Qbrick808

File Name: Business Attire Uniforms File Submitter: Qbrick808 File Submitted: 25 Sep 2012 File Category: Uniforms and Accessories I am sure a lot of people enjoyed the "business attire" uniform included in the 2K Image Patch upload by DomoeYuse; I know I did. This mod runs with that thought and includes a similar uniform to the one just mentioned for each MLB team with an assortment of colors. All of the 30 teams have one uniform in this pack which replaces the regular Home. Obviously, if you'd like to add one or some of these and keep the home uniforms, these can be swapped to other slots. You will get much more out of these uniforms if you use the included Color List and Ty's Editor, however, no editor is required for these to work. If you are not using a Mod Enabler, be sure to back up your original files, and then place these in the main MLB 2K12 Program folder. Thanks to DomoeYuse for the inspiration and to KC for producing such good conventional uniforms which served as great templates. I have attached some screen shots for you to take a look at. Enjoy! Click here to download this file

I think the issue you bring up regarding Pence and Fowler should be somewhat mitigated by the positions they play. There should be an inherently higher range base number for CF as opposed to RF and LF. The aspect which needs to be compensated for, and the Crawford versus Scutaro example points it out very well, is that these numbers are dealing with such small and subtle differences which means there are going to be some instances which simply don't fit the mold. Crawford has properly handled 97.2% of his chances at SS this season while Scutaro has been good on 97.7% of his opportunities at the position. When dealing with such small margins between numbers, 0.5% is going to translate into a lot. You mentioned adding speed into the equation, and while I don't really love the idea for infielders, it's probably the best method you can go with. In the OF, speed and range are obviously very related, but the range of an infielder is much more about quickness than speed, and as I'm sure you know those two traits are not the same thing at all. Regardless, I could see tweaking the formula by determining an appropriate percentage of the player's speed rating and introducing that into the equation in a way which seems to work without throwing things out of proportion.

No, you're completely missing it. What you're describing is by far the single largest component of that formula. XBT% = Extra Bases Taken Percentage It's the reason a guy like Pujols has just 8 Stolen Bases and 0 Triples yet shows a very respectable number. XBT% is defined as the Percentage of times a runner advances more than one base on a single, or more than two bases on a double, when it is possible for him to do so. That means going from 1st to 3rd on a single, scoring from 1st on a double, or even scoring from 2nd on a single. This is the exact stat for what you were describing but I guess you simply didn't realize it exists. And like I said, in this formula I mentioned above, XBT% alone significantly outweighs all of the other components combined. Look at the breakdown for each player I used as examples: ----Albert Pujols gets a rating of 0.53. He's getting 0.06 of that from SBs, nothing from Triples, and 0.47 from XBT%. ----Erick Aybar gets a rating of 0.68. He's getting 0.09 of that from SBs, 0.04 from Triples, and 0.55 from XBT%. ----Mike Trout gets a rating of 0.92. He's getting 0.26 of that from his many SBs, 0.04 from Triples, and 0.62 from XBT%. I think if anything, some people will probably feel the taking of an extra base is too dominant for this rating, but I think it's pretty fair.

BASERUNNING AGGRESSIVENESS -- you might try this formula, or perhaps tweak it a bit to something which you prefer. The logic is to measure SB attempts (with more credit applied for trying to steal 3B or Home) against SB Opportunities. Then you add in some more credit for Triples relative to total Hits, and finally you add the percentage for Extra Bases Taken. -------- (((SB2 + CS2) + ((SB3 + SBH + CS3 + CSH) * 2)) / SBO) + (3B / H) + XBT% To see it in action, let's compare 3 Angels in 2012 to see how this looks when you do the math: ALBERT PUJOLS-- -------- ((( 7 + 0 ) + (( 1 + 0 + 1 + 0 ) * 2 )) / 189 ) + ( 0 / 151 ) + 47% -------- ( 11 / 189 ) + 0 + 0.47 -------- 0.0582 + 0.47 -------- Albert Pujols has a relative Baserunning Aggressiveness Rating of 0.5282 ERICK AYBAR-- -------- ((( 13 + 3 ) + (( 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 ) * 2 )) / 181 ) + ( 5 / 127 ) + 55% -------- ( 20 / 213 ) + 0.0394 + 0.55 -------- 0.0939 + 0.0394 + 0.55 -------- Erick Aybar has a relative Baserunning Aggressiveness Rating of 0.6833 MIKE TROUT-- -------- ((( 39 + 3 ) + (( 6 + 1 + 0 + 0 ) * 2 )) / 217 ) + ( 6 / 158 ) + 62% -------- ( 56 / 217 ) + 0.0380 + 0.62 -------- 0.2581 + 0.038 + 0.62 -------- Mike Trout has a relative Baserunning Aggressiveness Rating of 0.9161 As you can see, the numbers bear out the truth when comparing these three players. If you apply this formula to every player, you can then scale the results on some form of curve to translate these rating numbers into the numbers you actually want to assign for the game. FIELDING RANGE -- This is always a tough one to try and quantify with straight numbers. To keep things simple, you might want to just use a comparison of Range Factor per 9IP and the league average per position. For each position a player plays, use the formula RF/9 - lgRF9. If we go back to our three Angels, we can see the results: ALBERT PUJOLS-- ---- as a 1B: 9.78 - 9.31 = +0.47 ---- as a 3B: 2.30 - 2.59 = -0.29 ERICK AYBAR-- ---- as a SS: 4.55 - 4.45 = +0.10 MIKE TROUT-- ---- as a CF: 2.70 - 2.58 = +0.12 ---- as a LF: 2.06 - 1.96 = +0.10 ---- as a RF: 1.50 - 2.03 = -0.53 Since the interface doesn't allow you to input different numbers for the Range at each position, you can apply the formula to the total defense for each player, but this leads right in to your question about... FIELDING ABILITY AT SPECIFIC POSITIONS -- This may lead to a lot of work, but that seems to be what you're dealing with anyway so I'm sure your attitude is that you might as well make it as accurate as possible. Let's look at a guy who plays multiple positions with differing results. Scott Hairston has played all three OF spots for the Mets this season; 51 games in LF, 37 in RF and 10 in CF. It's worth pointing out that when factoring in how much a guy plays at a given position, it is probably a better statistical approach to use the number of Chances he received rather than the game total; Hairston has had 57 Chances in LF, 58 in RF and 11 in CF (you see how deceiving those numbers can be if you just go by games). For each of the defensive categories (Glove, Arm Str, Arm Acc, Rng and Ant) you're going to have a formula or method of arriving at a representative number. So let's take the example I just gave for Range and apply it to Scott Hairston in the three OF spots. ---- as a LF: 1.52 - 1.83 = -0.31 ---- as a RF: 2.11 - 2.01 = +0.10 ---- as a CF: 1.77 - 2.51 = -0.74 So very clearly when it comes to Range, Hairston deserves a much better rating as a RF than anywhere else. If you did something like this with the other four defensive categories, you could merge them into one number with an appropriate formula. Then you could use the number of Chances each player had at each position as some form of multiplier to determine how significantly his above/below the league average standing should affect the number you give him for the position (which is then used as a multiplier against all of the other ratings by the program's original coding).

