Not a single player with an OPS above .900

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

Haven't looked for a while, but is there a Clutch rating? Maybe that's in part responsible for setting off any comeback AI programming.

Too bad there isn't anyone modding the AI script like there is in the FIFA and PES series' on the PC. A modder named Yair was able to complete eliminate the comeback/cheat logic in PES 2011. I had stopped playing that game for a while because of the issue. But then he released his AI patch it was like a whole new game.

Yap, there is a clutch rating. But I do not know how it does affect the gameplay. I know that there are clutch moments in the game engine as well (the video animation changes for them) but I only saw ONE clutch moment occur since playing MLB 2k12 where Matt Holliday hit a two-run HR to turn the game from a 3-4 deficit in the 9th into a 5-4 lead winning the game. I had more situations where I or the AI was able to turn the things over at the end of the game but those situations were not clarified as a "clutch moment".

As far as I can say I know some situations where the commentators talked about "clutch players" and refering "clutch" to hitting with RISP.

To me these are two different things:
1) clutch in the sense of crunch time (only at the end of games)
2) clutch in the sense of hitting with RISP (over the complete course of the game)
Both does not necessarily have something to do with each other (although it can of course).

When you look into the game the most players have really low clutch ratings (nearly no one is rated below 35, but most of the players have a clutch rating between 35-50) while high clutch ratings are really the exception (don't know anyone with a clutch rating above 85, Pujols has 84).

Also players like Tim Lincecum or Ryan Braun have a 35 clutch rating by default, I do not know what the coders or the rating guys have thought when they did this, since Lincecum isn't the only elite player with so damn low clutch rating.

So I do not really know if this clutch rating has anything to do with the comeback engine. If I knew how to edit the scripts to turn down this engine in 2k's games I would really try to do it, but I don't.

[Yeats]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

Also players like Tim Lincecum have a 35 clutch rating by default, I do not know what the coders or the rating guys have thought when they did this, since Lincecum isn't the only elite player with so damn low clutch rating.

Using Baseball Reference you can check pitchers RISP stats, which would seem like the right stat to base the Clutch rating off of. I just noticed that over his career, Linecum has held hitters to a .216 batting average with runners in scoring position. You would think that would translate into something higher than a 35 Clutch rating, heh.

I've been saying for years the ratings and the Inside Edge stuff in this series is all completely bogus. It's pretty clear the 2K programmers only attempt to correctly rate a small handful of players -- the name players on the name teams usually -- and that they don't even bother with fielding ratings, just offense. Then the rest of the league all get generic/arbitrary ratings depending on which team they play for, and if the 2K programmers have even heard of them or something.

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

Using Baseball Reference you can check pitchers RISP stats, which would seem like the right stat to base the Clutch rating off of. I just noticed that over his career, Linecum has held hitters to a .216 batting average with runners in scoring position. You would think that would translate into something higher than a 35 Clutch rating, heh.

I've been saying for years the ratings and the Inside Edge stuff in this series is all completely bogus. It's pretty clear the 2K programmers only attempt to correctly rate a small handful of players -- the name players on the name teams usually -- and that they don't even bother with fielding ratings, just offense. Then the rest of the league all get generic/arbitrary ratings depending on which team they play for, and if the 2K programmers have even heard of them or something.

Hehe, you could be right - especially with your last paragraph. I was arguing last year with a guy because of 2k11's rating system (which hasn't changed for 2k12). He defended 2k (and their ratings) excessively. He said that 2k would have a system on that it would calculate all ratings for all the players. I tested this "system" (the one I mentioned above where the last 3 years count in differently).
For some players the ratings are obviously calculated on this base. You could even track the rating jumps that were obviously correct for those players. E.g. you can calculate the power numbers (SLG) for Pujols, Nelson Cruz, etc. over the last three years. When you look at their ratings ingame you will see that the rating differencials are quite exact the same that you have calculated before.
But take a random guy from a mediocre team, calculate his ratings the same way like you did it with Pujols or Cruz, compare it to his rating ingame and suddenly the system is gone...
This is also the reason why I never understood that so much roster editors are afraid of editing the ratings, because they think this could ruin the game. The game won't be ruined, because it will do what it wants either way.

