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

# 261 Houston @ 02/25/13 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	I'd still say 99 could be reserved for the top rated player (as calculated by the game) with all other players ratings scaled accordingly. 99 doesn't mean perfect, it just means the max rating displayed by the game. What is weird though is if a player can be 99, why not 100? Does 100 bring about thoughts of perfection, 100%?

Nobody ever should ever be rated 99 more less about 15 -20 players. This is crazy insane and taking things in the wrong direction there's nothing realistic about a player being rated 99.

# 262 Houston @ 02/25/13 09:59 AM

If there was a player rating generator and you took the top 5 guys on that list and how the preformed in 2012 I seriously doubt there ratings come out to be 99.

# 263 MrOldboy @ 02/25/13 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Houston


	Nobody ever should ever be rated 99 more less about 15 -20 players. This is crazy insane and taking things in the wrong direction there's nothing realistic about a player being rated 99.

But what does a player being rated 99 mean? To you, to the devs, to everyone it can mean something different.

What does a 99 mean to you?

# 264 NateAndStuff @ 02/25/13 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	But what does a player being rated 99 mean? To you, to the devs, to everyone it can mean something different. What does a 99 mean to you?

It means the greatest a player can be. Are you telling me that there are any players in the world who are perfect athletes? On top of this, I think it's hilarious that overrated players like CarGo and Hamilton somehow made it in with the 99 crew over a guy like Votto. I'd love to know how this is figured up because it seems like they just went around the room and asked everyone who their favorite player was. Come on.

# 265 cardinalbird5 @ 02/25/13 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Houston


	If there was a player rating generator and you took the top 5 guys on that list and how the preformed in 2012 I seriously doubt there ratings come out to be 99.

99 doesn't mean they are Babe Ruth or a perfect player. It just means they are a 99 at the position they play and that is the highest number the game shows you. The best players cumulative rating ends up being closer to 120. 99 is not an average by any means. I don't know why people make things so much more difficult than they need to be. Your idea of a 99=/=the game's 99. MLB The Show doesn't use its ratings like NBA 2k or Madden.

If they wanted they could make 130 be a 99 and scale everything else down. I am sure people would complain less. They could also say 200=99 and scale everything way down to where the average player is like 30 then people would freak out. It is just eye candy. It'd be the same exact results regardless of the little number next to their name. The individual attributes per player do not change one bit. Look at the 99 rated pitchers. None of their per nine attributes, control, velocity, etc. is even a 99. Settle down people.

# 266 bp4baseball @ 02/25/13 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateAndStuff


	It means the greatest a player can be. Are you telling me that there are any players in the world who are perfect athletes? On top of this, I think it's hilarious that overrated players like CarGo and Hamilton somehow made it in with the 99 crew over a guy like Votto. I'd love to know how this is figured up because it seems like they just went around the room and asked everyone who their favorite player was. Come on.

But just because they are rated 99 doesn't mean any of their individual ratings are 99 or even close to 99.

Also, if the game produces realistic results, what does it matter if they're rated 32 or 132?

# 267 CMH @ 02/25/13 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bp4baseball


	But just because they are rated 99 doesn't mean any of their individual ratings are 99 or even close to 99. Also, if the game produces realistic results, what does it matter if they're rated 32 or 132?

Remember the hell that broke loose when NBA Live changed their rating system to go deeper than 50-99?

Great players were in the 80s and other great players were in the 90s and the entire world (it felt) was just up in arms over it.

I never had a problem with it, but I remember trying to explain it back in the day and just feeling as if I was talking to a wall.

There is one simple fact: when it comes to player ratings, let them vent and walk away. Nothing you say will change anything. People will always complain rather than let the gameplay do the talking.

# 268 tvman @ 02/25/13 07:20 PM

So can I create a player that is rated a 132?

# 269 slickkill77 @ 02/25/13 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMH


	Remember the hell that broke loose when NBA Live changed their rating system to go deeper than 50-99? Great players were in the 80s and other great players were in the 90s and the entire world (it felt) was just up in arms over it. I never had a problem with it, but I remember trying to explain it back in the day and just feeling as if I was talking to a wall. There is one simple fact: when it comes to player ratings, let them vent and walk away. Nothing you say will change anything. People will always complain rather than let the gameplay do the talking.

