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
# 101 MrOldboy @ 02/12/13 11:38 PM
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.
 
# 102 nomo17k @ 02/12/13 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
...

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.
I'm not preventing Ramone from answering this part but from the posts in the past the park factors are indeed in. It's hard to see the effect (just as they are in real life), but they are part of game when you don't sim. Something like wind effects can be pretty significant as well. The game really does consider a lot of real-life factors. Simming doesn't take into those as far as I know...
 
# 103 vinny_77 @ 02/12/13 11:52 PM
Thanks for the info, Ramone.

To the puppets: try to remember your reaction today and think about it once you've gained some perspective. You've proven to everyone exactly how "mature" you are.
 
# 104 authentic @ 02/12/13 11:56 PM
Interesting stuff. I wasn't aware there was that many highly rated players. Now looking back though, I can see how there was quite a few really overrated players. Good stuff guys, keep the good info coming!
 
# 105 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomo17k
I'm not preventing Ramone from answering this part but from the posts in the past the park factors are indeed in. It's hard to see the effect (just as they are in real life), but they are part of game when you don't sim. Something like wind effects can be pretty significant as well. The game really does consider a lot of real-life factors. Simming doesn't take into those as far as I know...
I think I don't notice it at Wrigley as much because maybe I turn down the wind as I really hate, mostly aesthetically, the way fielders will go into place and then the ball will curve an inordinate amount into their glove. I want to say someone said this was toned down a bit or maybe not. I thought someone talked about the wind in the game. Maybe I should keep it on default or turn it up to see it more as I'd say 30-40% of my games are at Wirgley and the wind would have the largest affect on the park factor their perhaps.

I'll keep an eye out this year playing, its just something I never could really tell because I assume that it doesn't take park factors into account simming. If you play as the Rockies maybe you notice it more.
 
# 106 authentic @ 02/13/13 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonadom
Some people need to keep that in mind while they read and post here..
Ok, yes we represent maybe 5% of the sales for this game, so that means we aren't allowed to post any ideas or suggestions to the dev team? Most of us understand that our ideas are probably not going to be adopted. There are little things we can add, suggest, etc that could possibly help the dev team make a better, deeper game. The whole point of this forum is to voice opinions and talk about video games.
 
# 107 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
I think I don't notice it at Wrigley as much because maybe I turn down the wind as I really hate, mostly aesthetically, the way fielders will go into place and then the ball will curve an inordinate amount into their glove. I want to say someone said this was toned down a bit or maybe not. I thought someone talked about the wind in the game. Maybe I should keep it on default or turn it up to see it more as I'd say 30-40% of my games are at Wirgley and the wind would have the largest affect on the park factor their perhaps.

I'll keep an eye out this year playing, its just something I never could really tell because I assume that it doesn't take park factors into account simming. If you play as the Rockies maybe you notice it more.
There are many who thought wind has been quite strong, but you have a choice of totally turning it off by slider (Wind = 0 means no wind at all).

Again, park factors are definitely in. It may not exactly mimic the real-life stadium effect (it's just the nature of simulation game), but park dimensions, altitude, and weather, etc. are all considered to varying degree. The game even considers player shapes, objects in the stadium and such (to calculate how the ball bounces, etc.)! It is quite an impressive simulation game.

I'm pretty sure that park factors are not considered very rigorously in simmed games... partly because simmed stats don't show strong park effects and also because the game cannot rigorously do it without loading the stadium info which is skipped when simming to save loading time.
 
# 108 MrOldboy @ 02/13/13 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomo17k
There are many who thought wind has been quite strong, but you have a choice of totally turning it off by slider (Wind = 0 means no wind at all).

Again, park factors are definitely in. It may not exactly mimic the real-life stadium effect (it's just the nature of simulation game), but park dimensions, altitude, and weather, etc. are all considered to varying degree. The game even considers player shapes, objects in the stadium and such (to calculate how the ball bounces, etc.)! It is quite an impressive simulation game.

I'm pretty sure that park factors are not considered very rigorously in simmed games... partly because simmed stats don't show strong park effects and also because the game cannot rigorously do it without loading the stadium info which is skipped when simming to save loading time.
Could park factors be taken into account when simming by just giving a boost/minus from player ratings? I'd assume if Coors gave players a small power boost simulated games would result in a higher HR factor over a season maybe.
 
# 109 zack4070 @ 02/13/13 01:07 AM
I guess if you dont like the ratings you can just edit them yourself
 
# 110 BBallcoach @ 02/13/13 01:08 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.
Not sure you understand the concept of ratings. If a guy is a 66 in contact that doesn't mean he'll hit .255 no matter what... Especially in baseball games. Ratings factor in a ton like is it R or L contact for a R or L pitcher who has a dominate FB but a bad changeup, how often does he throw it for strikes and how many balls in play does the batter have vs the change up? there are tons of variables. You see a 66 and expect a .255 hitter I see a 66 and see the possibility of a .270 and up pending on who's around him and who he faces... ratings aren't singular things, they are very fluid in the whole scheme of the game. No to mention if he is a 66 R contact, whats his vision and discipline? If they are high he will bat higher than .255
 
# 111 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrOldboy
Could park factors be taken into account when simming by just giving a boost/minus from player ratings? I'd assume if Coors gave players a small power boost simulated games would result in a higher HR factor over a season maybe.
In theory the game could do such a thing, but I don't see any indication that it does, when I sim a few seasons and take team stats average, etc. I don't see the difference in batting in the Rockies' home vs. away stats, for example.

But even then it would still not be optimal since the park factors *in the game* are different from those of real-life stadiums, because not everything is perfectly replicated (of course!). In such a case, should the game consider real-life or in-game park factors? ... so not taking into account at all may be the best compromise.
 
