MLB The Show 16 News Post

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

06:56 PM - February 19, 2016 by Steve_OS

GameInformer has posted a new MLB The Show 16 video with Ramone Russell. They discuss many of the new features in the game, including franchise, player morale and much more. Check it out and post your thoughts!

Thanks for the tip, Grant Thomas!

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

# 101 Lovesports @ 02/21/16 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	I completely disagree that potential should have the least effect. It should have the highest, followed by training, followed by performance. I know of plenty of guys that train and work harder than superstars that never amount to anything. Plenty of guys who are one hit wonders and perform well to fall off the cliff. Batting average is alot of luck. Guys that have the raw tools have the highest potential and when skills like patience and understanding of the game take hold they take it to another level. Performance is based off the raw skills it is never stats that make a player better. Where I agree is that velocity and speed should not progress after 22 or 23. They statistically begin to actual start falling off around age 26. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

You make a very good point, however, I think that performance has to be taken into account in some way. You can't have a guy hit 30+ home runs and be a 62 overall next year. Not only is that unrealistic but it also affects player contracts.

# 102 tabarnes19_SDS @ 02/21/16 03:24 PM

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

# 103 JTommy67 @ 02/21/16 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eman5805


	Something I always noticed was how almost every no swing 3rd strike had my batter look at the ump and complain or osmething, even when I screwed up and just didn't swing at a clear strike. I wonder if there's a few more animations to the tune of guys just being mad at themselves. I also wonder if they have pitchers who run off the mound to the dugout after a inning ending strike out in the game.

Yeah, and it's also kind of silly watching my starting pitcher, who's taking a shutout into the 7th inning, start arguing with the ump when he strikes out looking. LOL not gonna happen in real life.

# 104 jmik58 @ 02/21/16 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedy


	I disagree. I think it adds a dynamic in the game that is true to real life. Chemistry is a part of the game and not everybody is happy with being a platoon guy or waiting in the minors, not to mention that playing for a winner or a great coach can swing a guy. I just like the fact that it's not just about money in signing a guy as there's more variables at play. It makes franchise and the GM mode much more entertaining. The key is that it's implemented correctly; I'm hoping that there is a slider (similar to NBA 2K) where we can either amplify or tone down the effects player morale...I'm sure SCEA has thought of that and implemented it. ...again though, just me and my $.02.

What video games miss when incorporating morale is an individual's professionalism to push past their feelings and still play to their ability. You can be cranky about your role on the team or with whatever but it doesn't automatically mean you're going to play like garbage or lose ability. Heck, some guys actually get inspired and play better when they're upset.

There's a right way to implement morale in a balanced way, but until then it needs to come with an "off" switch.

# 105 Bobhead @ 02/21/16 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	The issue is for those who do not want to do the micromanaging of their franchises. I tend to ignore training since I'm there mostly to make a fantasy team and play baseball games in my franchise. If it can be turned off great, if not we'll I think many people might find it tedious to do seemingly arbitrary things like have players of similar national origins on their team. That hurts people who want to make a diverse team with whoever they want. Now you ha e to think "Do I really want that guy from Cuba or the guy from Venezuela instead since I already have 2 Venezuelan players already." Adds a layer of depth that I don't think I need and hope I can disable it or at least time it down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear


	I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree that morale and personality for players is a good thing. I like making FA signings a bit more context-dependent, too. But, having their attributes/tools depend on their "morale" reeks of arcade-y-ness. I don't like that aspect. It's just not a realistic approach. Unhappy players can perform just fine and happy players can be terrible. There must be some other way to make consequences/incentives for player morale.

I 100% get what you guys are saying, but I think you are overreacting. We are talking about a 2 point difference in OVR, which is basically nothing.

We ALREADY have instances where player X with 80 OVR performs far better than player Y with 90 OVR. We ALREADY have instances where player A agreeably has better ratings than player B, but gets a lower OVR, due to how OVR is calculated.

I don't think you are going to even notice this, which is more or less true for real life, too.

