Not sure if this is built into the game or if it's just confirmation bias, but it feels like players go through periods where they are consistently under- or over-performing similar to real life where players get hot and cold. Obviously statistical aberrations happen, but it does feel like if this game just used the straight ratings for every outcome and there wasn't any background factor influencing each player's current state, results would be more evenly spread. Seeing lots of prolonged peaks and valleys for lots of players makes me think they can temporarily get an adjustment to their play, positively or negatively, perhaps based on how they've played in the last few games. Maybe influenced as well by Makeup/Patience/Temper or some combo of the three.

Is there any known info about this, or has it been debunked? What I'm wondering is if there's any value to temporarily benching a cold player like in real life to give them a break and clear their head, and if there's any value to riding a hot hitter or pitcher who is playing above his ratings. Otherwise it makes more sense to just leave your mathematically highest-rated players in all the time regardless of recent results.

Trends and randomness is probably the answer. Sometimes the players you think have the best numbers are not productive. The influences of intangibles on production have never been tested, so I go with the "hot" player when players are close to even numerically.

I've noticed my teams in different leagues tend to have hot/cold streaks at similar times of the season. For instance, I always start hot in Hunter and cold in All the Way Mae. Some of that is scheduling I'm sure, but I've noticed it just about every season now. It's to the point where if I start not awful in All the Way Mae I know I'm winning 100 with my second half push lol.

Most of us are looking at a player card and just basing our expectations on the ratings we see in front of us. I simply believe that "streaks" are random occurrences based on a possible variation depending on the OPPOSITION. Yes, pray4pro, the schedule. What about your opponents? What if one of the teams gets a lot better in the offseason? What if your hitter, through luck, misses any at-bats against his fifth starter or SetupB reliever? What if your righthanded SP one season instead of others just ends up running into a lot more LH batters?

Any "narrative" you add to a set of observed data, without any proof that the conditions that generated that data have been altered, is: Your Imagination.

Sometimes imagination leads to a potential answer. There is a reason that when you look at a player card of player that has 10+ MLB seasons, you'll notice that he usually has at least one great season (usually 2 if he plays 15+ seasons), at least one terrible season (usually 2 if he plays 15+ seasons) and several seasons that are similar or close to one another. Maybe it is my imagination, but if I had to guess, i would say that there is code that purposely introduces randomness into a player's performance not only from season to season, but also during the season.

You will never convince me that a player that is having a career year is it doing based on the luck of the matchup draw. I am convinced that there is a buff/nerf added to player's ratings each season, but again, it could certainly be my imagination.

There's only one unseen ratings thing I believe in about this game, because I've experienced it.

Someone - maybe it was you tlowster, I don't remember who - threw out the idea awhile back that players sometimes perform to their PEAK ratings instead of just their current ratings. That would function as a theoretical buff/nerf as you suggested, and it would explain why a player with just good ratings can have a slump, and a player with slightly better ratings can seemingly hit a magical switch and be a HOFer.

I saw it when I signed a HOF hitter for his final season. He had been on my friend's team, but my friend left the league and the player was close to hitting a few statistical milestones. So I signed him to be my backup 1B. Trust me, his hitting ratings had declined to barely AAA level, he was 40s/50s across the board. By the time playoffs started he was my starting 1B because he kept hitting anyway.

I do think that that is the case -- players perform to their peak ratings, but I think the buffs/nerfs also exist. I have seen too many career best year/career worst seasons. If it was just random matchup gains/losses, I could see having a maximum of .075 OPS difference, but there are guys where the difference from tgeir worst season to their best season season is .300+ OPS. My opinion is that they purposely introduce ratings buffs/nerfs to simulate randomness. At the end of the day though, you're right -- it's just an opinion that i can't prove.