MLB 13 The Show News Post

First Candidate For MLB 13 The Show Cover is Bryce Harper, More Details Revealed

02:33 PM - December 12, 2012 by Steve_OS

Bryce Harper has been announced as the first candidate for the MLB 13 The Show cover, which will be voted on by fans.

In this Kotaku article, Bryce talks about the possibility of being the MLB 13 The Show cover athlete. Ramone Russell and Owen Good give us a few more details about the game, including a few nuggets about Beginner Mode, fielding, hit timing and a complex formula in the game's franchise mode.

Quote:


	Russell said hitting timing will be adjusted slightly in MLB 13 The Show to give batters a more satisfying payoff on solid contact. "You're going to see more offense like you do in real life," he said, addressing criticisms that The Show's rigorous contact physics last year made the game a station-to-station game of base hits for most novices. "If you square up on a fastball, it's going to be hit harder than it was before," Russell added. "People are going to be very surprised." Other upgrades Russell described involved a complex formula in the game's franchise mode, whereby team payroll�i.e., management's willingness to spend�will expand or contract relative to the team's success, and not just because a team made the playoffs or won a World Series. Teams like the Padres will never spend like teams like the Yankees, and vice versa. But especially in Road to the Show, if you end up in a small market or a perennial loser, and take them to a breakout season, you have a reasonable hope of seeing management spend for a supporting cast to get your club further into October, without stranding you there until you become an unrestricted free agent.

Source - No Longer a Rookie, Bryce Harper Wants to Welcome You to The Show (Kotaku)

Game: MLB 13 The ShowReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS Vita / PS3Votes for game: 36 - View All

MLB 13 The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 81 ThrowBack @ 12/13/12 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippy2212


	I hope with what sounds like extra emphasis on scouts and coaches this year, that this is in.

I hope so. I would like to be able to edit Walt Weiss's cornrowed doppleganger next year.

# 82 Bobhead @ 12/13/12 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	You mean less atrocious like the latest D-Backs/Reds/Indians trade?! M.K. Knight165

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerFanatic2K3


	After seeing the trades that have gone down in baseball the last 4 months I will never think of another trade in the game as being "unrealistic"

The trades that have happened in real life have been crazy, but I would not call them incomprehensible. I think the guy was more referring to how the CPU settles in terms of benefit, and offers trades that do not benefit them at all. For example, I got offered a trade last month where I got Brandon League, Miguel Olivo, and Brendan Ryan (a shortstop), in exchange for 1 single, average, shortstop prospect. Obviously I took it. If you simply take Ryan out of the trade, it looks a lot more realistic, since you can argue they need a shortstop for the future or something, but Ryan is a pretty young guy, and he's a shortstop, so literally they accomplished nothing at all. All they did was hurt themselves. That's where I think the most objective issue with the trade logic can be identified.

There definitely exists an objective separation between a poor trade, and a pointless trade. A poor trade I'd define as one where you trade something you don't need for something you want, but the values don't match. I can pay 3000 bucks for a toaster. That would be an extremely bad purchase. However, regardless of what I paid for it, it is by no means a pointless purchase. I had the 3000 to spend, and got something I value: a toaster.

A real-life example would be the Miami blockbuster trade. You can argue Miami got less than they could have, but at the end of the day, they traded what was of no value to them (failing, expensive superstars) and received something they valued highly (multiple prospects). We can argue all day about how "good" the trade is - that is, whether the benefits outweigh the cost - but I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it matters only that there ARE benefits to the trade.

A pointless trade would me trading my toaster for another toaster of lesser quality, design, or whatever else. Or me trading my only toaster for a blender, when I already own a blender. I gave up something I value, in a toaster, and received something of no value, in the blender I don't need. These are the types of transactions I think people have the most problems with, and the type that I'd like to see diminished or protected against in future games.

To summarize: I think the issue in the trade logic is that the AI seems to only exclusively compare one side of the trade to the other. Is what I'm receiving greater than or equal to what I'm giving up? What the AI needs to evaluate more profusely, is comparing what you receive to what you already have, eg: making the trade vs making no trade at all.

# 83 Falcon999 @ 12/13/12 05:18 PM

After Harper now comes CC !!!

http://mlb.mlb.com/covervote/

sounds we'll have 3 candidates !!

