MLB The Show 16 News Post

MLB The Show 16 Video - Franchise, Player Morale and Much More

06:56 PM - February 19, 2016 by Steve_OS

GameInformer has posted a new MLB The Show 16 video with Ramone Russell. They discuss many of the new features in the game, including franchise, player morale and much more. Check it out and post your thoughts!

Thanks for the tip, Grant Thomas!

Game: MLB The Show 16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4Votes for game: 23 - View All

MLB The Show 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 121 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	You're mixing two different things though. tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression.... You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract. Two totally different things. But let's continue onto the last part of your post.... So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings? ....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward? Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do. VERY unrealistic IMO. M.K. Knight165

I don't think that was what he was arguing exactly. I would want a combination of what tabarnes and lovesports are saying. A player's skill should remain fairly constant, but performance should also take a larger part in at least regression than it does now.

In the Trout example I find it very reasonable that if a player has an extended period of low performance, than his ratings should be affected. ONLY because the game's AI uses the ratings so heavily in it's decision making and lovesports is referencing this. If Trout hits 10 HRs in his walk year, it would definitely affect his contract, but the game will still see him as a 99. Now if the game's AI used the performance of the player more heavily in decision making I don't think performance needs to be tied to progression at all. Just have little +/- for hot/cold streaks within a season.

But, I do agree that performance should affect regression very heavily to prevent the undervaluing of players and how the game handles playing time and retirement.

Now if the game does look at performance more heavily instead of just the ratings I think this discussion changes dramatically. You could have what both tabarnes and lovesports want. Trout performs poorly, but his skills remain fairly constant, but the AI does not value him on his 99 rating and instead values him on his performance more heavily.

# 122 Jr. @ 02/21/16 07:11 PM

The idea of progression is always interesting to me. What are ratings in a video game, really? They're an interpretation of someone's performance. Trout is given a high rating because of his real life production. It would be great if the game gave a way to reflect this within franchise.

I would love to see the ratings changed to a scout based ratings system that we see, with the actual ratings hidden. This is how "attribute" ratings work in real life. Someone hits 30 HRs in a season, scouts give him a 75 power rating (or whatever) on an 80 scale. He doesn't hit 30 HRs because of his 75 rating... he has a 75 rating because he hit 30 HRs.

If there could be a way for guys in the game to be rated based on their production, that would alleviate any issues with low rated guys getting tiny contracts after productive seasons. Ratings would swing greatly early on in the career, then settle as a guy plays longer and the actual attributes come out.

This is my ideal situation and I think is a hybrid for those that want ratings completely hidden and work purely on production, and those that like the current system.

# 123 tabarnes19_SDS @ 02/21/16 07:21 PM

.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

# 124 og236 @ 02/21/16 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Jason Heyward (your "hypothetical" example)

I cracked the code

Lol

I'll answer by saying he doesn't get the same contract in The Show as real life

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 125 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

If WAR was calculated with defense and offense in mind and the game looked at that along with his ratings (scouting info if you will) his contract should be fairly representative to real life.

But I'd also like to see it go the other way with high OVR, but low WAR and see a player get a worse contract due to his production.

# 126 tabarnes19_SDS @ 02/21/16 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by og236


	Jason Heyward (your "hypothetical" example) I cracked the code Lol I'll answer by saying he doesn't get the same contract in The Show as real life Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point I am making is even real baseball uses projections and "potential" as a basis for contracts.

I would like to see stats weighted a little more heavily in the Show for contracts. I've been asking for that for awhile, but last time I'm going to comment...

What I am afraid of is everyone calling out for stat based progression or "xp" stye progression which I feel is unrealistic. (Reason I have stopped playing football)

We are making the chicken before the egg argument. Stats do not drive a player to get physically better, it's skills that improve which result in better performance. This is built into the Show already to some degree. Look at how many players change potential.

Now if there were a confidence rating...then that would be ideal for stats to heavily influence since I do believe confidence contributes to the growth of an athlete.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

# 127 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	The point I am making is even real baseball uses projections and "potential" as a basis for contracts. I would like to see stats weighted a little more heavily in the Show for contracts. I've been asking for that for awhile, but last time I'm going to comment... What I am afraid of is everyone calling out for stat based progression or "xp" stye progression which I feel is unrealistic. (Reason I have stopped playing football) We are making the chicken before the egg argument. Stats do not drive a player to get physically better, it's skills that improve which result in better performance. This is built into the Show already to some degree. Look at how many players change potential. Now if there were a confidence rating...then that would be ideal for stats to heavily influence since I do believe confidence contributes to the growth of an athlete. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is making this argument really. It appears unrealistic that a player can progress while performing poorly and a player can regress while performing well. It is that appearance that is driving the whole "stats affect progression" argument.

Is it realistic that a player's power increases because he hit 25 home runs when his rating indicates he should have hit 10? No, But neither is having the game see that player as a 10 HR power threat. There needs to be a balance between what you are arguing for and what others are. And it all hinges on how the game's AI evaluates and uses players. Because the game looks at the ratings so heavily that is why people look at the ratings as not the players physical skills, but basically a scouting report. That is basically what the game is using them for when it makes evaluations. Like someone mentioned player skill and scouting (AI evaluation) need to be separate things. I think then everyone can have what they like.

# 128 Russell_SCEA @ 02/21/16 08:30 PM

So many back seat game designers in this thread

opc orn:

# 129 WaitTilNextYear @ 02/21/16 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

So, Luis is taking notes??

# 130 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

That's what happens when you introduce new things and we get scared.

