Would like to see veterans get more credit?

Bears5122 · 04-19-2003, 06:28 PM

It seems once you hit a certain age all your ratings just plummet. I think this is untrue. Of course as you age things like your speed, fielding and power should go down. Also your hitting will take a dive. But most often then not, veterans have a much better understanding of the strike zone. I'd like to see veterans improve contact and lower strike outs. Not a big deal but I think it would be a good idea to pick up a veteran because he does do the things veterans in MLB do.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-19-2003, 06:32 PM

Do you feel that this is wide-spread or it happens to a few too many?

Behind Red Doors · 04-19-2003, 06:34 PM

I agree Bears, that certainly needs to be adjusted to atleast a 2/3rd of the veterns who had great careers. Nice suggestion.

bhlloy · 04-19-2003, 07:03 PM

Agreed - there do seem to be a lot of veterans in the game who are pretty much useless in OOTP but seem to stick around in real life for a couple of years. This could definitely be one way to rectify this.

Bears5122 · 04-19-2003, 07:17 PM

I'm not saying it's bad Steve, just think it could use some tweaking. Take Sosa for example. This is a guy who when he was young had very poor plate discipline. As he has matured he has cut that down and learned. Many players like Bonds have done the same. I think plate discipline is a key attribute and something many players don't quite achieve till they are older. It'd be good to see veterans being kept and picked up because they possess these qualities.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-19-2003, 07:21 PM

I like the idea and see if there is away to tweak it without it being too much.

Paul31 · 04-20-2003, 09:30 PM

I don't agree with this. Yes, some veteran players learn plate discipline, but they also have slower bat speed which would cancel this out. There are guys like Shawon Dunston and a few others who have been around forever and still pretty much swing at anything which doesn't hit them first.

Veteran players should get big-time benefits in the character skills though, better clutch performance, better leadership skills, etc. Leadership is why many MLB teams like to add a couple of veterans to the roster. In fact, I think young players should be penalized in this category. How is a 20 year old middle reliever just out of triple A gonna bring a team together with his leadership? That never happens in real life.

Also, has there been any thought to taking retired players, attaching coaching skills to their names and adding them to the coaching pool? Just an idea.

LivnLegend · 04-20-2003, 10:14 PM

In my current solo league, I was overjoyed to see Ezekiel Gonzales pitch effectively until right before his 43rd birthday! Gonzales, a closer, pitched for 23 years (he was in the league in the initial creation/draft) and retired with over 700 saves. In his last season his ratings dropped like a marble rolling off a table but it was sure exciting each season to see if he was going to be able to continue his excellence!

viper31631 · 04-20-2003, 10:16 PM

I think ootp5 makes ratings go down too quick in 30's

Bears5122 · 04-20-2003, 10:18 PM

I'm not saying veterans should be as good as they were in their primes. But a guy like Bonds goes from being the best hitter in the league to not even on a major league roster the next year. That just isn't right in my opinion.

Crapshoot · 04-20-2003, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul31
I don't agree with this. Yes, some veteran players learn plate discipline, but they also have slower bat speed which would cancel this out. There are guys like Shawon Dunston and a few others who have been around forever and still pretty much swing at anything which doesn't hit them first.

Veteran players should get big-time benefits in the character skills though, better clutch performance, better leadership skills, etc. Leadership is why many MLB teams like to add a couple of veterans to the roster. In fact, I think young players should be penalized in this category. How is a 20 year old middle reliever just out of triple A gonna bring a team together with his leadership? That never happens in real life.

Also, has there been any thought to taking retired players, attaching coaching skills to their names and adding them to the coaching pool? Just an idea.

Im going to have to disagree with most of this; I think character and "veteran experience" and "clutch" hitting are complete myths as it as, and incorporating them into the game and giving them weight is a step away from realism...

GeoffP · 04-20-2003, 10:41 PM

I believe that a "longevity" rating would help, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add this where it is visible and could therefore have an impact on personnel moves. There has to be something to set the guys who are still contributers in their 40s apart from the majority who are done in the 35-39 range.

For pitchers, the velocity and stamina should decline first, allowing a pitcher to get by on location and whatever they've got left.

I agree with Paul on hitters. Not many players develop a better strike zone than they had in their prime. Most of the time, the bat slows down, and they begin to cheat on the fastball. At best, you see an adjustment where guys start taking the ball the other way a lot more & preserving their average somewhat. That, however, usually takes away even more homers. I'd say for hitters, the getting hits and avoiding strikeouts rating should show the bulk of the decline, along with fielding range, then HR production & speed.