[Yeats]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

I was arguing heavily last year because of 2k11's rating system (which hasn't changed for 2k12) with a guy that defended 2k (and their ratings) heavily.

He was obviously: A. An Xbox 360-only owner (they have a lot more invested in needing this series to be good); and/or B. Someone who has never, ever spent a single minute editing player ratings, and then testing those edits against the game engine.

I still don't have 2K12, but I'm going to spend a half hour doing some global editing with 2K11. I understand your concerns about the streak logic nullifying any edits. But I have a hard time believing that some hardcore editing won't in some way at least help boost some of the offensive sim results.

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

He was obviously: A. An Xbox 360-only owner (they have a lot more invested in needing this series to be good); and/or B. Someone who has never, ever spent a single minute editing player ratings, and then testing those edits against the game engine.

I still don't have 2K12, but I'm going to spend a half hour doing some global editing with 2K11. I understand your concerns about the streak logic nullifying any edits. But I have a hard time believing that some hardcore editing won't in some way at least help boost some of the offensive sim results.

In fact (A) and (B) are both right.

I tried to make some global edits for 2k12 but unfortunately the roster file was corrupted after this. Don't know if I did something wrong, but I hadn't such issues last year.

[kpkpkp]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

I don't think that global editing the ratings will help here.
I remember that I read a developer's diary that said that cold and hot streaks are based on a comparison of the player's performance over the last few (was it four?) weeks with his statistical numbers from last year or something like that.
If you do not turn this dynamic rating thing of you will always have hot and cold streaks and this will screw up everything.
I am convinced that a lot of predetermination is involved in this game. Both in the sim engine and the playing engine.
I posted some sim stats in another thread here. I don't know if you remember that Ryan Flaherty had a career year in a season that I posted. He had a 50-something contact overall and a 75 or so power overall and was hitting way above 30 HR this season.
Yesterday I simmed two more seasons to test something out and this guy had two more 30-HR seasons. For coincidence this is a little bit too much. There must be some kind of predetermination that can't be stopped. How many players are in this game? How many thousand? And always has this little rated Flaherty career years? Strange.
I can confirm what another guy posted that was simming some season: the AI favours certain teams in the sim engine. The Red Sox make the playoffs really all the time while other teams seem to be struggling always.
And regarding gameplay there must also be predetermination . When you have a big lead going into the ninth and you start to play lazy you should of course be blowing the lead. But when you continue to pitch well you should not start to blow the lead only because of the AI's miracle hitting where suddenly anybody is able to hit and hit and hit, no matter if you pitch lights out or not and no matter if they weren't able to hit anything the whole game before. I had it multiple times by now that I was nearly blowing big leads (up to 7-8 runs) in the ninth inning where the AI started to hit everything of my best reliever while I wasn't pitching bad with him. It feels like the game wanting you to get a little challenge at the end of the game.

I agree that there might be some pre-determining going on in the sim enginge and play engine. Sometimes I swear it's like it's impossible to hit well when in a previous game with the same difficulty settings I lite up higher rated pitchers.

I disagree on the part in bold however. I dont think certain teams are "predetermined to do well."

When I simmed 3 seasons to check sim stats the Red Sox finished in 3rd place, 3rd place, and 2nd place respectively. They had decently rated players too. Furthermore the Pirates managed to make the post season.. This would never happen if certain teams were "pre-determined to do well."

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

I agree that there might be some pre-determining going on in the sim enginge and play engine. Sometimes I swear it's like it's impossible to hit well when in a previous game with the same difficulty settings I lite up higher rated pitchers.

I disagree on the part in bold however. I dont think certain teams are "predetermined to do well."

When I simmed 3 seasons to check sim stats the Red Sox finished in 3rd place, 3rd place, and 2nd place respectively. They had decently rated players too. Furthermore the Pirates managed to make the post season.. This would never happen if certain teams were "pre-determined to do well."

