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

# 81 pirates1fan @ 02/12/13 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilliesFan13


	Exactly. Every year at this time we see so much whining about little minute things that people don't like or complain about. It's sad when you think about it. At the end of the day, it is still a video game. Not everyone plays it the same way. Ratings can be edited and yes the roof is still not closed. It's not a big deal. SCEA strives every year to add as much new material to the game as they can. A lot of it ideas and requests from the very people on OS, yet the more great things they add the more people complain about what they didn't add to the game. Be happy you're getting the greatest baseball game there is from people who care about making the product better every year and not just standing pat and adding a roster update as a new game. Some people just aren't happy unless they are getting what "they" want. I know what kind of game we're getting and I can't wait for it to get here. It's supposed to be fun. Don't make it a headache for yourself by worrying about a player's left foot in his stance or a jersey color not being the perfect 100% shade of blue. It's about having fun with a great product.

# 82 seanjeezy @ 02/12/13 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pirates1fan


	Yeah, the more I look at my comment the more how I think and realize it sounds a little rediculous. Just curious I suppose. Like I don't know if each year he has more and more people who will help that make it quicker or not. I am just anxious I guess.

There's usually a spring training set, it will most likely be missing some features though.

# 83 tvman @ 02/12/13 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ


	Two 99 rated players for the Rockies. I'm using them this year since I am using the Mets in 12.

Just think of all the prospects you could get for those two guys!

# 84 NewbieRandomEtc @ 02/12/13 10:27 PM

Numbers are a way better rating system than bars. Obviously, people don't like the ratings, which is fair. The Show has always been god-awful at rating players. But at least we don't have to deal with the bar system anymore.

# 85 BBallcoach @ 02/12/13 10:36 PM

Why wasn't there this much uproar last year when there was just full bars instead of numbers????? Now that there is number people complain? Are you serious?
Personally I dont care if every MLBer is a 99 as long as they play like their real life counter part is all that matters.
I can't wait for this years game. They have finally made the changes to franchise that I have yearned for, more emphasis on scouting, the draft and your farm. I always felt that's why MVP 05 was always the best cause it felt like a complete franchise mode having to care about every aspect of it. I think The Show 13 will finally topple MVP 05 in my head.

# 86 nomo17k @ 02/12/13 10:57 PM

Hopefully, this bitter memory will drive the dev team to move away from exposing player ratings at all.... player skill are something we estimate from watching them play, see through performance stats, asking scouts, etc., etc., ....

# 87 Shaffer26 @ 02/12/13 11:29 PM

Never understood the uproar over ratings. If you don't agree with them then change them! Be glad you can still edit players, unlike in Madden.

# 88 Curahee @ 02/12/13 11:39 PM

Russell, can you explain this one for me please....

How is his Actual Speed greater than his Potential Speed?

# 89 pistolpete @ 02/12/13 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	player skill are something we estimate from watching them play

I heard the only athletes left on Earth who are judged by watching them play are offensive linemen. The rest are done with ratings extrapolated from statistics.

Dude, it's 2013. Number ratings are where it is at.

You can do a lot with number ratings. Divide an overall by an expected salary and there you have a value.

17 99s could also be meaningless because it's a number derived from an algorithm. It may mean nothing to how the games are played on the field.

# 90 seanjeezy @ 02/12/13 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	Russell, can you explain this one for me please.... How is his Actual Speed greater than his Potential Speed?

That's actually a really good sign. Players lose speed as they get older, and a 1st baseman whose goal is to get bigger and stronger will lose his speed fairly quickly.

# 91 Curahee @ 02/12/13 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanjeezy


	That's actually a really good sign. Players lose speed as they get older, and a 1st baseman whose goal is to get bigger and stronger will lose his speed fairly quickly.

OK? Im not sure I understand.

In this example, he is 18 y/o. His PS is 15.
If thats his potential, which to me means the highest he'll ever achieve, how is his AS 27?
How does that work?

# 92 seanjeezy @ 02/12/13 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	OK? Im not sure I understand. In this example, he is 18 y/o. His PS is 15. If thats his potential, which to me means the highest he'll ever achieve, how is his AS 27? How does that work?

Isn't it pretty self-explanatory? Obviously it means his speed will regress...