I think a 'fitness' rating would be interesting, giving the workout maniacs like Ryan, Clemons and Carlton an advantage in their late 30s. I just don't know how you explain David "Sober up with an omelet at 4AM in the diner" Wells getting guys out at 40 :-)

Bears5122 · 04-20-2003, 11:07 PM

I would just be ok with players not declining so quickly.

cfeedback · 04-21-2003, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
Im going to have to disagree with most of this; I think character and "veteran experience" and "clutch" hitting are complete myths as it as, and incorporating them into the game and giving them weight is a step away from realism...

whatever.

clutch hitting might be debatable but "veteran experience" is key to the sport of baseball (more so than other sports?). I can think of countless examples of veteran players with subpar physical skills...guys that literally can't get around on that 96mph heat anymore. But they're smart and know the game of baseball, and perhaps their pitch selection is a bit better than than in their youth. Reggie Sanders, Ellis Burks, Lenny Harris, to name a few. Rickey Henderson, who for some reason can't find a job, posted a .366 and .369 OBP over the past 2 seasons that in my mind would look nice on almost any bench in the league. (not to mention he went 33 for 42 in SBs)

I see tons of young players make "rookie mistakes" such as throwing home instead of to the cutoff man when there's no chance to get him, thereby allowing the hitter to advance to second. While I'm not sure that 15 years of experience is any better than 5 years of experience, I am sure that either of those provides a significant advantage over most players with 1-2 years of ML experience.

You can either believe Joe Sheehan and crew over at BP that any GM who signs a .700 OPS veteran is wasting his money and should instead fill the slot with one of those countless career minor leaguers (great for fan appeal there too), or perhaps baseball is greater than the sum of all those numbers that we love to toss about.

Ben E Lou · 04-21-2003, 07:41 AM

Perhaps keeping veterans around should help boost attendance? (a "popularity" rating that grows with time?)

Speaking of development, isn't it the conventional wisdom that batting average drops a bit and power goes up in the early 30's? I'll admit that I've never read any hard numbers or research on this, so I decided to do a quick look at some power hitters from the last 25 years or so.

I see that Bonds only had one season of 40+ homers before age 32, but since then 5 of 7 seasons have been 40+ homers. Sosa had one season of 40+ before age 30, but since then every season has been 49 homers or more. Even McGwire, who hit 49 as a 24-year-old rookie, only hit 40+ twice in his 20's, but then hit 50+ for four straight season age 33-36. (and had 32 in only 236 at at bats at 37)

. Looking a little farther, all three of Mike Schmidt's 40+ homer seasons occurred at ages 29-33 (and he had 31 in 354 at-bats in the strike-shortened '81 season, when he was 31). Actually, Schmidt's career make a good case for veterans dropping off the table. In '87, at age 37, he put up a .293-35-113 season, but then at age 38, he was .249-12-62 in 390 at bats. On the other hand, Greg "The Bull" Luzinski is a very different case. His best power seasons were at age 24-27, and he only hit 30+ once after age 30. He had a .255-32-95 year at age 32, then at 33 he was .238-13-58 and his career was over. Dale Murphy had five seasons of 30+ homers in his 20's, but his only 40+ season was at age 31. He REALLY dropped off the table after that year though: age 31: .295-44-105, age 32: .226-24-77, age 33: .228-20-84, age 34: .245-24-83 and out. Rafael Palmeiro had one season of 30+ homers before age 30, but all 8 of his full seasons at ages 30-37 he hit 38 homers or more. The Crime Dog has dropped off a little in power since age 30. He had six straight 30+ homer seasons age 24-29, and four since then. (Curiously, he's picked it back up the last four seasons though. Three of his last four seasons he's had 30+ homers--ages 35-38). Eddie Murray had 4 30+ homer seasons before age 30, and one afterward. "Pops" Stargell had one 30+ homer season before age 30, and five afterward, including 32 in only 424 at bats at age 39. Winfield had one 30+ season before age 39, two afterward. King Kong Kingman had two 30+ seasons before age 30, and five afterward. Andre Dawson had one 30+ season before, and two after (including hitting 49 at age 32). Joe Carter had two before, four after. Galarraga had none before, and five after, his first coming at age 33. (Yeah, I know four were in Colorado, but The Big Cat hit 44 in Atlanta age age 37, and 28 at age 39 after sitting out a year with cancer.)