There's no perfect way, but this is what I do to generate a success rating for each category: For the Bunt ranking: Sac Bunts / (Total Bunts - Bunt Hits) For the Drag Bunt ranking: Bunt Hits / (Total Bunts - Sac Bunts)

The Starting Rotation: -- LHP Sandy Koufax -- RHP Bob Gibson -- LHP Randy Johnson -- RHP Pedro Martinez -- RHP Tom Seaver The Bullpen: -- RHP Mariano Rivera -- LHP Billy Wagner -- RHP Bruce Sutter -- RHP Dennis Eckersley -- RHP Rollie Fingers For the lineups, I don't see how to avoid to specifying the scenarios in order to identify who is on the bench and who starts at what positions. I had to pick something, so the rule I went with is that players are eligible for defensive positions at which they've played 100+ career games. Versus a RHP without DH: -- 1 - S - 3B Pete Rose -- 2 - R - CF Willie Mays -- 3 - L - LF Ted Williams -- 4 - L - RF Babe Ruth -- 5 - L - 1B Lou Gehrig -- 6 - R - 2B Rogers Hornsby -- 7 - L - C Yogi Berra -- 8 - R - SS Honus Wagner BENCH PLAYERS: -- Johnny Bench -- Mike Schmidt -- Alex Rodriguez -- Hank Aaron -- Rickey Henderson -- Stan Musial -- Frank Robinson Versus a RHP with a DH: -- 1 - S - LF Pete Rose -- 2 - R - CF Willie Mays -- 3 - L - DH Ted Williams -- 4 - L - RF Babe Ruth -- 5 - L - 1B Lou Gehrig -- 6 - R - 3B Alex Rodriguez -- 7 - R - 2B Rogers Hornsby -- 8 - L - C Yogi Berra -- 9 - R - SS Honus Wagner BENCH PLAYERS: -- Johnny Bench -- Mike Schmidt -- Hank Aaron -- Rickey Henderson -- Stan Musial -- Frank Robinson Versus a LHP without DH: -- 1 - R - LF Rickey Henderson -- 2 - R - SS Honus Wagner -- 3 - R - CF Willie Mays -- 4 - L - RF Babe Ruth -- 5 - R - 1B Hank Aaron -- 6 - R - 3B Mike Schmidt -- 7 - R - C Johnny Bench -- 8 - R - 2B Rogers Hornsby BENCH PLAYERS: -- Yogi Berra -- Lou Gehrig -- Pete Rose -- Alex Rodriguez -- Ted Williams -- Stan Musial -- Frank Robinson Versus a LHP with a DH: -- 1 - R - DH Rickey Henderson -- 2 - R - CF Willie Mays -- 3 - L - LF Babe Ruth -- 4 - R - RF Hank Aaron -- 5 - R - 3B Mike Schmidt -- 6 - L - 1B Lou Gehrig -- 7 - R - 2B Rogers Hornsby -- 8 - R - C Johnny Bench -- 9 - R - SS Honus Wagner BENCH PLAYERS: -- Yogi Berra -- Pete Rose -- Alex Rodriguez -- Ted Williams -- Stan Musial -- Frank Robinson Yogi Berra Johnny Bench Lou Gehrig Rogers Hornsby Mike Schmidt Pete Rose Honus Wagner Alex Rodriguez Babe Ruth Willie Mays Hank Aaron Ted Williams Rickey Henderson Frank Robinson Stan Musial

