Major League Baseball 2K10 First Look (Gamespot)

[Smitty730]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

Here's my only issue with the statistical breakdowns affecting performance (for those who were talking about it): if it's not dynamic and progressive, it's weak. Say you have that Longoria/Pettitte set up mentioned earlier. If he strikes out, he should now be 2-for-17, and those calculations should be made on the fly in-game. Likewise, if he goes 10-for-10 against him, he should be 12-for-26, and those calculations, again, should be made. If they are static during an entire career and nothing actually changes from how they are now, then how do rookies get that advantage/disadvantage when owning certain pitchers, etc.? That would be unfortunate if it doesn't change as the seasons go on, but if this is the case, hopefully this will be one of the first things on the agenda for 2K11.

You said it perfectly!

If head-to-head statistics and Inside Edge content are not updated throughout the course of a franchise, all of these new additions are, essentially, pointless.

It's a question we need to continue shoving down the developers' throat until we get an answer. It's awesome that they included this stuff, but like Blzer said, it has to be progressive in order for it to work.

[Jamin23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Smitty730

You said it perfectly! If head-to-head statistics and Inside Edge content are not updated throughout the course of a franchise, all of these new additions are, essentially, pointless. It's a question we need to continue shoving down the developers' throat until we get an answer. It's awesome that they included this stuff, but like Blzer said, it has to be progressive in order for it to work.

We might get an answer in the next developer blog since it is about franchise.

[Craigsca]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

Here's my only issue with the statistical breakdowns affecting performance (for those who were talking about it): if it's not dynamic and progressive, it's weak. Say you have that Longoria/Pettitte set up mentioned earlier. If he strikes out, he should now be 2-for-17, and those calculations should be made on the fly in-game. Likewise, if he goes 10-for-10 against him, he should be 12-for-26, and those calculations, again, should be made. If they are static during an entire career and nothing actually changes from how they are now, then how do rookies get that advantage/disadvantage when owning certain pitchers, etc.? That would be unfortunate if it doesn't change as the seasons go on, but if this is the case, hopefully this will be one of the first things on the agenda for 2K11.

But why even waste your time with it? Longoria going 10 for 10 against Pettitte is a perfect example. Oh wait, now he bats approximately .480 against him - we have him at .125. Do we now artificially uptick his performance? It shows how insane basing ANYTHING on small sample sizes really is.

I'd rather you just rate the guys on last year's performance (really, if I had my way we'd probably do a mix of the past 3 years, but I understand at age 40 I'm probably not the key demographic they're shooting for) and let the game itself make the streaks, the slumps, etc. It'd be nice to call my attention to it ("Longoria steps up to the plate....he's 2 for 16 lifetime against Pettitte..."), but PLEASE don't cause me to a hit a dribbler to the 2nd basemen because of this goofy, tacked-on 2 for 16 garbage even though I physically nailed his last pitch. That's just lame.

[JayhawkerStL]

Quote: Originally Posted by Craigsca

But why even waste your time with it? Longoria going 10 for 10 against Pettitte is a perfect example. Oh wait, now he bats approximately .480 against him - we have him at .125. Do we now artificially uptick his performance? It shows how insane basing ANYTHING on small sample sizes really is. I'd rather you just rate the guys on last year's performance (really, if I had my way we'd probably do a mix of the past 3 years, but I understand at age 40 I'm probably not the key demographic they're shooting for) and let the game itself make the streaks, the slumps, etc. It'd be nice to call my attention to it ("Longoria steps up to the plate....he's 2 for 16 lifetime against Pettitte..."), but PLEASE don't cause me to a hit a dribbler to the 2nd basemen because of this goofy, tacked-on 2 for 16 garbage even though I physically nailed his last pitch. That's just lame.

I'm with you 100%. They ought to hire out Tom Tippet from diamond Mind Baseball to do the ratings. His projection rosters, which are the equivalent of what you get in console games, were so well done. But of course they took into account how a player would be projected to perform based on his history.

But you are right that the kids might get upset when their favorite players do not get the proper amount of love.

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Craigsca

But why even waste your time with it? Longoria going 10 for 10 against Pettitte is a perfect example. Oh wait, now he bats approximately .480 against him - we have him at .125. Do we now artificially uptick his performance? It shows how insane basing ANYTHING on small sample sizes really is. I'd rather you just rate the guys on last year's performance (really, if I had my way we'd probably do a mix of the past 3 years, but I understand at age 40 I'm probably not the key demographic they're shooting for) and let the game itself make the streaks, the slumps, etc. It'd be nice to call my attention to it ("Longoria steps up to the plate....he's 2 for 16 lifetime against Pettitte..."), but PLEASE don't cause me to a hit a dribbler to the 2nd basemen because of this goofy, tacked-on 2 for 16 garbage even though I physically nailed his last pitch. That's just lame.

Now I never said anything like that. Honestly, it should be a very small weight in general. But also to be honest, that's exactly what ownage is, and as I said earlier in this thread, you see it live in front of you. It doesn't even have to be that somebody is seeing a pitcher better... when you own someone, it'll show in the at-bats. That's just how baseball is.

But like I said, I'd much rather it be a weight thing. For instance, I don't want progression to be based on just last year's stats, or the last three year's stats, or the last two games, etc. I want it to be a big combination of a bunch of things that calculate how you'll be not just that at-bat, but that pitch. There's a runner on second, it's night time, you're on the road and on turf, it's 52 degrees outside, you're facing a rookie lefty, you're 35 years old, you're 1-for-2 on the night already, and you have a 1 - 0 count. I don't want to say "have the game determine what I will do based on this", I'm saying "tell me what this guy's performance level is based on this."

