MLB The Show 16 Video - Franchise, Player Morale and Much More

[eric7064]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beatles

Some good stuff in there. Excuse me if this has already been answered but can we finally extend our players during the season in Franchise?

Not sure. I understand why people want in in. But realistically who in there walk year ever signs a deal mid season.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by eric7064

Not sure. I understand why people want in in. But realistically who in there walk year ever signs a deal mid season.

Why would it be limited to walk year? What about arbitration players or free agents you signed to short 1-2 year deals. Managers are extended all the time in their final year as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by eric7064

Well as you can see It didn't effect Hernandez's rating nor will it effect Rizzo. But if there were a few things checked off he was unhappy about then yes. Here's another way to look at it. Let's say a guy like Bryant wins MVP, but he's still in Arb contract. And the team magically is horrible. Maybe that concern over the contract didn't matter bc the team was doing good. But now team is bad and hE would lke a big multi year deal.

First


And also regarding the bolded part. Of course that should come into play, but his ratings? I'd say that if Bryant was harder to sign in that scenario it would be cool to see in franchise, but not if now his skill ratings dropped. I DO want to see situations where an unhappy player is hard to sign or hopefully one day extend, but I DON'T want something like that to affect their skills which in turn affect gameplay and how the AI manages them.

[Lovesports]

Quote: Originally Posted by tabarnes19

I think as the series progresses you will find more of a balance with progression and lack of attaining it. I think the Show has done a pretty good job of having a roll of the dice with players jumping and falling in potential based on streaks and performance. Most players never hit their potential in the Show. Basing progression off statistics is a slippery slope. Look at last year. Statistics provided very little boost yet it negatively impacted pitcher progression. Pitchers continually got better as hitters got worst and stats continued to trend that way in future seasons. I believe the devs were going to look at that for this year. I personally do not like having stats play a role in progression. If anything a good season may move the progression needle, think of guys that have bad years..should that cause the pendulum to shift in the negative direction? Mike Trout has bad luck and hits .250...his ratings and potential drop. Stats are based off the ratings and hence every year he gets worst...is that really how we want it. Players generally get worst because they lose the raw skills as they age. Some players hold on longer by getting "smarter." Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

This is why I would want the AI to look at player performance much more than it does. The ratings impact everything from gameplay to simmed stats, but in the end performance is what teams put the most value on in real life. Now that WAR has been introduced I really hope that we can see more realistic evaluations by the game's AI and also some dumb moves that represent the bad decisions real world teams make. I think progression doesn't have to be tied heavily to performance, but regression should be. If a 37 year old player has a big year in my franchise I find it completely unrealistic that his ratings tank the next year because of his age. Then he goes unsigned, after putting up a .290/.350/.460 batting line? Every year in my franchise I have to go in and bump back up players like Arod or Ortiz as they drop so far they go unused. It's even more important for players on the fringe ratings wise. John Lackey is a very valuable pitcher still, but if his ratings drop even a tiny bit he moves into "crap" MLB pitcher according to The Show and should be in AAA or retire. If Lackey is rated a 75 and he pitches well I expect him to enter next year in the range of 74-76, not 67.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lovesports

Unless you create a separate "performance" attribute all on its own, you have to take performance into consideration for player progression. Think about it. You have a 60 overall player in his last year of contract, he hits .320 with 30 homers, according to you he should maybe go up a point or two and now you get to resign him for under a million per year. Very unrealistic and would never happen in real life. How players get scouted is based on their performance, so if he hits 30 homers, his ratings should reflect that. On the other side of what you're saying, if Trout his .250 it's not the end of the world, but let's say he hits .250, leads the league in strikeouts and gets 10 homers, you still think he's a 30 million a year guy? Potential in my opinion is the most overrated way to progress a player. Just cause a scout thinks a player has the "potential" that doesn't mean he lives up to it.

You're mixing two different things though.
tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression....
You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract.
Two totally different things.

But let's continue onto the last part of your post....
So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings?

....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward?

Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do.

VERY unrealistic IMO.

M.K.
Knight165

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You're mixing two different things though. tabarnes is talking about performance not being the largest factor in progression.... You're saying that having a big season should bring a guy a bigger contract. Two totally different things. But let's continue onto the last part of your post.... So if Mike Trout does have a year of .250.....10 HR's and 200 K's....you're saying he should drop like a rock in ratings? ....and guys that hit .290 30 out of no where always continues that rocket skyward? Because that's basically what a stat driven progression would do. VERY unrealistic IMO. M.K. Knight165

I don't think that was what he was arguing exactly. I would want a combination of what tabarnes and lovesports are saying. A player's skill should remain fairly constant, but performance should also take a larger part in at least regression than it does now.

In the Trout example I find it very reasonable that if a player has an extended period of low performance, than his ratings should be affected. ONLY because the game's AI uses the ratings so heavily in it's decision making and lovesports is referencing this. If Trout hits 10 HRs in his walk year, it would definitely affect his contract, but the game will still see him as a 99. Now if the game's AI used the performance of the player more heavily in decision making I don't think performance needs to be tied to progression at all. Just have little +/- for hot/cold streaks within a season.

But, I do agree that performance should affect regression very heavily to prevent the undervaluing of players and how the game handles playing time and retirement.

Now if the game does look at performance more heavily instead of just the ratings I think this discussion changes dramatically. You could have what both tabarnes and lovesports want. Trout performs poorly, but his skills remain fairly constant, but the AI does not value him on his 99 rating and instead values him on his performance more heavily.

[Jr.]

The idea of progression is always interesting to me. What are ratings in a video game, really? They're an interpretation of someone's performance. Trout is given a high rating because of his real life production. It would be great if the game gave a way to reflect this within franchise.

I would love to see the ratings changed to a scout based ratings system that we see, with the actual ratings hidden. This is how "attribute" ratings work in real life. Someone hits 30 HRs in a season, scouts give him a 75 power rating (or whatever) on an 80 scale. He doesn't hit 30 HRs because of his 75 rating... he has a 75 rating because he hit 30 HRs.

If there could be a way for guys in the game to be rated based on their production, that would alleviate any issues with low rated guys getting tiny contracts after productive seasons. Ratings would swing greatly early on in the career, then settle as a guy plays longer and the actual attributes come out.

This is my ideal situation and I think is a hybrid for those that want ratings completely hidden and work purely on production, and those that like the current system.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

.293 ba 13 hrs 60 rbi. Based on those "hypothetical" numbers what kind of contract would the show give a 27 year outfielder...using stats as the primary factor?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk