MLB 13 The Show News Post

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

01:48 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: 18 - View All

MLB 13 The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 181 Knight165 @ 02/13/13 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	If players do add up to over 99, why not scale the overall to be at a 1-99 scale, where the top rated player (whatever it is, 120, 130 whatever) is 99 and everyone else is lower, instead of displaying everyone at or over 99 as 99. Or am I misunderstanding how the ratings are displayed. So if you have three players 110, 105, 99 the game displays them all as 99?

That's what Ramone is saying...yes.

Actually....guys want there to be more separation...and what SCEA is doing allows for that.
Knocking down others doesn't expand the ratings to allow for more separation between players.

I do understand the confusion however.....

M.K.
Knight165

# 182 SoxFan01605 @ 02/13/13 09:48 PM

Somewhere, deep inside his evil lair, Kolbe is laughing...oh so mockingly.

# 183 Knight165 @ 02/13/13 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoxFan01605


	Somewhere, deep inside his evil lair, Kolbe is laughing...oh so mockingly.

Who?

M.K.
Knight165

# 184 SoxFan01605 @ 02/13/13 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	Who? M.K. Knight165

Just some guy...

# 185 bp4baseball @ 02/13/13 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	That's what Ramone is saying...yes. Actually....guys want there to be more separation...and what SCEA is doing allows for that. Knocking down others doesn't expand the ratings to allow for more separation between players. I do understand the confusion however..... M.K. Knight165

I'm also interpreting that as even if they "would" be rated as a 110 in a certain attribute, the sim engine only recognizes them as a 99.

# 186 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight165


	That's what Ramone is saying...yes. Actually....guys want there to be more separation...and what SCEA is doing allows for that. Knocking down others doesn't expand the ratings to allow for more separation between players. I do understand the confusion however..... M.K. Knight165

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.

# 187 Bbush @ 02/13/13 10:03 PM

I like number ratings

# 188 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/13/13 10:28 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.

# 189 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 10:36 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.

# 190 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 10:47 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.

# 191 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 10:52 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?

# 192 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 10:55 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.

# 193 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 10:58 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?

# 194 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/13/13 11:05 PM

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.

# 195 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 11:09 PM

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.

# 196 Ligeann Dul Coileain @ 02/13/13 11:14 PM

"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.

# 197 Russell_SCEA @ 02/13/13 11:18 PM

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.

# 198 Cavicchi @ 02/13/13 11:25 PM

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.

# 199 keymax @ 02/14/13 12:06 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.

# 200 rjackson @ 02/14/13 04:39 AM

This thread has a few useful nuggets in it.

The rest of it is like a story going like this:

:::::brick wall:::::: brickwall:

« Previous 1 2…8 91011 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

More Links

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