Quickly, the only reason I mentioned that Jeter has the 5-2 edge in Gold Gloves was because I didn't want to dwell on the defense between the two so I thought I'd just let the voters' voice be heard there. The fact is that Ripken was never a great defensive SS. I'm not claiming that Jeter is Ozzie Smith, but he is certainly no worse than Ripken and I'd have to give him the slight edge if forced to decide. You claim his defense is very suspect; that is simply a fabrication. If you've watched his career, the worst way you would ever depict Derek Jeter's defensive play would be as solid. Okay, enough on that, I really wanted to talk about Henderson. You said that you picked Rickey, "for everything he gives: gets on base, great defense, speed." Since when has Rickey Henderson ever been a great defensive player? For the most part, his play in the outfield would be accurately described as below average. That's a big part of his reputation, and it's true. He wasn't terrible, but we can't begin making up stories about his great defense because it was never there. In an era with smaller ball parks which made it easier for OFs to cover the available ground, a Fielding Percentage of .979 was not good. You want to be in the mid .980s for that, and the upper .980s into the .990 to be seen as great. If it seems like nitpicking to claim that the mid .980s is not far from .979, that would mean you're not really grasping the statistic very well. Every percentage point in the Fielding Percentage for an OF is a huge difference so it is fair to say that .983 and .979 are really not even close. Now, unless I'm missing something, your roster does not have a backup 2B, but it does have 7 regular OFs plus some other guys who can play in the OF. If Henderson is not going to be used in the way which would make him the effective stud that he was, why fill that slot with an OF at all? There are several guys who could fill the backup 2B role while also providing great defense, great speed and the ability to get on base. -- Joe Morgan, Hall of Famer, 689 SB, .392 OBP, 268 HR and 5 Gold Gloves -- Roberto Alomar, Hall of Famer, 474 SB, .371 OBP, 210 HR and 10 Gold Gloves -- Eddie Collins, Hall of Famer, 741 SB, .424 OBP (actually a better OBP than Rickey) On the other hand, if that spot must be filled by an OF, there are several choices to look at: -- Barry Bonds, 514 SB, 762 HR, .444 OBP and 8 Gold Gloves (.984 Fielding %) -- Larry Walker, 230 SB, 383 HR, .400 OBP and 7 Gold Gloves (.987 Fielding %) -- Tony Gwynn, 319 SB, 135 HR, .388 OBP and 5 Gold Gloves (.987 Fielding %) -- Kenny Lofton, 622 SB, 130 HR, .372 OBP and 4 Gold Gloves (.984 Fielding %) -- Ryan Braun in just 6th year, 116 SB, 194 HR, .372 OBP with a .991 Fielding % If it's all about roles, there are a ton of ways to go, but having Rickey Henderson on the bench as a 7th OF makes very little sense. Finally, if you're looking for a negative thing to say about Greg Maddux, there is one I can point to (but remember that I still think he was tremendous). Anyone who used to watch the Braves games on TBS will remember what the announcers often referred to as "The Sign." Maddux had this move where he would gesture to the dugout which became familiar to attentive viewers. Usually in the 6th or maybe the 7th inning, he'd be out on the mound cruising along with about 70 to 80 pitches thrown, and suddenly he would just decide that he was done for the day. There was something lacking in his will to push himself the way so many other pitchers take such pride in looking within for a bit more. There is that saying which is a bit of an anachronism now about how, "Pitchers like to finish what they start." I realize that Maddux did throw over 100 complete games, but when he didn't feel like staying on the hill, all he was interested with was himself. Consider the fact that he did throw 109 CGs, and then look at this comparison to some other greats when it comes to Innings Pitched per Start; also remember that this is another stat where extrapolated out over the entire career, every single digit's difference is huge: IP/GS 7.88 Bob Gibson 7.67 Warren Spahn 7.61 Bob Feller 7.61 Juan Marichal 7.47 Gaylord Perry 7.40 Jim Palmer 7.38 Tom Seaver 7.34 Ferguson Jenkins 7.29 Steve Carlton 7.24 Bert Blyleven 7.18 Don Drysdale 7.15 Catfish Hunter 7.14 Ron Guidry 7.11 Jack Morris 7.06 Curt Schilling 7.01 Sandy Koufax 7.01 Roy Halladay 6.76 Greg Maddux

I too am giving significant consideration to depth, balance, defense, speed, et al. I just can't see how Ripken can even be considered over Jeter for SS. Jeter has 5 Gold Gloves and Ripken has 2, so straight up I'm just calling Jeter the better defender. Jeter's .313 AVG is way, way better than Ripken's .277. Jeter's game is not about power, yet he trails in RBIs by less than 100 (should easily pass that by) and is also less than 100 HR behind. Jeter's strengths show up in a major way with an advantage of more than 500 Runs Scored, over 700 more Hits, more Doubles, more Triples, over 300 more Stolen Bases, a much better OBP and even a SLG which is virtually identical. This one shouldn't really be much of anyone's debate. I'll just keep saying this: Greg Maddux was great, but he's not even a Top 10 all-time SP much less Top 5. Without even spending any time thinking about it, all you have to do is think Sandy Koufax, Randy Johnson, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, Warren Spahn... how many is that? When you throw in Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson... it's just not fair to consider Maddux better than those guys and others. I would have to take Goose over Eckersley simply because he's an old school closer who would regularly come in during the 7th inning with every intention of finishing the game. How often did LaRussa bring Eck in to close during the 7th? Goose has so much more of a track record and history as a reliever over Smoltz so I'd lean to him there as well. DH may be your call, but the reason I don't like it in this discussion is because most of the guys on this list played when there was no such thing as a DH. Leading off is not just about the time you lead off in the 1st inning. It's the idea that you set a tone for the lineup which dictates that every time you cycle back around to the top, the gameplan begins again with Rickey doing his thing. That just doesn't work with him as a pinch-hitter or pinch-runner. Plus, Rickey Henderson was a notoriously bad pinch-hitter. He hit around .280 as a starter and around .230 when coming off the bench. He slugged .420 as a starter and less than .320 when he didn't start. He also did not steal as well when being asked to come in off the pine. His percentage was 75% as a replacement but 81% in games he started. I don't think Rickey had the focus to stay intense when not starting; when you think about it, his whole mindset was to be the very start of every game. This shows up well in his BB/K ratio. As a starter, he walked MUCH more than he struck out; as a bench player, his walks and Ks are exactly even. It's also hard to dismiss those 81 HRs he did hit to lead off games in the 1st inning. I add Rose to the squad because he absolutely deserves to be there, but also because I need a backup 3B other than Pujols. With Ripken off the team, somebody has to be there to play behind Schmidt, and Pujols would be much better used at 3B only in a pinch rather than as the regular #2 man.

