 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » lower cap for pitcher declines (bitterness suggestion)
paulcaraccio
i thought this guy might pitch until 40, but at 34, coming off a 25-win season, he lost 10 pts in velocity, 4 in control, 5 in endurance, seems like too much, i think especially in the first year of declining, a dude shouldn't lose more than, say, 8 total pts in vel/ctrl.
lower cap for pitcher declines (bitterness suggestion)
May 12, 2011 at 06:02AM View BBCode
http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=4883802i thought this guy might pitch until 40, but at 34, coming off a 25-win season, he lost 10 pts in velocity, 4 in control, 5 in endurance, seems like too much, i think especially in the first year of declining, a dude shouldn't lose more than, say, 8 total pts in vel/ctrl.
dirtdevil
May 12, 2011 at 12:24PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
why? it of course sucks when it happens to your guy, but in real life guys lose it 'overnight' all the time. if his decline had been 1, 2 and 2 would you be on here suggesting that it had been too small?
tm4559
May 12, 2011 at 01:07PM View BBCode
it used to be regular as rain (not absolutely regular, but close), then they built a little bit of variability into it, even in standard development leagues. it was one of the better enhancements, because the way it was was plain stupid.
paulcaraccio
May 12, 2011 at 10:31PM View BBCode
no, i would not have suggested that it was too small, that's like, the total opposite thing, i just think 19 pts in 3 categories is too much, i have hitters that lost less and they have 7 categories, the equivalent would be about a -44 for a hitter, and I don't think that happens, i just looked through the league-wide declines for one of my leagues and the worst for a hitter was -30 (also my guy, wtf lol), so proportionally, a pitcher shouldn't lose more than 12 or so.
dirtdevil
May 13, 2011 at 01:35AM View BBCode
of course you wouldn't have. that would have been a mistake in your favour. no one ever complains about that. look, sometimes your guy gets screwed. that's how it is. as tim says, this way (even when it bites you) is better than the old way.
paulcaraccio
May 13, 2011 at 03:17AM View BBCode
the current way probably is better than the old way, doesn't mean it's perfect, there could be a better way. This is the Suggest Enhancements board, after all.
dirtdevil
('my guy lost too much, there should be an 8-point cap' is a complaint, not a rational suggestion. and if for some reason you would like it to count as a suggestion, then my response is it isn't a very good idea, in my opinion, for all the reasons stated above.)
May 13, 2011 at 12:32PM View BBCode
it is. but you don't really have an enhancement to suggest so much as you have an "i got screwed" complaint you want to register.('my guy lost too much, there should be an 8-point cap' is a complaint, not a rational suggestion. and if for some reason you would like it to count as a suggestion, then my response is it isn't a very good idea, in my opinion, for all the reasons stated above.)
tm4559
indeed. your suggestion has merit, but, if they somehow capped the negative decline at some number, it would just move us back toward the old way, which was they all declined almost exactly the same. also, if you capped the negative, you would have to somehow put a sort of floor under the lack of decline, like, some pitchers gets lucky and don't decline much at all. nobody has a problem with that. they just want their players to be as good as possible when they come back from the decline. but fairly, if you're going to cap the bad, then, the good would have to suffer also. which, again, just takes you back to what it was before, which was, unsatisfactory.
(the comparison of hitter declines and pitcher declines is not valid, btw, they don't improve on the same schedule. it is no more unusual for a hitter to lose 6-9 points on a particular skill than it is for a pitcher to lose eight points on a skill. the hitters just have more skills, as you noted, so the total number is larger, of course.)
May 13, 2011 at 01:42PM View BBCode
Originally posted by paulcaraccio
the current way probably is better than the old way, doesn't mean it's perfect, there could be a better way. This is the Suggest Enhancements board, after all.
indeed. your suggestion has merit, but, if they somehow capped the negative decline at some number, it would just move us back toward the old way, which was they all declined almost exactly the same. also, if you capped the negative, you would have to somehow put a sort of floor under the lack of decline, like, some pitchers gets lucky and don't decline much at all. nobody has a problem with that. they just want their players to be as good as possible when they come back from the decline. but fairly, if you're going to cap the bad, then, the good would have to suffer also. which, again, just takes you back to what it was before, which was, unsatisfactory.
