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

# 101 bcruise @ 02/12/13 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	No. Thats why I asked the question!

The way I see it, setting a potential speed lower than actual accomplishes two things. One, it ensures that you can't increase it through training (since he's already over his potential), and two, indicates the floor that his actual speed can fall to (but won't necessarily, you could probably gain some of it back through training). That's of course assuming this screen isn't early build fodder and it won't actually look like that. Just theoretical.

I'm looking at it as an anti - potential, if you can understand that.

# 102 seanjeezy @ 02/12/13 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curahee


	No. Thats why I asked the question!

Really? So you've never heard of someone getting slower as they get older?

# 103 Curahee @ 02/12/13 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcruise


	The way I see it, setting a potential speed lower than actual accomplishes two things. One, it ensures that you can't increase it through training (since he's already over his potential), and two, indicates the floor that his actual speed can fall to (but won't necessarily, you could probably gain some of it back through training). That's of course assuming this screen isn't early build fodder and it won't actually look like that. Just theoretical. I'm looking at it as an anti - potential, if you can understand that.

Thank you for the intelligent non-condescending response.
THAT makes sense!

# 104 Russell_SCEA @ 02/12/13 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	Hopefully, this bitter memory will drive the dev team to move away from exposing player ratings at all.... player skill are something we estimate from watching them play, see through performance stats, asking scouts, etc., etc., ....

We think it's funny and its not changing. Also OS represents about 5% of the consumer base the 95% will be happy that you can see both now.

# 105 nomo17k @ 02/12/13 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_SCEA


	We think it's funny and is not changing. Also OS represents about 5% of the consumer base the 95% will be happy that you can see both now.

I know that and still said it anyways!

I just think scouting/evaluating players can be a game by itself, in a mode like Franchise mode. No game has ever done this well sufficiently (AFAIK), so the 95% of consumers don't really know how fun that can be. Just my opinion...

# 106 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.

# 107 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...

# 108 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.

# 109 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!

# 110 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.

# 111 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.

# 112 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.

# 113 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.

# 114 zack4070 @ 02/13/13 01:07 AM

I guess if you dont like the ratings you can just edit them yourself

# 115 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

# 116 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.

# 117 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.

# 118 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...

# 119 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.

# 120 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.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 567 8 9…15 16 Next »

More Links

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