Look, it's not like I'm trying to bash Ted Williams. That would be ridiculous. But would 3 prime years have given him an extra 193 HRs? Maybe it would have given him right around the 374 RBIs and 376 Runs Scored which separate them. For all of the praise about Williams' batting, his AVG was .344 compared to Ruth's .342. His OBP was .482 compared to Ruth's .474. And of course nobody can compete with Ruth's SLG of .690 (Teddy had .634). Williams had 19 more Doubles (525-506), but Ruth had 65 more Triples (136-71). Ruth stole 123 bases compared to 24 for Williams. And it's worth noting that while they are either very close or Ruth has a big lead in all the key stats, Ruth had only 832 more Plate Appearances; that's just over one season for Ted Williams. If you were to add in those three extra years of prime play for Teddy, then he'd have closed the gap in several categories but would have needed about 1300 extra chances in the batter's box to do so. Each player had exactly 16 seasons with 400+ Plate Appearances, and in those years, this is how often they led the league in key categories: CAT -- BABE -- TED HRs -- 12 -- 4 RBI -- 6 -- 4 RUN -- 8 -- 6 BBs -- 11 -- 8 AVG -- 1 -- 5 OBP -- 10 -- 12 SLG -- 13 -- 9 PLUS... 100+RBI 13 -- 9 100+RUN 8 -- 6 100+BBs 13 -- 11 Those numbers in their respective eras are pretty hard to argue against.

Starting at the top, I still have to say that Greg Maddux just does not belong. He was great, but not great enough for this list. In more recent times, Tom Seaver has to get the nod over him while Steve Carlton and Warren Spahn are pretty easy arguments to make as well. From a full historical perspective, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson should be insulted that people are claiming Maddux belongs above their names on any list. I don’t like the idea of moving Walter Johnson over to the bullpen because that was not really his role; he started more than 83% of the games he pitched in. By removing Johnson from the bullpen, that opens up the obvious slot for Goose Gossage who has to be in there. I also believe that Bruce Sutter must be in that pen, and I think Lefty Grove needs to be seen as a starter having pitched in relief just ¼ of the time he was on the mound. I would have much less of a problem with the idea of using John Smoltz as a reliever – as more than a third of his appearances came in relief and he was dominant in that role – but then that would leave this roster without a lefty in the bullpen, so I’d probably have to fall back to Billy Wagner. When I was comparing Honus Wagner to Derek Jeter, I also threw Cal Ripken Jr. into the mix just to see if he might be worthy of a top two slot; he wasn’t. Obviously I agree that Wagner should be the starting SS, but the backup on the bench has to be Jeter. I certainly have no problem with putting Yogi Berra behind the dish instead of Mike Piazza. Yogi was a much better defender, made the All-Star Team in 15 consecutive seasons, and won the AL MVP Award three times all in seasons when he caught 140+ games. I don’t love the idea of adding the DH here because it feels like a bit of a copout. The fact is that Babe Ruth played as much in LF as he did in RF, and he was a far superior defender to Ted Williams at any position. People often say Williams was the best hitter of all time, or the best lefty hitter of all time, but the numbers actually show that the Babe seems to get short shrift when those statements are tossed around. Even without considering his tremendous pitching, Ruth is the better player. I absolutely loved to watch Rickey Henderson play. There’s just one problem with putting him on the bench of a team like this. The whole reason Rickey was Rickey was because of the impact he had on the game as the leadoff man day in and day out. If you make him a bench player, he becomes little more than a pinch runner who is almost sure to get you a stolen base whenever you need it; aren’t there dozens of players like that? If you can’t start him, then I don’t think you can make a great case to include him. So, you drop the DH, move Ruth to LF, put Williams on the bench, and replace Henderson with Pete Rose who would serve as the ultimate pinch-hitter and be the primary backup at both 2B and 3B while also offering the ability to come in and play 1B and anywhere in the OF. I would truly love to find a spot for Roberto Clemente, but the only logical place would be instead of Stan Musial, and despite being a tremendous hitter, defender and human being, Clemente was just not a better ballplayer than Musial.

That would be found in slot number 174. The Tucson Padres were formerly the Portland Beavers from 2001 - 2010. This logo was used on the Portland Beavers cap from 2008 - 2010. After the 2010 season, the Portland owner was forced to sell for financial reasons. A deal was made with the San Diego Padres franchise owner and the team was relocated and renamed.

