Home
MLB 13 The Show News Post


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: 34 - View All
MLB 13 The Show Videos
Member Comments
# 181 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/13/13 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
Why does knocking down the ratings not do that for the players rated over 99? It wouldn't help for those rated below, in fact it would cause less separation for lower rated players if you scale it.

For instance if three players are rated 120, 110 and 99 the end user doesn't see this and doesn't know if the game rates one SS at 99 more than another at 99, even if one is 120 and one is 110 according to the game. To the player they are the same overall since they can't see what's under the hood.

If the game does think one player is better 120 vs 110, why not show this to the end user. So if 120 was the best player in the league it would be 99, 97, 95 or something for those three players. If its going to be there as a number, why not give the user this info? It does cause lower rated players to have less separation though if you scale it since its only an issue with players rated over 99. its just maybe people would be more accepting of the numbers on overall if all the top guys were not rated 99.
If I'm understanding everything correctly the reason that 120 and 110 overalls aren't displayed even though they exist is because you can look at the ratings of each individual attribute to decide whether the 120 overall player or the 110 overall player would be a better fit for what you want. So you don't really need to rely on the overall.

I understand what you're saying. It would make sense to have only the best be a 99 and have everyone else scale downward, but since you don't need any attribute to be a 99 just to be a 99 overall I think that the importance of the overall is really limited. It's nice to get a quick snapshot view of the value of a player at a position, but it doesn't (and shouldn't) tell you everything that you need to know about that player.

Suppose I want to upgrade at second base and would like to get more power in my lineup at the same time while I'm already good with team defense. Defense is probably rated as higher importance in the algorithm that decides Overall when compared to power for a second baseman. So I may end up wanting a secondbaseman with a lower Overall score, but who hits for more power and therefore has a higher Power rating.

I could trade for second baseman with the higher Overall, but he may turn out to not be a good fit for me at all. So since Overall is really essentially unimportant I think that it's acceptable for players to have higher than 99 overalls possible. It's the individual attributes that affect what happens on the field.

....If individual attributes could be above 99, on the other hand, I would view that as a bigger issue. Overalls over 99 mean nothing.
 
# 182 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:36 PM
But the overall number is there and its a number now so to someone who does not know what is going on behind the scenes, or that its relative by position a 99 means 99. They might see a 99 shortstop as being as good as another 99 shortstop since that is what the game is showing them. We on OS know these things and can understand what the ratings really mean and can interpret for ourselves. Maybe we want a more defensive SS over an offensive one. That's why some have said the numbers do more harm than good. I honestly have no strong feelings about the numbers, I'd actually say I like them being there than not. But I understand the issues people are having with seeing players being 99. Since I use edited rosters and then edit them further myself the overall numbers don't really bother me that much. But for someone who uses only the official ones I can see the issues.
 
# 183 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 11:47 PM
On the issue of limiting OVR to 99 for those who actually are computed to be above 99, it wouldn't be that much of an issue if it's just being displayed at 99 (due to the limited screen real estate, for example), but if the franchise game engine is actually seeing the players with 99 OVR as all equally rated, having too many 99 OVR may become an issue.

For the sake of argument, Verlander and Strasburg both are 99 OVR, but really the formula give Verlander to be 120 and Strasburg 101. Then Verlander should be much more valuable thatn Strasburg, when trading or determining player salaries. But if they are maxed out, then the game has no choice to value them equally, which could make some funny things happen if there are too many 99 OVRs.

Some part of the game appears to depend a lot on OVR ratings (player movements). So in general it's better for a rating system to *not* have too many players clustered around the maximum value... the very highest value should be reserved for the really the leading player among the group of players in the game.
 
# 184 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomo17k
On the issue of limiting OVR to 99 for those who actually are computed to be above 99, it wouldn't be that much of an issue if it's just being displayed at 99 (due to the limited screen real estate, for example), but if the franchise game engine is actually seeing the players with 99 OVR as all equally rated, having too many 99 OVR may become an issue.