To me it just looks stupid to have so many players rated 99. I'd love a system that expanded player rankings. I don't watch the NBA but from what I know there should be maybe 1 or 2, 99 players: LeBron and Kobe (maybe). No one else should be a 99 (maybe Chris Paul).

An expanded rating system would work wonders in The Show given that there are 2 (maybe 3 someday) minor league systems as well as the majors. There should be a bigger discrepancy. If the stats bear out at the end of the season then that's awesome, but it doesn't mean it doesn't look dumb when guys like Josh Hamilton, Carlos Gonzalez, Stephen Strasburg etc...who are very good players in their own right, are 99 rated players.

Yes you can change ratings on your own which we will all do but to me 99 should represent the best in the game. Not just really good players or guys that had fluky years.

We all appreciate the work the SCEA guys do, so don't take any of this as disrespect. We all just want to improve the game. I just think some of the things that go into rating players don't make any sense. For instance: How is a guy like Jose Altuve, who had a decent year last year, but nothing spectacular, rated 90. And why is he rated above a guy like Ben Zobrist who is one of the most valuable players in the league? The stats may play out like they do in real life but it still looks goofy on paper and it affects the way the virtual GM's go after guys I'm sure.

I almost feel like they just go on fantasy baseball websites to rate guys sometimes. I get that there are a ton of players to rate and its never going to be perfect but there are some players that are obviously over or underrated that just make you go, huh? Also I don't think going back to just bars solves anything. Then it feels like they are just masking the issue.

# 270 Knight165 @ 02/25/13 08:50 PM

My message to Ramone(and SCEA)

I

.....

# 271 Knight165 @ 02/25/13 08:51 PM

TOLD

.......

# 272 Knight165 @ 02/25/13 08:52 PM

YOU

.........

M.K.
Knight165

# 273 slickkill77 @ 02/25/13 09:19 PM

The bar only doesn't solve anything as I said above. It just masks the problem and you end up sorting by rating anyway. Why should we just hide the fact that some of the ratings are so out of whack? Then we would just be complaining that Stephen Strasburg's bar was full.

# 274 dcmantommy72 @ 02/25/13 10:15 PM

I love the work that goes into the ratings, but honestly prefer the re-rate mlb roster sets that people on this board create for us rather than the default roster set for my franchise.

I also believe that 20 players at 99 is too many, I love the way OOTP rates players, most attributes are on a 0-250 scale sometimes 300. Meaning almost always a guy like Strasburg can get even better over the years and as such his rating will go up.. According to these ratings in 5 years he will still be either 99 or lower. If Ted Williams was in the game, he would be a 99, The Sultan of Swat a 99, Rodger Clemens (1990) a 99 these players are all top notch but seeing that max level come so easily and quickly and numerously is bad for the game. I would love to see a more in depth system someday, maybe keep 1-100 but use a decimal like for a random example Pedroia would a 92.45ovr. Idk just my thought. Love it either way as LONG AS WE KEEP ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE AND INNOVATE THE SYSTEM and not get stuck being forced to stay within certain parameters year in year out...

I took 3/5 off as a holiday, and will treat it like one!

# 275 Knight165 @ 02/25/13 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcmantommy72


	I love the work that goes into the ratings, but honestly prefer the re-rate mlb roster sets that people on this board create for us rather than the default roster set for my franchise. I also believe that 20 players at 99 is too many, I love the way OOTP rates players, most attributes are on a 0-250 scale sometimes 300. Meaning almost always a guy like Strasburg can get even better over the years and as such his rating will go up.. According to these ratings in 5 years he will still be either 99 or lower. If Ted Williams was in the game, he would be a 99, The Sultan of Swat a 99, Rodger Clemens (1990) a 99 these players are all top notch but seeing that max level come so easily and quickly and numerously is bad for the game. I would love to see a more in depth system someday, maybe keep 1-100 but use a decimal like for a random example Pedroia would a 92.45ovr. Idk just my thought. Love it either way as LONG AS WE KEEP ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE AND INNOVATE THE SYSTEM and not get stuck being forced to stay within certain parameters year in year out... I took 3/5 off as a holiday, and will treat it like one!