But... it's all just opinion :drinks:

Isn't there a contradiction in there regarding Honus Wagner? You want movable parts, the big inning and situational use of the roster. In what way is Derek Jeter a movable part? He mans one position on defense and he plays pretty much one brand of ball at the plate. Wagner has everyone singing his praises that he would have been the best player in the league at any position other than pitcher, and he's a guy who led the league in power numbers as well as small ball stats multiple times. His ability to steal bases with only a 3% risk of getting caught allowed him to be crazy diverse right during the same inning on a regular basis. Babe Ruth belongs on any list, but a big part of why he's considered the best player of all time is because of the fact that he could also pitch. Since you're not taking that into account, I can actually give you a pass there because it's clearly just a case of personal preference. Hank Aaron was better than Barry Bonds hands down and really deserves the nod if there's a battle between those two. But more than anything else discussed here, Honus Wagner is just a gimme. You said Hornsby gets a spot because he's the consensus best 2B of all time. Wagner is no less of a consensus pick as the top SS of all time. Did you read those quotes about him? I'm not a huge Bill James guy, but even if you disregard his, see what the players and managers had to say. The man had 8 Batting Titles, 5 RBI Titles and 4 SB Titles... he led in SLG 6 times and OBP 4 times; that's diversity. He was the best player of his age and Jeter has never even been voted the best player in the AL for a single season. The strangeness of the dead ball era actually makes Wagner stand out even more and only bolsters his case. He was doing things at a time when nobody was doing much of anything. If he's seen by so many as the best SS ever, the best National Leaguer ever, and perhaps the best or second best player ever outright, it's hard to buy any logic which favors Jeter over him, and even harder to understand him being absent from the entire roster.

I hate bringing up the whole steroids issue because so much is unknown about each individual player’s possible use and how effective it was for them, but the one guy who nobody really has any issue with pointing to the juice (nor should they) is Bonds. You can forget tests, forget court cases, forget anything provable in front of a judge; anyone who followed the story and understands what went down knows just about exactly what happened and when. Given this storyline, and the exemplary way Hank Aaron conducted himself on and off the field, plus the fact that Hank doesn’t need to take a back seat to anybody as the all-time RBI King with 755 Home Runs and a .305 Batting Average, Aaron is the simple and obvious choice. And with regards to the fact that Bonds could swipe bags, don’t forget that Aaron wasn’t too shabby as a runner either. He finished with 240 SBs but for the middle 10 years of his career he averaged more than 20 steals per season; plus, much like Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays, I don’t imagine Aaron was asked to run nearly as much as he could have… remember that Bonds came up as a string bean who was expected to steal bases. But, onto the Bonds saga which shouldn’t be overlooked because it is undeniable: Bonds was having a tremendous career on his way to a sure fire first ballot Hall of Fame induction from 1986 to 1998. During those 13 seasons he became the first 400/400 player with 411 HR and 445 SB. He hit for a solid .290 AVG with a great .411 OBP and a very strong .556 SLG. He was 34 years old and in all likelihood would have managed to get 55 more steals over perhaps another four seasons while adding another 100-150 homers, and would have created the 500/500 club anyway. I grant all of that; the guy was tremendous. The problem is that from ages 35 through 42, he did stuff that Babe Ruth never sniffed just as his body got dramatically bigger and his hat size grew from a 6.5 to an 8. Are any of us so naïve to believe that this guy became the first ever to hit a sixth gear and prime after a prime upon reaching age 35? And no one should ever underestimate or ignore the timing of the catalyst which possessed him to reach beyond his natural gifts displayed over 14 MLB seasons plus his time at Arizona State. After the strike of 1994 and an abbreviated 1995 season, things began to shift in 1996. Bonds had an historical season putting up 42 home runs, scoring 122 times, setting a new career high with 129 RBIs, and adding 40 steals to boot becoming just the third man to ever reach the 40/40 mark. Meanwhile, Brady Anderson knocked 50 dingers over the wall – despite never hitting half that many in any season before or after – and Mark McGwire led the majors with 52, his first time over 50 and his best total since his rookie campaign a decade earlier. In 1997, Bonds was up to his usual business as he belted another 40 long balls – with 101 RBIs and 123 runs scored – while leading the Giants to the post-season for the first time since the earthquake World Series of 1989. However, at age 33 Mark McGwire seemed to find a fountain of youth by staying healthy for the first time since he played at that magic baseball age of 27. In 156 games split between Oakland and St. Louis, Big Mac set a personal best for the second straight year with 58 home runs. 1998 saw Barry Bonds remain Mr. Consistent as he hit 37 balls over the fence, drove in 122 and scored 120 times himself. Despite the continued excellence which allowed him to start a seventh consecutive All-Star Game in Left Field for the National League, things were not sitting well with the former Sun Devil as he looked around the landscape of his league. Sammy Sosa joined Babe Ruth and Roger Maris in the esteemed company of men to hit 60+ homers in a season by smacking out 66. Not ready to be outdone by the popular Chicago star, in St. Louis McGwire’s health again allowed him to play all but a handful of games, and for a third straight year he broke his own career mark while also setting the new single season record for MLB with 70 home runs. Anyone who followed some of the outstanding journalistic reporting in the San Francisco Chronicle on this topic knows that this was when Bonds’ ego and anger really started to get the best of him. As great of a player as he was, his frustration with watching these other guys glorified – as they certainly were – was eating him up inside. Bonds was not envious of their success because he was any less talented; what bothered him was the fact that he knew all too well what was not a very guarded secret within the game. McGwire and others were using banned substances to enhance performance and increase durability while the league looked the other way simply hoping to continue its recovery from the strike that wiped out the World Series in 1994. It was at this point when Bonds began seriously looking into what was available on the black market which might allow him to elevate the level of his play beyond his already established standard of greatness. 1999 changed everything. McGwire sat out fewer than ten games for a fourth straight season while he and Sosa each blasted more than 60 home runs as if it was now something to be expected on an annual basis. As Bonds made his initial bid to compete with those guys according to their rules, he was not quite so fortunate. Lacking experience with the substances he began using, and no doubt eager to make a big splash as quickly as possible, Bonds blew out his elbow when the muscles grew too fast for the joint’s other elements to support it; he still managed to hit 34 homers but missed 60 games with the injury. Looking towards his age 35 season, Barry Bonds had to understand that he was going to make some major changes happen pretty quickly, or he was going to miss out on what remained of his available window. During the rehabilitation of his elbow injury and the offseason, Bonds became more educated about the usage of steroids and human growth hormone. He surrounded himself with a small but select group of true experts on the way to use these enhancements. He entered play in 2000 with a bigger, stronger and more resilient body. Despite sitting out 19 games, Bonds set a new career record by hitting 49 home runs. Mark McGwire’s problems with injury returned in 2000 and he would never play 100 games in a season again. And while nobody returned to the 60 home run plateau that year, Sammy Sosa did manage to eke out Bonds by just one long ball to lead the majors with 50. The anticipation for the 2001 schedule must have been something unimaginable by most for the 36-year-old Bonds. He was healthy, he had proven to himself that he could endure a full season while effectively managing the supplements he had added to his regiment, and he had to sense that the stage was set for him to break new ground. After an uneven April with 11 HR but just a .240 AVG, Bonds exploded in May hitting .369 with 17 HR and Slugging 1.036. By the All-Star Break, the HR watch was well underway; the bar had been raised to 70, but Bonds ended the first half with 39 HR, 73 RBIs and a .305 AVG while Slugging .826. The confidence gained from proving that he was just as capable of such feats on an even playing field propelled Bonds to even new heights after the break when he hit .355, slugged .908 and added 34 more home runs thus establishing the new and still current single season HR record of 73. He tied his career best by scoring 129 runs and set a slew of new personal records with 137 RBIs, 177 Walks, a .515 OBP and a SLG of .863. Between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, Bonds had won three NL MVP Awards in four years from 1990-1993. Now in 2001, he received the award for what would be the first of four consecutive seasons. He would never reach even 50 homers in a season again, although that can be attributed to the way he was pitched by opponents as he would be walked nearly 600 times over the next three seasons while still managing to hit 45+ HR in each of those years. The problem with trying to overlook the steroid factor in this case is that the home run and walk numbers just became too outlandish to accept for a player who had passed his 35th birthday. For thirteen dominant seasons, Barry Bonds had paved his way to Cooperstown by hitting one home run for every 16 at bats, drawing one walk for every 5 at bats, striking out once for each 6.3 at bats, hitting for an Average of .290, earning an On-Base Percentage of .411 and a Slugging Percentage of .556. That was the Hall of Fame pace he was on through 1998. Between 2000 and 2007, when Bonds’ age progressed from 35 to 42, the Giants’ leftfielder hit one home run for every 9 at bats, drew one walk for every 2.5 at bats, hit for an Average of .322, earned an On-Base Percentage of .517 and a Slugging Percentage of .724. Perhaps more telling than the fact he accomplished this at the advanced age which he did is that all of these massive improvements occurred while he actually struck out less often than before; one time for every 6.7 at bats. There is no precedent for such an upward turn at such a late stage in a career, and when combined with what has been said by people close to the man, items which have been confiscated during federal raids, and the sheer change in the size of Bonds’ body – most particularly and significantly his cranium – there is little reason for anyone to maintain the pretense that this son of All-Star Bobby, godson to Hall of Famer Willie Mays, and cousin of Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson did not make use of banned and illegal substances in the final third of his major league career. Without that late surge, he'd still be a great and in the Hall, but he wouldn't be mentioned on the level with the elites of the elite like Mays, Aaron, Musial, et al.

