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
# 221 TrainerMatt21 @ 02/21/13 10:03 PM
Happy Dusty got some love at 2nd base, guy tears his body up every year with how hard he plays (still only active 2nd baseman with an MVP I think). When Cano plays to his potential, no better combination of offense/defense in the middle infield, but yes, Votto needs some more love.

Don't care about the actual numbers, but when comparing him to others at the same position, probably the best out there. I enjoy seeing how these ratings translate to actual gameplay and appreciate the "taste," thank you Ramone.
 
# 222 vinny_77 @ 02/21/13 11:15 PM
Does a higher rating necessarily mean superiority? The best measure of a hitter that we have IMHO is OBP and SLG, with OBP being about 3 times more important than SLG. By which, Votto is a superior hitter. His stats over the last 2 seasons OBP/ SLG 474/567 and 416/531 respectively. While Pujols had 343/516 and 366/541 respectively. Clearly, Votto is the superior hitter, but Pujols had the best start to a career in history. Isn't it enough to acknowledge that they're both great baseball players? This new ratings system doesn't effect gameplay at all.
 
# 223 MrOldboy @ 02/22/13 12:14 AM
Messing around with the ratings in MLB 12 since I was curious how players could be ranked in the manage roster menu if they were the same rating.

So we already know that the game doesn't differentiate between players rated at max, 99. It considers all 99's the same as far as I can tell. A 99 with all 90 ratings is the same as all 99 ratings.

It sorts by alphabetical order of last name. And for some reason lowercase letters are after all uppercase ones so Z is before a.

Probably already known, but I was just curious to see how it would rank them since I thought maybe something else could determine the displayed ranking like potential, age, or position.
 
# 224 nomo17k @ 02/22/13 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
Messing around with the ratings in MLB 12 since I was curious how players could be ranked in the manage roster menu if they were the same rating.

So we already know that the game doesn't differentiate between players rated at max, 99. It considers all 99's the same as far as I can tell. A 99 with all 90 ratings is the same as all 99 ratings.

It sorts by alphabetical order of last name. And for some reason lowercase letters are after all uppercase ones so Z is before a.

Probably already known, but I was just curious to see how it would rank them since I thought maybe something else could determine the displayed ranking like potential, age, or position.

'Z' is before 'a' because computer tends to sort characters by their ASCII codes (90 for Z and 97 for a), so they are likely simply sorted by player names when they have the same OVR.

Perhaps the similar reason is why catchers with 1.000 fielding percentage tend to win Gold Glove when they belong to the AL/NL East division... the game is sorting players by the team they belong when several players are tied for the award selection.
 
# 225 DanH35 @ 02/22/13 08:04 AM
When you are comparing Votto and Pujols, are you taking into account where they play most of their games? According to the 2012 park factors, Cincinnati is the 8th best hitters park, Anaheim is 27th. In 2011, Cincinnati was 8th, and St. Louis was 25th. It might not make up the whole difference, but it does factor in their performances.
 
# 226 Cavicchi @ 02/22/13 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolpete
Strasburg (a starting pitcher) has pitched 250 innings in his career and he is a 99 OVR.

What are the odds the Reds are overrated and come away with an overrated minor league system?

There is no team in sports who has had a more over-rated farm system than the Reds traditionally. On the 2k12 re-rate they are a 98 overall. I still remember their crowded outfield of Wily Mo Pena and Joanna Kearns.
Yes, that one also bugs me. Strasburg has not had one season of 200+ innings and a sub 3.00 ERA. Last season, he finished poorly. While he may do it this year, we still do not know for certain.
 
# 227 MrOldboy @ 02/22/13 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH35
When you are comparing Votto and Pujols, are you taking into account where they play most of their games? According to the 2012 park factors, Cincinnati is the 8th best hitters park, Anaheim is 27th. In 2011, Cincinnati was 8th, and St. Louis was 25th. It might not make up the whole difference, but it does factor in their performances.
Votto actually has hit better on the road during his career. He has hit a few more HRs at home overall though. But he actually hit more HRs away during his big 2010 and 11 years and overall hit better on the road even with his favorable home park factor.

