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

# 281 nomo17k @ 02/26/13 02:36 PM

I am actually willing to bet a huge chunk of money (which in my world is in cents) that ratings are historically limited to 0 - 99 purely to save screen estate.... 2 chars instead of 3.. that used to be a huge thing when games were displaying with fixed font within limited screen size at low resolution...

# 282 birthday_massacre @ 02/26/13 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	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

You do make a great point that is probably why letters should have been used instead of numbers. Over a 99 could be an A+ for example.

Please using letter grades (a B for example could be 84-86) you would have a range of numbers and not an exact number. I still never liked just the bars but I think a letter grade would be better than the number ratings

With the letters you could also rate them at each position, for example a RP could be an A- but as a starter they could be a C.

# 283 Cavicchi @ 02/26/13 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by birthday_massacre


	You do make a great point that is probably why letters should have been used instead of numbers. Over a 99 could be an A+ for example. Please using letter grades (a B for example could be 84-86) you would have a range of numbers and not an exact number. I still never liked just the bars but I think a letter grade would be better than the number ratings With the letters you could also rate them at each position, for example a RP could be an A- but as a starter they could be a C.

Letters have been used before, for fielding, hitting, running and pitching. I'm okay with that method, but I'm also okay with the numbers method. Actually, I prefer the numbers rating better because it can be more precise when comparing players.

# 284 slickkill77 @ 02/26/13 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	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

That's true, but the bar is still an arbitrary number is it not? So why would that make a difference? I'm not trying to be a douche about this either. I just want an answer because you are one of the biggest supporters when it comes to just bars. Really, if anything, the overall should be scrapped completely. That would put a bigger emphasis on scouting and getting players you really want/need. And really don't the numbers just make everyone's job easier that do the rosters?

Numbers are used in scouting scales either 20-80 or 2-8 so either of those would be acceptable to me or letters. I'm merely saying that if the ratings are going to stay how they are, they need to change.

# 285 Knight165 @ 02/26/13 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slickkill77


	That's true, but the bar is still an arbitrary number is it not? So why would that make a difference? I'm not trying to be a douche about this either. I just want an answer because you are one of the biggest supporters when it comes to just bars. Really, if anything, the overall should be scrapped completely. That would put a bigger emphasis on scouting and getting players you really want/need. And really don't the numbers just make everyone's job easier that do the rosters? Numbers are used in scouting scales either 20-80 or 2-8 so either of those would be acceptable to me or letters. I'm merely saying that if the ratings are going to stay how they are, they need to change.

You don't have to convince me...
I'd rather nothing than #'s OR bars...I'd prefer 20-80...but I'd take nothing if we couldn't get that.

For me...
20-80 > NOTHING > BARS > NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING

M.K.
Knight165

# 286 slickkill77 @ 02/26/13 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	You don't have to convince me... I'd rather nothing than #'s OR bars...I'd prefer 20-80...but I'd take nothing if we couldn't get that. For me... 20-80 > NOTHING > BARS > NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING M.K. Knight165

Glad we could agree on that

# 287 Qb @ 02/26/13 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	You don't have to convince me...I'd prefer 20-80

Can't wait to read something like, "Why is Stanton's power only 80?!? It has to be 99!!!"

# 288 seanjeezy @ 02/26/13 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qb


	Can't wait to read something like, "Why is Stanton's power only 80?!? It has to be 99!!!"

Joking, but Stanton is actually closer to 90 since his raw power breaks the conventional scale like B-Ham's speed. But yeah, some people will never be satisfied regardless lol

# 289 ShowTyme15 @ 02/26/13 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanjeezy


	Joking, but Stanton is actually closer to 90 since his raw power breaks the conventional scale like B-Ham's speed. But yeah, some people will never be satisfied regardless lol

That's the beauty of today's society.

# 290 Knight165 @ 02/26/13 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qb


	Can't wait to read something like, "Why is Stanton's power only 80?!? It has to be 99!!!"

Preach it.

M.K.
Knight165

# 291 tvman @ 02/26/13 10:33 PM

Not sure why everyone is against the ratings "discussions" I mean isn't that what baseball fans do?

# 292 bp4baseball @ 02/26/13 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvman


	Not sure why everyone is against the ratings "discussions" I mean isn't that what baseball fans do?

Yes, but it seems to just generate more whining than actual intelligent discussion.

# 293 tvman @ 02/26/13 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bp4baseball


	Yes, but it seems to just generate more whining than actual intelligent discussion.

Not sure it's whining so much as just difference of opinions.