I don't think there is tremendous disagreement on Maddux. It is hard to argue with his success, and I certainly would not, but it is also easy to acknowledge the several other pitchers who could easily and rightfully fill his slot. Bonds is a special case deserving of a separate post which will follow this one. The real issue is Honus Wagner, and I should preface my remarks by saying that the only team I've ever had any passion for in sports plays in the Bronx. My dad and grandfather took me to my first game when I was 5 years old and I've been to several playoff and World Series games starting in the late 1970s; I certainly have nothing against Jeter in any way. It is true that there is difficulty in measuring a player from Wagner's era to a player from today. Based upon pure stats, it's a clear runaway for Wagner, but the game has definitely changed. The one spot where Jeter has a clear edge is Home Runs (249 to 101) and that's probably the most significant place to point out how the game is different. Wagner has healthy leads in AVG (.328 to .313), RBIs (1733 to 1234), Triples (252 to 65) and Stolen Bases (723 to 346). The margin in triples and RBIs more than makes up for the lead Jeter holds in HR. Wagner was a ridiculously better basestealer. Not only does he have more than double the number of steals, but he basically never got caught. Jeter's success rate when stealing is good at 79%, but Wagner's success rate when attempting to steal a bag was 97%! Another big spot where the ratio shines brightly is with strikeouts and walks. Jeter's BB/K ratio is almost 60%, so he's striking out a bunch more than he is earning a free pass. Wagner's BB/K ratio was 131% which means he walked quite a bit more than he struck out. But finally, the best way to try and compare great players from different eras is to match them up against their respective contemporaries. In 17 seasons, Derek Jeter has led the league in Hits 1 time and in Runs Scored 1 time. In 18 seasons with Pittsburgh (I'm only using data from 1900 forward), Honus Wagner led the league as follows: 8 Batting Titles 7 times led in Doubles 6 times led in Slugging Percentage 5 times led in Runs Batted In 4 times led in Stolen Bases 4 times led in On-Base Percentage 3 times led in Triples 2 times led in Runs Scored 2 times led in Hits They are obviously both Hall of Famers, but Wagner was one of the select five honored in the very first class of 1936; at the very least, that says he's a Top 5 all-time player through that point. They are both great, but Jeter has never been anywhere near the dominant player that Honus Wagner was. Wagner was considered the best baseball player of his generation; I don't think Jeter would qualify for that kind of conversation by anyone including his family. Many believe Wagner to be the best player in the history of the National League. Some quotes about Honus Wagner by baseball people: Christy Mathewson ---- "Wagner was the only player that did not have a weakness. The only way to keep Wagner from hitting was to not pitch to him." Babe Ruth ---- "At shortstop there is only one candidate, the immortal Honus Wagner. He was just head and shoulders above anyone else in that position. Fellows like Marion, Bancroft, Peck and Billy Jurges were all great fielders. But Honus could more than out-field all of them. He was perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter of all time. He had remarkably long arms, hams for hands, and just drew the ball to him. Ed Barrow once told me he could have been as good in any position but he made his greatest name as shortstop. He led the National League eight times at bat and he was always up with the leaders when he was in his forties." Sam Crawford ---- "In my opinion, the greatest all-around player who ever lived was Honus Wagner. Ty Cobb could only play the outfield, and even there his arm wasn't anything special. Honus Wagner could play any position. He could do everything. In fact, when I first played against him he was an outfielder, and then he became a third baseman, and later the greatest shortstop of them all. Honus could play any position except pitcher and be easily the best in the league at it. He was a wonderful fielder, terrific arm, very quick, all over the place grabbing sure hits and turning them into outs. And, of course, you know he led the league in batting eight times." John McGraw ---- "He was the nearest thing to a perfect player no matter where his manager chose to play him. He is not only a marvelous mechanical player, but he has the quickest baseball brain I have ever observed." John McGraw ---- "I name Wagner first on my list, not only because he was a great batting champion and base-runner, and also baseball's foremost shortstop - but because Honus could have been first at any other position, with the possible exception of pitcher. In all my career, I never saw such a versatile player." Bill James ---- "Wagner's 1908 season is the greatest single season for any player in baseball history. The league ERA of 2.35 was the lowest of the dead ball era and about half of the ERAs of modern baseball. Wagner hit .354 with 109 RBI in an environment when half as many runs were scored as today. If you had a Gold Glove shortstop, like Wagner, who drove in 218 runs, what would he be worth?" Bill James ---- "Honus Wagner is the second best player of all time after Babe Ruth and easily the greatest shortstop of all time. The difference between Wagner and the second greatest shortstop is roughly the same as the gulf between the second greatest shortstop and the 20th greatest shortstop." Regarding the bench and backups and A-Rod's ability to play both SS and 3B, don't forget that Pete Rose can back up at 1B, 2B, 3B and in the OF while Albert Pujols can cover 1B, 3B and the OF.