# 131 Lovesports @ 02/21/16 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	I don't think that was what he was arguing exactly. I would want a combination of what tabarnes and lovesports are saying. A player's skill should remain fairly constant, but performance should also take a larger part in at least regression than it does now. In the Trout example I find it very reasonable that if a player has an extended period of low performance, than his ratings should be affected. ONLY because the game's AI uses the ratings so heavily in it's decision making and lovesports is referencing this. If Trout hits 10 HRs in his walk year, it would definitely affect his contract, but the game will still see him as a 99. Now if the game's AI used the performance of the player more heavily in decision making I don't think performance needs to be tied to progression at all. Just have little +/- for hot/cold streaks within a season. But, I do agree that performance should affect regression very heavily to prevent the undervaluing of players and how the game handles playing time and retirement. Now if the game does look at performance more heavily instead of just the ratings I think this discussion changes dramatically. You could have what both tabarnes and lovesports want. Trout performs poorly, but his skills remain fairly constant, but the AI does not value him on his 99 rating and instead values him on his performance more heavily.

I agree with this 100%.

In the beginning of every season, players get their video game "ratings" based on how they perform in real life the year before. This is fact. However, some attributes should stay constant. My only solution is to create a player attribute such as "performance" attribute which is only affected by the player performance and calculated into their overall. Example contact 70, power 50, speed 85, performance 90. This assures that the players playing attributes stay pretty much unaffected, however, their "performance" rating is what makes them a highly sought out player and their pay becomes higher. just an idea

# 132 Russell_SCEA @ 02/21/16 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear


	So, Luis is taking notes??

That's a big fat negative ghost rider.

# 133 tessl @ 02/21/16 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I like the way the Show calculates ratings. In Heyward's case his 2015 stats would be 50%. .271/11/58 and .254/14/38 from 2014 and 2013 are 25% each.

Contact around 60, power mid 50's. He is an average corner outfielder at the plate although in Wrigley I expect his power numbers to be better.

# 134 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	I agree with this 100%. In the beginning of every season, players get their video game "ratings" based on how they perform in real life the year before. This is fact. However, some attributes should stay constant. My only solution is to create a player attribute such as "performance" attribute which is only affected by the player performance and calculated into their overall. Example contact 70, power 50, speed 85, performance 90. This assures that the players playing attributes stay pretty much unaffected, however, their "performance" rating is what makes them a highly sought out player and their pay becomes higher. just an idea

We're on the same page. I wouldn't have it as a rating though, I'd just want the AI make evaluations based on performance. If the game is getting new stats like WAR I think there is a lot to work with without having to introduce a new rating. The game is getting more and more robust each year so I think this will happen as more stats are tracked and new ones are introduced. They have teased that the 20-80 scale is in franchise for scouting so maybe the AI has been tweaked to do more of what you are saying.

# 135 tessl @ 02/21/16 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

We've been down this road before. The problem with relying on performance for progression is the developers lose control of what the franchise looks like in future years. With year to year saves that becomes a major factor.

# 136 tessl @ 02/21/16 09:32 PM

With coaches now being part of player morale I wonder if they will still work the same way as before by providing + or - to the team based upon each coach or manager's attributes.

# 137 Lovesports @ 02/21/16 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	You're mixing two different things though. tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression.... You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract. Two totally different things. But let's continue onto the last part of your post.... So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings? ....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward? Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do. VERY unrealistic IMO. M.K. Knight165

I'm not saying that he should hit rock bottom at all, but he certainly shouldn't be a 99 player who won't resign for any less than 25mil because of his rating. i do think that player contracts and trade value should be based on performance for sure even if you guys disagree that progression should. Let's pretend that the Show got rid of ratings altogether (not a bad idea) and kept them internal and not visible. How would you sign and trade for players? I'd say based on stats. So wouldn't it make more sense if performance carried more weight than it currently does? I remember hitting over .300 with 20 plus homers with a no name guy who was no more than a 60 overall and had a D potential. Guess what happened next year, he was still a 60 overall guy with a D potential that I resigned for like 400k. This would never happen in real life.

# 138 Knight165 @ 02/21/16 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovesports


	I'm not saying that he should hit rock bottom at all, but he certainly shouldn't be a 99 player who won't resign for any less than 25mil because of his rating. i do think that player contracts and trade value should be based on performance for sure even if you guys disagree that progression should. Let's pretend that the Show got rid of ratings altogether (not a bad idea) and kept them internal and not visible. How would you sign and trade for players? I'd say based on stats. So wouldn't it make more sense if performance carried more weight than it currently does? I remember hitting over .300 with 20 plus homers with a no name guy who was no more than a 60 overall and had a D potential. Guess what happened next year, he was still a 60 overall guy with a D potential that I resigned for like 400k. This would never happen in real life.

Again....progression was the topic.

I would LOVE for players to be signed on a mix of performance(stats) as well as potential and even past performance(on the hope of a last gasp....or regaining of that previous spark...whatever)
I absolutely agree that contracts and FA/trades...etc should be MUCH more dependent on that.

Players progressing in rating based mainly on performance is problematic and not realistic IMO...

Not that I think the current progression/regression(at least '15 did give you a chance to have much more of a chance of a player playing above/below his ratings...making it much less "boring") is perfect or great....

...and I'd be all for hiding ratings.....I've actually posted that quite a few times.
The internet would explode though if that happened.
The Web Gen gotta have their OVR's!

M.K.
Knight165

# 139 Jr. @ 02/21/16 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	So many back seat game designers in this thread opc orn:

Sorry for intruding.

# 140 dran1984 @ 02/22/16 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tessl


	With coaches now being part of player morale I wonder if they will still work the same way as before by providing + or - to the team based upon each coach or manager's attributes.

Yea, the coach/manager attributes have always been ridiculous. Some of the best pitching coaches and managers in baseball always have like -2 and -3 attributes.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 678 9 Next »

More Links

MLB The Show 16 Video - Franchise, Player Morale and Much More