In the three seasons I simmed today everytime the Red Sox made it to the play offs. Same with the Phillies. Don't know if it depends on the roster/platform, but IMO there must be something that predetermines this. Ryan Flaherty had at least 25 homeruns in every season lol.

[DetroitStyle]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

This whole predetermination and comeback talk needs to stop. It's not programmed in the game, and never has been. You hear this with every title from Madden to the Show every year. It....does....not....exist, and developers have told us it does not exist.

There's too many variables involved that might cause the stats your seeing to make it seems "predetermined". It could be the division they're in, the pitchers they face, and so on. Try trading away all the good pitchers in the AL East and see if Flaherty still hits 25. I get different sim results every time I play and different teams make the playoffs every year.

/discussion

Now, back to the OP's topic, the sim engine never has been very good for 2K. Not enough players bat above .300, too many players play over 150+ games, and so on. Pitching stats are terrible as well, which contributes to poor hitting stats. I have yet to see a pitcher win 20+ games, ERA's are way to low, and strikeouts are way too low. The list goes on, and each flaw in hitting creates a flaw in pitching and so on. All you can do is to just go with it.

[Yankees101]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

This whole predetermination and comeback talk needs to stop. It's not programmed in the game, and never has been. You hear this with every title from Madden to the Show every year. It....does....not....exist, and developers have told us it does not exist.

There's too many variables involved that might cause the stats your seeing to make it seems "predetermined". It could be the division they're in, the pitchers they face, and so on. Try trading away all the good pitchers in the AL East and see if Flaherty still hits 25. I get different sim results every time I play and different teams make the playoffs every year.

/discussion

Now, back to the OP's topic, the sim engine never has been very good for 2K. Not enough players bat above .300, too many players play over 150+ games, and so on. Pitching stats are terrible as well, which contributes to poor hitting stats. I have yet to see a pitcher win 20+ games, ERA's are way to low, and strikeouts are way too low. The list goes on, and each flaw in hitting creates a flaw in pitching and so on. All you can do is to just go with it.

The developers also tell us that this is a realistic baseball sim, which it's not even close to. Goes to show how well you can take their word on things.

I want to...reword, my post, on the comeback engine. It's not programmed into the game, persay, but a faulty programming decision concerning relievers is what causes all of these comebacks. As I stated, relievers are rated way too low. I can't think of a non-closer reliever that is ranked over a 90, or even an 85 or so. This is one thing I think The Show does well with it's rating systems, the differentiation between starters, relievers, and closers. You can have a 95+ overall rated relief pitcher, and he'd probably be your shut down 7th/8th inning guy, aka an Aroldis Chapman or a David Robertson.

But because 2K doesn't do this, all of these relievers are treated like lower tier pitchers. Regardless of their prestige, or role in real life, in the game, they get smacked around like a AA long man just brought up to eat innings of a 9-0 ballgame, and on a consistent basis, which is where the thought of the "comeback engine" conspiracy comes from. Your Roy Halladays and CC Sabathias are pitching 7 innings of 1 run baseball, only to have your 8th inning reliever come in and give up 3 runs because he's only an 79 overall, which also directly correlates to why starting pitchers get so few wins in this game(also have a theory on the innings pitched problem as well, still working on the lack of strikeouts)

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

@Yankees:
I only know of Johnny Venters who is a "normal" RP and is rated above 85. Most other "normal" RPs are - like you said - rated lower and only some closers have ratings above 85. The OVR wouldn't be the problem, their specific ratings are the problems. But yeah, the OVR mirrors them somehow.

What ideas do you have regarding the IP problem and the strikeouts? If you like you could write me a PN, start a new thread or state it here. At least I want to say I am very interested in it.

EDIT:
Found this list so we have a common base to discuss the OVR of:

http://www.pastapadre.com/2012/03/03/top-rated-players-in-mlb-2k12

Like we said, only CL above 85 OVR, only one normal RP with 85 OVR.

In reality I would say e.g. Sergio Romo is the Giants' premier BP guy, not Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson only is the better closer, but that doesn't make him automatically to the best BP pitcher.

