I didn't know rookies got worse?

[Sled]

I am the GM of the Phillies in "Another Good Mogul League" and have been in a few other leagues. We just finished the 2002 season and one of my Rookies, Vincente Padilla went from having an A+ in both Control and Movement to having a C and an F.(?) I have kept a high level of scouting and he was not injured at all during the season, what would cause this to happen?

[takaplan]

Hi,
First of all, Padilla may be a rookie experience-wise (even though I didn't think he was...) but he isn't a computer generated rookie. So you can't treat him as a rookie, as he is a real player.

I'm not that surprised; there are many explanations for what you saw. First of all, how high was your scouting? You mentioned it was good, but did you keep it consistently high for the past 162 regular season games?

Also, it could be that Padilla's randomly generated peak age was very early, and you are witnessing his career downfall beginning. Or it could just be a slump.

You can't compare league to league, as each league has a completely different database with different peak ages and everything. So Padilla in your league is most likely very different than Padilla in my league.

[Sled]

2002 was his first year pitching in the majors. He had a 3.73 era over 89.1 innings pitched and an OBA of .185 - my scouting was around 40 for the year. regardless of the scouting, these numbers reflect ratings of higher than C-'s and F's, right? He was at a high level until the last game of the WS, after which his ratings fell off suddenly.

He's only 24. Do some players BB Mogul decline dramaticly that young?

I didn't know that players had slumps where their rating went up and down? Does that mean that some players may come back up after their ratings nosedrop suddenly?

[DodgersGM]

It happens to him in every league I have been in. He is done.

[takaplan]

Then most likely when the database was created, his ratings were fairly low.

By saying slumps, that's all the fun of the game. You might have a player hit 45 HR one year, hit 20 HR the next year, and then come back for 60 HR the next year...with the ratings changing the whole time :)

By the way, it doesn't matter how many points you spend on the expenses. What matters is your average rank over the past 162 regular season games. So if you are ranked 5th and spend 100 pts, it would be better than being ranked 7th and spending 200 pts.

[malpits]

At the current time I am spend 300 on farm team but am 4th the person in third is spending 330 but the person in fith is only spend 180, does this mean that I am wasting points as it is the rank that matters?

[takaplan]

Yes, you are wasting your points. Rank is all that matters- not how much you spend.

[Craigrrs]

I have never seen a player change as drastically in one year as Padilla does. I have also never see ratings jump from say A to C and then back to A.

[ncummings15]

I actually find this very realistic...it can definitely happen in real life, and im sure it has. Actually I just thought of one. Mike Caruso for the white sox had an awesome rookie year, hitting above 300. At that time i would have given him at least an A- in contact, but probably higher. Then the next year he hit like 230 or something like that. Sometimes when players come up, they do well just based on their excitement from being brought up to the majors, so all that can be forseen is that they will be awesome for years to come, but something happens where they just cant find it anymore and they lose their ability.
Nick

[playshogi]

Originally posted by takaplan
Yes, you are wasting your points. Rank is all that matters- not how much you spend.

So, just as an example, if everyone in the league "agreed" to spend 50 points on farm system, they would all be ranked #1.
Therefore, would every team get super rookies?

I'm not suggesting that any league do this, however, it seems that if #1 and #2 are spending 300 points and #3 and #4 are spending 170 points, then 1 & 2 are wasting lots of points. Right?

Finally, is it the rank that is averaged, over 162 games?

Wouldn't it be nice to have, besides your current rank, your average rank over the last 162 games?

[Craigrrs]

If my understanding is correct... it is your avg. rank over 162 games. Whatever you rank says at the end of the season is meaningless. The only way you would know your true rank is if you were #1 the whole season, or #2 the whole season, etc.


Craig