By saying it was a good sign I was referring to the potential system, not the fact that his speed will regress... Regression in some attributes is good, that means the system is closer to mirroring what actually happens in real life.

# 93 nomo17k @ 02/12/13 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pistolpete


	I heard the only athletes left on Earth who are judged by watching them play are offensive linemen. The rest are done with ratings extrapolated from statistics. Dude, it's 2013. Number ratings are where it is at. You can do a lot with number ratings. Divide an overall by an expected salary and there you have a value. 17 99s could also be meaningless because it's a number derived from an algorithm. It may mean nothing to how the games are played on the field.

No, it's not quite the same thing to say that a player can be rated numerically and that a player's true skill can be rated at all. As anyone who deals with statistics in life knows, all such activities come up with *estimates* of what the numbers should represent.

I have no issues with MLB scout using 20 - 80 scale to rate players.

But I have an issue with exposing player ratings in a game like this, only because that's actually the true skill of the player. A Contact = 66 player should hit .255 on average, since the game is actually tuned precisely to produce such a player.

Unless I'm doing editing, I really don't want to know that much detail about a player. It takes fun away from me.

# 94 Curahee @ 02/13/13 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanjeezy


	Isn't it pretty self-explanatory?

No. Thats why I asked the question!

# 95 bcruise @ 02/13/13 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	No. Thats why I asked the question!

The way I see it, setting a potential speed lower than actual accomplishes two things. One, it ensures that you can't increase it through training (since he's already over his potential), and two, indicates the floor that his actual speed can fall to (but won't necessarily, you could probably gain some of it back through training). That's of course assuming this screen isn't early build fodder and it won't actually look like that. Just theoretical.

I'm looking at it as an anti - potential, if you can understand that.

# 96 seanjeezy @ 02/13/13 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	No. Thats why I asked the question!

Really? So you've never heard of someone getting slower as they get older?

# 97 Curahee @ 02/13/13 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcruise


	The way I see it, setting a potential speed lower than actual accomplishes two things. One, it ensures that you can't increase it through training (since he's already over his potential), and two, indicates the floor that his actual speed can fall to (but won't necessarily, you could probably gain some of it back through training). That's of course assuming this screen isn't early build fodder and it won't actually look like that. Just theoretical. I'm looking at it as an anti - potential, if you can understand that.

Thank you for the intelligent non-condescending response.
THAT makes sense!

# 98 Russell_SCEA @ 02/13/13 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	Hopefully, this bitter memory will drive the dev team to move away from exposing player ratings at all.... player skill are something we estimate from watching them play, see through performance stats, asking scouts, etc., etc., ....

We think it's funny and its not changing. Also OS represents about 5% of the consumer base the 95% will be happy that you can see both now.

# 99 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	We think it's funny and is not changing. Also OS represents about 5% of the consumer base the 95% will be happy that you can see both now.

I know that and still said it anyways!

I just think scouting/evaluating players can be a game by itself, in a mode like Franchise mode. No game has ever done this well sufficiently (AFAIK), so the 95% of consumers don't really know how fun that can be. Just my opinion...

# 100 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	No, it's not quite the same thing to say that a player can be rated numerically and that a player's true skill can be rated at all. As anyone who deals with statistics in life knows, all such activities come up with estimates of what the numbers should represent. I have no issues with MLB scout using 20 - 80 scale to rate players. But I have an issue with exposing player ratings in a game like this, only because that's actually the true skill of the player. A Contact = 66 player should hit .255 on average, since the game is actually tuned precisely to produce such a player. Unless I'm doing editing, I really don't want to know that much detail about a player. It takes fun away from me.

I have to agree that it takes a lot away from the game when you think about it too hard, which a lot of people on here do.

A thing I and I think a lot of others want is more variability. More differentiation between players. SCEA is going in this direction with the push/pull system. I hope it goes further in the future. I don't want the ratings to be so binary, I want something than can differentiate two hitters with 65 contact. Because they are not exactly the same.

About the park factors in the game, the altitude, etc. How dramatic are the park factors in the game? Does it affect simmed games at all? That is what I would want it to affect really, more so than played games so that the stats would end up replicating what actual ballparks play like.

« Previous 1 2 3 456 7 8 9…14 15 Next »

More Links

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