Just FYI...your player can be above 99....but 99 is the top # displayed.
It's up to you to see who is "better".

M.K.
Knight165

# 276 slickkill77 @ 02/26/13 12:15 PM

I think 2 things need to be done.
1. The ratings need to be stretched out more. Way too many 99's.
2. Potential needs to be scrapped or reworked. I think using the 20-80 scale that scouts use would be much more effective especially for the minor league players

And why can players be higher than a 99? I'm not questioning whether or not it can be done, I fully trust you there Knight, but I am questioning why is that even possible? Shouldn't 99 represent the best in the game. Guys that, while not perfect, they are damn near perfect. Wouldn't it make more sense to stretch the ratings out so that guys don't just stop at 99 because it's a limit the game imposes? As I said earlier 99 should be reserved for very very few players. And guys like Jose Altuve have no business being a 90. Realistically he should be mid 80's at best. But because the ratings are so inflated, he's 9 points away from being considered one of the best in the game. Which he is not.

You're probably going to say its just a number and if the stats bear out then why does it matter. While I agree with you that these numbers are purely cosmetic, for the most part, I'm sure it has some effect on the way gm's in the game sign people and hand out contracts because of the inflated ratings.

# 277 Knight165 @ 02/26/13 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slickkill77


	I think 2 things need to be done. 1. The ratings need to be stretched out more. Way too many 99's. 2. Potential needs to be scrapped or reworked. I think using the 20-80 scale that scouts use would be much more effective especially for the minor league players And why can players be higher than a 99? I'm not questioning whether or not it can be done, I fully trust you there Knight, but I am questioning why is that even possible? Shouldn't 99 represent the best in the game. Guys that, while not perfect, they are damn near perfect. Wouldn't it make more sense to stretch the ratings out so that guys don't just stop at 99 because it's a limit the game imposes? As I said earlier 99 should be reserved for very very few players. And guys like Jose Altuve have no business being a 90. Realistically he should be mid 80's at best. But because the ratings are so inflated, he's 9 points away from being considered one of the best in the game. Which he is not. You're probably going to say its just a number and if the stats bear out then why does it matter. While I agree with you that these numbers are purely cosmetic, for the most part, I'm sure it has some effect on the way gm's in the game sign people and hand out contracts because of the inflated ratings.

slick...nothing against you....but this is EXACTLY why I have been against #'s from the start.
How can I argue something that isn't real? Nowhere outside a video game is this even used. It's preposterous...
..and you bring up Altuve.
What is a 90 in this game?
What is an 85? What is the actual difference?

...and going past a 99.....how can it be?
If a guy with 87/88....92/94.....and nothing at 99 except for say fielding is a 99(which it is in the game once you see it)....then obviously higher ratings will translate into an ACTUAL(not displayed) OVR above a 99.

While CPU GM's do see the OVR as a tool in trades/moves/signings etc....I believe they also see it on the true scale(in which the human player is forced to actually put some further investigation into(stats/etc)...so they see a player is 110 etc...

Why didn't they display past 99?...IDK

M.K.
Knight165

# 278 CMH @ 02/26/13 01:47 PM

I'm gonna make a quick assumption and bring forward an idea.

Perhaps, outside of any limitations, there is no way to see past 99 because those players are the cream of the crop and the reality is we cannot factually argue which of those 99 rated players is better than the other.

So, in essence, the game ratings are being designed to reflect reality in that the argument behind Pujols vs Cabrera is an argument that would never see a winner. So they are 99s.

Now an idea. How would you guys feel if instead of showing us ratings, the game simply ranked players 1-1xxx?

I ask because it seems this is what people actually want but I don't think they truly understand the arguments that would be created by such a system.

Sent from my mobile device.

# 279 tabarnes19_SDS @ 02/26/13 01:50 PM

One interesting tid bit I learned at CD was that the cpu looks at statistics as well for making trades. So ovl and potential are not only factors looked at.

# 280 Cavicchi @ 02/26/13 01:54 PM

I like the number ratings. I just don't get a relief pitcher, Chapman, being rated a 99 in the starting pitcher category.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 9 10 11 12 131415 Next »

More Links

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