Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clayton Kershaw

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Clayton Kershaw

    I am 20 games from the end of 2021, started with 2014 in MLB15, and Clayton Kershaw is 32 and massively declining. He has 239 wins, 3561 strikeouts and an ERA of 2.29, however, he's been declining from 99 overall at the start of 2020 to 85 overall. Every category flatlined including his control. Do the creators of this game feel Kershaw will vanish overnight in his early 30s? Because he's been lights out until my 2021 all-star break when his performance finally suffered from the decline. His performance does not dictate a decline in rating.

    If this game is accurate maybe the real Dodgers should pray for Kershaw to opt out of his contract now that he's about to turn 30.

  • #2
    Unfortunately this happens to almost every player.

    Franchise and RTTS are extremely frustrating in this regard. Most players start rapidly declining in their early 30s, if not earlier. Guys also retire way too young. And then there's the guys who never get called up to the big leagues until they're like 33 years old, and then they retire 2 years later after they've had 2 great seasons. Or the guys who retire right as they're hitting free agency.

    It's been a problem on The Show for years. Hope they fixed it this year, but I doubt it. They're too busy adding retro mode.
    Last edited by ravens_orioles92; 03-04-2017, 02:08 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by fubar2k7 View Post
      I am 20 games from the end of 2021, started with 2014 in MLB15, and Clayton Kershaw is 32 and massively declining. He has 239 wins, 3561 strikeouts and an ERA of 2.29, however, he's been declining from 99 overall at the start of 2020 to 85 overall. Every category flatlined including his control. Do the creators of this game feel Kershaw will vanish overnight in his early 30s? Because he's been lights out until my 2021 all-star break when his performance finally suffered from the decline. His performance does not dictate a decline in rating.

      If this game is accurate maybe the real Dodgers should pray for Kershaw to opt out of his contract now that he's about to turn 30.
      I remember Russell answering as a side comment to a stream question last year. The question was, "Is the aging system fixed, and the declines addressed?" to which he sort of shrugged and said, "Fixed?!? Is it broken?" and then went back to what he was talking about and that is the only time I've heard it mentioned by anyone from SDS.

      When this happened and he asked that (I was watching live), I shouted out, "Yes, it is very broken!"

      Still do not get why there are certain things they don't (or won't) see. I notice how many times shadows are commented on (it is near constant, at least every stream, usually multiple times). If I could, I would play every game at night (there was a glitch a few years ago this could be done, and I did) because the shadows are too strong at times, glare is too strong at times. Looking good and decreasing functionality of a game are pointless in my opinion.

      Anyway, every time I hear shadows mentioned, I wonder to myself how many people would be THRILLED if they took every ounce of time put into shadows into making more/better uniforms, truly making them something to behold. From what I've seen, I think most would love that, and I think a good portion (maybe a majority) would enjoy that over shadows.

      I remember them being so proud of the fact that you could play an extra innings game all through the "virtual world" night, and the sun would rise at the appropriate time in the appropriate place the next morning. The only thing I thought was, "How about using that time to revamp/improve/increase the uniforms...I DON'T CARE ABOUT SUNRISE IN A BASEBALL GAME!"

      Not sure why, but there are some things, like player regression, that they don't address, and others, like sunrises, that they put a LOT of time into.

      I love this game, best ever, but the age thing is a terrible system, and needs revamping. It IS broken with the extremity and early entry it has on so many players.

      ps- if I create or use a created roster, one thing I try to do is change everyone to 18 to avoid this. I know it takes reality out, but so do the digression levels, ying for yang, I guess!

      Comment


      • #4
        So I will preface my comments by saying I haven't played really far into a franchise before and I've only played the Show since 2015 so I'm not claiming to be an aging expert. I also share some of the frustrations of the developers focusing on things like the sunset, but not AI bullpen usage for example (although we'll see this year).

        All that being said, the numbers on age can be pretty eye-opening and I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that a pitcher even as great as Kershaw sees rapid decline as he gets into his 30s. Plus an 85 rating is still pretty darn impressive. In 2016 there were 40 starting pitchers that registered 3 WAR. Of that group just 13 of those pitchers were 30 or older; just 8 were 32 or older, and only Rich Hill and John Lackey were 34 and over.

