Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

[BobSacamano]

Let's get the gushing out of the way: the Show is my favorite baseball game ever, bar none. It's probably my favorite video game ever. It's the only video game that I really look forward to playing every year, and it's certainly the only game that turns me into a giddy little child at midnight on release day.

With that said, I have one bone to pick, and it's a bone that I've been picking for years now: pitcher confidence. I'll be blunt... I hate it.

I understand the reasons it exists. It gives the game an organic feel, it allows the Bud Smiths of the world to exist (since a terrible pitcher can twirl a gem and an ace throw a dud, just like in real life). Those are both really good reasons. I don't mind pitcher confidence as a concept, in fact I very much like it, but I really dislike the execution of the concept. It hasn't really improved much (at all?) in years and I think it's holding the game back by making the game frustrating and "samey" feeling, for a couple reasons. I have two points, and while I think you can reasonably disagree with me on the first point, I feel very strongly about the second. I should mention that I understand that "pitcher confidence" is just an expression of "pitcher effectiveness," not a literal confidence in their abilities.

1. It's just too powerful. Quite simply, once a guy has full confidence in a pitch, or his overall confidence bar is full, it becomes impossible to do much of anything. This isn't a problem in and of itself, but confidence bars become full really quickly, so a couple of 1-2-3 innings and a #5 starter becomes Pedro Martinez in his prime (slight exaggeration), painting corners and dropping vicious breaking balls.

Confidence being too powerful is what makes the game feel kind of "samey," which is ironic as I believe it is contrary to the intention of the developers. Most of my games follow the following arc: pitcher has a nice first few innings, confidence goes through the roof, he dominates until the 6th or 7th when he gets tired, I score a few runs, reliever comes in. Alternatively, I score 7 runs in the first two innings and knock the starter out.

2. It doesn't make any sense to tie confidence to results rather than execution. This bothers me to no end. I'm quite sure that the following are the only things that affect your confidence:

a. Pitch is a strike (or foul) - confidence goes up
b. Pitch is a ball - confidence goes down
c. Result of the play is an out - confidence goes up
d. Result of the play is not an out - confidence goes down

Quite plainly, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It rewards pitchers for giving up rocket outs or fly balls to the warning tracks, while penalizes them for infield singles. If a pitcher is giving up line drive after line drive, he shouldn't get a ratings boost, he should get a ratings deduction, as he is performing terribly. The result of the play is good in that an out was recorded, but the pitcher certainly did not do his job. This leads to weird snowballing effects where a pitcher who gives up a couple dribblers through the infield loses his control, I guess because he's shaken up or something, while the guy who gives up the bomb to the deepest part of the ballpark actually gets stronger.

This effect is even worse when it comes to the balls and strikes aspect as it's quite plain that not every ball is bad and not every strike is good. If I miss my target by a mile but still end up with a strike, my control shouldn't get better, it should get worse. Similarly, if I'm nibbling and barely miss the strike zone but hit my intended target, my control should get better. There's also the intentional ball problem (I hate calling them waste pitches, because they are not). If the count is 0-2 or 1-2 I'm not going to put the ball in the strike zone. My pitcher shouldn't be penalized with a confidence reduction when he's actually executing his pitch.

Neither of my points are a big deal in their own right, but when coupled together I do believe they negatively impact the game. It was my biggest problem with last year's game, and the year before, and the year before.

My suggestion: tie pitcher confidence with my EXECUTION, not with the result of the play. If I'm doing meter pitching, for example, making my confidence go up when I hit the meter perfectly. An out that is a "hard hit out" should result in a dip in confidence, just like how a hard hit out means more points in RTTS.

And thus concludes my long-winded post. Let me reiterate just once last time: my beef with pitcher confidence aside, the Show is still quite awesome.

[nomo17k]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

There was a similar discussion last year:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2042703651

I'm just citing the thread for those who missed it.

I agree with the OP for the most part. I think confidence in general is a very, very good concept, including the fact that it only affects pitch command (see what Woodweaver@SCEA wrote in the quoted post).

