MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

[Jason_19]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

besides, you need more than one fluke season to establish yourself before making bold proclamations such as "best in baseball"

I don't need more than one season before saying things like that. When it comes to scouting players and making projections, I'm hardly ever more than slightly off. In this case, I wasn't making a projection. As far as projected stats and performance goes, I'm not fully confident in saying that they will statistically be the best in baseball. As far as potential and "stuff" goes, I am very confident in what I said. I was simply saying that I think that Lowe, White, Fields and Aardsma would comprise what I would consider to be the best late inning relievers in baseball.

Seattle is a mediocre team

I couldn't agree more.

[NYJAllTheWay]

Mets second in defense? As a Met fan, I must say:
Da fuk?

And Sox not #1 in pitching?!?!?

[liftheavy]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Two years ago... 25th in ERA and 27th in WHIP
Three years back...22nd and 25th...
You guys are forgetting...it's a 3 year weighted average.

M.K.
Knight165

Players improve...new pitching coach arrives...new manager arrives...Carlos Silva had a 6.46 ERA, Batista 5.67 ERA, and Washburn had a 4.67 ERA in 2008...take them away and the numbers improve.

With that being said...it should not be based off of a weighted 3 year average...

[soxnut1018]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

I don't need more than one season before saying things like that. When it comes to scouting players and making projections, I'm hardly ever more than slightly off. In this case, I wasn't making a projection. As far as projected stats and performance goes, I'm not fully confident in saying that they will statistically be the best in baseball. As far as potential and "stuff" goes, I am very confident in what I said. I was simply saying that I think that Lowe, White, Fields and Aardsma would comprise what I would consider to be the best late inning relievers in baseball.



I couldn't agree more.

I remember when Aardsma was on the White Sox and he was downright awful. What has changed to make you confident that last year wasn't simply a fluke?

[Knight165]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Players improve...new pitching coach arrives...new manager arrives...Carlos Silva had a 6.46 ERA, Batista 5.67 ERA, and Washburn had a 4.67 ERA in 2008...take them away and the numbers improve.

With that being said...it should not be based off of a weighted 3 year average...

The TEAM ratings aren't...per se...but in the situation Russ showed...moving Tatis onto the Cards....and that changing their position....means that each individual is a factor...and THEIR overall is a 3 year weighted average.....so it does come into effect.
I guess you can't look at those ratings as a per year/last year rating......but a possible projected rating.

M.K.
Knight165

[Scottdau]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Doubt it, they would be helping their new teams since their ratings went with them.

I know team ratings only include the current players on the 25-man roster given how many different team rankings I kept getting with each fantasy draft in franchise mode.

I wrote it wrong. It was meant say 3 years of rating with those guys are going to help your team ratings.

[Focused One]

Not really. I thought that too at first. But then I found out it is based on 3 years, with last year being more of the percentage. And you have to take in the whole pitching staff. So it it does work our about right. If they do what they did last year then I would think they would more in the 10 or higher next year. But I think Sanchez is going to have a break out year in real life, so that will help.

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was based on a 3 year average, but why would Sony do that? Teams can completely change in one off season, and when it comes to pitching, Zito and Cain the only pitchers on the Giants roster that have been there long enough to even produce a realistic 3 year average... Has it always been like this?

[Jason_19]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

I remember when Aardsma was on the White Sox and he was downright awful. What has changed to make you confident that last year wasn't simply a fluke?

Nothing has changed. Aardsma was always meant to be a closer. He has been blessed with an unbelievable amount of talent. With the White Sox, he only pitched in 25 games (32.1 innings). You can't really judge a player, especially someone who is only in their second year and who has just went from the N.L. to the A.L. (to an across town team, on top of that), based on a small amount of playing time. The season before that, in his first full season, he progressed greatly as the season went on. In 2008, with the Red Sox, he was mismanaged. In 2009, with the Mariners, he was finally given the chance to pitch in the manner that best suits him, his perceived mentality and his skill set. The results of this were exactly what I always expected to see from him as a closer.