        Pedro Martinez is one of the greatest pitchers of all time, putting up numbers even better than Kershaw while pitching in a much more hitter-friendly era, and yet he didn't produce past his age 33 season and was out of the game at 37, managing just 34 starts over his last three seasons. Felix Hernandez isn't quite Kershaw, but is right behind him as one of the best starting pitchers in recent years. His age 28 season (2014) was one of his best and he has fallen heavily in the two seasons since then. While Anibal Sanchez was never Kershaw obviously, he caught my eye because his age 29 season was very good. He struck out just under 10 per 9, had an ERA of 2.57 and had over 6 WAR. Three seasons later he concluded 2016 with an ERA almost north of 6.

        Players like David Ortiz or Roger Clemens are so memorable there is maybe a tendency to think every superstar will last until he is 40 years old and be at a high level in his mid to late 30s, but Ortiz and Clemens are the exception. Maybe the system could be better at producing those Ortiz-like outliers, I don't know enough to have an opinion either way, and maybe other serious aging flaws exist, but I think guys are prone to fading sooner and more rapidly than maybe we remember sometimes.

        Comment


        • #5
          I have no issue with players declining if they play poorly and the decline is warranted. To program this decline automatically makes this aspect broken. Madison Bumgarner has been barely a .500 pitcher in my franchise and has stayed a solid 93 over the same two year period. He is 1 year younger than Kershaw. Are the developers Giants fans?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jstofferahn View Post
            ...
            Players like David Ortiz or Roger Clemens are so memorable there is maybe a tendency to think every superstar will last until he is 40 years old and be at a high level in his mid to late 30s, but Ortiz and Clemens are the exception...
            It is usually not nearly as severe of a decline, nor does it usually happen so early/quickly with a player. In the years I've watched baseball, it is true they decline starting in their mid 30's (except Bonds, who got WAY better at 39...hmm...), but in this game they drop off a cliff with their ability. That usually does not happen.

            I also have to say, WAR is not real. It is basing the calculation on something that doesn't exist (the "replacement") and games that are never played ("wins above"). I love baseball through and through, but it is kind of astounding that comparing a MLB level player to someone who doesn't exist and somehow causes teams to win or lose games that don't get played is considered some kind of measure...it is just a bad statistic that has 0 merit.

            Comment


            • #7
              You lost me when comparing Kershaw to Pedro. Even in his prime Red Sox years it was debated when he would stop dominating due to him being 5-11 and 185 pounds. A better comparison would be Randy Johnson. Randy dominated in his early 30s, similar to Kershaw in my franchise, and at age 35 signed with Arizona where in his next 4 seasons won each Cy Young, similar to my franchise with Kershaw and his awards. Johnson slightly declined at age 39, rebounded at 40, then declined until retirement. Given Kershaw is 6-3 and 225 pounds and has performed at Cy Young, and MVP levels (read my post complaining about MVP Awards going to pitchers) there should be no decline. Decline should be performance based not age based.

              Originally posted by Sunjah View Post
              It is usually not nearly as severe of a decline, nor does it usually happen so early/quickly with a player. In the years I've watched baseball, it is true they decline starting in their mid 30's (except Bonds, who got WAY better at 39...hmm...), but in this game they drop off a cliff with their ability. That usually does not happen.

              I also have to say, WAR is not real. It is basing the calculation on something that doesn't exist (the "replacement") and games that are never played ("wins above"). I love baseball through and through, but it is kind of astounding that comparing a MLB level player to someone who doesn't exist and somehow causes teams to win or lose games that don't get played is considered some kind of measure...it is just a bad statistic that has 0 merit.

              Comment


              • #8
                As I joked before. Are the developers Giants fans?

