Potential Revisited

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Potential Revisited

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Potential Revisited

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Potential Revisited - 9/21/2009 1:52:30 PM

Wrathchild

Posts: 817
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: Reading, PA
Status: offline

I'm sure that everyone has noticed that in the latest versions the Potential rating of a player includes not just a numeric rating but a text description. I believe the possibilities for this are Developing, At Peak, and Past Peak. This has brought up a couple of questions from me:

1) How do the numeric ratings relate to the label? I have seen pitchers, all with a Rating of 1, under all 3 labels, i.e. Player A was a 1 and Developing, Player B was a 1 and At Peak, and Player C was a 1 and Past Peak. Do the numbers even matter any more now that we ca see where they are versus their playing peak?

2) When is the best time to bring a player into the majors, while he's still Developing or when he's already At Peak?

_____________________________

J.G. Wrathchild, Manager, St. Louis Cardinals (1900-1906), Brooklyn Superbas (1907, 1908)

Post #: 1

RE: Potential Revisited - 9/21/2009 2:17:27 PM

Orcin

Posts: 162
Joined: 7/6/2009
Status: offline

I don't understand #1 either. But I think the higher number indicates more upside, whereas a score of 1 says there is nowhere to go but down.

I think when to bring the player into the majors has more to do with the ratings. When the ratings are good, the potential does not matter so much. This has been my experience anyway. For example, I had Johnny Callison on my team with a potential of 100 (past peak). He played really well. I also had Dick Groat with a potential of 1 (past peak). He was a legitimate MVP candidate. Groat was much older, hence the low potential score. Callison was past peak in his mid-20's, but it seemed to me that he still had upside.

I say bring him up when his ratings are as good as or better than the other guys you have at the position.

(in reply to Wrathchild)

Post #: 2

RE: Potential Revisited - 9/21/2009 8:44:44 PM

CrashDavis

Posts: 307
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

1) How do the numeric ratings relate to the label?

As you have probably already surmized from the puresim.xml file players have career arcs that they advance through:
1) Developing
2) Peak
3) Decline
4) Cliff

All are based on age of player. Developing simply means they have not reached their peak age yet.
Peak, then, means they are between their Peak age and Decline age.
Decline, means they are between the Decline and Cliff age.
And obviously, as the name implies, Cliff means they are ready to take the plunge.

So I wouldn't read too much into the labels. After all, for example, if you got a ballplayer who's label says he is developing, does that tell you when he will peak? No.
He may peak next year or 7 yrs from now. And once he peaks, how long until he declines?

quote:

2) When is the best time to bring a player into the majors, while he's still Developing or when he's already At Peak?

There's really is no right answer here. It all depends on the player. Some players will have a short development time while others may take several years to develop. Same holds true for Peak & Decline stage. Many times over, I have held a player back at AAA while he develops. Promoted him around his peak. And within two years he was declining. Most guys will give you about 4-5 years after their peak before they hit the decline stage. But every once in a while I get burned by a guy with a short peak-decline stage. That's life. Decline stage should not be confused with Cliff stage. Declining doesn't mean he's ready for a retirement home in Florida. He can still be as productive as he was at his peak (stats-wise) at least for awhile as his ratings decline year-after-year. At some point of course, as his ratings decrease, his stats get sucked down too.

All of this however, is predicated on you - the manager - maintaining players at their "optimal" levels on your team as stated in the Puresim.xml file. That's why, in the long run, it doesn't payoff to build a team full of youngsters or veterans. Your major league roster can only hold 25 guys. Dumping vets into your farm system can potentially cause them to throw in the towel and unexpectedly retire on you. Or, if not retire, cause an inadvertant decrease in ratings when otherwise they may have maintained their rating at the major league level. Conversely, dumping peak players into farm system because you have too many vets at major league level can cause the younger players to become stiffled and not improve - I've even seen a few retire.

(in reply to Wrathchild)

Post #: 3

RE: Potential Revisited - 9/21/2009 10:05:22 PM

Wrathchild

Posts: 817
Joined: 10/12/2007
From: Reading, PA
Status: offline

Thanks for the explanations. Part of my problem is that I get too caught up in the 'I want to see what happens next game' state of mind, so I don't spend a enough time really looking at my players and trying to figure out how to get the most out of my team. The excitement of game day itself drags me in too much!

_____________________________

J.G. Wrathchild, Manager, St. Louis Cardinals (1900-1906), Brooklyn Superbas (1907, 1908)

(in reply to CrashDavis)

Post #: 4

RE: Potential Revisited - 9/22/2009 2:39:05 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

The truth of the matter, in PureSim terms, is how far back do you want to go in historical leagues? I've tried a few 1940s timeframes, and the problem with low-rated pitchers indeed is an issue. With 40-man rosters in the modern era, this isn't a problem. This is one of the reasons I elected to jump into a 21st century association.

Sooner or later, though, I'll get into the wayback machine and revert to the 1946-60 Golden Age. 35 or 40 man rosters work fairly well, but a few of those godawful 5 CON or 5 STUFF pitchers occasionally sneak their way in, especially as the injury toll piles up.

Some kind of normalization routine is needed, but this can also create statistical anomalies. Perhaps a minimum rating for imported real players (at least 10 for any given pitcher) should be required. Otherwise, the only answer is motnahp's idea to use manual editing, which is cumbersome and time-consuming.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 9/22/2009 2:42:41 AM >

(in reply to Wrathchild)

Post #: 5