Training bug was when older players would improve past their projected limits if you put 20M into your training budget

How many of those players are still around?

There's a few. They've been able to pitch into their 40s...

Here's a Fireman with control under 50: Randy Lowe.

Here's a ROY with just terrible pitches (and yes, I know he pitched in Burlington, but his road #s were good too): Derrick Ward.

Here's a reliever who's appeared in 465 ML games (although he's not very good) with a sub-50 split and great pitches: Derek McDowell. Willis Lombard is another sub-50 vsL guy with ~1000 ML IP.

There's an exception to almost every rule when it comes to pitching. It's going to take a while for you to figure out what works for you. But all of the ratings have value.

Sub-4.00 ERA over 50 innings with a vR of 26:

http://whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1458793

He's not just a LHS either... Try and figure that one out.

Quote: Originally posted by drarcher on 2/05/2010I like to have splits in the 90's with control above 80 as well as the first pitch 90+ and second and third pitch above 75. But thats just me.

no wonder why you beat me in the world series!

For a SP add-up a pitchers ratings for control, splits, 1st, 2nd.

Us 50 control and splits as an absolute minimum.

Then a pitcher who's ratings end up being 340 or higher will be a servicable ML pitcher.

Around 380 you start getting a consistent All-star

Around 410 you are talking consistent Cy Young threat.

There are obviously exceptions and some categories are worth more than others but this gives a generic baseline

IMO I rate the pitching cats in the following order Control, RH, 1st pitch, LH, 2nd, 3rd. I am also a proponent of GB/FB of 60 or greater.

Quote: Originally Posted By bermanap on 2/05/2010

Quote: Originally posted by drarcher on 2/05/2010 I like to have splits in the 90's with control above 80 as well as the first pitch 90+ and second and third pitch above 75. But thats just me.

no wonder why you beat me in the world series

I have never had a pitcher like that, but would love it. I was only half joking because there are too many varibles and even then I have had pitchers who had no business doing well pitch great and vice versa. So I think only the guy I mentioned would be a sure fire great pitcher.

This whole 'training bug' thing gets me. Doesn't it make sense that if you have a high training budget your guys may still improve while the team with average training budget will have players stop improving sooner? Otherwise what is the point of the training budget? Don't get me wrong, those guys that are going to improve longer than the typical player would also need a high makeup but there are examples of this in real baseball. Jamie Moyer, is still going at what 85, and he got better with his older age. Greg Maddux was getting better well past the age 27 cutoff that is instituted here in HBD. There are way too many examples to name but I could go on and on. I don't know why more guys aren't improving for more than 4 seasons, especially the ones that get singed at 18 and max out ratings when they 22-23. It really doesn't make sense for a guy to stop developing at that age.

Would you prefer a slower development? A point or two for 10 seasons and then a steady decline?

i wouldn't mind seeing guys come in and by rockstars from 19-23 and then crap out fast (Gooden, Kerry Wood) but i'm sure that would make things quite unenjoyable when you actually have one of those guys once they start to suck

What I'm saying is not everyone develops at the same pace and not everyone stops developing after 4 pro years. Some develop fully in 3 or 4 years, some develop in 7 or 8 so why does everyone on here quit after 4, or sooner in some cases? It seems odd to have every single player hit their max value at 27 or earlier and never see a guy like Jamie Moyer or a better example Chris Carpenter. Has there ever been a guy like Nolan Ryan, Jamie Moyer or Julio Franco who played well into their 40's?

There have been many players continue to progress after 4 pro years, and there are even players that continue to progress after 27.

And I'm asking you what you'd like. Would you like slower development? You can't have players be BL-ready at 22 and keep improving til they're 33. If you did, everyone would have team full of all-stars. If you have the Goodens and Ryans, it has to be tied to a rating. How long til we figure out the rating(s) that makes a guy a star at 21 and a flameout at 27 or a steady producer for 20 seasons? Then, once it's figured out, what then?

Keep in mind that this is a simulation. It can't mirror MLB exactly. Again, it's like the draft. No one wants the #3 pick in the draft to end his career in his second season. And no one SHOULD want a pile of 23rd round picks to be perennial all-stars.