MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

[Ckhoss29]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

Wow Juan Rivera 44 hrs, 133 rbi, talk about a career year.

[NckWalkr]

This is a pretty much true to life sim...better than 2k's.

[MLB01]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

This is a pretty much true to life sim...better than 2k's.

I was gonna say that, but.. I thought twice and came to the conclusion I wouldn't have to say that. I can actually see that MLB 2K10's simulation engine is basic because there was about 6 pairs of teams that ended the season with the same amount of wins and losses.

[HolyCrusade56]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

I know I'm acting biased because I'm a Mets fan, but there is no way they are going to be well under .500 this year.

[dickey1331]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

I know I'm acting biased because I'm a Mets fan, but there is no way they are going to be well under .500 this year.

Same here for the Rangers

[Grnngld]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

I'm not "hatin". I'm saying it's simply unrealistic. In the modern era, (1900-present day) there have only been 11 (!) teams that have lost 110 or more games in a season. That's 11 in a 110 years folks, roughly one horrific team every decade! Obviously, that's insanely rare. And there has never been a season with two teams both losing over 110 games.

In fact, the last team to lose over 110 games were the '03 Detroit Tigers as I'm sure some of you remember. You'd have go back almost 50 years to find the last team before the Tigers to lose that many amount of games, the '62 Mets.

So no, I wouldn't say these results are satisfactory or realistic at all. What was the methodology in procuring these results anyways? Did they just sim one season and leave it at that? That's pointless; I could do that myself.

You need to sim multiple seasons and take the aggregate of those sims in order to get proper results. And if they did that and the results still came out wonky then obviously something's wrong with the game's ratings.

[CPRoark]

I'm not "hatin". I'm saying it's simply unrealistic. In the modern era, (1900-present day) there have only been 11 (!) teams that have lost 110 or more games in a season. That's 11 in a 110 years folks, roughly one horrific team every decade! Obviously, that's insanely rare. And there has never been a season with two teams both losing over 110 games.

In fact, the last team to lose over 110 games were the '03 Detroit Tigers as I'm sure some of you remember. You'd have go back almost 50 years to find the last team before the Tigers to lose that many amount of games, the '62 Mets.

So no, I wouldn't say these results are satisfactory or realistic at all. What was the methodology in procuring these results anyways? Did they just sim one season and leave it at that? That's pointless; I could do that myself.

You need to sim multiple seasons and take the aggregate of those sims in order to get proper results. And if they did that and the results still came out wonky then obviously something's wrong with the game's ratings.

First, while it's historically very rare for any team to lose over 110 games, that really doesn't prevent it from ever happening. In fact, last year 5 teams lost 97+ games, and the Pirates were only a loss away from making it two 100+ loss teams. +/- 10 games isn't much. However, I agree--and point out in the article--that that aspect of the simulation doesn't seem likely to happen.

And yes, when we do these sims, we only do it once and then write about them as if it were the actual season. I wouldn't call it pointless, though it is primarily for fun. The question regarding statistical accuracy is essentially for discussion, though one would hope that in any game even one simulation would generate relatively realistic results.

I'm ok with these results; they aren't perfect and, as you and I point out, there are some issues. As you also point out, you could do the same thing at home, and post your results. You could also sim the season 100 times and post the aggregates too, if you want to do it that way. I think most people would welcome that data to the discussion.

[B_rad13]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

Way more realistic, the only thing I can't see happening is the White Sox winning the AL Central

[B_rad13]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

And yes the Astros will lose more then 115 games, they are pretty bad this year.

[ParisB]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

I see a lot of guys participate in fantasy drafts, play 30-team franchises, make trades, make their own roster transactions, create their own players, make their own lineups and rotations, use their personnel differently, and let their "fantasy" virtual season unfold with the CPU....but then they complain if a simulated season slightly differs from what they might be accustomed to.

Is it that big of a deal? I don't think so. We're already playing in a fantasy world. What's the point of playing if in your baseball season in The Show will always be the Yanks/Red Sox/Twins/Angels making the playoffs every year like in real life?

[jim416]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

It doesn't make any sense to debate this. They do another sim, different results all together. I'm playing my season and simming all the other teams games, different results. Heck, Pittsburgh is in second place in the Central. People should just take it for what it's worth...fun and some randomness built in. Heck, even Freddy Sanchez could win a batting title in this game.....oh, wait, he actually did win one.

[ThaShark28_316]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

Taken a look at their record lately?

I know, trust me.

[stlstudios189]

Oakland 50-112 and the Whitesox winning the Central will not happen

[Grnngld]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

First, while it's historically very rare for any team to lose over 110 games, that really doesn't prevent it from ever happening. In fact, last year 5 teams lost 97+ games, and the Pirates were only a loss away from making it two 100+ loss teams. +/- 10 games isn't much. However, I agree--and point out in the article--that that aspect of the simulation doesn't seem likely to happen.

And yes, when we do these sims, we only do it once and then write about them as if it were the actual season. I wouldn't call it pointless, though it is primarily for fun. The question regarding statistical accuracy is essentially for discussion, though one would hope that in any game even one simulation would generate relatively realistic results.

I'm ok with these results; they aren't perfect and, as you and I point out, there are some issues. As you also point out, you could do the same thing at home, and post your results. You could also sim the season 100 times and post the aggregates too, if you want to do it that way. I think most people would welcome that data to the discussion.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the +/- 10 games not meaning much. A 10 game swing is a HUGE difference. In any case, I was responding to the guy who implied that I was off my rocker for saying that the results are unrealistic. I think I have a legit case.

But anyways yeah these are just sim results and it's useless to debate them further. I'd take real life results anyday, as my A's are definitely doing better than their 50-112 prediction

[MizzyMike05]

Re: MLB 10: The Show Simulates the 2010 Season

It doesn't make any sense to debate this. They do another sim, different results all together. I'm playing my season and simming all the other teams games, different results. Heck, Pittsburgh is in second place in the Central. People should just take it for what it's worth...fun and some randomness built in. Heck, even Freddy Sanchez could win a batting title in this game.....oh, wait, he actually did win one.

lol freddy sanchez did win a batting title. can't believe a club foot kid pretty much not drafted won a batting title for the terrible pirates. something that is going to go overlooked for the rest of baseball history. i think he batted .344 that season. sorry for going off topic, not often do i get to talk about freddy sanchez's batting title lol