MLB 13 The Show News Post

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

02:48 PM - February 12, 2013 by Russell_SCEA

There will be a post with images about this later, but I figured a little teaser never hurt anyone.

If you didn't know, we changed the way we rate players and every position weigh different attributes differently. Before the change the game had 44 players rated 99 or higher. After the change there are 17, here is a little taste.

In no particular order.

T.Tulowitzki 99
A.Pujols 99
R.Braun 99
J.Hamilton 99
M.Cabrera 99
C.Kimbrel 99
C.Kershaw 99
A.Chapman 99
S.Strasburg 99
F.Hernandez 99
J.Verlander 99
B.Posey 99
M.Kemp 99
R.Cano 99
A.McCutchen 99
M.Trout 99
C.Gonzalez 99

J.Votto just missed the cut at a 98.

Second Baseman Top 5

Robinson Cano 99
Dustin Pedroia 98
Ian Kinsler 95
Brandon Phillips 93
Jose Altuve 90

Game: MLB 13 The ShowReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS Vita / PS3Votes for game: 36 - View All

MLB 13 The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 181 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:36 PM

But the overall number is there and its a number now so to someone who does not know what is going on behind the scenes, or that its relative by position a 99 means 99. They might see a 99 shortstop as being as good as another 99 shortstop since that is what the game is showing them. We on OS know these things and can understand what the ratings really mean and can interpret for ourselves. Maybe we want a more defensive SS over an offensive one. That's why some have said the numbers do more harm than good. I honestly have no strong feelings about the numbers, I'd actually say I like them being there than not. But I understand the issues people are having with seeing players being 99. Since I use edited rosters and then edit them further myself the overall numbers don't really bother me that much. But for someone who uses only the official ones I can see the issues.

# 182 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 11:47 PM

On the issue of limiting OVR to 99 for those who actually are computed to be above 99, it wouldn't be that much of an issue if it's just being displayed at 99 (due to the limited screen real estate, for example), but if the franchise game engine is actually seeing the players with 99 OVR as all equally rated, having too many 99 OVR may become an issue.

For the sake of argument, Verlander and Strasburg both are 99 OVR, but really the formula give Verlander to be 120 and Strasburg 101. Then Verlander should be much more valuable thatn Strasburg, when trading or determining player salaries. But if they are maxed out, then the game has no choice to value them equally, which could make some funny things happen if there are too many 99 OVRs.

Some part of the game appears to depend a lot on OVR ratings (player movements). So in general it's better for a rating system to *not* have too many players clustered around the maximum value... the very highest value should be reserved for the really the leading player among the group of players in the game.

# 183 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	On the issue of limiting OVR to 99 for those who actually are computed to be above 99, it wouldn't be that much of an issue if it's just being displayed at 99 (due to the limited screen real estate, for example), but if the franchise game engine is actually seeing the players with 99 OVR as all equally rated, having too many 99 OVR may become an issue. For the sake of argument, Verlander and Strasburg both are 99 OVR, but really the formula give Verlander to be 120 and Strasburg 101. Then Verlander should be much more valuable thatn Strasburg, when trading or determining player salaries. But if they are maxed out, then the game has no choice to value them equally, which could make some funny things happen if there are too many 99 OVRs. Some part of the game appears to depend a lot on OVR ratings (player movements). So in general it's better for a rating system to not have too many players clustered around the maximum value... the very highest value should be reserved for the really the leading player among the group of players in the game.

That is part of what I am curious about. Does the game take its hidden overall rating into account at all? Or is 99 the max it considers? Or does overall never come into play and it only uses the individual ratings?

# 184 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	That is part of what I am curious about. Does the game take its hidden overall rating into account at all? Or is 99 the max it considers? Or does overall never come into play and it only uses the individual ratings?

For regular player attributes (like Contact, K/9, etc.), it's ceiled at the max value (what you see in the game is what you get...). Don't know about OVR.

# 185 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	For regular player attributes (like Contact, K/9, etc.), it's ceiled at the max value (what you see in the game is what you get...). Don't know about OVR.

I'd like to know if overall does come into play in contracts, trades, etc. Maybe someone can answer?

# 186 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/14/13 12:05 AM

Being tied into sallary and player movement is something I'll admit I hadn't taken into consideration. Though even there I don't think that it's too big of an issue because once you get into that tier of players you're already talking about people who are incredibly valuable as far as trade value whether they are a 120 or a 101. But I do see the point about how Overall does indeed have an effect on some aspects of the game's logic.

I agree that it would make better sense to reserve 99 as the highest that it can go, but I'm imagining that that would involve some pretty big changes to the weight given to attributes at a position which could in turn lower everyone else's negatively and create problems on the lower end of the scale as well.

I admit that I know nothing about how the ratings system works, but it sounds like progress is being made if nearly 30 players got moved out of that 99 range from last year's game to this year's.

I didn't notice too many problems with all of the full bars present last year (I actually had no idea that there were over 40 of them) so I highly doubt that the way I play I'll notice any problems from having fewer people ranked as highly as possible. I do understand the concern for people who think it may effect them though, I just don't particularly share in those concerns too much.

