Home
MLB 2K10 News Post

Interested to see how your favorite players in Major League Baseball 2K10 are rated? Check out the screenshots.

Major League Baseball 2K10 screenshot gallery - Click to view Major League Baseball 2K10 screenshot gallery - Click to view
Game: Major League Baseball 2K10Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 33 - View All
Major League Baseball 2K10 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 Blazzen @ 02/23/10 09:05 AM
Thanks!

I'm a Braves Fan and a couple players got hosed and a couple got too much props.

Escobar and Glaus got screwed on their power ratings imo by about 10 points each. Chippers is probably 5 points too high.

Tim Hudson is not a 78 either. Huddy should be up there with Jurrjens. Hansen might be a little overrated since he was just a Rookie.

Hopefully we can edit all of this stuff.
 
# 2 Trevytrev11 @ 02/23/10 09:31 AM
Glad they added digital faces instead of blanks, but still a little disheartening to go through the first two pages (20 pictures) and see five players who's hats don't match their teams. Obvoiusly not a game killer, but with the technology out there today, this just seems lazy, IMO. It looks at least that they were able to update some pictures to at least last year (Giambi in an A's hat), but like the large numbers, it's not a game killer...just an eye sore.
 
# 3 El_MaYiMbE @ 02/23/10 10:52 AM
2K does such a horrible job its not even funny. I was a diehard MVP player and was reluctant to play MLB 2K6 when there was no other choice. For a long time I defended them once I began playing, probably because that was all I knew.

Once I got over to MLB The Show I look back on 2K series and see how little they try. Giambi in an A's hat!? Really!? It is as simple as going to MLB.com and pulling up Rockies roster and saving the pic and adding it to the game!

Their lack of attentionto detail is the worst part of the game and why they will never be as successful as MLB The Show, or even as MVP was in 3 short years!

The game looks exactly the same as last year and it is just disappointing because every year I hold out that this game will get better, and it doesnt deliver.
 
# 4 firktaf @ 02/23/10 11:01 AM
I haven't gotten through all the pictures yet but where's Carlos Beltran?

 
# 5 duke776 @ 02/23/10 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseball66
On the injured list.
Do they have an injured list in the game? I figured he's just down in Triple A on the default rosters. Same with Edinson Volquez of the reds.

Thanks for these pictures steve
 
# 6 firktaf @ 02/23/10 03:21 PM
Hmm, okay. I knew that he had surgery in early January and should be back for opening day but I didn't think that the shipped rosters(for any game) accounted for injuries like that until roster updates. Good to know.
 
# 7 duke776 @ 02/23/10 06:23 PM
After taking a second look at these, I started cracking up when I saw Carlos Marmol's control rating at 84. As a cub fan, that is the most generous rating I've ever seen. He walked 65 batters, and hit 12 more in 74 innings last year. I know I can edit them, but I just thought this was too funny not to mention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firktaf
but I didn't think that the shipped rosters(for any game) accounted for injuries like that until roster updates. Good to know.
I didn't think they did either, it may be a new thing(or I just haven't noticed).
 
# 8 albsur2003 @ 02/24/10 10:57 AM
I was really excited about this game after playing the demo but some of these ratings are absolutely insane. For the most part they did an OK job though. I understand maybe 2K has taken a certain opinion on a player but some of this stuff is ridiculous. For example:

Ben Zobrist - 76 POWR 84 POWL

yet DAVID WRIGHT - 53 POWR 73 POWL (WTF!!!)

Are you serious?

There were a TON of other ratings that I had issue with but this one was the most glaring.
 
# 9 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 11:41 AM
You are aware David Wright had a terrible season, right?
 
# 10 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 11:43 AM
Also, it's probably correct that Tim Hudson is underrated. He was rated 78 last season and likely lowered to reflect a post-Tommy John drop that never really happened. Off-hand, he should probably be around 80-82.
 
# 11 albsur2003 @ 02/24/10 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashidi
You are aware David Wright had a terrible season, right?
Yeah, it's ONE season. Before that, he averaged 30 HR for the past 3 years I believe. It seems like these guys took they're ratings based off of ONE season. That's a problem. But the ratings are OK. Some of them stood out as crazy to me through.
 