(the comparison of hitter declines and pitcher declines is not valid, btw, they don't improve on the same schedule. it is no more unusual for a hitter to lose 6-9 points on a particular skill than it is for a pitcher to lose eight points on a skill. the hitters just have more skills, as you noted, so the total number is larger, of course.)
paulcaraccio
May 14, 2011 at 08:37AM View BBCode
yes, the total number is larger, but my point was that it is proportionally smaller. This pitcher lost 19 pts in 3 categories, 6.3 pts per category, while the hitter who declined the most lost 30 pts in 7 categories, only 4.3 per category.
dirtdevil
May 14, 2011 at 12:53PM View BBCode
that doesn't mean those are the largest possible numbers for a hitter. or for a pitcher, for that matter. look, bad luck happens sometimes and the game is better now that it can. get over it.
paulcaraccio
May 15, 2011 at 12:03AM View BBCode
i am not currently, nor have i ever been, under it. The "bitterness suggestion" of the title was tongue-in-cheek. I just looked through another league's offseason, and the most declines for any hitter was 30 there as well, so I've got to assume that if that's not the cap, it's close to it, extremely far from 44, which would be the proportional equivalent of a pitcher losing 19. I believe there should be a correlation there.
dirtdevil
(the title may have been intended as tongue-in-cheek. what it is is completely accurate)
May 15, 2011 at 01:50AM View BBCode
oh well if you've looked at TWO leagues...(the title may have been intended as tongue-in-cheek. what it is is completely accurate)
paulcaraccio
May 15, 2011 at 03:07AM View BBCode
just for you, i checked a 3rd league. The worst decline for a hitter was............30 points. Not 29 or 31, but 30. Exactly 30 for 3 different leagues. It's still possible that the exactly 30 is coincidental, but I think it's safe to say that hitters don't approach 44. If you have any evidence to refute this, I would certainly welcome it, but please, no more of this "You're so bitter, yes you are!" stuff, I don't think anyone is interested in that.
WillyD
May 15, 2011 at 03:08AM View BBCode
I'd be all for having a cap at 8 or 9 points per category, but not an overall cap.
dirtdevil
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=8472140
it blows, but that's how it goes sometimes. i don't see that as a bad thing that needs to be changed but rather a positive that declines are random. i don't see any reason to try and correlate with hitters. they're different, and should be.
for what it's worth though, after checking only one league, i found this guy
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=7629232
who lost 32.
so i'm going to go ahead and respectfully suggest that 30 is NOT the upper limit for hitters, that 3 leagues (or even 4) is NOT enough research to draw any kind of conclusion as to what the upper limit might be and that the system works just fine as it is. major skill declines make the system better, i don't see any compelling reason to change things.
May 15, 2011 at 08:45PM View BBCode
look, this guy of mine has lost 17 points in vel in two years.http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=8472140
it blows, but that's how it goes sometimes. i don't see that as a bad thing that needs to be changed but rather a positive that declines are random. i don't see any reason to try and correlate with hitters. they're different, and should be.
for what it's worth though, after checking only one league, i found this guy
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=7629232
who lost 32.
so i'm going to go ahead and respectfully suggest that 30 is NOT the upper limit for hitters, that 3 leagues (or even 4) is NOT enough research to draw any kind of conclusion as to what the upper limit might be and that the system works just fine as it is. major skill declines make the system better, i don't see any compelling reason to change things.
tm4559
here you go, power hitter, os 34
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6474972&statsorimps=imps
23 points lost.
now, power hitter, os 34
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6126005&statsorimps=imps
12 points lost.
now, a- pitchers
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6126005&statsorimps=imps
13 points lost
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=7500681&statsorimps=imps
7 points lost.
if you look long enough, you find them on greater ranges than that. those were just some of the first cards i pulled up.
May 15, 2011 at 10:58PM View BBCode
the thirty is conincidental.here you go, power hitter, os 34
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6474972&statsorimps=imps
23 points lost.
now, power hitter, os 34
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6126005&statsorimps=imps
12 points lost.
now, a- pitchers
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6126005&statsorimps=imps
13 points lost
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=7500681&statsorimps=imps
7 points lost.
if you look long enough, you find them on greater ranges than that. those were just some of the first cards i pulled up.
tm4559
May 15, 2011 at 11:00PM View BBCode
(also if you're getting all stuck on that 44, you are including the endurance. the velocity and the control are the operative thing here, the endurance affects performance not at all, it simply governs the number of hitters faced before it starts to tire. it does not belong in this discussion, it isn't relevant.
Stros
http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=8208763
I think the fact that hitters lose 10 points off a cat all the time when declines hit make it fair when compared to the higher end of pitching declines.
19 is high, and it does suck when it happens to our guy but I for one like the unknown in this game. I had a 4 time CY winner lose 16 the first year of declines and it sucked so I feel your pain.
[Edited on 5-17-2011 by Stros]
May 17, 2011 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Here is the first league I checked, second team. I had a guy once lose high 30's but I'm trying to find him as the improvement report doesn't go back far enough and I can't remember his name at this point.http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&statsorimps=imps&id=8208763
I think the fact that hitters lose 10 points off a cat all the time when declines hit make it fair when compared to the higher end of pitching declines.
19 is high, and it does suck when it happens to our guy but I for one like the unknown in this game. I had a 4 time CY winner lose 16 the first year of declines and it sucked so I feel your pain.
[Edited on 5-17-2011 by Stros]
Pages: 1