I don't necessarily think what confidence does to the game is actually very powerful (since it presumably only improves pitch command); the system is not really forcing you to hit poorly (by reducing Contact rating, for example). It's just make it easier for pitchers to execute his strategy by locating his pitches well.

But the implementation can still be improved, like you wrote... I also think it's better to tie the change in confidence to execution and not results.

Another thing I'd like to add to the "snowballing" effect (i.e., a pitcher totally melting down or becoming a studs with three times the regular dosage of Viagra) is this:

It takes a bit too long for a pitcher to build up his confidence to the leve where he can perform on his average skill level, and perhaps he can also lose confidence a bit too quickly to a point where everything you throw in the strike zone gets solidly hit (this is more relevant for relievers). I say this from a scoring trend by innings in CPU vs. CPU games:

MLB the Show: Is There Late-Inning Comeback?

You notice that a starter typically gives up a lot more runs in the 1st inning, and then takes a couple innings to get settled into his rhythm (this is when you think CPU pitcher hits the black too consistently), and then he loses energy by around 6th, when relievers come in and often get shelled since they fail to build up confidence. You might be able to say this to closers as well in 9th... they often pitch without the benefit of high confidence and kind of stay mediocre.

I think overall trend is fine... I like the fact that starters need to get on their grooves to pitch well, and you see it in scoring patterns. But maybe the effect of confidence is a bit too pronounced as is.

[wizfan2]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

I'm with you guys, I mainly play on the veteran and all star levels, in quest to get realistic walk totals on the veteran level I came to conclusion this weekend that the problem is with the confidence. To your point, played against a number 1 starter who came in on a hot streak so his confidence level was at about 80%, it never dropped below that despite the fact I had him in trouble a couple times. This was with control 0, confidence 5 and strike frequency 0. I know on the rookie and veteran level the cpu throws more strikes but just seeing that his control and strike frequency at 0 and it did not effect his confidence even when he was in couple of early jams. I have even seen this with number 4 or 5 when they come in on a hot streak. I'm going to try lowering the confidence slider to maybe 2 or 3.

[thegut]

Great post by the OP. I have felt this way for years. I really wish we could just turn off the confidence system by the end user. How the pitcher gains confidence is arbitrary and its results are dramatic. Nothing bothers me more with the show than how pitcher confidence is represented. More realistic results could be had by turning the system off entirely.

[ParisB]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

Amen to that!

Been my biggest gripe for many years now. I wish it wasn't so "dynamic". I don't mind a static confidence attribute built directly in the player ratings, but it's way too fickle the way it it right now. It almost ruins the game if I go down 1-2-3 (with a strikeout) in the 1st inning. It's all downhill from there, as a no-name Joe all of a sudden starts throwing darts nipping the strike zone by millimeters.

So frustrating. Your only choices are to either take the nasty strike or feebly ground/pop out since the meter fully dictates the result. He can start throwing them down the middle too.

It also seems that the CPU benefits more from it anyway. The game could be 0-0 in the 4th inning, I can have 20 pitches less, less hits, less walks, but somehow he's still maxed out while I'm struggling to keep it above 70%.

It's a little ridiculous how a ball here, an infield hit there, can completely unravel my pitcher.

[HustlinOwl]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

do we really need the same threads over and over every year? Thanks for the link Nomo, saves me some time

[ParisB]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

do we really need the same threads over and over every year? Thanks for the link Nomo, saves me some time

Saving time for what? That thread is longer....

Why even post what you did? Not trying to be a jerk, but it's a new year and there will be new threads. If you want to be technical, almost every subject has been talked about in previous years. Do we really need to just not start new discussions and bump 3 year old threads?

[Dellinger]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

Yeah, I agree for the most part with the OP.

It's my first year with The Show but I noticed this right off the bat...the pitcher confidence subject.

I've got a $9 million dollar-a-year veteran who's pitched for 8+ years in the majors and he can't hit a spot to save his life in the first three at-bats.

I'm like, WHAT?

Anyway, I think a decent fix could be that the rewards/penalties (in future The Show games) for performance/execution/whathaveyou should be influenced not only by player inputs but the also the results multiplied by some formula with stamina and clutch.

