MLB The Show 16 News Post

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

05:01 PM - March 3, 2016 by Steve_OS

The MLB The Show 16 Twitch stream has begun, post your thoughts here!

For those that miss out, we will update this post with the archive, when it has completed.

UPDATE: Here is the archive.

Game: MLB The Show 16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4Votes for game: 23 - View All

MLB The Show 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 381 BrianU @ 03/05/16 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear


	That's where I tend to disagree. The variance is the whole, entire issue here. If 85 contact equated to a definite batting average, then it would be a boring game. That's not the case. That the 85 contact rating tells us a player is a good contact hitter relative to most others is not a problem or an unreasonable advantage, because this type of information is readily available simply by having even a passing knowledge of the real life players. With or without ratings, most baseball fans would know this. The derivation also goes both ways. If you are saying that expected results can be fairly accurately derived from in-game attributes, then the same can be said about reverse engineering the in-game attributes and them being fairly accurately derived from the expected (or actual) results. Maybe one approach is more interesting or seems more mysterious to some people, but it is basically the same approach where you are relying on quantitative data provided by the game that hints at the true abilities of a player in order to make decisions. The variance that links the rating to the result, whether in a sim or played game, and the interplay of different attributes/factors to muddy the waters (I don't even think the originator of the "it's a no brainer to pick the higher power rating but not necessarily the guy with the most HRs" theory would reduce the likelihood of a HR to a single rating), is the whole issue. The variance being large enough to give us a range of different outcomes marginalizes any advantage we gain from discovering, as mentioned in your stats mini-lecture, the "true" population mean for free. I'm arguing that this ratings-less approach is not much different than what we already do with ratings. I still don't agree with you. Not that we have to agree or that either one of us needs to really care outside of having a respectful, high brow discussion for a change that has probably gone off topic by now... Whether you are looking at ratings or at the stats that were produced as a function of said ratings, you have basically the same level of predictive power. If you are arguing that the ratings are too deterministic as to what future outcomes will be (always choose a 98 OVR over a 97 OVR etc..) then I can just as easily argue that a 40 HR player will always be more successful than a 35 HR player in hitting a homer when you need it. If the single ratings are that strictly tied to results and outcomes, then you can't uncouple the 2 as you are trying to do here by saying using one approach to decide how to manage is fundamentally a different ballgame than the other. Your hypothetical 40-HR player would definitely have the higher POW attribute and you'd be enjoying the results of that massive PCI. Whether "what you know about the player" is 67 CON or that he hit .286 last season (which is based on said ratings) or that your scout says he's a plus contact hitter, you have similar predictive power about what will happen in his next AB.

The way the game works currently the rating you see in-game at the pinch hitter menu is the current Contact/Power rating. If you were to only be able to view his batting statistics, .avg vs lefty/righty HR vs lefty/righty those numbers do not translate 1:1 to his current Contact and Power ratings. It is absolutely not the same thing in any way. We are gonna go in circles until our pants fall down but it's cool I love talking about The Show and baseball.

Other people bringing up that sometimes they do better with a lower Power or Contact guy then a higher one is completely not part of this topic. I said "All else being equal" and if you argue you do better with a lower rated player just because of some voodoo magic you are objectively wrong. You are falling victim to sample size. If you think of it as a science experiment the variable is the PCI which is higher as the ratings go up. That is the only variable, everything else is constant. Every player has the same bat speed. Their batting animations mean nothing we do not have real-time physics when it comes to placing the bat on the ball it is ALL ratings controlled, everything else is in your head. That is straight up voodoo. Your user input magically does not change because you are using A-Rod over Ike Davis. Your user skill is a constant no matter the batter you are using, his bat speed is the same, the only difference is ratings, so there is an absolute answer in who to pick to pinch hit in my scenario and the other choice is objectively incorrect.

I'm not ready to tap out yet because I think what I am proposing and others have seen as a cool idea would be forward thinking and groundbreaking in the sports game genre. That we have gotten to the point where we can usher in a new way to manage the game and make decisions as a GM.

Statistics based decisions have greater variability than rating based decisions, statistics DO NOT translate 1:1 to gameplay as Ratings do. Higher ratings = larger PCI = giving yourself a better chance of success. A player with higher batting statistics at a point in the season or his career = not enough information given to determine his PCI = creates a brand new dynamic which does not exist when Ratings are shown.