Your game will always have some sort of mathematics involved, though. There are always numbers working behind the big machine and sometimes you just can't stop it. But now tell me this: what if you have a guy who has a 95 speed rating, a 98 agility rating, a 90 steal aggressiveness rating, and a 96 steal success rating (let's say those are all hypothetically in the game)... now let's say that this player, for some odd reason or another, is 200-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of May, but 0-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of June. Okay, now say it's June 7th. Which should play the bigger role in him being able to steal a base? His ability, or his success rate? Maybe it's that the pitcher and catcher are just getting quicker timings in altogether and there's nothing that you can really do to stop that wheel, despite how fast he is.

I'm not talking about sample-size so much as I'm asking when the line is then drawn that these are allowed to take some sort of effect. I don't want it to be an end-all, be-all effect, but I do want them to by dynamically progressive so that Longoria isn't always just stuck with that 2-for-16 against Pettitte.

[Craigsca]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

Now I never said anything like that. Honestly, it should be a very small weight in general. But also to be honest, that's exactly what ownage is, and as I said earlier in this thread, you see it live in front of you. It doesn't even have to be that somebody is seeing a pitcher better... when you own someone, it'll show in the at-bats. That's just how baseball is. But like I said, I'd much rather it be a weight thing. For instance, I don't want progression to be based on just last year's stats, or the last three year's stats, or the last two games, etc. I want it to be a big combination of a bunch of things that calculate how you'll be not just that at-bat, but that pitch. There's a runner on second, it's night time, you're on the road and on turf, it's 52 degrees outside, you're facing a rookie lefty, you're 35 years old, you're 1-for-2 on the night already, and you have a 1 - 0 count. I don't want to say "have the game determine what I will do based on this", I'm saying "tell me what this guy's performance level is based on this." Your game will always have some sort of mathematics involved, though. There are always numbers working behind the big machine and sometimes you just can't stop it. But now tell me this: what if you have a guy who has a 95 speed rating, a 98 agility rating, a 90 steal aggressiveness rating, and a 96 steal success rating (let's say those are all hypothetically in the game)... now let's say that this player, for some odd reason or another, is 200-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of May, but 0-for-200 in stealing bases in the month of June. Okay, now say it's June 7th. Which should play the bigger role in him being able to steal a base? His ability, or his success rate? Maybe it's that the pitcher and catcher are just getting quicker timings in altogether and there's nothing that you can really do to stop that wheel, despite how fast he is. I'm not talking about sample-size so much as I'm asking when the line is then drawn that these are allowed to take some sort of effect. I don't want it to be an end-all, be-all effect, but I do want them to by dynamically progressive so that Longoria isn't always just stuck with that 2-for-16 against Pettitte.

I don't mind anything like this in the game - but just prove to me it's REAL. Don't just base and/or influence what happens on statistical information that could easily be replicated by tossing a coin.

If a guy, season after season, can replicate that he hits better in April than in May, and the sample sizes are large enough to prove that it's not just some byproduct of white noise, then by all means include it. The problem is - baseball has so many statistics that people try to give meaning to them when there isn't any. The #1 predictor of future performance is past performance. However, when you break it down into smaller and smaller buckets (night vs. day, RISP, Mondays vs. Tuesday) the data becomes less meaningful. I don't want my game using meaningless statistical info to "help" formulate an outcome.

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by Craigsca

I don't mind anything like this in the game - but just prove to me it's REAL. Don't just base and/or influence what happens on statistical information that could easily be replicated by tossing a coin. If a guy, season after season, can replicate that he hits better in April than in May, and the sample sizes are large enough to prove that it's not just some byproduct of white noise, then by all means include it. The problem is - baseball has so many statistics that people try to give meaning to them when there isn't any. The #1 predictor of future performance is past performance. However, when you break it down into smaller and smaller buckets (night vs. day, RISP, Mondays vs. Tuesday) the data becomes less meaningful. I don't want my game using meaningless statistical info to "help" formulate an outcome.

I completely understand and I completely agree. And unlike Joe Morgan, I don't want my team to ever "use up all of my runs" (as the idiot claims having a streaky game of over a dozen runs can lead to nothingness the next game).

Okay, now here's where I'm going to say something that sounds like an oxymoron: every at-bat should be treated independently, but what you do should also have some basis on what you just did prior. What I mean is, just because you hit a home run your last at-bat does not increase or decrease your ability to hit a home run, but it may increase or decrease your potential to hit a home run based on what you're seeing. It could just be that you're seeing the ball well that night, that the pitcher is tipping something to you, that you have a good swing going, etc. It could just be that you're confident at the plate, I don't know. So maybe you're swinging with more assurance than you were before, and as a result if good contact is made the ball may carry more. It's a tough thing to replicate in a video game, but they only try and do the best they can.

Oh and to Trevytrev11, you asked why someone would ever want to hit a ball softer than harder? Well, that's like asking a golfer why they don't just always pull out their driver. Because sometimes, it's not about how hard you hit it, but it's because it's where the ball lands. Now I'm not saying they do some on-the-fly calculations to determine how hard they should swing, but baseball is that weird sport where soft hits can be more successful than hard hits, depending on the situation.

[JBH3]

Sounds like they're expanding franchise mode...

40 man rosters
Sept. Call-ups
Comp picks
and rehab starts?

With the rehab starts I hope it means we will see more frequent injuries. None of the gameplay items sound like overly new items, just enhancements or features from previous iterations brought back. It will be nice to have the gesture rater thingy back...