[Yankees101]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

Well, since you asked.

IP: For me, it seems to be a combination of the stamina ratings of starting pitchers, the pitcher fatigue slider for the game, and the rate at which pitchers recover from player fatigue.

What I did was, I took a basic starting 5:
-The ace had 99 stamina(I think I took CC Sabathia)
-A number 2 with mid 90s(93-96, lets say) stamina
-A number 3 with low 90s-high 80s
-A number 4 with around 85 stamina
-A number 5 with around 80 stamina

With that, I simmed about 2 or 3 franchises, and compared the results, as well as examined box scores.

CC Sabathia averaged about a 13-9 record, with a high of 15 and a low of 11. He averaged about 202 IP, with a high of 207 1/3, and a low of 199 2/3. His ERA each season was around 3.70 consistently. Now, regardless if you like him as a player or the team he plays for, you know these numbers are horrible for him given his current stature and role, an innings eating horse who will win 17+ games every year.

Going through the box scores in games he started, I was intrigued. A lot of his starts following "lengthy" outings(that's to say, more than 7-8 innings) were shorter than 5 innings, regardless of the actual numbers to go with them. There were games he'd throw, say, 5 scoreless innings 2 hits 0 walks 3 k's, and be removed from the game, head scratcher everytime, as I'd imagine that total wouldn't make him reach his simmed pitch count. So, this lead me to look more closely at his stamina recovery going into each start following lengthy outings. And sure as heck, he'd have a 70-80 stamina prior to the game, meaning he was already a bit fatigued even before he threw a single pitch, almost at about the rate of 1-2 innings.

After that, I looked at the lower starters, and sure enough, the exact same thing was happening, except maybe reduced by a few innings. Starters who you'd expect to give you 6-7 good innings on any given night, think of a Ted Lilly type figure, would have a start of 7+ innings, then then next start or 2, only pitch 4 innings because of fatigue, which then would justify why, at the end of the season, they only had about a 9-7 record with only 165 innings pitched.

The most vivid memory I have of this must have been a fantasy draft in which I had Philip Humber as my number 5 starter, with 80 stamina. I can remember he had a 10 start stretch where he pitched 7 2/3, 4, 5, 6, 4 2/3, 7, 3 2/3, 5, 5, 7 1/3 innings respectively. It was quite an interesting find.

So, for the most part, I'm attributing lack of genuine IP totals to both low stamina numbers(for the non-aces, of course), the fatigue slider, and the recovery of stamina in between starts. Something I still want to test, is trying a make-shift 6 man rotation, and seeing how an extra off day would effect all of these numbers.

As for strikeouts, I said I'm still trying to figure it out, and am not really sure. :P

[Yankees101]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

I have stats!

So, if you go here, you can see that I simmed 3 seasons in which I played around with certain sliders and toggled on and off certain aspects of the franchise. I have very basic data, just top 5's from certain stat categories, the records of every team in all 3 seasons, how many runs they scored, their HR totals, and the team ERA(be sure to notice the Tabs!)

The final two tabs are a bit different, and more pointed towards the stamina/IP issue more specifically. Since my default team to pick is the Yankees, I decided to record each of CC Sabathia's starts over the final 2 franchise sims(would have done the 1st, but I forgot about it and already finished the World Series. Doh!)

To be honest, after doing this....I have absolutely no idea what to do with this game except accept it for what it is, because I still am having trouble finding any patterns or slider sets or settings that generate anything decent.

Feel free to ask questions about the stats, anything else I've done, and I'll get back to you in the morning!

[Oh Tyrant]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

As for the team favoritism, oh yes, so true. I'm not sure if it's per game, or in general, but I know my copy of 2K12 seems to have huge favoritism for the Red Sox(always win the AL East), Royals(constantly beating out the Tigers for the AL Central), Phillies(will ALWAYS win the NL East, no matter what. Had a simmed season that they were 10 games under .500 at the ASB, finished the year with 93 wins), and the Brewers(although they do have the potential to be a great team, they always win 95+ games every sim, and have biased against the Yankees(average win total for them seems to hover around 83-85), Tigers(always finish below .500 or miss postseason), Rays(same as Tigers), etc. The sim engine seems to do backflips with what we expect from the actual teams.