I keep bringing up examples and you sidestepping them so this is not a debate. Tell me how when you are playing in June that choosing between a player with .255 batting avgVL in the current season and a guy with .250 batting avgvL in the current season is the same as choosing a Current contactvL 75 player and a Current 70 contactvL player. CURRENT is the key word here, the game as it works today shows their CURRENT rating. The contact ratings are what they are, the information is handed to you without any need to interpret it. It removes an aspect of the game and waters it down. Not talking smack to the developers, this is is how every sports game is in the year 2016. But we have now reached the point in sports gaming where it can be different and in my opinion superior.

The batting average is much more complex because a player with .250 avgvL CAN have a higher CURRENT Contact rating then a player with a .255 avgvL. Of course you also have more bench players some who will have a .260 avgvL, .275avgvL, .280 avgvL. Of the five players who do you choose? It's as simple as the highest batting average?

Do you really believe Major League managers manage the game that way? Like they automatically choose the highest batting average to pinch hit with? You know they don't so why don't they? Because there is context within the batting average vs lefty that you must know. There is absolutely a scenario where the .260 avgvL has a higher CURRENT contactvL rating then the .280 avgVL and I've given the examples of how that is possible. The .275 avgvL hitter could be the highest CURRENT rating, the .280 avgVL could be the highest CURRENT rating.

You cannot tell from just the statistics alone and that is why if you are a total simulation player it is superior to play that way and more accurate to the spirit of baseball in real life, where answers are not black and white and managers don't always make 100% correct decisions as we do currently when we have the current ratings displayed to us and the interpretation of the players is removed from the process. I am saying that there is a hardcore more sim-like approach that can be taken and I am advocating that we be given this option in the future because it would be perfect at the present time and place that the greatness of this game has reached in terms of gameplay and stat tracking.

Just because I highlight an issue I have does not mean it should ruin the game for anyone. You have the ability to increase the realism factor by avoiding looking at ratings, it just is a bit of a challenge though I think it is worth it in what you gain from playing this way.

The statistics displayed ratings removed approach would be a complete gamechanger and the biggest change to move the game towards even more simulation baseball on top of the GREAT package the devs have put together the last however many years The Show has been around. It is an interesting discussion to have. Regardless of if anyone agrees with this idea or if it ever gets implemented as an option, I am going to try to play this way for myself this year where I make my decisions off statistics rather than ratings as much as I possibly can. I just desire an easier way given where I don't have to close my eyes at certain screens of gameplay/franchise mode to not be exposed to the raw player ratings. I can almost promise if this was a feature that you could enable in franchise that very few people would use it. Sort of the Online Franchise vs rest of the game debate. But the amount of effort required to add what I am proposing doesn't seem like it would be as major as overhauling Online Franchise, though I don't know how much time or effort it takes to redesign menu screens and gameplay screens and add a toggle option to the franchise creation menu. It just seems to me it would be worth it for what it would add to the experience. Maybe I'll start a kickstarter and send them the extra funds myself to implement my dream!

# 382 BrianU @ 03/05/16 01:59 PM

Nomo are you gonna be running your CPU vs CPU tests this year? I run with auto fielding and auto baserunning in offline play so I use your slider findings quite a bit in those categories then modify batting/pitching to my control methods and skill level and it works out great.

# 383 Threeebs @ 03/05/16 02:09 PM

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 don't know if you've noticed but every single year every area gets a little more love and with the PS4 bringing more room it'll grow and expand every year, little by little. They can't work on all of our wishes all at once. I think they'll set their own priorities based on their numbers.

The last two years player models and presentation along with commentary got a lot of love. They absolutely changed the **** out of that and already you want more? Well they did even more this year.

They have a 9-10 month window for every installment. Every year they will add/are adding. It's pretty clear that it will never be enough for a lot of people...

# 384 rabnothimself @ 03/05/16 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dran1984


	They already said that the new ST jerseys/caps won't be in because they released them too late. However, the Phillies new red alternate is in and it's basically the same as the new ST jersey. Same for a lot of teams this year. The one think that is odd is the order of the jerseys in the video. It goes from home white to the next one being road warm-up. Maybe in this build they were still adding the jerseys.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. And yes their spring training jerseys are exactly the same as their new new red alternates that they are gonna wear this year, the only difference being the spring training patch that they will have on it during spring training.