As the outs and innings come and go, the pitcher who's getting knocked around should experience a 'greater' penalty the later he goes in the game or per pitches thrown. There is no good reason a MLB starter shouldn't be able to overcome a few hits in the 1st and 2nd and still hit his marks or miss close at the very least.

If every hit is a tail light, that's one thing but a walk here, double there, shouldn't destroy his ability to soldier on with some effetiveness early in the game.


And on the flip side, a pitcher who's throwing a two-hitter through 7-innings should get a smaller confidence bonus commensurate with his stamina/ cluth. Said pitcher earlier in this hypothetical game should get a larger boost for executing well.

Maybe even work something in with the mound visit to make it more immersive? Such as, the pitcher on the mound gives the manager some kind of indication of "I want to stay in...", "I've got another half-inning in me...", "I'm done,", etc...

Don't get me wrong, I think The Show has done a remarkable job trying to show that not every outing for an Ace is a "walk in the park". But, there's always other ideas for making a great game better.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

There is literally nothing in the first post I agree with, though I respect your opinion.

Your point about a pitcher gaining confidence when widely missing the strikezone DOES make sense on the surface. It's rational to believe that the pitcher shouldn't be rewarded for mistakes. I'll grant you that. But the vision on that kind of logic is narrow because it only considers how the pitcher is impacted. Not the batter.

The confidence system works both ways, but because the bars are only associated with the pitchers, I think people often forget that hitters are (and should be) a part of this too.

Example: Josh Beckett misses WIDE with a curve but Mark Reynolds decides to still try and dig it out the soil; swinging and missing. Now, Beckett gets a BOOST in his curveball. (A) He should because he fooled the hitter and (B) the boost is reflected on the hitter because he decided to chase. Mark Reynold will now face a more "effective" curveball, but this is thanks to HIS decision to try (and failing) to golf one (regardless of where Beckett wanted to originally throw his pitch). Beckett shouldn't be penalized for that. He deserves to have the odds tilted ever-so-slightly in his favor.

This makes complete sense to me and I believe SCEA refined it beautifully this time around.

Let's say 1-2 Beckett misses just outside with a fastball; intentionally aiming just outside hoping to get a chase, and the batter doesn't bite. Why should Beckett NOT be penalized (or inversely, why shouldn't the hitter BE REWARDED) for this?

You can't talk confidence and not talk hitters. They reap the rewards and benefits of this system too.

It's all cause and effect.

[woody2goody]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

There is literally nothing in the first post I agree with, though I respect your opinion.

Your point about a pitcher gaining confidence when widely missing the strikezone DOES make sense on the surface. It's rational to believe that the pitcher shouldn't be rewarded for mistakes. I'll grant you that. But the vision on that kind of logic is narrow because it only considers how the pitcher is impacted. Not the batter.

The confidence system works both ways, but because the bars are only associated with the pitchers, I think people often forget that hitters are (and should be) a part of this too.

Example: Josh Beckett misses WIDE with a curve but Mark Reynolds decides to still try and dig it out the soil; swinging and missing. Now, Beckett gets a BOOST in his curveball. (A) He should because he fooled the hitter and (B) the boost is reflected on the hitter because he decided to chase. Mark Reynold will now face a more "effective" curveball thanks to HIS decision to try and failing to golf one (regardless of where Beckett wanted to originally throw his pitch). Beckett shouldn't be penalized for that. He deserves to have the odds tilted ever-so-slightly in his favor.

This makes complete sense to me.

Let's say 1-2 Beckett misses just outside with a fastball; intentionally aiming just outside hoping to get a chase, and the batter doesn't bite. Why should Beckett NOT be penalized (or inversely, why shouldn't the hitter BE REWARDED) for this?

You can't talk confidence and not talk hitters. They reap the rewards and benefits of this system too.

It's all cause and effect.

These points make a lot of sense. Surely a pitcher's confidence in real life does go down if they aren't getting batters to chase. And lie you said, if the batter is stupid enough to swing at a poor pitch, then the pitcher will feel he has a better chance of getting guys out - increasing his confidence.

