All my younger players had a huge drop off

[leejay56]

did anyone else young players take a hit last sim... ugh, awful, can someone explain how everyone in one sim takes a lump...thanks, lee

[recte44]

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=27115

[Bumstead]

Honestly, I just don't understand why a change of this nature is made in this league right in the middle of the season...Why wouldn't this change have been talked about and made in the off-season? Now, it's made close to the trade deadline, so instead of trading, we have to sit here and figure out what this change means to each one of our organization's plans for this season and future seasons...seems like the wrong time to put this change in place...

[jiminyhopkins]

Really annoying, isn't it.

I'm old enough to remember when things like this were usually proposed in a league poll.

[felipe]

I like the change long term

But yeah

I’m not dealing at the deadline now because it seems like everything has changed

All my guys are suddenly shit

Until I get comfortable, there’s no way I’m dealing anyone

[JimBob2232]

I like the change long term

But yeah

I’m not dealing at the deadline now because it seems like everything has changed

All my guys are suddenly shit

Until I get comfortable, there’s no way I’m dealing anyone

Agree too. I like the change (i think), but I have pumped the brakes on roster moves while I get used to it. I had some pretty firm filters set up for who I was looking for...none of those apply anymore. I gotta rethink my whole strategy (which agian, i think is okay/good...i just need time to adjust to it).

[GoldenOne]

Love to see these comments when I’m trying to trade my team. All I can say is that if they were good players before the change, they are still good players. Previous and current stats aren’t fake because their ratings changed. Values are definitely different until things shake out. Peithner wouldn’t have been as valuable with his current ratings, especially based on recent stats.

But, I’ll repeat - current and recent stats don’t lie.

[RonCo]

The core ratings have not changed. But people's ability to understand them is shifting.

[Ted]

Love to see these comments when I’m trying to trade my team. All I can say is that if they were good players before the change, they are still good players. Previous and current stats aren’t fake because their ratings changed. Values are definitely different until things shake out. Peithner wouldn’t have been as valuable with his current ratings, especially based on recent stats.

But, I’ll repeat - current and recent stats don’t lie.

As the guy who traded you Peithner, I'd disagree a bit. Whether you call 5.5 or 6 average, he still has solidly above average but not elite stuff. Before I don't think any of us we shitting our pants about 9 stuff, and we aren't now either with 7, but it's still a strength, not a weakness. You could argue that his 7 motion as a right handed pitcher is elite. He also has very well above average, borderline elite control as before. Additional, he has a plus stuff split against left handed pitching, which is a huge strength compared to most righties. Before I'd say he's a number two starter, and he still looks like that. He hasn't been great this year. He seemed to be putting it together for me, but has definitely relapsed for you. Aside from the change, he hasn't lost any ratings, so there's no reason to think he won't bounce back to being the mid 3 FIP pitcher he was before this season. OOTP does this shit all the time where it just makes a guy suck for a year for no real reason.

Where that trade really looks different is Simpson, who didn't lose anything. Again, I'd say thats more likely because he had largely elite ratings, and they didn't change because they were already shown as elite. (This is what you get when fit a distribution to a bell curve. The outliers stay outlies, but the middle guys get clumped together). The other thing to consider with prospects is that I have the feeling that most of them do not reach their original potential, even when they don't lump. We just couldn't tell before. Who really cred if a 9/9/9 guy showed up as 9/8/9. Or, we've all had the guy who is 7 of 8 for like 3 years as a pro and then the potential finally lumps to 7. That's probably what happens with everyone as they develop. It's just that when the guy's potential was a high 8 and he stopped at a low 8 we couldn't tell. So all these young kids who have sky high potentials will probably not reach them (even aside from the total busts). It's just that before we didn't notice because the ratings were so high. Development curves might look different when a potential has to stay in the top 15-20 percent to stay blue. Or thy might not. But yes, I'm surprised Simpson still looks so good.

But to reiterate what Ron said. The players didn't change. They have exactly the same ability they did before the change (normal sim to sim variation and development aside.)

[RonCo]

Piethner had been a low 2 high 3 for three seasons.

