Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Do I have to have Excel to run this? Also, can I run this document on an iPad?

No, you don't need Excel (what an expensive bloatware!!)... offline, I personally use what's called LibreOffice (used to be OpenOffice).... which is a free, open-source alternative to MS Excel. For this, you just need to download in the OpenDocument format, and open the file with... should be recognized properly.

I don't have an iPad so not sure if this will work well, but I believe there is LibreOffice app for iPad. Another option is just to import the downloaded spreadsheet within your Google account (i.e., just copying).

I could also add people and give permissions to edit the documents I'm working on directly on Google. But I don't want someone to intentionally/accidentally erase the info, haha....

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I mean strike percentage/ walks. I haven't recorded them yet though. I've been busy testing different sliders and I haven't seen the point in compiling a spreadsheet where every few games something changes... but I know I've kept SF at 5 for a while now (I originally just figured I'd re-try it now that the meatball thing is fixed)...

I've also noticed that the game doesn't really play well with SF at 4. Drawing walks becomes too easy, and wild pitches and HBP's are a little too easy to come by.

But again I don't have any stats for this theory, and I'm not going to pretend like I do. It's all just a general observation at this point.

The reason why I don't think raising Pitcher Consistency wouldn't work as in your theory is that I actually do see WPs (and HBPs to a lesser extent) increasing and strike %s decreasing when I lower that slider. It may be true some of the poorly commanded pitches land within the strike zone unintentionally, but there is probably equal or greater chance of the pitch landing outside the zone. So overall, in the past, if we wanted to increase obvious balls then Consistency worked better since it gives a greater chance of poorly commanded pitch to land outside the strike zone (i.e., the size of strike zone is fixed, but there are more ways you can throw balls outside the zone since non-strike zone is much bigger).

Some people believe that the command related sliders (Consistency and Control) are specifically designed to increase/decrease the meat pitches... but I don't agree with this. Strike zone is fairly small, so if a pitcher misses a spot by just one baseball size, it can become a ball just outside the black or a meatball closer to down the middle.


I think the game has been tuned to be a bit wild at default already, and that's probably why we don't have a lot of leeway in using Consistency slider this year. (Catchers not blocking the pitches in the dirt as well also helps this.)

[steviegolfballs]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I'm very surprised that control 0 is still yielding less than average walk results. I'm starting to think the only way to increase walks is with strike freq. your thoughts too?

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I'm very surprised that control 0 is still yielding less than average walk results. I'm starting to think the only way to increase walks is with strike freq. your thoughts too?

It's a bit early to make a conclusion though (only 10 games). I actually tried to something similar in MLB 11, and that was when I had no idea what this game is all about, so it's kinda good to revisit this point again...

But I think I will probably end up seeing lower strike %s in deeper counts. Actually, four guys pitched gems (CGs) so I think the stats currently are skewed by their unexpectedly decent performances.

I'm also kinda relieved that the offense hasn't gone up THAT much... However, I think I may be seeing something interesting... XBHs are produced at a higher rate with Pitcher Control at zero. The game may indeed be producing more meat balls which hitters can drive for extra bases.

Anyway, I think the results are interesting enough that I'll keep racking up more stats to get more useful info, hopefully...

If I end up seeing this (lower strike %s in all counts in general), then I probably will use a combination of Strike Frequency 4 and Pitcher Control somewhere that gives me the right strike %s.

[Bobhead]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Some people believe that the command related sliders (Consistency and Control) are specifically designed to increase/decrease the meat pitches... but I don't agree with this. Strike zone is fairly small, so if a pitcher misses a spot by just one baseball size, it can become a ball just outside the black or a meatball closer to down the middle.

I think I know what you're referring to lol I remember this one guy insisted some weird stuff with the slider being backwards... nah I'm just saying the same thing you're saying here:

I think the game has been tuned to be a bit wild at default already, and that's probably why we don't have a lot of leeway in using Consistency slider this year. (Catchers not blocking the pitches in the dirt as well also helps this.)

I just feel like the pitchers are tuned so erratically at default to the point of counter productiveness. I do see HBP and WP increase when I lower the slider, but I also see a lot of HBP and WP even at default. Not "a lot" in the sense of compared to MLB average, but "a lot" as in more than we've seen at default in any other iteration I've played.

I think by taking away some erraticness the strike percentages will come down a bit, because I think some of the strikes we are seeing are actually unintentional.

This will be my last post on it though I don't want to sidetrack the thread, or be that guy who endlessly propels an argument based on speculation.

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I think I know what you're referring to lol I remember this one guy insisted some weird stuff with the slider being backwards... nah I'm just saying the same thing you're saying here:



I just feel like the pitchers are tuned so erratically at default to the point of counter productiveness. I do see HBP and WP increase when I lower the slider, but I also see a lot of HBP and WP even at default. Not "a lot" in the sense of compared to MLB average, but "a lot" as in more than we've seen at default in any other iteration I've played.