Also I noticed that they had to file the new red jersey under road alternate even though they will be wearing it at home only. This is due to the fact that the Phils already have a cream colored home alternate as well and no road alternates. They need to do away with every team having a road and home alternate slot as not all teams have them, and just label them correctly. So for the Phils it should be home alternate 1 and home alternate 2. No road alternate at all.

# 385 Lovesports @ 03/05/16 02:49 PM

For those of you that are unhappy with the franchise upgrades, you only have yourselves to blame. When you keep asking about accurate detail of the dirt in the outfield, accurate seating in the nose bleed section and other imo minor and irrelevant cosmetic fixes, it takes time away from other game modes. The body types will continue to look bad because people are too worried about the scoreboard in the left field. Just my two cents

# 386 p00p1 @ 03/05/16 03:00 PM

Personally, the gimped stat tracking has always been my biggest gripe, so I'm very happy with the updates.

But in most game studios, artists and game designers are two different teams.

# 387 NAFBUC @ 03/05/16 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HustlinOwl


	have a look and this a hardcore forum just imagine the ******s http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ball-game.html

Hard to refute the data HustlinOwl.......I would say the ****** fan would not make it to the All Star game.

So why bother having individual All Star team uniforms.

# 388 p00p1 @ 03/05/16 03:32 PM

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

# 389 NAFBUC @ 03/05/16 03:46 PM

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?

# 390 Lovesports @ 03/05/16 04:07 PM

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.

# 391 Lovesports @ 03/05/16 04:14 PM

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....

# 392 BravesBoy @ 03/05/16 04:22 PM

Adjustable trade slider for the win!!!

# 393 eric7064 @ 03/05/16 04:29 PM

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.

# 394 tessl @ 03/05/16 05:45 PM

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.

# 395 nomo17k @ 03/05/16 06:14 PM

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.

# 396 BravesBoy @ 03/05/16 06:39 PM

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

# 397 HustlinOwl @ 03/05/16 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p00p1


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

and that includes online franchise lmao 62 and 59 dont complete 162 games

# 398 BrianU @ 03/05/16 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

This is what I'm saying. Honestly the way sports games are setup makes franchise modes very easy to play and without a challenge unless you implement house rules for yourself. With this simple change you wouldn't have to go to those extremes to have an even playing field vs the CPU.

When is the last time you built a team up and failed? All of the dynasty threads I read people are always making the playoffs. That is fine I know people like that but I would like to fail occasionally and have things not work out. To me that is just as fun. When is the last time you traded for a player or signed a free agent and they pulled a BJ Upton in The Show? It just doesn't happen because you would never sign a guy with an awful rating who had a big statistics year or multiple ones, then have him return to playing to his ratings. The current way of playing you look at their ratings when making GM decisions and have access to perfect information of what you are getting, where in real life that is not the case and that is one of the elements which makes sports great.

I want to experience the dread and disappointment of signing a BJ Upton to my franchise and destroying the dreams of prosperity for my entire virtual fan base. I had to use that as my example it just fit perfect I hope you forgive me.

# 399 omegon3 @ 03/05/16 07:09 PM

I figure this would be the best stream to ask but does anyone else want 100 players per team roster? 90 just seems...off. I know A games don't register stats (they should, even though we don't have the option to play their games) but it would give roster builders 300 more players. And it would keep all the FAs from retiring from "Poor Free Agent Market".

# 400 BravesBoy @ 03/05/16 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianU


	I want to experience the dread and disappointment of signing a BJ Upton to my franchise and destroying the dreams of prosperity for my entire virtual fan base. I had to use that as my example it just fit perfect I hope you forgive me.

Agree with you 100%. I would love to hear from Ramone and find out if this could even be a possibility in the future. I know you can't eliminate ratings but if there was a way to hide them, especially for franchise? Could take franchise another step forward for the stat lovers

Someone should run a poll explaining the premise and get a feel from the community.

« Previous 1 2…17 18 192021 22 23 24 25 Next »

More Links

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