For the sake of argument, Verlander and Strasburg both are 99 OVR, but really the formula give Verlander to be 120 and Strasburg 101. Then Verlander should be much more valuable thatn Strasburg, when trading or determining player salaries. But if they are maxed out, then the game has no choice to value them equally, which could make some funny things happen if there are too many 99 OVRs.

Some part of the game appears to depend a lot on OVR ratings (player movements). So in general it's better for a rating system to *not* have too many players clustered around the maximum value... the very highest value should be reserved for the really the leading player among the group of players in the game.
That is part of what I am curious about. Does the game take its hidden overall rating into account at all? Or is 99 the max it considers? Or does overall never come into play and it only uses the individual ratings?
 
# 185 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
That is part of what I am curious about. Does the game take its hidden overall rating into account at all? Or is 99 the max it considers? Or does overall never come into play and it only uses the individual ratings?
For regular player attributes (like Contact, K/9, etc.), it's ceiled at the max value (what you see in the game is what you get...). Don't know about OVR.
 
# 186 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomo17k
For regular player attributes (like Contact, K/9, etc.), it's ceiled at the max value (what you see in the game is what you get...). Don't know about OVR.
I'd like to know if overall does come into play in contracts, trades, etc. Maybe someone can answer?
 
# 187 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/14/13 12:05 AM
Being tied into sallary and player movement is something I'll admit I hadn't taken into consideration. Though even there I don't think that it's too big of an issue because once you get into that tier of players you're already talking about people who are incredibly valuable as far as trade value whether they are a 120 or a 101. But I do see the point about how Overall does indeed have an effect on some aspects of the game's logic.

I agree that it would make better sense to reserve 99 as the highest that it can go, but I'm imagining that that would involve some pretty big changes to the weight given to attributes at a position which could in turn lower everyone else's negatively and create problems on the lower end of the scale as well.

I admit that I know nothing about how the ratings system works, but it sounds like progress is being made if nearly 30 players got moved out of that 99 range from last year's game to this year's.

I didn't notice too many problems with all of the full bars present last year (I actually had no idea that there were over 40 of them) so I highly doubt that the way I play I'll notice any problems from having fewer people ranked as highly as possible. I do understand the concern for people who think it may effect them though, I just don't particularly share in those concerns too much.
 
# 188 nomo17k @ 02/14/13 12:09 AM
I'm not really "concerned" though... it's just a word usage and I just enjoy discussing the game and how things work, so I'm just presenting an argument. As I wrote before, I don't really play the game looking at ratings too meticulously, especially OVR.
 
# 189 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/14/13 12:14 AM
"Concern" maybe wasn't the right word, but it is a valid point that I hadn't really considered before. I'd be interested to know whether the in-game logic considers the difference between players over 99 or not.
 
# 190 Russell_SCEA @ 02/14/13 12:18 AM
Some of you guys can make a Mountain out of a mole Hill in a heart beat. The game only sees 99 the guys who are rated higher than that. The number only shows up in our Excel files not the game.
 
# 191 Cavicchi @ 02/14/13 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA
Some of you guys can make a Mountain out of a mole Hill in a heart beat. The game only sees 99 the guys who are rated higher than that. The number only shows up in our Excel files not the game.
If you don't mind my asking, what is Kershaw's Excel rating? I'm just curious.
 
# 192 keymax @ 02/14/13 01:06 AM
I mentioned it before. But don't get too caught up in player overalls. Jimmy Rollins has a far better OVR rating than JJ Hardy. But Hardy clearly performs better at the plate.
It's just a number and it's not nearly as meaningful as in other games.

I would prefer getting rid of an overall rating altogether but I guess I'm in the minority here.
 
# 193 rjackson @ 02/14/13 05:39 AM
This thread has a few useful nuggets in it.

The rest of it is like a story going like this:
  1. :::::brick wall:::::: brickwall:
 
# 194 mmorg @ 02/14/13 06:46 AM
Did anybody ever complain about "too many full red bar players" in previous years?
 
# 195 BrandH @ 02/14/13 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeybird86
Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.
The ratings aren't based off of just last year. Pujols has been doing it better and longer than Votto.
 