Conclusions: Hard to draw any hard-and-fast rules from this mini-study, but my main conclusion is that player development curves need to have the ability for a fairly wide variance.

1. Guys like Greg Luzinski and Murphy, who were among the top power hitters in the game, had pretty sudden drop-offs. They'd be the far left of the bell-curve development distribution
2. Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro would be the poster children for SIGNFICANTLY ADDED power after age 30, perhaps the far right of the bell-curve.
3. It seems that in the middle would be guys who add a little bit of power.

As far as the player decline curve, my guess is that two sets of variables are needed. One would be the "peak years". Again, that would be a bell-curve distribution, with the middle of the curve probably being 27-33 or something like that. The other set would be the "ramp-up speed" and "decline speed" variables. In other words, how quickly a guy's ratings increase toward his peak, and how quickly his ratings drop off after the peak is passed. Once again, a bell-curve distribution, with the "average" slope (probably a gradual, but noticeable ramp-up and decline), being the most prevalent in the middle.

Whew. That was WAY more than I intended to do with the post, but hey, there it is. Hope it can be useful.

--Ben

sixfour210 · 04-21-2003, 09:00 AM

Bottom Line, guys like A-Rod and Vlad Guerrerro should obliterate Aaron's record and, in my sims, fell short by a ton. They should have more productive careers by being able to play longer.

IF players decline, there should be significantly less of a decline and over a longer period of maybe 5-6 years instead of a couple months. During these 5-6 years, players should eventually realize they need to give it up and retire maybe in the 3rd year of the decline, some in the first, some in the 6th. It all depends on where you are in your contract and how well you've done statistically up to this point.

Ben E Lou · 04-21-2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixfour210
Bottom Line, guys like A-Rod and Vlad Guerrerro should obliterate Aaron's record

That's a bold statement. Everyone said that Griffey would do so. He had 438 at the end of his 30-year-old season. Now, at age 33, he only has 469. At this point in his career, it looks more likely that he'll have a Luzinski-type early dropoff than it is that he'll break Aaron's record.

sixfour210 · 04-21-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
That's a bold statement. Everyone said that Griffey would do so. He had 438 at the end of his 30-year-old season. Now, at age 33, he only has 469. At this point in his career, it looks more likely that he'll have a Luzinski-type early dropoff than it is that he'll break Aaron's record.

Well that's because Griffey was injured the past 3 seasons, if he wasn't and hit 40 home runs the past 3 years, he'd be at 558, and well on his way to 756 at the age of 33.

While I did say "should" and not "will", I just notice that they fall short by a lot because they retire too early. I don't think A-Rod would retire with 700 HR at the age of 36, knowing that if he played at least 2 more seasons, he could have the record easily. And don't give me anything about how his talent would be diminished at 36 because that's nuts.

I think the idea of the 6 or so years of diminishing talent, starting around 35, makes sense but the ratings reduction should be very minor from year to year. And the talent hits should occur in the offseason also. I think most players retire because they can't mentally deal with the reduction in talent from year to year. Only the mentally tough guys that can deal with it by working out more and hanging in there. Rickey Henderson is in great shape and refuses to believe he has lost any ability, but we all know he has. He's just very mentally tough and has stuck around longer.

So anyway, like I said, guys could chose when they retire (within these 6 or so years) depending on where they are in their contract, how well their team is doing, and if they are going for any milestones.

Ben E Lou · 04-21-2003, 10:07 AM

sixfour:

I hear what you're saying, but keep it mind that it really isn't automatic that A-Rod will be a star at age 36 even if he doesn't get injured. Look at Dale Murphy. Murph wasn't just another good player. He was arguably the best player in the game at one time. He is one of only 10 or 12 guys in the history of the award to win back-to-back MVP's. The six seasons he had from age 26-31 were magnificent. However, without any injury, he went from .294-44-105 at age 31 to .226-24-77 at age 32, and he never had another season any better than that. If it wasn't for that 38-year-old freak of nature by the bay, A-Rod would be, like Murphy, arguably considered to be the best player in the game today. All I am saying it that it is POSSIBLE that he could have a Murphy-esque inexplicable drop-off. It has happened before to one of the best in the game, and it can surely happen again.