# 106 Bobhead @ 02/21/16 04:00 PM

And as someone who's also played real life sports I will jump on the bandwagon with others and say morale affects performance 100%.

# 107 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobhead


	I 100% get what you guys are saying, but I think you are overreacting. We are talking about a 2 point difference in OVR, which is basically nothing. We ALREADY have instances where player X with 80 OVR performs far better than player Y with 90 OVR. We ALREADY have instances where player A agreeably has better ratings than player B, but gets a lower OVR, due to how OVR is calculated. I don't think you are going to even notice this, which is more or less true for real life, too.

It completely depends on which ratings are being affected. Like I said the "mental" ratings like vision or BB/9 I'd be fine with changing, it might make sense in some cases as well. But speed, power, velocity need to remain those players' skills. A couple points up in velocity and that player no longer represents what he is in real life which I know is not how many people on here want to play franchise. A few in speed can do the same as well.

You can argue that a happier player may take better swings and put the ball in play more, well give him a boost in vision. But I don't think any argument makes sense to say that a player gains a little power when being happy. There are ways to affect performance without affecting a players skills. I will say it again...Is Anthony Rizzo playing slightly worse because he is on a team friendly contract? Going from the Felix Hernandez screenshot that is what part of the morale system is doing although very slightly.

We have no idea what ratings the morale is affecting, that is why I think some are concerned. As of now we may be exaggerating the issue, but I don't see that as a reason to discount the concern.

# 108 WaitTilNextYear @ 02/21/16 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCMacc44


	Also Jesse Biddle, the Phillies former 1st round draft pick, was playing great into May of 2014 when he got a concussion from being hit by a piece of ice and going into a depression in which he was unhappy doing anything baseball related. Since then he hasn't kept an era below like 4 or 5.

That's more of an injury than a morale issue. Both concussions and depression are actual, physical maladies which can and should affect performance. He's not sulking because there are no Canadians on his team. It's not a bad morale situation.

# 109 eric7064 @ 02/21/16 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	It completely depends on which ratings are being affected. Like I said the "mental" ratings like vision or BB/9 I'd be fine with changing, it might make sense in some cases as well. But speed, power, velocity need to remain those players' skills. A couple points up in velocity and that player no longer represents what he is in real life which I know is not how many people on here want to play franchise. A few in speed can do the same as well. You can argue that a happier player may take better swings and put the ball in play more, well give him a boost in vision. But I don't think any argument makes sense to say that a player gains a little power when being happy. There are ways to affect performance without affecting a players skills. I will say it again...Is Anthony Rizzo playing slightly worse because he is on a team friendly contract? Going from the Felix Hernandez screenshot that is what part of the morale system is doing although very slightly. We have no idea what ratings the morale is affecting, that is why I think some are concerned. As of now we may be exaggerating the issue, but I don't see that as a reason to discount the concern.

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.

# 110 Cowboy008 @ 02/21/16 04:38 PM

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?

Will probably have to wait until the Franchise stream to have that question answered.

# 111 eric7064 @ 02/21/16 04:39 PM

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.

# 112 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 04:42 PM

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.

# 113 Lovesports @ 02/21/16 05:32 PM

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.

# 114 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 06:34 PM

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.

# 115 Knight165 @ 02/21/16 06:59 PM

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

# 116 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 07:10 PM

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.

# 117 Jr. @ 02/21/16 07:11 PM

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.

# 118 tabarnes19_SDS @ 02/21/16 07:21 PM

.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

# 119 og236 @ 02/21/16 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	.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

Jason Heyward (your "hypothetical" example)

I cracked the code

Lol

I'll answer by saying he doesn't get the same contract in The Show as real life

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 120 MrOldboy @ 02/21/16 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabarnes19


	.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

If WAR was calculated with defense and offense in mind and the game looked at that along with his ratings (scouting info if you will) his contract should be fairly representative to real life.

But I'd also like to see it go the other way with high OVR, but low WAR and see a player get a worse contract due to his production.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 Next »

More Links

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