# 187 nomo17k @ 02/14/13 12:09 AM

I'm not really "concerned" though... it's just a word usage and I just enjoy discussing the game and how things work, so I'm just presenting an argument. As I wrote before, I don't really play the game looking at ratings too meticulously, especially OVR.

# 188 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/14/13 12:14 AM

"Concern" maybe wasn't the right word, but it is a valid point that I hadn't really considered before. I'd be interested to know whether the in-game logic considers the difference between players over 99 or not.

# 189 Russell_SCEA @ 02/14/13 12:18 AM

Some of you guys can make a Mountain out of a mole Hill in a heart beat. The game only sees 99 the guys who are rated higher than that. The number only shows up in our Excel files not the game.

# 190 Cavicchi @ 02/14/13 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	Some of you guys can make a Mountain out of a mole Hill in a heart beat. The game only sees 99 the guys who are rated higher than that. The number only shows up in our Excel files not the game.

If you don't mind my asking, what is Kershaw's Excel rating? I'm just curious.

# 191 keymax @ 02/14/13 01:06 AM

I mentioned it before. But don't get too caught up in player overalls. Jimmy Rollins has a far better OVR rating than JJ Hardy. But Hardy clearly performs better at the plate.
It's just a number and it's not nearly as meaningful as in other games.

I would prefer getting rid of an overall rating altogether but I guess I'm in the minority here.

# 192 rjackson @ 02/14/13 05:39 AM

This thread has a few useful nuggets in it.

The rest of it is like a story going like this:

:::::brick wall:::::: brickwall:

# 193 mmorg @ 02/14/13 06:46 AM

Did anybody ever complain about "too many full red bar players" in previous years?

# 194 BrandH @ 02/14/13 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkeybird86


	Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.

The ratings aren't based off of just last year. Pujols has been doing it better and longer than Votto.

# 195 thaSLAB @ 02/14/13 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkeybird86


	Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.

Nice. Hopefully they can adjust his rating in the first roster update... maybe to, I don't know, around a 93? He did miss 50 games after all, so his durability is probably too high...

# 196 MLB Bob @ 02/14/13 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkeybird86


	Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.

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..

# 197 SoxFan01605 @ 02/14/13 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmorg


	Did anybody ever complain about "too many full red bar players" in previous years?

Yes, although the argument came in a slightly different form ("why is Adrian Gonzalez rated the same as Pujols!?!"- this from 09 or 10, I believe, with Ramone having to explain that 2 players with a full bar aren't necessarily equal). It's far worse now though, simply because people have harder "proof" that ratings are "wrong."

Personally, I've never cared about the overall number. My question is "do the ratings translate well on the field and in simulation?" If the answer is yes, a game can rate them in roman numerals for all I care. All I know is that Votto, Pujols, Trout, et al. will likely put up numbers pretty damn comparable to real life...I have several years of this game's history to back me up on that.

# 198 3fiddy @ 02/14/13 12:58 PM

I like the number ratings , it saves time comparing bars (analog to digital ) comes to mind. Lets face it guys we don't keep the ratings they give us anyway (OSFM). So I'm not looking too deep into the overalls. They will change when Knight and crew are finished. I heard the ratings guy for madden talking one time ab how he had to paint a picture of the league with the ratings. Would anyone select Colorado for a franchise besides the diehard Rockie fans ?? Would you if you had 2-99s to trade away for prospects ?? Plus they got a 2 in 25 shot at winning an Exhibition game. That's how I make my peace.

We don't know how to calculate overall yet

So and so is better

Well my team will be centered around power , defense , and young pitching Knights gonna get us a good roster and figure out the bs in between

# 199 MLB Bob @ 02/14/13 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turkeybird86


	You're right. Who cares about things like OBP and AVG when we can look at contact %. Votto has one of the best line drive percentages in the game. He was on pace to demolish the doubles record before he got injured. He hits the ball "dead on" better. Yeah, Pujols hits more HRs, whoop de doo. How did those Angels do last year with all those HR's? Oh yeah, couldn't even make the playoffs.

No one said OBP and AVG isnt important, but where is the AVG attribute? or the OBP attribute...did I miss it? I know theres a contact attribute so logically youd use that..no? 1B is a power position so yes HRs are a big deal. And so what if Votto was on PACE for a doubles record..he got hurt and didnt..cant rewrite history or say that anything is for sure...and one player doesnt make a team. Votto got it a lot...A LOT easier with Pujols out of the division and is playing against better teams on a more consistent basis so no need to compare...but if you want to live in the fantasy world that a video game should rate players only on the cherry picked stats for your favorite player thats fine..the rest of us use perspective and allow a little leeway..cause its a video game..that can be edited. Cherrio mate

# 200 seanjeezy @ 02/14/13 01:38 PM

Ummm... the contact rating in-game is derived from a player's batting average so technically Votto has been better than Pujols in that department... Pujols has more power and perhaps a slightly better glove so his superiority is justified IMO.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 91011 12 13 14 15 Next »

More Links

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