It's not really much of a big deal either way, but consider the following: -- Ted Williams never played CF for even one third of an inn (though he did pitch 2 inn to close out a 12-1 loss in gm 1 of a 1940 double-dip). -- Stan Musial DID start over 300 games in CF (about 1 out of every 6 of his OF starts). -- Barry Bonds DID start over 150 games in CF and is often said to have been the best superstar CF to ever be a regular LF (although that statement is much more accurate when discussing his earlier years as he was faster and slimmer before he got all bulked up). Statistically, Williams was the worst LF of the three ranking third in Fielding Percentage, Putouts per Chance and Errors per Chance. Williams was also significantly worse when in RF than in Left, so clearly he was the least versatile defensively; given those facts, you probably wouldn't want him listed in CF where he never played and would be the least likely of these three to succeed. Musial was a far superior CF to Bonds based upon Fielding Percentage, Putouts per Chance and Errors per Chance. Despite having a breakdown in OF starts of about half in LF, 1/3 in RF and 1/6 in CF, Musial was at his best while in Center. He won the MVP Award three times, and in none of those years was his primary position LF (in fact, he won it in 1948 when he started more games in CF than any other spot). It was only Musial's tremendous versatility which kept him out of CF full time. Despite the fact that Williams was much worse when in RF, he did start there 168 times compared to zero for Bonds. Therefore, if there is a need to juggle positions a bit in order for things to fit with these Outfielders, the only logical choice would have to be: -- LF - Barry Bonds -- CF - Stan Musial -- RF - Ted Williams Personally, I'd throw Bonds to the bench, put Teddy where he belongs in LF, keep Stan in RF and start Willie Mays in CF. Actually, now that I really think about it, why is Bonds on this list at all at the expense of Hammerin' Hank? Because of 7 extra homers which nobody believes are legit? How is the all-time RBI King, who had a better Average than Bonds, had more Hits, Runs Scored and Triples, and was a hell of an outfielder who could play all three spots, completely absent here? I realize that many would rather see Pete Rose go before Bonds, but I too am a Rose supporter, so given that Hank Aaron has to get a spot somewhere (must have been an oversight), that would mean kicking either Bonds or A-Rod to the curb. Just imagine building a team, and considering everything from on the field to inside the clubhouse to ugly controversy with the press... would you take Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron? The question is so ridiculous it's practically rhetorical. **ALSO - I realize this wasn't meant for a debate, but there is another pretty glaring omission on this list. I love Jeter, and he's certainly had the best all around career of any modern SS, but look at the numbers and you'll see that Honus Wagner blows him right out of the water. He should be starting over him and he's not even on the bench. If a guy like Rogers Hornsby can be on this list, then Honus Wagner absolutely must be there as well. Start Wagner at SS, move Jeter to the bench and dump A-Rod from the squad. Platoon Musial and Aaron in RF, start Mays in CF with Williams in Left, and send Bonds packing as well. ONE MORE -- Greg Maddux is just not a Top 5 all-time SP (not Top 10). Many could be argued, but some who surely belong ahead of him include: -- Christy Mathewson -- Walter Johnson -- Tom Seaver -- Pedro Martinez Others who are right there worthy of a coin flip include: -- Warren Spahn -- Steve Carlton -- Curt Schilling -- Juan Marichal