[GoldenOne]

Dont get me wrong, I agree with both of you (Ted and Ron) and was trying to say that. What I did not say so well is that while I still would have made the same trade for Peithner, in the immediate aftermath of the ratings changes, he doesnt look as valuable. Its really just a matter of getting used to the new numbers. They are all still the same players, its just throwing everyone's thought processes off as to how to evaluate guys now.

What really hurts is that I am trying to trade some guys and either guys arent going to make some trades because the new ratings has them thrown off or they are going to value folks differently as well. Not helpful when its just a few sims before the deadline.

[RonCo]

Yeah...[grin]...but my view is that Peithner looks just as valuable today as he did before the change.

[ae37jr]

Carlos Camacho still looks like a solid everyday player/occasional all star. Until he lumps I'm not buying stock in any ratings this game spits out.

[RonCo]

The question he and a few others bring up is how much the personality ratings affect performance. I've generally discounted them...but they may be bigger than I give them credit for.

[Ted]

The question he and a few others bring up is how much the personality ratings affect performance. I've generally discounted them...but they may be bigger than I give them credit for.

I think the ones that are truly bad , where the comment about the personality ratings is distinctly negative are more or less "buy at your own risk players". I'm not sure I like this, as I' challenge the devs to "show me their work" regarding their proof that bad attitudes make bad baseball players (MLB is has it's share of turd all stars). On that note, I think they've gone too far with clubhouse chemistry stuff in general. There is literally no data that coordinates "good leadership" and "good chemistry" with winning and the reverse with losing. There is only correlation, not causation. That is, winning teams tend to have good clubhouses. Good clubhouses tend to be with winning teams. The converse holds true for losing and bad clubhouses. Well no shit. People like to win and don't like to lose. I get why there is no data. It's not quantifiable, but for a game that seems to pride itself on following real baseball trends for a lot of this, this effect of personalities on performance and winning always felt a little forced. (Development is another issue entirely. Work ethic, smarts, coachability do matter. Are they quantifiable, no but it just doesn't seem like a stretch as much here.)

edit: For further clarity, I don't even mind that teams that have been losing then play worse due to bad mood. That's fine, and probably reasonable. It's the stuff like "leadership" mattering and the initial opening day impact of "captains" and "unmotivated players" and "outspoken guys". This is all just crap they'be made up based on storylines pushed by beat writers who have to submit something every day. I'lll look for it, and I know it's a different sport, but there was a hockey piece from a few years ago (Hockey, the last great bastion of tradition and doing things the same way because that's how it's always been done and of course all ex players are good GMs because they're "hockey guys", etc etc), but it followed some guys listed as "bad locker room guys" for several years as well as looked at "bad team chemistry" from year x to year x+1 and there was zero correlation to winning and losing. None. Zip. Zero. zilch. Nada. Winning teams had good locker rooms. Losing teams had bad ones.

[RonCo]

To be clear, I'm not saying I'm convinced the impact is big. But Camacho does make an interesting test case. I get angsty picking only a few players and focusing on them.

If I get some time I'll d some real testing.

[RonCo]

I've done some testing. Hmmm...

[aaronweiner]

All we did was change the middle to the middle.

It's actually pretty helpful.

[RonCo]

Carlos Camacho still looks like a solid everyday player/occasional all star. Until he lumps I'm not buying stock in any ratings this game spits out.

To note here, however, my real read on Camacho's ratings is that I think he should be a 1-2 WAR player if he played full time. Positive, but not really capable of All-Star play. To give him his due, he's never played full-time, and in his last four seasons he's played about 1/3rd time, and posted a WAR when he should have posted maybe 1.5-2.5 WAR given that playing time. So, yeah, he's under-performed, but in my book he's not under-performed quite as heavily as I sometimes make out in my TNs.

[bschr682]

All we did was change the middle to the middle.

It's actually pretty helpful.

Yup. Play around with it guys. Want to see if your uber prospect in AA is overmatched? change his ratings to be relative to AA and see what he looks like. I just changed my ratings relative to UMEBA and my boy Chester Owens is an 80 overall player. Its ridiculously handy to be able to have the game do some of that comparison ground work for you.