                Kershaw
                2021- 32 years old- 15-6, 2.87 ERA, 205 SO and 11 BB in 185.1 IP
                2020- 31 years old- 19-5, 2.48 ERA, 283 SO and 9 BB in 232 IP
                2019- 30 years old- 23-6, 1.68 ERA, 345 SO and 9 BB in 256.2 IP
                Career- 240-84, 2.35 ERA, 3586 SO

                Bumgarner
                2021- 31 years old- 12-9, 2.79 ERA, 165 SO and 40 BB in 180.1 IP
                2020- 30 years old- 6-18, 3.99 ERA, 165 SO and 57 BB in 198.1 IP
                2019- 29 years old- 10-12, 3.95 ERA, 178 SO and 55 BB in 200.1 IP
                Career- 129-130, 3.17 ERA, 2079 SO

                Kershaw won the Cy Young and MVP from 2017 through 2019. The decline started during the 2019 season and he has gone down in every category going from 99 overall to 85 overall.

                Bumgarner has been mediocre and has actually risen from 93 to 94 during 2021 while remaining 93 the other seasons.

                Realistically, who should decline and who should not?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I hated the player decline of MLB15. It wasn't as bad in MLB16 and hopefully it won't be a problem with the new game.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The decline I'm talking about happened in MLB16. I doubt it will get better in 17 because Ramone said it isn't broken.

                    Originally posted by lDyNoMiTel View Post
                    I hated the player decline of MLB15. It wasn't as bad in MLB16 and hopefully it won't be a problem with the new game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fubar2k7 View Post
                      The decline I'm talking about happened in MLB16. I doubt it will get better in 17 because Ramone said it isn't broken.
                      I tend to think it won't get better either (as it appears the developers don't think it is a problem). I remember when it started, it was extremely dramatic; to be honest, I didn't pay much attention to it last year because it is something I cannot control.

                      To me, the real thing to do is set players to 18 (if possible). I like "made" rosters, so it is often possible, and you don't have to worry about that nonsense for 12+ years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Believe it or not, pitchers especially do decline faster than hitters. You gotta figure that repeated arm action thousands of times a year, 200+ innings in their prime....it takes a toll on a guy. Look at the innings Kershaw has and its probably comparable to most pitchers decline in real life.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The 256 was not normal but 230 was about normal. That is about 7 innings per start. I see your point though. Perhaps the developers believe pitchers should only go 6 innings per start to keep from any unrealistic decline. I disagree and personally feel any in season decline should be performance based only and the between season decline should be age related.

                          Originally posted by Easy_Duhz_It_ View Post
                          Believe it or not, pitchers especially do decline faster than hitters. You gotta figure that repeated arm action thousands of times a year, 200+ innings in their prime....it takes a toll on a guy. Look at the innings Kershaw has and its probably comparable to most pitchers decline in real life.
                          Last edited by fubar2k7; 03-06-2017, 06:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I also didn't factor the 20-30 post-season innings into the equation. I guess I blew out is arm early. Thanks for adding to my thread.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Easy_Duhz_It_ View Post
                              Believe it or not, pitchers especially do decline faster than hitters. You gotta figure that repeated arm action thousands of times a year, 200+ innings in their prime....it takes a toll on a guy. Look at the innings Kershaw has and its probably comparable to most pitchers decline in real life.
                              I disagree, it is the way pitchers are handled now. It is not the degredation on the player physically . There was once a pitcher who had 41 wins in a season (think about that, considering 35 starts is now a good amount). Many players pitched 300+ innings until the rise of the "anticipated" bullpen. It was normal. 200+ innings should not cause the kind of massive drop to players that happens in the game. A pitcher finished a game unless they were getting destroyed, or injuries occurred.

                              I hope that makes sense. There are too many examples of LOTS more use of arms that didn't destroy people after only 10 years in a career. I don't think it is the amount of innings, but the regression system as to where the problem is. I know by today's standards people look at 200+ and freak, but in the history of the game it isn't really very much at all. I believe it was Marichal who once pitched a 16-inning game and threw 262 pitches, and it was just part of the game. No big deal at all. Mickey Lolich had 376 IP in 1971, and I know Nolan Ryan was above 300 at least a few times.

                              Personally, I don't mind the regression system being there, I just wish you could adjust it or turn it off.
                              Last edited by Sunjah; 03-06-2017, 07:56 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X