Pujols has a fairly varied home away split, but its hard to say if he hit better at home or away. He hit more home runs away, but drove in more runs, had more doubles (probably due to the less HRs) and had a higher OBP at home.

Overall their splits are not wildly different, but you can see some things that make sense. Like Pujols having more doubles at home but more HRs away.
 
# 228 sink4ever @ 02/22/13 10:48 AM
So here's the thing for the people complaining about who does/doesn't have a 99 overall. If the game ships and you buy it and sim/play a season and that player's stats are spot-on, does it really matter if they're rated higher/lower than another player? It's really just a number. As long as the game plays/sims correctly, is there really any reason to get all upset about it?
 
# 229 pistolpete @ 02/22/13 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sink4ever
So here's the thing for the people complaining about who does/doesn't have a 99 overall. If the game ships and you buy it and sim/play a season and that player's stats are spot-on, does it really matter if they're rated higher/lower than another player?
Correct, but it looks silly.
 
# 230 MrOldboy @ 02/23/13 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sink4ever
So here's the thing for the people complaining about who does/doesn't have a 99 overall. If the game ships and you buy it and sim/play a season and that player's stats are spot-on, does it really matter if they're rated higher/lower than another player? It's really just a number. As long as the game plays/sims correctly, is there really any reason to get all upset about it?
I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats. They see Strasburg at 99 and expect him to have 99 type stats, like a pitcher like Verlander who is also 99. It brings about comparisons when players max out at 99 like this I can understand why people would feel that way.

Is it not understandable that a person would be upset about Chapman and Strasburg being 99 and potentially having 99 type stats when they do not believe they will have those type of stats this season? Its a thread on a forum dedicated to a sports game, this is what people want to argue about so what's the harm in letting them do so?
 
# 231 Knight165 @ 02/23/13 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats. They see Strasburg at 99 and expect him to have 99 type stats, like a pitcher like Verlander who is also 99. It brings about comparisons when players max out at 99 like this I can understand why people would feel that way.

Is it not understandable that a person would be upset about Chapman and Strasburg being 99 and potentially having 99 type stats when they do not believe they will have those type of stats this season? Its a thread on a forum dedicated to a sports game, this is what people want to argue about so what's the harm in letting them do so?

OMG numbered ratings need to go away.

M.K.
Knight165
 
# 232 cavs25 @ 02/23/13 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats. They see Strasburg at 99 and expect him to have 99 type stats, like a pitcher like Verlander who is also 99. It brings about comparisons when players max out at 99 like this I can understand why people would feel that way.

Is it not understandable that a person would be upset about Chapman and Strasburg being 99 and potentially having 99 type stats when they do not believe they will have those type of stats this season? Its a thread on a forum dedicated to a sports game, this is what people want to argue about so what's the harm in letting them do so?
You have been complaining every year right?
 
# 233 MrOldboy @ 02/23/13 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavs25
You have been complaining every year right?
This wasn't a complaint. I don't really care about the number ratings since they will be heavily edited by me or other roster makers before I go into any mode. But looking at the posts in this thread I completely understand why everyone has arguments one way or the other. People feared the number ratings would cause this and I think people should understand that some people care about them and its not like those people have no reason to care about the ratings. They will affect online play, that should be noted so for those into online modes the ratings matter.
 
# 234 Knight165 @ 02/23/13 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
This wasn't a complaint. I don't really care about the number ratings since they will be heavily edited by me or other roster makers before I go into any mode. But looking at the posts in this thread I completely understand why everyone has arguments one way or the other. People feared the number ratings would cause this and I think people should understand that some people care about them and its not like those people have no reason to care about the ratings. They will affect online play, that should be noted so for those into online modes the ratings matter.
I'm not saying you were complaining.
I also agree about editing.