# 196 thaSLAB @ 02/14/13 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeybird86
Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.
Nice. Hopefully they can adjust his rating in the first roster update... maybe to, I don't know, around a 93? He did miss 50 games after all, so his durability is probably too high...
 
# 197 MLB Bob @ 02/14/13 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeybird86
Do you people watch baseball at all? How is Votto not a 99 but Pujols is? What was Pujols BA last year? .285? What was Votto's? Oh yeah .337. How about OBP? Votto lead the leauge with .474. Pujols? .343. He barely got on base as well as Votto hit. Votto's WAR was a win higher, and he missed 50 games. Idiots.
Wow awesome way to make your point, that swayed my opinion...thumbs up Im glad you set us all straight.

It might be that in the Algorithm takes into account a lot of things, like Pujols much better K% and typically better power numbers, less games missed, better ISO. other than one great year, Pujols matched or did better than Votto over the last 3 years, and that was 2010...there are legitimate reasons...and hey feel free to rerate your favorite guy to what you want...

Just checking the stats I checked Pujols contact% compared to Votto...since they use contact as a rating and not AVG..Pujols blows Votto away..Guessing 1 basemen are ranked by Power first, other batting stats second with durability, arm and defense being last...Votto maybe becoming the better all round player but the stuff that is being considered more heavily, Pujols pretty much wins it..
 
# 198 SoxFan01605 @ 02/14/13 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmorg
Did anybody ever complain about "too many full red bar players" in previous years?
Yes, although the argument came in a slightly different form ("why is Adrian Gonzalez rated the same as Pujols!?!"- this from 09 or 10, I believe, with Ramone having to explain that 2 players with a full bar aren't necessarily equal). It's far worse now though, simply because people have harder "proof" that ratings are "wrong."

Personally, I've never cared about the overall number. My question is "do the ratings translate well on the field and in simulation?" If the answer is yes, a game can rate them in roman numerals for all I care. All I know is that Votto, Pujols, Trout, et al. will likely put up numbers pretty damn comparable to real life...I have several years of this game's history to back me up on that.
 
# 199 3fiddy @ 02/14/13 12:58 PM
I like the number ratings , it saves time comparing bars (analog to digital ) comes to mind. Lets face it guys we don't keep the ratings they give us anyway (OSFM). So I'm not looking too deep into the overalls. They will change when Knight and crew are finished. I heard the ratings guy for madden talking one time ab how he had to paint a picture of the league with the ratings. Would anyone select Colorado for a franchise besides the diehard Rockie fans ?? Would you if you had 2-99s to trade away for prospects ?? Plus they got a 2 in 25 shot at winning an Exhibition game. That's how I make my peace.

We don't know how to calculate overall yet
So and so is better
Well my team will be centered around power , defense , and young pitching Knights gonna get us a good roster and figure out the bs in between
 
# 200 MLB Bob @ 02/14/13 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeybird86
You're right. Who cares about things like OBP and AVG when we can look at contact %. Votto has one of the best line drive percentages in the game. He was on pace to demolish the doubles record before he got injured. He hits the ball "dead on" better. Yeah, Pujols hits more HRs, whoop de doo. How did those Angels do last year with all those HR's? Oh yeah, couldn't even make the playoffs.
No one said OBP and AVG isnt important, but where is the AVG attribute? or the OBP attribute...did I miss it? I know theres a contact attribute so logically youd use that..no? 1B is a power position so yes HRs are a big deal. And so what if Votto was on PACE for a doubles record..he got hurt and didnt..cant rewrite history or say that anything is for sure...and one player doesnt make a team. Votto got it a lot...A LOT easier with Pujols out of the division and is playing against better teams on a more consistent basis so no need to compare...but if you want to live in the fantasy world that a video game should rate players only on the cherry picked stats for your favorite player thats fine..the rest of us use perspective and allow a little leeway..cause its a video game..that can be edited. Cherrio mate
 


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