[Knight165]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was based on a 3 year average, but why would Sony do that? Teams can completely change in one off season, and when it comes to pitching, Zito and Cain the only pitchers on the Giants roster that have been there long enough to even produce a realistic 3 year average... Has it always been like this?

Yes.
It's weighted...50-25-25....last year...two years ago...three years ago.
The individual ratings were always based that way.

M.K.
Knight165

[BatsareBugs]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

I wrote it wrong. It was meant say 3 years of rating with those guys are going to help your team ratings.

Just one more question regarding that then. Was that in response to my Padres Overall/Offense/Defense/Pitching post? If it is, then I'd have to say that Peavy and Hoffy's ratings no longer affect the Padres team ratings since those players are no longer on the roster. Their three-years ratings average are included on the White Sox and Brewers, respectively, even though they played for the Padres within those three years.

If it wasn't in response to my post, then mea culpa.

[xNobleEaglex]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was based on a 3 year average, but why would Sony do that? Teams can completely change in one off season, and when it comes to pitching, Zito and Cain the only pitchers on the Giants roster that have been there long enough to even produce a realistic 3 year average... Has it always been like this?

I don't think Sony takes the team stats over 3 years. I believe it's a 3 year weighted average for each individual player. Then the individuals make up the team score. Hence the reason when he swapped the bench player from the Cardinals with Tatis from the Mets, both teams changed rankings because Tatis was rated higher than the STL CF bench player.

[SoMiss2000]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings

Hmm... Seems like the ratings were based off of last year. I can't see the Angles being so high and the Mariners being so low in the AL West. I also don't see how Texas' batting is 4th when it should be lower.

The good thing about The Show though is that any team can win on any given day.

offensively, Angels only lost Figgins and Vlad. They have a solid offense and nice rotation. I'm surprised they're ranked so low defensively.

[ParisB]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

I don't need more than one season before saying things like that. When it comes to scouting players and making projections, I'm hardly ever more than slightly off. In this case, I wasn't making a projection. As far as projected stats and performance goes, I'm not fully confident in saying that they will statistically be the best in baseball. As far as potential and "stuff" goes, I am very confident in what I said. I was simply saying that I think that Lowe, White, Fields and Aardsma would comprise what I would consider to be the best late inning relievers in baseball.



I couldn't agree more.

Give me a break. Every major leaguer has "potential" and "stuff", that's why they're in the major leagues to begin with.

I stand by my comments I've been hearing the same things every offseason by Mariners fans. They're simply not on the same level as the Angels over a 162 game stretch. Simple as that.

[ParisB]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings

offensively, Angels only lost Figgins and Vlad. They have a solid offense and nice rotation. I'm surprised they're ranked so low defensively.

Because most people twitch and react, but don't understand what is happening. The top tier organizations (like Boston, Anaheim etc.) have an endless supply of talent coming from their deep farm systems, to go along with shrewd management. It's not a coincidence that the Angels can lose a Glaus, K-Rod, and Teixeira in successive offseasons yet remain a top 3 AL team every year.

The Angels MASHED the ball last season, had the 2nd best offense behind the Yanks, and upgraded with Matsui over the aging Vlad. People focus on the players they lose, but not the players they gained. They lost Lackey, but their rotation still has the potential of being dominant, as usual.

[Jason_19]

Re: MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

Give me a break.

There's no need to get defensive.

Every major leaguer has "potential" and "stuff", that's why they're in the major leagues to begin with.

That's correct, but every player has a different skill set and a different amount of skill and potential.

I stand by my comments I've been hearing the same things every offseason by Mariners fans. They're simply not on the same level as the Angels over a 162 game stretch. Simple as that.

I couldn't agree more. It sounds like you think that I'm a Mariners fan. For the record, if I had to rank my favorite teams, the Mariners would be pretty far down on the list. Just because someone says something about a team or a player, it doesn't mean that they're a fan of that team or player. I follow every team, including the minor leagues, very closely. My opinion on this subject has nothing to do with being a "homer".