MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

[dcmantommy72]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Some would say that a 99 overall is the cap because it prevents any player from having a perfect rating of 100. Also, not every 99 rated player has all of their attributes maxed out, do they? That shows flaws in a player's game in it's own right.

The argument against having anybody at 99 is that they are already at the "cap" of an overall rating and since this game is played with a franchise mode that can span a decade people like to see if Strasburg can get even better say 5 years from now but sadly his ovr will never increase. The ovr number should not be capped at all imo, and should certainly be based on 0-100 but if a player is seriously outperforming his peers year after year his "value" and his "skill" should increase as time progresses. Not be capped to last years stats. Does he have the same skill or "value" as say Nolan Ryan at his peek? No. But 3 or 4 years from now he could wind up having better stats than Ryan and should therefore it be reflected on his OVR rating. Always putting the BEST ahead of everyone else. For example lets say in your franchise Strasburg ends up with a 1.93 ERA after your first season, well thats a hell of a leap from having a 3.16 ERA last year, sooo he improved didnt he?? Since when did we cap human ability?

It's just something that I hope is looked at for the future. No big deal, will just have to edit some people back a notch or two. (Or if everyone in the game could be notched back about 5 points it could solve it)

[assclown25]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Great point! My main issue is guys like Pujols (injury) Hamilton (horrible last 6wks) Tulo (out half the year) etc. i dont understand how these players can be rated a 99? Anyways its an easy solve cause we can edit rosters the way we like just tryin to get my point across and some will agree with me and some wont.

[philmnn]

Jim Johnson isn't in the top 10 closers...?

[Nooooovak]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

The argument against having anybody at 99 is that they are already at the "cap" of an overall rating and since this game is played with a franchise mode that can span a decade people like to see if Strasburg can get even better say 5 years from now but sadly his ovr will never increase.

From what I understand, it is just the number that caps, but you can still significantly improve them. If you have a player with completely maxed out stats, obviously he will be listed as a 99 overall, but he will probably play like a guy who is 110 or so. This is why I don't like the number ratings, specifically in terms of the overall rating. People put way too much emphasis on a single number, rather than the player's entire collection of attributes.

[philmnn]

Jim Johnson isn't in the top 10 closers...?

wait that list has 18 closers and Jim Johnson isn't even on it. good thing ratings are changeable.

[SDPadres2012]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

I think 99% of the ratings are spot on. The few that make me scratch my head are Tom Wilhelmsen at a 93, Erasmo Ramirez at a 87, Clayton Richard at a 77 (Was by far best starter for Padres last year) and Kris Medlen, I mean he had one good half of a season and is ranked higher than Jered Weaver! Other than that, my applause to the SECA team!

[Nooooovak]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

I think 99% of the ratings are spot on. The few that make me scratch my head are Tom Wilhelmsen at a 93, Erasmo Ramirez at a 87, Clayton Richard at a 77 (Was by far best starter for Padres last year) and Kris Medlen, I mean he had one good half of a season and is ranked higher than Jered Weaver! Other than that, my applause to the SECA team!

Richard isn't a head scratcher. Statistically, he had a pretty average season last year. A 77 is fine.

[dcmantommy72]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

From what I understand, it is just the number that caps, but you can still significantly improve them. If you have a player with completely maxed out stats, obviously he will be listed as a 99 overall, but he will probably play like a guy who is 110 or so. This is why I don't like the number ratings, specifically in terms of the overall rating. People put way too much emphasis on a single number, rather than the player's entire collection of attributes.

Yes the players individual ratings can improve so year one you have 17 players at 99 overall.. year 5 you might have 30.

your right tho its really up to the player to determine who is "better" for there needs when choosing between 10 99ovr players. I guess the "99" could be called "Elite", 98-92 "superstar", 92-87, "Allstar" so on... If you just had that instead of the OVR number system it would make sense. And would make you HAVE to look deeper into the players individual attribs. Oh dude I like that thought!

[Dr.Livingdead]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Man, welcome to the AL West Houston. One win away from having 3 90+ win teams last year. Must have some die hard fans

[gator3guy]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Shouldn't Trout have to get a few more seasons in to see if what he was last year happens again?

Mike Trout 99? Sure he had an amazing year but it's only his second year in the league. Look out for the ol' sophomore slump

No. He was the best player in the game last year. Called up a month into the season and was a full 2 wins better than the next closest guy.

