MLB The Show 16 Twitch Stream - Franchise Mode & Gameplay (Archive Available)

[NAFBUC]

Quote: Originally Posted by p00p1

There's also this one: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ying-most.html

thank you...

As a sidebar topic.... have you thought about changing your handle to p00p2?

[Lovesports]

Quote: Originally Posted by tnixen

MLB The Show 16 is looking like a fantastic update to the series. But the top 3 things Sony should have on their white board and work on for MLB The Show 17 is the following! Presentation and Commentary Player Models Franchise Mode Who's with me

I'm with you buddy. I've been asking for better body types for 3 years now but it gets pushed to the bottom of the pile because too many people are asking for OCD type things like dirt texture or color. How about let's make the players look good first! But I've gotten a lot of heat on here because everyone's wish list should be respected. Well I don't agree with that. You don't put a band-aid on a guy's elbow when he's dying from a heart attack. The player models should absolutely take priority over stadium detail and anyone who disagrees is simply clueless as to what makes a good game.

[Lovesports]

Quote: Originally Posted by p00p1

There's also this one: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ying-most.html

Yup franchise is the most played but DD makes the most money....

[BravesBoy]

Adjustable trade slider for the win!!!

[eric7064]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

Yup franchise is the most played but DD makes the most money....

Yeah and it's not even close

Look at what EA is earning annual from Fifa and Madden It's absolutely insane.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

I think what you are missing here is the fact that attributes are THE numbers that express true ability of a player in this game. The fact that you still see variations in stats (e.g., every time you simulate a season), is purely due to sampling effect due to natural random variation; if you fix player attributes, keep repeating the simulation, and accumulate enough sample size, and do appropriate analysis, then you will actually find there are pretty clear and (somewhat simple) relations between attributes and the stats that the simulation engine produces. And it is actually true that something like Contact = 65 is meant to produce a .260 hitter at the MLB level. I lost the exact mappings B Ma revealed long time ago, but there are relations like this for all attributes. Sure, you will actually see Contact = 65 hitter hitting .230 or even .290 in any given season, but that's not because the game internally modules his ability to hit for a .260 any given time... it's only because he got (un)lucky, and the sample size isn't big enough within a season for his stats to equilibrate to .260 closely. In such a case, you should always make your plan using attributes over stats, because only thing stats tell us is how the player over/under-performed to that point in season, relative to his expected performance level (which attributes accurately describe). To me, that really robs us of one of the most fascinating aspects of appreciating baseball... all those imaginative elements between stats and baseball action itself. I think baseball stats are interesting because, while they are extensive and have come a long way with sabermetrics, they are still mysterious in a lot of ways, and when you look at basic stats and how players perform, there are still many "why is this?" moments. (Not to mention baseball stats look aesthetically beautiful... but that's just me.) Players highly touted by scouts have often failed... great minor-league stats often not translating to MLB performance... players mysteriously upping their game all of sudden and vice versa. All these fun stuff happens largely because we don't have access to complete information of player ability in real life. Unfortunately, console video games tend to reduce all that imaginative exercises to simple numbers like OVR and non-obscured attributes.

It is more nuanced than knowing every player's attribute or knowing no player attributes. The coaches beginning in rookie league run the players through every possible drill. They have a very good idea of the attributes in their organization. The attributes of MLB players aren't a secret either.

In the low minors it isn't accurate outside your own organization to know the attributes of players. I could see the inexact pie chart apply with the option to scout other team's players and discover their attributes - give your scouts something to do after the amateur draft - but it isn't accurate to say nobody knows the attributes of any players in professional baseball.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

It is more nuanced than knowing every player's attribute or knowing no player attributes. The coaches beginning in rookie league run the players through every possible drill. They have a very good idea of the attributes in their organization. The attributes of MLB players aren't a secret either. In the low minors it isn't accurate outside your own organization to know the attributes of players. I could see the inexact pie chart apply with the option to scout other team's players and discover their attributes - give your scouts something to do after the amateur draft - but it isn't accurate to say nobody knows the attributes of any players in professional baseball.

Again, people who like the idea of in-game attributes being obscured in some way are saying so largely because those attributes are telling us the exact ability, the DNA of the player so to speak, from which we can find out the expected level of performance *without any uncertainty.*

We can exactly know who are true .260 players in this game, just by looking at their attributes.

What real-life coaches are doing is still *estimation,* which is subject to uncertainty due to individual coach's ability to evaluate players. Real-life scouts/coaches/managers/GMs over/underestimate player values all the time. All kinds of weird managerial decisions and transactions happen, because people, even with proper expertise, just see things differently.

There is a crucial difference between coaches *evaluating* players and their attributes in real life vs. the game handing out their true, exact attributes. In The Show, we can (and should) always rely on attributes (instead of stats) if you are strictly abiding by the rule of chance.

To me, that is not realistic and removes a crucial element -- realistic player evaluation -- from what makes a franchise-like mode engaging.

[BravesBoy]

If you think about it, having the attributes hidden and just seeing stats, especially in franchise mode, would add a huge amount of realism imo. Example would be if you were to sign a free agent who had a good stat year but ultimately is a low rated player you may would take the risk because of the stats shown. If you see that same player is rated a 55 then you're in no way going to sign him. You could really add to the risk aspect and flow of signing and managing players. It's a cool idea, I'm not sure how or if it could work. But it definitely makes you speculate