I think by taking away some erraticness the strike percentages will come down a bit, because I think some of the strikes we are seeing are actually unintentional.

This will be my last post on it though I don't want to sidetrack the thread, or be that guy who endlessly propels an argument based on speculation.

Haha... no I don't have issues with any discussions or even disagreeing. I think you are referring to Phoenix (Control 7/Consistency 8?) guy. He is a mixed bag of nice observations and quite a few pieces of misinformation, but he is unfortunately a type with whom it becomes very hard to have dialogues... once he believes in something he refuses to digest dissenting opinions at all... anyways... personalities are different.

I'm still trying to understand how Control and Consistency differ and such, so a lot of things are necessarily speculation anyways.

I now see your point about the Consistency. You could be right, but there isn't a good way to know. The consensus is that Consistency is at the right value right now.

and it is indeed true that pitcher command has been made less accurate this year... I think this was discussed in CD impressions I suppose? I wasn't sure it was in a way of Consistency and/or Control.

We see less HBPs in 11 and 12 because of this (pitchers were more accurate).... WPs, was largely due to catchers blocking pitches in the dirt properly... because in pre-patched 11 it was ramphant.

[ralphieboy11]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Nomo, looks like you've had a couple well pitched games to bring down offense in the pitcher control=0 test.

While looking through your spreadsheets, the one that surprises me most is the one labeled 3-23. Only 25 games there but offense is way up and walks are up much higher than I have seen with strike frequency at 3. I also have foul frequency at 6 instead of 7 but I wouldn't think that would matter too much.

I've logged over 150 games in either exhibition or season modes and I've never had a game with 10 walks in it. You had one and also a game with 8 walks. 8 is the most walks I've had in one single game and it's only happened once for me.

I know you've been focusing more on strike percentages in different counts, but it's just something that stood out to me so I thought I'd mention. Thanks for providing your work.

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Nomo, looks like you've had a couple well pitched games to bring down offense in the pitcher control=0 test.

While looking through your spreadsheets, the one that surprises me most is the one labeled 3-23. Only 25 games there but offense is way up and walks are up much higher than I have seen with strike frequency at 3. I also have foul frequency at 6 instead of 7 but I wouldn't think that would matter too much.

I've logged over 150 games in either exhibition or season modes and I've never had a game with 10 walks in it. You had one and also a game with 8 walks. 8 is the most walks I've had in one single game and it's only happened once for me.

I know you've been focusing more on strike percentages in different counts, but it's just something that stood out to me so I thought I'd mention. Thanks for providing your work.

This is why we need sample size and variation in players... I typically see that sort of deviations when pitcher(s) fail to build up confidence. Usually the game becomes offensive fest, but still not many walks (some call this CPU comeback) but occasionally leads to high walk game.

[steviegolfballs]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

This is why we need sample size and variation in players... I typically see that sort of deviations when pitcher(s) fail to build up confidence. Usually the game becomes offensive fest, but still not many walks (some call this CPU comeback) but occasionally leads to high walk game.

Totally agree! I've run thirty games with frequency at 3 and fouls at 6 and my BB average is around 3.6 so if you are getting fewer walks then I am encouraged that mine will come down. I haven't had a team put up 10 walks in a game yet but I have had three teams with 8, but I've also had two teams with 0 so I am encouraged by the variety. I'm through the 1 and 2 pitchers so I am curious to see where the offensive numbers go as I move to the middle of the rotation. My last test went well through the first thirty games but offense exploded as I moved to the back end of the rotation, this time my offensive numbers are a bit below league average so I am hoping to see them creep up as I get to the #3 starters or at least hold until the 4 and 5 guys start throwing

[ralphieboy11]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Totally agree! I've run thirty games with frequency at 3 and fouls at 6 and my BB average is around 3.6 so if you are getting fewer walks then I am encouraged that mine will come down. I haven't had a team put up 10 walks in a game yet but I have had three teams with 8, but I've also had two teams with 0 so I am encouraged by the variety. I'm through the 1 and 2 pitchers so I am curious to see where the offensive numbers go as I move to the middle of the rotation. My last test went well through the first thirty games but offense exploded as I moved to the back end of the rotation, this time my offensive numbers are a bit below league average so I am hoping to see them creep up as I get to the #3 starters or at least hold until the 4 and 5 guys start throwing

I think it's even more important to get through those 4 and 5 starters with testing this year. I've always done that with my tests, but last year it was sort of hit or miss on who would actually pitch better. I know last year we would see names like Verlander, Halladay and Lincecum struggle mightily in cpu games. That can still happen but the balance seems a little better this year with the higher rated pitchers usually outperforming those lower order guys.