# 12 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albsur2003
Yeah, it's ONE season. Before that, he averaged 30 HR for the past 3 years I believe. It seems like these guys took they're ratings based off of ONE season. That's a problem. But the ratings are OK. Some of them stood out as crazy to me through.
That one season is still the best projector of how a player will perform going forward.

Wright is still 89 overall and a top 5 third baseman even with the power drop. If his power returns, the rating gets updated. It's pretty simple.

Last season he was 96 overall and tied with A-Rod for best 3B in the game. there is simply no way he deserves that coming off the year he did.
 
# 13 Kane182 @ 02/24/10 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashidi
That one season is still the best projector of how a player will perform going forward.
The best projector would be using 3-year season averages.
 
# 14 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane182
The best projector would be using 3-year season averages.
Great idea! That way the entire Mets team can be overrated instead of accurately sucky.

David Wright had 618 plate appearances, and he was healthy for the fast majority of them. Don't make excuses.
 
# 15 Kane182 @ 02/24/10 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashidi
Great idea! That way the entire Mets team can be overrated instead of accurately sucky.

David Wright had 618 plate appearances, and he was healthy for the fast majority of them. Don't make excuses.
I'm not making excuses and I didn't even say his rating was wrong. I'm saying to more accurately portray ratings they should be based on 3-year averages if applicable.

By your theory if Wright was injured all of last season he would have no ratings.
 
# 16 psymin1 @ 02/24/10 04:35 PM
I'll be interested to see if once you put Damon on the Tigers if their hitting OVR doesn't go up, if even a bit. Seems a bit low now...but pretty close.
 
# 17 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 04:36 PM
All we have to do is look to the Mets and see why 3 year averages don't work

Angel Pagan
2007: 745 OPS
2008: 720 OPS
2009: 837 OPS

Jeff Francoeur
2007: 782 OPS
2008: 653 OPS
2009 Braves: 634 OPS
2009 Mets: 836 OPS

You would be crying if these players were rated below their 2009 production. The good has to be taken with the bad. Three years is a VERY long time, and frankly there isn't much relation between a player's 2007 production and what his 2010 production will be.
 
# 18 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane182
I'm not making excuses and I didn't even say his rating was wrong. I'm saying to more accurately portray ratings they should be based on 3-year averages if applicable.

How does 3 years make it "more accurate" praytell? 3 year averages pad the ratings of declining veterans and deflate the ratings of rising stars.

Quote:
By your theory if Wright was injured all of last season he would have no ratings.
Fortunately I'm not an idiot, and would use the previous season's stats.
 
# 19 Kane182 @ 02/24/10 04:43 PM
No I think that perfectly demonstrates why averages would work. Chances are those two players OPS will not be as high next season and they probably won't be as low as the 2 prior seasons.

I'm not a big ratings guy anymore. I have better things to do then debate why someone is a 70 power overall when they should be a 60 ovr. It really doesn't make much of a difference in the long run.
 
# 20 Rashidi @ 02/24/10 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane182
No I think that perfectly demonstrates why averages would work. Chances are those two players OPS will not be as high next season and they probably won't be as low as the 2 prior seasons.
They could just as easily IMPROVE on last season's production.

You do not seem to have a high grasp on the relationship between stats and ability. Players can regress, stay the same, or improve. Pagan and Francouer are not old enough to be regressing - they are still improving their abilities. It is far more likely that they stay the same or improve than it is that they regress.

Angel Pagan showed he is an adequate starting outfielder (at worst a 4th outfielder) last season. Why would his days as a 5th outfielder/AAA player matter?

25 year old Angel Pagan struck out in 20% of his PAs.
26 year old Angel Pagan struck out in 17% of his PAs.
27 year old Angel Pagan struck out in 15% of his PAs.

Do you seriously think 25 year old Pagan's production matters just as much to 28 year old Pagan as his 27 year old production? It is OBVIOUS that his skills have improved over the last 3 years which is why 3 year averages would not be doing him justice.
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.