OOTP5 should have SOME superstars who have a slow decline over time (and I've seen some), but there should clearly also be some superstars who just drop off the table in their early 30's. There should also be some Mike Schmidt's--a very productive superstar into his mid 30's--then a one-year complete drop off the table. There should be some Greg Luzinski's--big-time power hitters for just a few seasons who lose it early. There should be some Palmeiros--guys who don't really find their power stroke until after age 30, and keep it almost to age 40. There should be some Hank Aaron's--7 30+ homer seasons before age 30, and 7 30+ homer seasons after age 30.

sixfour210 · 04-21-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog
sixfour:

I hear what you're saying, but keep it mind that it really isn't automatic that A-Rod will be a star at age 36 even if he doesn't get injured. Look at Dale Murphy. Murph wasn't just another good player. He was arguably the best player in the game at one time. He is one of only 10 or 12 guys in the history of the award to win back-to-back MVP's. The six seasons he had from age 26-31 were magnificent. However, without any injury, he went from .294-44-105 at age 31 to .226-24-77 at age 32, and he never had another season any better than that. If it wasn't for that 38-year-old freak of nature by the bay, A-Rod would be, like Murphy, arguably considered to be the best player in the game today. All I am saying it that it is POSSIBLE that he could have a Murphy-esque inexplicable drop-off. It has happened before to one of the best in the game, and it can surely happen again.

OOTP5 should have SOME superstars who have a slow decline over time (and I've seen some), but there should clearly also be some superstars who just drop off the table in their early 30's. There should also be some Mike Schmidt's--a very productive superstar into his mid 30's--then a one-year complete drop off the table. There should be some Greg Luzinski's--big-time power hitters for just a few seasons who lose it early. There should be some Palmeiros--guys who don't really find their power stroke until after age 30, and keep it almost to age 40. There should be some Hank Aaron's--7 30+ homer seasons before age 30, and 7 30+ homer seasons after age 30.

#1 Dale Murphy only had 128 HR at ARod's age.

#2 Players suffering career altering injuries is fine and obviously happens in real life. I never said anything about decline due to injury, like Murphy. But sudden decline is unrealistic.

#3 No one in ootp has a realistic slow decline in ootp. It is always over 1 or 2 seasons. A good example of a slow decline and a generally great aging curve would be the High Heat series. A lot of players retire with respectable numbers and some players play well into their 40s. It's great.

#4 I think Luzinski didn't perform well becasue he didn't play everyday. I don't know much about him so I don't know if this was due to injury or what but players coming off the bench generally perform worse than if they were playing everyday. If you note that in '82 and '83, his production increased once again when he started to get more playing time.

#5 Aaron would never hit 755 HR in a replay in ootp. He wouldn't even come close. Even if you started him in his best year and simmed the rest, he still wouldn't because he would end his career too early. This would happen to Ruth also. In fact, I'm going to perform a little test and post the results here with both Ruth and Aaron.

04-19-2003, 07:21 PM	#6
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	I like the idea and see if there is away to tweak it without it being too much. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-20-2003, 10:14 PM	#8
LivnLegend Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: 100% pure adrenaline! Posts: 5,624	In my current solo league, I was overjoyed to see Ezekiel Gonzales pitch effectively until right before his 43rd birthday! Gonzales, a closer, pitched for 23 years (he was in the league in the initial creation/draft) and retired with over 700 saves. In his last season his ratings dropped like a marble rolling off a table but it was sure exciting each season to see if he was going to be able to continue his excellence! __________________ Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling.

04-21-2003, 09:00 AM	#16
sixfour210 All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,227	Bottom Line, guys like A-Rod and Vlad Guerrerro should obliterate Aaron's record and, in my sims, fell short by a ton. They should have more productive careers by being able to play longer. IF players decline, there should be significantly less of a decline and over a longer period of maybe 5-6 years instead of a couple months. During these 5-6 years, players should eventually realize they need to give it up and retire maybe in the 3rd year of the decline, some in the first, some in the 6th. It all depends on where you are in your contract and how well you've done statistically up to this point. __________________

04-19-2003, 06:28 PM	#1
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 850	Would like to see veterans get more credit? It seems once you hit a certain age all your ratings just plummet. I think this is untrue. Of course as you age things like your speed, fielding and power should go down. Also your hitting will take a dive. But most often then not, veterans have a much better understanding of the strike zone. I'd like to see veterans improve contact and lower strike outs. Not a big deal but I think it would be a good idea to pick up a veteran because he does do the things veterans in MLB do.