M.K.
Knight165
 
# 235 Qb @ 02/23/13 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats.
This is FALSE. The overall rating does not affect simulated stats or player performance during gameplay.
 
# 236 MrOldboy @ 02/23/13 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qb
This is FALSE. The overall rating does not affect simulated stats or player performance during gameplay.
How? If Strasburg was a 97 and had a slightly lower H/9 and slightly less movement on his 2-seam FB would he sim the same and perform the same in games? Just an example, but aren't the overalls based on the player's individual ratings? Or are they arbitrarily given to players?
 
# 237 Knight165 @ 02/23/13 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
How? If Strasburg was a 97 and had a slightly lower H/9 and slightly less movement on his 2-seam FB would he sim the same and perform the same in games? Just an example, but aren't the overalls based on the player's individual ratings? Or are they arbitrarily given to players?
They are not arbitrary...but they do not effect gameplay or simmed stats directly.
They are simply a cumulative # of all the ratings tied together.....
A player with a 80/80 contact and 85/85 power can be an 95 and so can a player who is 98/96 contact and 75/75 power....and so is a player who is 94/92 contact 98 speed and 97/95 fielding stats.
Also 99 is NOT the top rating...it's just the highest DISPLAYED rating. Players can be 110 or higher(not sure what the actual top is if a player is 99 across the board.)

M.K.
Knight165
 
# 238 MrOldboy @ 02/23/13 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight165
They are not arbitrary...but they do not effect gameplay or simmed stats directly.
They are simply a cumulative # of all the ratings tied together.....
A player with a 80/80 contact and 85/85 power can be an 95 and so can a player who is 98/96 contact and 75/75 power....and so is a player who is 94/92 contact 98 speed and 97/95 fielding stats.
Also 99 is NOT the top rating...it's just the highest DISPLAYED rating. Players can be 110 or higher(not sure what the actual top is if a player is 99 across the board.)

M.K.
Knight165
That was what I thought. The overall does not affect ratings, but it does represent the individual ratings. So Strasburg or someone else has a 99 for a reason, that reason being they have high ratings. Those ratings do affect sim and gameplay.

The top rating thing is an issue, I still think it should be scaled to the top rated player. Since Verlander might come out to be a 120 and Strasburg is just a 100, the player will never know this. I think they should know this somehow.
 
# 239 BatsareBugs @ 02/23/13 12:20 PM
Overall ratings need to go, let's just have a 20-80 scale for hitting, fielding, power, speed, and arm for position players and stamina, control, individual pitch grades, etc. for pitchers.

On a more serious note, I don't find a problem with the ratings, it's just that if you did have a well-balanced pitcher or position player, let's say 70's across the board, they'll easily get close to that 99 or A+ rating without really having an outstanding tool. I recall I reached max overall in RTTS with none of my rating grades as a C, so yes, players can have ratings that push them above 99 that the game can't reflect. I don't see what's wrong with it, some players now are just as good as HOF'ers of the past, maybe not for their career.
 
# 240 pistolpete @ 02/23/13 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonadom
Why ? The Show's overall player rating is not a simple average of the player's attribute ratings. It's not silly. It's just different.
It's kind of like a class in college. How are we to differentiate from a student who really excels to a student who is pretty good if any reasonable effort results in an A.

Is Stephen Strasburg as good Justin Verlander? No.

What probably happened is they ran their algorithm and these guys didn't come in as 99s, but guys like Verlander and Braun probably came in as 110s, but since the ratings go only up to 99 they are lumped in with Strasburg and Carlos Gonzalez.

I have always felt statistically the Show has had an amazing stat engine, and I am 100% certain they didn't screw it up.

It just feels like Paula Abdul on American Idol loving everyone.

*What would be cool is if they didn't cap OVR and if someone's skill set is so complete that they come in at a 120 then they come in at 120.
 


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