[nomo17k]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

I think it's a balance that needs to be fine tuned. Right now it's almost totally results driven and not much by execution.

I think h&v's example is fine... I see in that sort of situation you should get a slight boost, at the very least maintain the level.

But throwing a waste pitch intentionally and successfully shouldn't really lower the pitcher's confidence.

[chuckm1961]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

Amen to making this a Major Priority for next year.

Aside from what has been mentioned, I think the Pitcher Confidence problems also affect pitch location to such a degree that the Sliders can become practically useless in trying to generate more CPU-thrown balls.

It sometimes seems that it does not much matter where the sliders are ... or how good the pitcher is ... what matters is their Confidence. It needs to be toned down.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

I think it's a balance that needs to be fine tuned. Right now it's almost totally results driven and not much by execution.

I think h&v's example is fine... I see in that sort of situation you should get a slight boost, at the very least maintain the level.

But throwing a waste pitch intentionally and successfully shouldn't really lower the pitcher's confidence.

Nomo, ya know I love ya ...you know, in a brotherly kind of way...but...

This is exactly the kind of perspective I was talking about.

Don't look at it as the pitcher being punished for intentionally wasting pitches. Look at it as the hitter being rewarded for NOT CHASING.

[nomo17k]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

...

Don't look at it as the pitcher being punished for intentionally wasting pitches. Look at it as the hitter being rewarded for NOT CHASING.

Oh no, I'm literally talking about a waste pitch that widely misses the zone. Yes you are still lucky if the batter chases, but you are just trying to literally throw a ball to do something in a pitcher's count...

Like a very high fastball just to change the eye level, bouncing a curveball, etc. That sort of thing... in a situation in which you really don't need to throw a strike.

Of course we don't know doing this sort of thing has any effect in the game, but you can do stuff like this intentionally without worry about reducing confidence. IRL, being able to do this sort of thing may even indicate the pitcher is CONFIDENT as hell. He at least affords to do it and knows it.

[Bobhead]

Re: Let's talk Pitcher Confidence

There is literally nothing in the first post I agree with, though I respect your opinion.

Your point about a pitcher gaining confidence when widely missing the strikezone DOES make sense on the surface. It's rational to believe that the pitcher shouldn't be rewarded for mistakes. I'll grant you that. But the vision on that kind of logic is narrow because it only considers how the pitcher is impacted. Not the batter.

The confidence system works both ways, but because the bars are only associated with the pitchers, I think people often forget that hitters are (and should be) a part of this too.

Example: Josh Beckett misses WIDE with a curve but Mark Reynolds decides to still try and dig it out the soil; swinging and missing. Now, Beckett gets a BOOST in his curveball. (A) He should because he fooled the hitter and (B) the boost is reflected on the hitter because he decided to chase. Mark Reynold will now face a more "effective" curveball, but this is thanks to HIS decision to try (and failing) to golf one (regardless of where Beckett wanted to originally throw his pitch). Beckett shouldn't be penalized for that. He deserves to have the odds tilted ever-so-slightly in his favor.

This makes complete sense to me and I believe SCEA refined it beautifully this time around.

Let's say 1-2 Beckett misses just outside with a fastball; intentionally aiming just outside hoping to get a chase, and the batter doesn't bite. Why should Beckett NOT be penalized (or inversely, why shouldn't the hitter BE REWARDED) for this?

You can't talk confidence and not talk hitters. They reap the rewards and benefits of this system too.

It's all cause and effect.

I agree, but there are still instances where the OP's argument would be valid, such as what nomo says here:

But throwing a waste pitch intentionally and successfully shouldn't really lower the pitcher's confidence.

I guess the middle ground should be that there should be certain exceptions that don't affect confidence at all. If you aim a pitch out of the zone, and it is out of the zone, neither the pitch nor the pitcher should lose confidence, regardless of what happens. I hate pitching around batters like Pujols with 1st base open, and seeing my confidence plummet because I threw a few intentional balls.