# 84 seanjeezy @ 12/13/12 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon999


	After Harper now comes CC !!! http://mlb.mlb.com/covervote/ sounds we'll have 3 candidates !!

Wait, so that's it? three choices, two of which weren't even close to being the best player in the league last year? The third player better be from a west coast team at least...

# 85 fnz21 @ 12/13/12 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanjeezy


	Wait, so that's it? three choices, two of which weren't even close to being the best player in the league last year? The third player better be from a west coast team at least...

Mike Trout?

# 86 bp4baseball @ 12/13/12 05:53 PM

Interesting and sneaky...what url did you use?

Edit: I got to the url using your images, but how did you get it orignially? I can't seem to right click on the website and get the image url

# 87 tabarnes19_SDS @ 12/13/12 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlk90514


	I'm pretty sure that I have read this in the past Knight, but aren't you a fan of the GM getting fired/having goals to meet? I was just curious if this is something that we might see the team implemented again in the future. I always liked having that variable in the game.

I am!! And I have asked about it. Aaron wants to get them back in at some point and have them relevant to what a real GM would be evaluated on, instead of goals like have a cy young winner.

# 88 Knight165 @ 12/13/12 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobhead


	The trades that have happened in real life have been crazy, but I would not call them incomprehensible. I think the guy was more referring to how the CPU settles in terms of benefit, and offers trades that do not benefit them at all. For example, I got offered a trade last month where I got Brandon League, Miguel Olivo, and Brendan Ryan (a shortstop), in exchange for 1 single, average, shortstop prospect. Obviously I took it. If you simply take Ryan out of the trade, it looks a lot more realistic, since you can argue they need a shortstop for the future or something, but Ryan is a pretty young guy, and he's a shortstop, so literally they accomplished nothing at all. All they did was hurt themselves. That's where I think the most objective issue with the trade logic can be identified. There definitely exists an objective separation between a poor trade, and a pointless trade. A poor trade I'd define as one where you trade something you don't need for something you want, but the values don't match. I can pay 3000 bucks for a toaster. That would be an extremely bad purchase. However, regardless of what I paid for it, it is by no means a pointless purchase. I had the 3000 to spend, and got something I value: a toaster. A real-life example would be the Miami blockbuster trade. You can argue Miami got less than they could have, but at the end of the day, they traded what was of no value to them (failing, expensive superstars) and received something they valued highly (multiple prospects). We can argue all day about how "good" the trade is - that is, whether the benefits outweigh the cost - but I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it matters only that there ARE benefits to the trade. A pointless trade would me trading my toaster for another toaster of lesser quality, design, or whatever else. Or me trading my only toaster for a blender, when I already own a blender. I gave up something I value, in a toaster, and received something of no value, in the blender I don't need. These are the types of transactions I think people have the most problems with, and the type that I'd like to see diminished or protected against in future games. To summarize: I think the issue in the trade logic is that the AI seems to only exclusively compare one side of the trade to the other. Is what I'm receiving greater than or equal to what I'm giving up? What the AI needs to evaluate more profusely, is comparing what you receive to what you already have, eg: making the trade vs making no trade at all.

So when the CPU dumped aging do nothing money players for the sake of dumping salary and getting a younger(I'm guessing...you said average prospect) SS that they can control $$$/contract wise without paying out it's no good....but when Miami does it IRL it makes sense?

Hmmm......let me think about that.

Okay...I thought about it.

M.K.
Knight165

# 89 Knight165 @ 12/13/12 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	I am!! And I have asked about it. Aaron wants to get them back in at some point and have them relevant to what a real GM would be evaluated on, instead of goals like have a cy young winner.

I am too!

I REALLY hope they make it back in ....in a future version(I think it will)...but it won't be '13 I would say.

I actually would like to have a GM set of goals and a manager set of goals and you choose to be one/the other or both.....and if say if you get fired as GM, you would no longer have control over the roster moves...trades etc. Fired as manager and you would have no control in game on subs/pinch hits etc.

Like tbarnes stated......it would have to be more realistic in goals as well.