# 294 MLB Bob @ 02/26/13 10:52 PM

It usually starts as someone stating their opinion and someone else questioning their intelligence because they disagree, seldom is it a discussion about stats and discussion points

# 295 hfield07 @ 03/04/13 12:49 AM

CarGo so beyond over rated. Look at his road numbers outside of Coors.

# 296 MrOldboy @ 03/04/13 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hfield07


	CarGo so beyond over rated. Look at his road numbers outside of Coors.

But the game doesn't have ratings for

Home Contact vs RHP
Home Contact vs LHP

Road Contact vs RHP
Road Contact vs LHP

Yeah his split is terrible, but the park factors in the game don't seem to cause this type of discrepancy in players. The game would need to have split ratings for this argument to make sense.

# 297 nomo17k @ 03/04/13 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	But the game doesn't have ratings for Home Contact vs RHP Home Contact vs LHP Road Contact vs RHP Road Contact vs LHP Yeah his split is terrible, but the park factors in the game don't seem to cause this type of discrepancy in players. The game would need to have split ratings for this argument to make sense.

The game doesn't need split ratings for home vs. away... it could just do it by letting the in-game park factor (like letting the ball carry further in Coors, etc.) affect the gameplay more. I wonder if guys who do Colorado franchise see home vs. away split being so different as in real life.... of course they need to avoid simming (which doesn't have park factor)........ hahah

# 298 MrOldboy @ 03/04/13 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	The game doesn't need split ratings for home vs. away... it could just do it by letting the in-game park factor (like letting the ball carry further in Coors, etc.) affect the gameplay more. I wonder if guys who do Colorado franchise see home vs. away split being so different as in real life.... of course they need to avoid simming (which doesn't have park factor)........ hahah

But having just park factors could make the effect the park has in the game the same for every player, but different players are affected more by park factors. The Rockies are a weird example though since well, its the Rockies.

So maybe a balance of the two could work.

How much the park factor of a stadium has an affect on a player. If the are balanced (normal park factor influence) or park-factor biased (Cargo!).

Then have the park factors have more of an affect in simming as well. It could just be a slight boost to the power ratings of players during simming (except those with extremely low power where the slight bump could cause them to hit a HR when they should not hit HRs at all.

So someone like Cargo might get a +15 for power due to the park factor at home (.641 SLG @ Coors), but then get a -15 or more to power due to park factor at (.295 SLG @ AT&T).

A player like Tulowitzski might get a smaller park factor influence of +7 power at home (.541 SLG @ Coors) and a -7 power (.457 SLG @ AT&T)

Both Cargo and Tulo have similar career SLG%. Cargo: .518 SLG, Tulo: .504 SLG

But Tulo has a more balanced split than Cargo does. Still affected a lot by park factor, but not as much as someone like Cargo.

But you're right, if the game just had a more overt park factor influence during gameplay AND simming that would be enough for me and probably most people who would like to see park factor in the game more. What I am posting is more for curiosity.

# 299 Cavicchi @ 04/21/13 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dingleberryfinn


	I thought I had a somewhat understanding of how this new algorithm works but I guess not. A 2nd baseman, with not one single attribute higher than 59, comes out as an 82 overall. & an F potential to boot. Should it be this way? Because it is.

I've always thought that "F" potential to be very strange. I mean, they have A, B, C, D, and like what happened to "E"?

# 300 SportsFan_19 @ 09/27/14 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	it's just the nature of difficulty in doing player evaluation itself. (that's another reason why true player attributes in game should not be exposed, to simulate how difficult it is to know a person exactly... but I digress, I just want this game to be very realistic too much, hahaha)

OH GOOD LORD! I would NEVER buy a game where I couldn't see the ratings for a players attributes. The bars were bad enough (and having to go to the player edit screen just to see them, and not being able to see how the defensive ratings changed for players playing out of position, etc).

I don't worry too much about player ratings (at least not until I have a chance to study them for a while, and put them into perspective), but I would feel like... as if I were lied to, or cheated, or something. It's something I look forward to every time I buy a new sports game.

While I don't get overly caught up in what the ratings ARE (contrasted to what I WANT them to be), I certainly do not like my access to them being restricted, and it played a large part in my not purchasing any MLB The Show post 10 (the only one I own).

I also do not based all of my decisions about players off of attribute ratings, either. Performance plays a massive role, one that increases the further into a season I get (which decreases the emphasis I put on the ratings). It's just one of several tools I use, and one I like the best access too that I can have.

Previous games not only gave me the ability, not having this ability/access makes today's games feel "immature" in a contemporary sense.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415Next »

More Links

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