 PM	#32
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Okay, it just turned over to 1957 and Hank Greenberg retired.

06-05-2006, 09:54 PM	#33
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,008	Keep in mind the sample we're looking at here as well. If a Franco, Paige, etc. can play effectively into their late 40s in 100ish years of MLB history I don't think it's unrealistic to see outliers playing into their early 50s in the thousands of years of history that we're generating. Having guys play into their 60s is probably a stretch from a biological standpoint though.

06-05-2006, 10:10 PM	#34
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	His Career stats and his fielding stats for his last years Attached Images

06-05-2006, 10:13 PM	#35
Scoman All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: heath ohio Posts: 1,769	So the moral to the story here is,if you want realilistic career numbers based on the true major league baseball numbers in the 100 yrs plus of baseball,you leave injurys on normal,if not,you get this silliness.

06-06-2006, 01:05 AM	#37
OakDragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: San Jose, CA USA Posts: 3,495	Things like this happening are just silly, though. Playing into one's fifties is one thing. Being kept on an ML team when you're hitting under .200 is quite another. Heck, for 4 straight years he didn't even get a hit! There is definitely a player management AI bug in there somewhere.