M.K.
Knight165

# 90 Bobhead @ 12/13/12 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	So when the CPU dumped aging do nothing money players for the sake of dumping salary and getting a younger(I'm guessing...you said average prospect) SS that they can control $$$/contract wise without paying out it's no good....but when Miami does it IRL it makes sense? Hmmm......let me think about that. Okay...I thought about it. M.K. Knight165

Well for starters, Miami dumped hundreds of million dollars AND got prospects (plural). The team in my game didn't dump much money - Brendan Ryan made 800K, Olivo, 700K, and League 4 mil, and only got one mediocre prospect. If they simply wanted to dump money they could have just as easily offered League for the prospect straight-up.

And second, and most importantly, money doesn't actually mean anything in The Show, and there are no payroll constraints... so I don't think it's fair to compare dumping money in The Show to dumping money in real life.

I feel like the trade logic is decent at deciding what trades to accept, but it fails to discern which trades are worth initiating in the first place. I've noticed that more often than not it's usually the initiating team that gets shafted in AI trades.

# 91 Knight165 @ 12/13/12 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobhead


	Well for starters, Miami dumped hundreds of million dollars AND got prospects (plural). The team in my game didn't dump much money - Brendan Ryan made 800K, Olivo, 700K, and League 4 mil, and only got one mediocre prospect. If they simply wanted to dump money they could have just as easily offered League for the prospect straight-up. And second, and most importantly, money doesn't actually mean anything in The Show, and there are no payroll constraints... so I don't think it's fair to compare dumping money in The Show to dumping money in real life. I feel like the trade logic is decent at deciding what trades to accept, but it fails to discern which trades are worth initiating in the first place. I've noticed that more often than not it's usually the initiating team that gets shafted in AI trades.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not "defending" the trade logic(head scratcher at time for sure) ...but more that it also happens a lot IRL(head scratching moves)

Also...I wish someone would show me where money means nothing in the Show.
I usually have NONE...and teams I try and dump salary to are either close to broke or don't want to spend any extra cabbage!

M.K.
Knight165

# 92 queman11 @ 12/13/12 07:07 PM

Russell, will Franchise involve sort of a task system as GM, where lets say you have to get the Angels a WS in 2 years or you get fired?

# 93 ffyfe7 @ 12/13/12 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobhead


	The trades that have happened in real life have been crazy, but I would not call them incomprehensible. I think the guy was more referring to how the CPU settles in terms of benefit, and offers trades that do not benefit them at all. For example, I got offered a trade last month where I got Brandon League, Miguel Olivo, and Brendan Ryan (a shortstop), in exchange for 1 single, average, shortstop prospect. Obviously I took it. If you simply take Ryan out of the trade, it looks a lot more realistic, since you can argue they need a shortstop for the future or something, but Ryan is a pretty young guy, and he's a shortstop, so literally they accomplished nothing at all. All they did was hurt themselves. That's where I think the most objective issue with the trade logic can be identified. There definitely exists an objective separation between a poor trade, and a pointless trade. A poor trade I'd define as one where you trade something you don't need for something you want, but the values don't match. I can pay 3000 bucks for a toaster. That would be an extremely bad purchase. However, regardless of what I paid for it, it is by no means a pointless purchase. I had the 3000 to spend, and got something I value: a toaster. A real-life example would be the Miami blockbuster trade. You can argue Miami got less than they could have, but at the end of the day, they traded what was of no value to them (failing, expensive superstars) and received something they valued highly (multiple prospects). We can argue all day about how "good" the trade is - that is, whether the benefits outweigh the cost - but I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it matters only that there ARE benefits to the trade. A pointless trade would me trading my toaster for another toaster of lesser quality, design, or whatever else. Or me trading my only toaster for a blender, when I already own a blender. I gave up something I value, in a toaster, and received something of no value, in the blender I don't need. These are the types of transactions I think people have the most problems with, and the type that I'd like to see diminished or protected against in future games. To summarize: I think the issue in the trade logic is that the AI seems to only exclusively compare one side of the trade to the other. Is what I'm receiving greater than or equal to what I'm giving up? What the AI needs to evaluate more profusely, is comparing what you receive to what you already have, eg: making the trade vs making no trade at all.

I know that recent activity in the off-season doesn't really support what I am saying with the likes of Toronto and Miami etc but it just irks me when you see a trade where say Pujols gets traded for a mid 20's relief pitcher who is rated a 'D' with a potential of 'F'. I know that trades aren't always fair in real life and and what is considered fair is subjective, that's a part of what makes the off-season exciting, but no GM in their right mind would accept that trade.