[steviegolfballs]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I think it's even more important to get through those 4 and 5 starters with testing this year. I've always done that with my tests, but last year it was sort of hit or miss on who would actually pitch better. I know last year we would see names like Verlander, Halladay and Lincecum struggle mightily in cpu games. That can still happen but the balance seems a little better this year with the higher rated pitchers usually outperforming those lower order guys.

I agree with what you said about the better pitchers performing more according to their abilities this year. In years past, good pitching performances seemed to just be random acts. This year seems to be giving more credit to pitchers with more talent.

[BrianU]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Question about Foul frequency.

I was having trouble hitting but I think I got it figured out. Using TNKs cam + following the ball the entire time from when in the pitchers glove, behind his back, to release and I can read it much better now. So much better that I decided to lower user contact slider to 4. I am using 7 for user and CPU foul freq as that looks to be giving good results for nomo but im wondering if I lower user contact by 1 what should I do to user foul frequency? lower it, leave it at 7 or raise it?

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

Question about Foul frequency.

I was having trouble hitting but I think I got it figured out. Using TNKs cam + following the ball the entire time from when in the pitchers glove, behind his back, to release and I can read it much better now. So much better that I decided to lower user contact slider to 4. I am using 7 for user and CPU foul freq as that looks to be giving good results for nomo but im wondering if I lower user contact by 1 what should I do to user foul frequency? lower it, leave it at 7 or raise it?

Hitting in this game really takes a long time to master (if you can ever do it at all... at least for me it hasn't be very easy), but the learning curve is exactly what has given me enjoyment... but everyone plays differently so no setting is really right for everyone.

Even the foul frequency... I set Foul Frequency at 7 just because it looks like it gives me what I want (27% foul per strike ratio... and slightly reduced swings and misses), but it's only relevant if your hitting tendency is similar to that of CPU... which most likely isn't.

If you are really anal about fouling off pitches then you might actually want to track number to see which way you should move the slider... but if I were you I wouldn't try playing games to find the right setting. I'll just keep notes of the relevant numbers when you play normally, not as testing, and after a while you look at the numbers and make adjustment. That's how I approach it when I don't want to burn out thinking things need to be tested before your "real" run.

[nomo17k]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

So I've run a set of 25 games with Pitcher Control at zero, and I think the results are kinda interesting. I don't consider 25 games enough to make robust conclusions on a lot of things, but I can still make some observations...

As for walks, the setting still may not be enough to bring the number to 3.0 - 3.2 walks per game per team range that I am targeting. I have it at about 2.7 now. This is mostly #1s and #2s pitching, so that also likely has something to do with this.

However, the strike %s in most counts appear to be decreased by this change, so pitchers do seem to be missing targets more in general... just not enough to increase walks very significantly I suppose. (I do actually see an *increase* in strike % when pitchers fall behind... which I don't feel will hold if the test gets extended.... but maybe this isn't inconsistent with how the Pitcher Control slider works... perhaps when pitch is thrown close to down the middle, which CPU does often when falling behind, the slider won't make him bad enough to miss the strike zone... and when the pitcher pitches around, perhaps some of the pitches become strikes unintentionally due to poor command ... so overall the change probably isn't going to show up in behind counts so much? totally speculating but the point is when CPU really wants to throw strikes, it probably can more often than not. Perhaps in other counts, strike % can become lower because CPU would still be aiming closer to the black in hope of not giving up meat ball... there, those pitches can miss the zone.

Anyways, another interesting observation is that, while offense is a tiny bit more inflated compared to when Pitcher Control was at default, it hasn't gone out of whack like I was fearing. So that's good.... but I think the most noticeable effect in offense is that extra base hits are produced at higher rate. I'm actually seeing doubles... at least so far... as well as HRs. So it may not be wrong to think of Pitcher Control slider as "meat pitch" slider in that sense... CPU hitters do seem to be seeing more pitches they can drive.



Who knows all these speculations might change after getting in more test games at this setting... but it seems things are consistent with the in-game slider description. We just don't know how much the sliders affect things when we want to do fine tuning like we've bee doing.

I'm wondering if I should continue the test at Pitcher Control at zero, or maybe find the right Pitcher Control slider value with Strike Frequency at 4 (which probably gives me the best strike %s in all counts when used in combination).

[BrianU]

Re: Stats-Based CPU Sliders [MLB 13 Version]

I saw the third post of this thread you compared the speeds of the real life pitches to the pitch speed slider and discovered that pitch speed 10 is the most realisitic. I was wondering has anyone done a similar study for base running speed?

I've tried but its hard to find good footage of a guy running out an infield hit so you could compare that with the same player ingame. I dont have MLB tv and my internet is even too slow to really do youtube but just curious. It seems rather important to me, many other sliders depend upon that one. I see you are using 5 in your tests, but other people use 3, and bobhead is going with 3 in his sliders.

There must be one number that is more accurate to real life than others just like with pitch speed right? I want to start tuning my sliders to get the right number of singles/doubles etc but not sure where to put the base running speed