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

[Qb]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats.

This is FALSE. The overall rating does not affect simulated stats or player performance during gameplay.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Qb

This is FALSE. The overall rating does not affect simulated stats or player performance during gameplay.

How? If Strasburg was a 97 and had a slightly lower H/9 and slightly less movement on his 2-seam FB would he sim the same and perform the same in games? Just an example, but aren't the overalls based on the player's individual ratings? Or are they arbitrarily given to players?

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

How? If Strasburg was a 97 and had a slightly lower H/9 and slightly less movement on his 2-seam FB would he sim the same and perform the same in games? Just an example, but aren't the overalls based on the player's individual ratings? Or are they arbitrarily given to players?

They are not arbitrary...but they do not effect gameplay or simmed stats directly.
They are simply a cumulative # of all the ratings tied together.....
A player with a 80/80 contact and 85/85 power can be an 95 and so can a player who is 98/96 contact and 75/75 power....and so is a player who is 94/92 contact 98 speed and 97/95 fielding stats.
Also 99 is NOT the top rating...it's just the highest DISPLAYED rating. Players can be 110 or higher(not sure what the actual top is if a player is 99 across the board.)

M.K.
Knight165

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

They are not arbitrary...but they do not effect gameplay or simmed stats directly. They are simply a cumulative # of all the ratings tied together..... A player with a 80/80 contact and 85/85 power can be an 95 and so can a player who is 98/96 contact and 75/75 power....and so is a player who is 94/92 contact 98 speed and 97/95 fielding stats. Also 99 is NOT the top rating...it's just the highest DISPLAYED rating. Players can be 110 or higher(not sure what the actual top is if a player is 99 across the board.) M.K. Knight165

That was what I thought. The overall does not affect ratings, but it does represent the individual ratings. So Strasburg or someone else has a 99 for a reason, that reason being they have high ratings. Those ratings do affect sim and gameplay.

The top rating thing is an issue, I still think it should be scaled to the top rated player. Since Verlander might come out to be a 120 and Strasburg is just a 100, the player will never know this. I think they should know this somehow.

[BatsareBugs]

Overall ratings need to go, let's just have a 20-80 scale for hitting, fielding, power, speed, and arm for position players and stamina, control, individual pitch grades, etc. for pitchers.

On a more serious note, I don't find a problem with the ratings, it's just that if you did have a well-balanced pitcher or position player, let's say 70's across the board, they'll easily get close to that 99 or A+ rating without really having an outstanding tool. I recall I reached max overall in RTTS with none of my rating grades as a C, so yes, players can have ratings that push them above 99 that the game can't reflect. I don't see what's wrong with it, some players now are just as good as HOF'ers of the past, maybe not for their career.

[pistolpete]

Quote: Originally Posted by tonadom

Why ? The Show's overall player rating is not a simple average of the player's attribute ratings. It's not silly. It's just different.

It's kind of like a class in college. How are we to differentiate from a student who really excels to a student who is pretty good if any reasonable effort results in an A.

Is Stephen Strasburg as good Justin Verlander? No.

What probably happened is they ran their algorithm and these guys didn't come in as 99s, but guys like Verlander and Braun probably came in as 110s, but since the ratings go only up to 99 they are lumped in with Strasburg and Carlos Gonzalez.

I have always felt statistically the Show has had an amazing stat engine, and I am 100% certain they didn't screw it up.

It just feels like Paula Abdul on American Idol loving everyone.

*What would be cool is if they didn't cap OVR and if someone's skill set is so complete that they come in at a 120 then they come in at 120.

[seanjeezy]

I wish the scale was more (for the lack of a better term) consistent across attributes. If you look at Knight's charts, 70 contact projects out to ~.270, which would be a 5 on the 2-8 scale, aka ML average. Look at power though, 70 power projects out to ~30 HR's, which would be a 7, or plus-plus. Ideally I would like to move over to the 2-8 scale, unless the letter grades covered a wider range, maybe something like this:

A: 85-99
B: 70-84
C: 55-69
D: 40-54

That way, "average" would truly mean average, and hopefully the disparity between the best and the rest would increase... I hate that everything is bunched up at the top like a school grading system, not good for a sport with such a wide range of variability...

[tvman]

If scea has some players rated higher than 99 doesn't that make roster editing pointless when we can only go to 99?