Can't help you with your specific question, but thought I'd mention that I've been working on the same exact Mod Concept for the past several months and am nearing a release. Not sure if we'd be better off working and finishing together to end up with the best possible product, or if having two of these out there would be worthwhile.

Already well in the works... not to worry.

We were thinking along the same lines. I eventually went and got the NBA 2K12 Decompressor, used that, and then was able to load the global file into the Mod Tool. Thanks for the suggestion as it was the right thing to do regardless. Probably need an updated version of the Mod Tool to avoid the need for this completely, but it's definitely a workable situation now.

Anyone know why I'm having trouble opening the global.iff file in the Mod Tool? I'm using version 0.198 and I seem to be able to open all of the other iffs I've tried except for the global. The file size of global.iff is 43,890 KB. As soon as I attempt to open it, global.iff.temp is automatically created, but as soon as that reaches a size of 19,440 KB, it stays right there. I've tried several times and definitely given it enough time to say that it's not a matter of me just needing to wait a little longer. I even re-booted and tried to do it with a clean fresh start, but I got the same result. Global.iff was never a problem to view in the Mod Tool in the past. Any thoughts, please?

Anyone else noticing that the CPU pitchers are taking very little time between pitches during an at-bat? There have been many instances in just this first day of playing where I wasn’t able to get to the menus via the D-Pad before the pitcher was already in his motion (meaning I couldn’t pinch-hit or pinch-run when I was intending to). This also has an effect on base runners taking a lead and getting that button held down in time when you intend to steal. I suppose it's something which will be somewhat easily adjusted to (like by getting to the menu screen in a hurry before you should really need to), but it’s definitely weird and has even caught me a few times when I was conscious of it and anticipating the need to press the D-Pad button earlier and faster than what I’ve become used to.

I did the Amazon Pre-Order deal with Release-Day Delivery so I saved my 3 pennies and have been sitting here patiently waiting (well, not really) for the UPS truck to come for the past 8 hours (I actually took off work today and tomorrow to be able to get a good start with this new toy). The tracking site confirms that my package is on a truck and out for delivery, but they say deliveries can come as late as 7pm ET, so I’m now down to the final 4 hours of that window… of course the doorbell could ring at any moment, so the anticipation is building. The most shocking thing to me was that the option for guaranteed delivery right on March 6th was a mere $0.99, while the one-day overnight delivery method would have cost an extra $10. Imagine saving $9 just to get the thing one day earlier!

You save $3 from Amazon if you download a digital only copy. I'm pretty sure the reference above was to the $0.03 you save if you order a physical disc for delivery via mail.

Yeah, I can certainly understand that. It seems pretty clear that the focus for changes leading into the 2K12 version was on a lot of elements that did not include Franchise Mode (at least not in any fundamental ways). This will of course make some people angry while satisfying others, but given that Franchise is the most involved way to connect with the game, you'd think they'd realize that a large core considers that mode a top priority. It could be that the developers are so in love with their new MLB Today concept that they felt many people might gravitate towards that and away from the Franchise Mode (and they likely didn't have the ability to create the new mode they're introducing AND devote enough time to rebuild the basic underlying model which drives the Franchise Mode).

While I would agree that your observations are obviously not a good sign, it may not be as dramatic as your first impression. In the last four seasons, only one time has a major leaguer reached 50 Home Runs, so we shouldn’t be expecting that to happen regularly. Ten others did reach 40 over that span, but even that’s still less than three per year so it’s not such a glaring deviation. The better Batting Averages are clearly off, but keep in mind that many of the real .300 hitters are barely clearing that hurdle. Just short of half the players who hit over .300 during the last four years did not get past .310, and the number of guys who hit between .290 and .300 is just a few shy of the amount who were over .300 but not .310. If you adjust that range of player and widen it to include those who bat between .290 and .310, rather than just focusing on the .300 mark so specifically, things balance out a lot more neatly. Also, don’t consider the Nationals making a playoff run as such a joke. Winning more games than both Boston and the Yankees may be a bit of a stretch, but Washington has improved a lot in recent years and they have actually put together a very solid team with strong corner men in and out, a solid backstop, and a truly elite back of the bullpen combination (add a CF and one more pitcher, which they’re working on right now, and they should definitely be in the playoff hunt all season... and no, I do not root for the Nats or live in/near DC). The overall point… it may be a fact that there is a discrepancy in several areas, but I don’t know that it’s such a significant gap from the reality to be considered any sort of disaster.