I'm only 9 game into my franchise...but this is SPOT on.

The Red Sox - 1st place
Royals tied for 1st
Yankess - Last place (4-5)

Brewers tied for 1st place, although i got swept by them as the Dodgers.

Phillies are 5-5 but in second or third place. Again only 9 games in, but i wont be surprised if this unfolds like you said.

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

I start to wonder if the durability rating has anything to do with how fast a player (fielder or pitcher, since both have this rating) can recover. This means that perhaps not only the stamina rating is responsible for the IP, but also the durability rating could be?

As far as your stats show one can say that the sliders do not effect the sim stats, one thing I affirmed some times now but that seems to be the final proof.

[wudl83]

Re: Not a single player with an OPS above .900

Okay.I made a test roster for myself.

1) Sim season:
I gave all SP of the Angels 99 stamina and 99 durability.
D. Haren 33 G 213.1 IP
J. Weaver 34 G 208.2 IP
C. Wilson 31 G 197.2 IP
E. Santana 32 G 195 IP
J. Williams 14 G 81.1 IP (he was injured. interesting that he has injuries with 99 durability since I thought this influences also how injury-prone a player is)
*) H. Takahasi (WTF???) 41 G (18 GS) 112.2 IP

2) Sim season:
I gave all SP of the Angels 99 stamina and 50 durability.
D. Haren 32 G 203.2 IP
J. Weaver 31 G 201.1 IP
E. Santana 32 G 189.2 IP
C. Wilson 32 G 183.2 IP
J. Williams 32 G 177.1 IP

Could be that the durability influences the recovery at least a little bit. But the difference between IP with 99 durability and IP with 50 durability is really small, too small IMO.

I think this is the end for me regarding franchise in 2k12. I can not stand so many unrealistic events and that the ratings obviously only matter so little. The coincidence dictates this little bit which was left unrestricted by 2k, which is not really much either lol.

Far too less IP for SP, far too many IP for relievers (why does every LR have G*2=IP? why do closer and set up man always have IP way above their G?) and that causes the remaining unrealistic stats like too less W for SP, etc.

The worst thing in 2k's baseball series is the sim engine. IMO it is abysmal and sometimes I wonder if they do even test something before they start to sell it.

*) WTF. Why does the AI start Takahashi? I know he started some games a few seasons ago. But I thought that the AI only puts pitchers into SP slots if they have at least a stamina rating of 60. At least in 2k11 it should have been so.
Now I looked into the game and Takahashi has 51 stamina.


The only explanation I have for such BS would be that Takahashi could have had a hot streak some time through the season which made his stamina go above 60. But I do not know if streaks do influence the stamina rating. If they do, well, that would be the next BS.


EDIT:
Made a 2nd sim with 99 dur/99 stam and Weaver led with 217 IP. Second in the list was CJ Wilson with 193. Only two SP - Weaver and Wilson - had an average of more than 6 IP per game over the season. This is so hilarious.

Also there seems to be a coherence between ERA and IP. The better the ERA the more IP. Okay, this seems logic, but somehow 2k has overdone this. E.g. James Shields had 203.1 IP in 33 GS for TB with an ERA of 5.18. I bet if he had an ERA of 5.18 ingame he wouldn't even have gotten to 180 IP in 33 GS.
Of 30 CL only 10 had a number of IP that was lower than their number of G. This means that 20 closers pitched more than 1 inning per game lol. J. Johnson (Orioles) leads the list with 151 IP in 96 games. This is what 2k defines as a closer since Johnson has only 29 stamina lol. F. Francisco can be thankful to 2k, he has 72.1 IP (career high! previous career high was 58 IP) and this is with 29 stamina.

I think we should simply forget about everything regarding 2ks's sim engine and either stop playing (franchise) or accepting the sim engine. This game does what it wants. There are no real guidelines behind it.