# 112 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBallcoach
Not sure you understand the concept of ratings. If a guy is a 66 in contact that doesn't mean he'll hit .255 no matter what... Especially in baseball games. Ratings factor in a ton like is it R or L contact for a R or L pitcher who has a dominate FB but a bad changeup, how often does he throw it for strikes and how many balls in play does the batter have vs the change up? there are tons of variables. You see a 66 and expect a .255 hitter I see a 66 and see the possibility of a .270 and up pending on who's around him and who he faces... ratings aren't singular things, they are very fluid in the whole scheme of the game. No to mention if he is a 66 R contact, whats his vision and discipline? If they are high he will bat higher than .255
Right, I'm of course talking about the average after numerous at bats, over which all those external factors themselves are averaged out.
 
# 113 seanjeezy @ 02/13/13 01:58 AM
Here's my argument against visible numerical ratings -

The way I see it, ratings should be an "under the hood" kind of thing... Think of it this way - say you are trailing late and you need a big hit. You have the choice of pinch hitting for a player with 60 contact for a player with 70 contact... Naturally you select player B right? Well what if player A is batting .300 to player B's .250, and you weren't able to see those ratings... what would you do then? What would an actual manager do? Of course he would choose the guy with the better average, and if the ratings were hidden so would everybody else...
 
# 114 nomo17k @ 02/13/13 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanjeezy
Here's my argument against visible numerical ratings -

The way I see it, ratings should be an "under the hood" kind of thing... Think of it this way - say you are trailing late and you need a big hit. You have the choice of pinch hitting for a player with 60 contact for a player with 70 contact... Naturally you select player B right? Well what if player A is batting .300 to player B's .250, and you weren't able to see those ratings... what would you do then? What would an actual manager do? Of course he would choose the guy with the better average, and if the ratings were hidden so would everybody else...
That's when things can be interesting... not just the batting average though that point in that season, but what if player A's career batting average is .240, but that of B is .270?? It really gives much more interesting flavor to strategy aspect of baseball.

In the game, you of course should go with the guy with 70 Contact, given all else equal.


But it's pretty clear that not many guys want to take the game that far and that's understandable. I personally think the Show would be a good one to at least try such a way of obscuring player ratings, given that almost everything else can feel very authentic and realistic. I can solve my own issue by not looking at ratings too much at all myself though. I don't care about OVR and potential and such at all (probably the reason why I play franchise less than other modes), and when I substitute players I just quickly glance at the bar ratings and don't really care +/- 10 ratings differences, haha.
 
# 115 Russell_SCEA @ 02/13/13 03:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanjeezy
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.
Or the scout's report is wrong there is human element in scouting now.
 
# 116 Russell_SCEA @ 02/13/13 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportsGamingBlake
Man, 17 players rated 99 seems like a lot to me. And to think that they originally had 44!?

Since this is my first year playing The Show, I'm used to having like 3 or 4 99's.

But I 100% trust the SCEA team and have complete faith in them that they will always give us a great game no matter what they do. So I try to keep my mouth shut and let them do their thing and know that I will get an excellent baseball sim on March 5th.
There are about 1,280 players in the MLB the game has chosen 17 of them to be 99 overall. That's less than 2% of the entire league that are considered the elite of the elite.
 
# 117 rjackson @ 02/13/13 04:38 AM
I just think tha a lot of people are not really getting the concept of the overall rating. Let me try to reiterate it in another way and maybe 1 or 2 people (that's probably it) will get it and stop with the absurdity.

Miguel Cabrera is atrocious when he is manning 3B. If anyone not named Konerko can drag a decent bunt in his direction, he'll probably get on base. He is also one of the best hitters in the game. Somebody who plays terrific defense is more valuable to a baseball team up the middle and Cabrera types are more valuable providing their offense from 3B and getting less balls hit in their direction.

The overall potential just tries to reflect that. That's it. If you kept all else equal and changed Cabrera to a SS, you'd see the overall drop.

I'm sure that you can find some darn good parts for your team if you don't focus on the overall. Having the right bench parts and plattoons is what makes a good team great.
 
# 118 keymax @ 02/13/13 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjackson
I just think tha a lot of people are not really getting the concept of the overall rating. Let me try to reiterate it in another way and maybe 1 or 2 people (that's probably it) will get it and stop with the absurdity.

Miguel Cabrera is atrocious when he is manning 3B. If anyone not named Konerko can drag a decent bunt in his direction, he'll probably get on base. He is also one of the best hitters in the game. Somebody who plays terrific defense is more valuable to a baseball team up the middle and Cabrera types are more valuable providing offense and getting less balls hit in their direction.

The overall potential just tries to reflect that. That's it. I'm sure that you can find some darn good parts for your team if you don't focus on the overall strictly.
Exactly. Just remember everyone that we had the overall bar in previous versions too and it actually means very little.
For example Rollins and Victorino had the equivalent of a 99(or close to that(rating but as hitters they were average at best. JJ Hardy is one of the best hitters at SS in the game and a sound defender he just lacks speed that drags down his overall rating. I would take Hardy over Rollins any day of the week on my team.

So the OVR rating is pretty much meaningless without looking into other attributes. It's just an arbitrary number assigned to specific attributes the game deems important for a position.
 
# 119 Curahee @ 02/13/13 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA
Or the scout's report is wrong there is human element in scouting now.
Not to mention some people's responses.
 
# 120 SA1NT401 @ 02/13/13 09:43 AM
Just edit the players yourself if you feel the ratings are inflated. By the time I get my hands on this gem, there will only be 2 99s in the game....ability to edit ratings in or out of franchise mode is priceless.
 


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