04-19-2003, 06:32 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	Do you feel that this is wide-spread or it happens to a few too many? __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-19-2003, 06:34 PM	#3
Behind Red Doors Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kentucky Posts: 73	I agree Bears, that certainly needs to be adjusted to atleast a 2/3rd of the veterns who had great careers. Nice suggestion. __________________ <A HREF=http://www.redszone.com>Yeah. Well. Ya know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man. <IMG SRC=http://thechemicalelement.com/heros.jpg BORDER=0></A>

04-19-2003, 07:03 PM	#4
bhlloy Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 26	Agreed - there do seem to be a lot of veterans in the game who are pretty much useless in OOTP but seem to stick around in real life for a couple of years. This could definitely be one way to rectify this. __________________ Stand by me my apprentice. Be brave, clench fists.

04-19-2003, 07:17 PM	#5
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 850	I'm not saying it's bad Steve, just think it could use some tweaking. Take Sosa for example. This is a guy who when he was young had very poor plate discipline. As he has matured he has cut that down and learned. Many players like Bonds have done the same. I think plate discipline is a key attribute and something many players don't quite achieve till they are older. It'd be good to see veterans being kept and picked up because they possess these qualities.

04-20-2003, 09:30 PM	#7
Paul31 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 56	I don't agree with this. Yes, some veteran players learn plate discipline, but they also have slower bat speed which would cancel this out. There are guys like Shawon Dunston and a few others who have been around forever and still pretty much swing at anything which doesn't hit them first. Veteran players should get big-time benefits in the character skills though, better clutch performance, better leadership skills, etc. Leadership is why many MLB teams like to add a couple of veterans to the roster. In fact, I think young players should be penalized in this category. How is a 20 year old middle reliever just out of triple A gonna bring a team together with his leadership? That never happens in real life. Also, has there been any thought to taking retired players, attaching coaching skills to their names and adding them to the coaching pool? Just an idea.

04-20-2003, 10:16 PM	#9
viper31631 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indiana Posts: 69	I think ootp5 makes ratings go down too quick in 30's

04-20-2003, 10:18 PM	#10
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 850	I'm not saying veterans should be as good as they were in their primes. But a guy like Bonds goes from being the best hitter in the league to not even on a major league roster the next year. That just isn't right in my opinion.

04-20-2003, 10:41 PM	#12
GeoffP Bat Boy Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 16	I believe that a "longevity" rating would help, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea to add this where it is visible and could therefore have an impact on personnel moves. There has to be something to set the guys who are still contributers in their 40s apart from the majority who are done in the 35-39 range. For pitchers, the velocity and stamina should decline first, allowing a pitcher to get by on location and whatever they've got left. I agree with Paul on hitters. Not many players develop a better strike zone than they had in their prime. Most of the time, the bat slows down, and they begin to cheat on the fastball. At best, you see an adjustment where guys start taking the ball the other way a lot more & preserving their average somewhat. That, however, usually takes away even more homers. I'd say for hitters, the getting hits and avoiding strikeouts rating should show the bulk of the decline, along with fielding range, then HR production & speed. I think a 'fitness' rating would be interesting, giving the workout maniacs like Ryan, Clemons and Carlton an advantage in their late 30s. I just don't know how you explain David "Sober up with an omelet at 4AM in the diner" Wells getting guys out at 40 :-)

04-20-2003, 11:07 PM	#13
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 850	I would just be ok with players not declining so quickly.