Trout deserves a 99 based on defense,arm strength, and speed alone. Factor in his hitting and there is no doubt he is a 99. If anything Pujols shouldn't be a 99. Don't base their rating on something they did 2-3 years ago AKA A-Rod and Pujols. A guy that posted an .850 OPS is solid no doubt, but should not be 99 rated when players like Craig, Fielder, and Encarnacion all posted better numbers but are rated lower.
I am really glad some of you guys aren't in charge of rosters or work for SCEA. It would take players like Trout until MLB 15 before he gets his deserved rating.

Well his arm certainly didn't get him a 99 rating as that is his only average/below average tool.

I know ppl don't like when a team that already has good players doesn't like the rating of one of their guys but....Lawrie probably should be higher based on how other 3B are rated. On multiple fantasy rankings from sites like yahoo and espn, he's rated a top 103B.

Though if it makes you feel better...Bonifacio should be fairly lower. I'd put Bonifacio at like 80 and Lawrie at 85.

Though not gonna care bout these things now, especially when SCEA said that rating system was done way diff this year. Cause depending on a players position and stuff, certain attributes impact their ratings alot. Cause Lawrie had most errors committed as a 3B, but he's also had top 10 fielding% of all 3B. So I'm guessing the errors played a big role in his fielding rating which did hurt his overall rating.

That's the arument you're bringing to the table? Look he's a talented player no doubt, but he was average at best last year. Didn't walk and didn't show the pop he showed in his debut. I fully expect him to turn it around, but he's about right as is.

OK, it looks great. But I do have an issue: Anthony Rizzo vs Mike Trout
337 AB vs 559 AB_ .342 OBP vs .399 OBP_ .463 SLG vs .564 SLG
15 HR (over 200 less at bats) vs 30 HR
Now we all know the Cubs.....well BLOW, so I'm not taking into account RBI's, But here is my point How is Rizzo only a 79? I'm just saying from all the stuff I have read in Baseball America, had he played a whole season like Trout had he might have taken a swing at ROY on his own. Im not taking away from Trout, i'm just saying that 79 is a bit of an injustice. And before you say "Defense!" sure, but Rizzo is a 1st baseman, and therefore D doesn't factor into the rating as much.
If they gave Trout a 99 than Rizzo should have been at least an 88, but it really should be Trout 94 Rizzo 84

I won't even bother arguing this too much, but besides having a much better offensive and defensive season at a much more valuable position, he also lead the league in stolen bases after missing the first month of the season.

In MLB The Show 11 Ubaldo Jimeniz was given the "Top Pitcher Award"
But only 2 years later he is rated an 81.

Did you watch him pitch last year?

Adam Jones has done really well for many years. His only real flaw from what I've seen are his lack of walks. Jackson hasn't been good long enough to be rated higher than him imo

His defense is his real flaw.

[slickkill77]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Unfortunately defense means little in the show. All you need to be is a big power hitter and you'll be highly rated

[ballaholic04]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Is there an option to turn off number ratings? Hate it.

[thrasher8]

Thanks for the post! Interested in progression. Are you able to post a pic of maybe the top 50 players (ratings wise) in whatever year you have simmed to? (2017 etc.)

Thanks again!

[ondreythegiant]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

I never said they shouldn't take Trout over anyone. I said it is ridiculous to give a player a 99 rating after one year. Just because I used Rizzo as an example, does not make me a Cubs fan. I'm no more a Cubs fan than the Devs are Red Sox fans. Seriously though, the point I was making is that this whole 99 rating feels a little bias. But after reading this thread, I believe that if I wanted to look for an UNBIAS opinion, this is NOT THE PLACE TO LOOK.

It doesn't matter if it was his first year or fifth year, the ratings are based off of what the player did in the previous season. Trout had a historic year and would've been MVP if Cabrera didn't win the Triple Crown. So if it took a Triple Crown to keep the MVP away from him, and Cabrera is a 99, it seems fitting.

[WickedFastball]

Re: MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

Some would say that a 99 overall is the cap because it prevents any player from having a perfect rating of 100. Also, not every 99 rated player has all of their attributes maxed out, do they? That shows flaws in a player's game in it's own right.

I agree with this statement to a point, but I do still see somewhat of a bias when it comes to ratings in this game. Red Sox are still ranked 3rd even though they have NO shot at the post season this year. Mike Trout is a 99 after one (still great but still ONE) season. Its true that no player in this game has maxed out ratings, so even the term 99 is subjective. Maybe next year they can have just have split ratings. One general rating for defense and one for offense. Instead of blending the two to get one number. Have two numbers.