MLB 13 The Show - The Player Ratings Algorithm Has Changed, 17 Players Rated 99

[seanjeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

Just because your AVG is derived from contact doesn't mean many other attributes do not affect avg. so comparing contact to contact shouldn't be wrong

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here... I didn't say average was derived from contact, I said the contact rating in-game is derived from the player's average in real life, those are two separate things. Contact% is more in tune with the vision rating anyway, try giving a player low contact and high vision (and vice versa) and see what happens.

Contact% and batting average have little to no correlation. Miguel Cabrera ranked 32nd in the AL in contact%, yet he was 1st in BA and most likely will have contact ratings in the 90's...

[MLB Bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here... I didn't say average was derived from contact, I said the contact rating in-game is derived from the player's average in real life, those are two separate things. Contact% is more in tune with the vision rating anyway, try giving a player low contact and high vision (and vice versa) and see what happens. Contact% and batting average have little to no correlation. Miguel Cabrera ranked 32nd in the AL in contact%, yet he was 1st in BA and most likely will have contact ratings in the 90's...

Ya sorry I reversed those in my original post, my bad, my point is that contact is more than a players real avg. And in my algorithm I guess I weight different things, and it plays well. And I thought K% and BB% were more relevant to discipline and vision..Im sure you're right that contact is more based on AVG.

[seanjeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

Ya sorry I reversed those in my original post, my bad, my point is that contact is more than a players real avg. And in my algorithm I guess I weight different things, and it plays well. And I thought K% and BB% were more relevant to discipline and vision..Im sure you're right that contact is more based on AVG.

Yeah I just saw your edit, I personally use Bahnzo's calc (which is probably outdated now...) and it was a straight plug and chug of the usual stats. Average is the main source, but I believe the variability we see year to year in average (I think its +/- 20 points or so) comes from discipline and vision.

[CMH]

Ah, guys getting worked up about ratings. It's that time of the year.

I will never understand it. So long as the guy performs like he should, why does it matter what his rating is?

[merslinger]

Can anyone tell me if individual pitches progress and regress this year. Pitchers do get better at certain pitches and sometimes get to old to throw some and are forced to change. I think it would be realalistic

[DieHardYankee26]

Quote: Originally Posted by CMH

Ah, guys getting worked up about ratings. It's that time of the year. I will never understand it. So long as the guy performs like he should, why does it matter what his rating is?

Because if Joe Blanton's control rating isn't exactly 4 points better than CC Sabathia's control rating then everything is out of wack!

Spoiler

[CubsHOF]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

Wow awesome way to make your point, that swayed my opinion...thumbs up Im glad you set us all straight. It might be that in the Algorithm takes into account a lot of things, like Pujols much better K% and typically better power numbers, less games missed, better ISO. other than one great year, Pujols matched or did better than Votto over the last 3 years, and that was 2010...there are legitimate reasons...and hey feel free to rerate your favorite guy to what you want... Just checking the stats I checked Pujols contact% compared to Votto...since they use contact as a rating and not AVG..Pujols blows Votto away..Guessing 1 basemen are ranked by Power first, other batting stats second with durability, arm and defense being last...Votto maybe becoming the better all round player but the stuff that is being considered more heavily, Pujols pretty much wins it..

Yeah, but at the end of the day something is wrong with the overall stats as the components are not adding up correctly. If we look at the last three years which The Show is said to weigh stats for the last three years, yet over the last three years Votto's WAR has made him a considerably more valuable player than Pujols. Somewhere they are making judgement calls about what makes a valuable first basemen that doesn't jive with the actual weight those components have in the real life game.

[MLB Bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by CubsHOF

Yeah, but at the end of the day something is wrong with the overall stats as the components are not adding up correctly. If we look at the last three years which The Show is said to weigh stats for the last three years, yet over the last three years Votto's WAR has made him a considerably more valuable player than Pujols. Somewhere they are making judgement calls about what makes a valuable first basemen that doesn't jive with the actual weight those components have in the real life game.

Baseball America has a chart in the front of their prospect book that scea probably used as a bit of a guide. It ranks the tools by importance by position. And WAR is probably not even looked at. Although I use many sabre stats, WAR is not the definitive stat or even A definitive stat. Looking at the 2 players stats its not that hard to figure out what they use its just a question of weights placed on each stat.

I'm almost certain WAR has very little relation to SCEA ratings