04-21-2003, 07:41 AM	#15
Ben E Lou Front Office Football Central Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Souf Cackilacky Posts: 1,762	Perhaps keeping veterans around should help boost attendance? (a "popularity" rating that grows with time?) Speaking of development, isn't it the conventional wisdom that batting average drops a bit and power goes up in the early 30's? I'll admit that I've never read any hard numbers or research on this, so I decided to do a quick look at some power hitters from the last 25 years or so. I see that Bonds only had one season of 40+ homers before age 32, but since then 5 of 7 seasons have been 40+ homers. Sosa had one season of 40+ before age 30, but since then every season has been 49 homers or more. Even McGwire, who hit 49 as a 24-year-old rookie, only hit 40+ twice in his 20's, but then hit 50+ for four straight season age 33-36. (and had 32 in only 236 at at bats at 37) . Looking a little farther, all three of Mike Schmidt's 40+ homer seasons occurred at ages 29-33 (and he had 31 in 354 at-bats in the strike-shortened '81 season, when he was 31). Actually, Schmidt's career make a good case for veterans dropping off the table. In '87, at age 37, he put up a .293-35-113 season, but then at age 38, he was .249-12-62 in 390 at bats. On the other hand, Greg "The Bull" Luzinski is a very different case. His best power seasons were at age 24-27, and he only hit 30+ once after age 30. He had a .255-32-95 year at age 32, then at 33 he was .238-13-58 and his career was over. Dale Murphy had five seasons of 30+ homers in his 20's, but his only 40+ season was at age 31. He REALLY dropped off the table after that year though: age 31: .295-44-105, age 32: .226-24-77, age 33: .228-20-84, age 34: .245-24-83 and out. Rafael Palmeiro had one season of 30+ homers before age 30, but all 8 of his full seasons at ages 30-37 he hit 38 homers or more. The Crime Dog has dropped off a little in power since age 30. He had six straight 30+ homer seasons age 24-29, and four since then. (Curiously, he's picked it back up the last four seasons though. Three of his last four seasons he's had 30+ homers--ages 35-38). Eddie Murray had 4 30+ homer seasons before age 30, and one afterward. "Pops" Stargell had one 30+ homer season before age 30, and five afterward, including 32 in only 424 at bats at age 39. Winfield had one 30+ season before age 39, two afterward. King Kong Kingman had two 30+ seasons before age 30, and five afterward. Andre Dawson had one 30+ season before, and two after (including hitting 49 at age 32). Joe Carter had two before, four after. Galarraga had none before, and five after, his first coming at age 33. (Yeah, I know four were in Colorado, but The Big Cat hit 44 in Atlanta age age 37, and 28 at age 39 after sitting out a year with cancer.) Conclusions: Hard to draw any hard-and-fast rules from this mini-study, but my main conclusion is that player development curves need to have the ability for a fairly wide variance. 1. Guys like Greg Luzinski and Murphy, who were among the top power hitters in the game, had pretty sudden drop-offs. They'd be the far left of the bell-curve development distribution 2. Sosa, Bonds and Palmeiro would be the poster children for SIGNFICANTLY ADDED power after age 30, perhaps the far right of the bell-curve. 3. It seems that in the middle would be guys who add a little bit of power. As far as the player decline curve, my guess is that two sets of variables are needed. One would be the "peak years". Again, that would be a bell-curve distribution, with the middle of the curve probably being 27-33 or something like that. The other set would be the "ramp-up speed" and "decline speed" variables. In other words, how quickly a guy's ratings increase toward his peak, and how quickly his ratings drop off after the peak is passed. Once again, a bell-curve distribution, with the "average" slope (probably a gradual, but noticeable ramp-up and decline), being the most prevalent in the middle. Whew. That was WAY more than I intended to do with the post, but hey, there it is. Hope it can be useful. --Ben

04-21-2003, 10:07 AM	#19
Ben E Lou Front Office Football Central Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Souf Cackilacky Posts: 1,762	sixfour: I hear what you're saying, but keep it mind that it really isn't automatic that A-Rod will be a star at age 36 even if he doesn't get injured. Look at Dale Murphy. Murph wasn't just another good player. He was arguably the best player in the game at one time. He is one of only 10 or 12 guys in the history of the award to win back-to-back MVP's. The six seasons he had from age 26-31 were magnificent. However, without any injury, he went from .294-44-105 at age 31 to .226-24-77 at age 32, and he never had another season any better than that. If it wasn't for that 38-year-old freak of nature by the bay, A-Rod would be, like Murphy, arguably considered to be the best player in the game today. All I am saying it that it is POSSIBLE that he could have a Murphy-esque inexplicable drop-off. It has happened before to one of the best in the game, and it can surely happen again. OOTP5 should have SOME superstars who have a slow decline over time (and I've seen some), but there should clearly also be some superstars who just drop off the table in their early 30's. There should also be some Mike Schmidt's--a very productive superstar into his mid 30's--then a one-year complete drop off the table. There should be some Greg Luzinski's--big-time power hitters for just a few seasons who lose it early. There should be some Palmeiros--guys who don't really find their power stroke until after age 30, and keep it almost to age 40. There should be some Hank Aaron's--7 30+ homer seasons before age 30, and 7 30+ homer seasons after age 30.