The toaster analogy is the kind of thing I am trying to convey. The trades are not pointless, just poor. I'm not saying they all need to be fair value but at least with the current off-season you can see the reasoning behind the trades and FA pick ups. All I want to see is some logical reason behind why the trade is being made and just some consistency in regards to 'fair' trades.

I know this aspect is incredibly difficult to simulate as you are putting a human mind against a programmed AI mind and no computer will ever be able to emulate the human brain (yet) but there are sports games out there that can do this aspect quite well.

# 94 Russell_SCEA @ 12/15/12 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queman11


	Russell, will Franchise involve sort of a task system as GM, where lets say you have to get the Angels a WS in 2 years or you get fired?

No the focus for franchise this year was on player development, scouting, and the correlation between wins/losses and budget increases. All those portions of the game have been completely re-done.

# 95 Russell_SCEA @ 12/15/12 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	I hope this won't end up making the game overall easier though. (I'm one of those masochistic player who enjoys failing 70% of my at bats.) Nothing against making it more approachable for beginners and I do think the Show should've been doing much more in that regard... something like PYS does introducing all the game controls with intro practice modes. I feel the higher difficulty levels (All-star and above) are mostly well balanced the way they are.

Yes it's extremely important that we keep the integrity of baseball readily apparent and you will still fail on 70% of your at bats in MLB 13

.

However those moments where it's 3-2 and you know the pitcher is going to throw a fast ball and you square up on it. Only to see a lightly hit pop up fly are gone. Now this doesn't mean every time you have great timing and good contact it's going to be a hit. But it's going to be hit hard on a much more consistent basis than it was last year. You won't need swing analysis anymore when you square up on one this year you will know it at the crack of the bat.

The ball spray, trajectories, contact, timing, and energy from the hit are much more in line with real life now. Opening up the timing window was only one part of the equation there has been work done on hit types, fielder angles, jumps on the ball, ball physics etc.......... that when added together makes the hitting aspect game extremely dynamic and gratifying this year.

# 96 Unit303 @ 12/15/12 04:14 AM

That all sounds like this game is going to be truly definitive in terms of sports games at this point in time. If you get the grass decently right this is going to be a piece of love straight from the Babe himself.

# 97 kaptainkarl76 @ 12/15/12 05:15 AM

I seriously..SERIOUSLY..hope that Hype-Train Harper as cover boy is your last choice..

If you are going to put a rookie "phenom" (god i hate that word) on the cover, why not use Trout...He would be more deserving..

Harper looks like a mix between the yellow rapist dude from the movie Sin City and Shrek...Last thing I want to look at for 162 games..

# 98 Unit303 @ 12/15/12 07:02 AM

I don't want trout or harper anywhere near the damn cover. Put Mauer back on before these guys ffs.

# 99 Bobhead @ 12/15/12 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	Yes it's extremely important that we keep the integrity of baseball readily apparent and you will still fail on 70% of your at bats in MLB 13 . However those moments where it's 3-2 and you know the pitcher is going to throw a fast ball and you square up on it. Only to see a lightly hit pop up fly are gone. Now this doesn't mean every time you have great timing and good contact it's going to be a hit. But it's going to be hit hard on a much more consistent basis than it was last year. You won't need swing analysis anymore when you square up on one this year you will know it at the crack of the bat. The ball spray, trajectories, contact, timing, and energy from the hit are much more in line with real life now. Opening up the timing window was only one part of the equation there has been work done on hit types, fielder angles, jumps on the ball, ball physics etc.......... that when added together makes the hitting aspect game extremely dynamic and gratifying this year.

This is the part where I put in an image of a child/cartoon bouncing around in excitement.

# 100 nemesis04 @ 12/15/12 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaptainkarl76


	I seriously..SERIOUSLY..hope that Hype-Train Harper as cover boy is your last choice.. If you are going to put a rookie "phenom" (god i hate that word) on the cover, why not use Trout...He would be more deserving.. Harper looks like a mix between the yellow rapist dude from the movie Sin City and Shrek...Last thing I want to look at for 162 games..

The fans are going to vote on the available choices, so Sony is not determining the Cover boy we are! Also, if Trout does not show up as a voting choice, it does not necessarily mean he was not approached.

« Previous 1 2 3 456 Next »

More Links

First Candidate For MLB 13 The Show Cover is Bryce Harper, More Details Revealed