Home
MLB 13 The Show News Post


Thanks to chrisjohnson83 (who has already confirmed his legit copy of the game with me), we have screenshots of the overall team ratings for MLB 13 The Show. This includes batting, pitching and defensive team ratings.

The ratings are accurate as of the January 24th roster update, so there will probably be subtle changes before release date on March 5th.

Overall Team Rating
  • 1. Detroit Tigers
  • 2. St. Louis Cardinals
  • 3. Boston Red Sox
  • 4. Los Angeles Angels
  • 5. Toronto Blue Jays
  • 6. Texas Rangers
  • 7. Washington Nationals
  • 8. Atlanta Braves
  • 9. Cincinnati Reds
  • 10. Philadelphia Phillies
  • 11. New York Yankees
  • 12. Los Angeles Dodgers
  • 13. Colorado Rockies
  • 14. Chicago White Sox
  • 15. Arizona Diamondbacks
  • 16. Tampa Bay Rays
  • 17. San Francisco Giants
  • 18. Oakland Athletics
  • 19. Kansas City Royals
  • 20. Milwaukee Brewers
  • 21. Baltimore Orioles
  • 22. Pittsburgh Pirates
  • 23. Seattle Mariners
  • 24. Cleveland Indians
  • 25. San Diego Padres
  • 26. Minnesota Twins
  • 27. Chicago Cubs
  • 28. New York Mets
  • 29. Miami Marlins
  • 30. Houston Astros
Team Batting
  • 1. Detroit Tigers
  • 2. Los Angeles Angels
  • 3. Colorado Rockies
  • 4. Boston Red Sox
  • 5. Texas Rangers
  • 6. Toronto Blue Jays
  • 7. Cincinnati Reds
  • 8. St. Louis Cardinals
  • 9. Washington Nationals
  • 10. Los Angeles Dodgers
  • 11. New York Yankees
  • 12. Atlanta Braves
  • 13. Philadelphia Phillies
  • 14. Milwaukee Brewers
  • 15. Baltimore Orioles
  • 16. Arizona Diamondbacks
  • 17. Chicago White Sox
  • 18. Kansas City Royals
  • 19. Oakland Athletics
  • 20. Pittsburgh Pirates
  • 21. Cleveland Indians
  • 22. San Francisco Giants
  • 23. Seattle Mariners
  • 24. Tampa Bay Rays
  • 25. Miami Marlins
  • 26. New York Mets
  • 27. San Diego Padres
  • 28. Minnesota Twins
  • 29. Chicago Cubs
  • 30. Houston Astros
Team Pitching
  • 1. Philadelphia Phillies
  • 2. Washington Nationals
  • 3. Atlanta Braves
  • 4. St. Louis Cardinals
  • 5. Tampa Bay Rays
  • 6. New York Yankees
  • 7. Toronto Blue Jays
  • 8. Los Angeles Dodgers
  • 9. San Francisco Giants
  • 10. Boston Red Sox
  • 11. Cincinnati Reds
  • 12. Texas Rangers
  • 13. Detroit Tigers
  • 14. Los Angeles Angels
  • 15. Arizona Diamondbacks
  • 16. Oakland Athletics
  • 17. Chicago White Sox
  • 18. Kansas City Royals
  • 19. San Diego Padres
  • 20. Seattle Mariners
  • 21. Cleveland Indians
  • 22. Pittsburgh Pirates
  • 23. Colorado Rockies
  • 24. Milwaukee Brewers
  • 25. Baltimore Orioles
  • 26. Chicago Cubs
  • 27. Minnesota Twins
  • 28. New York Mets
  • 29. Houston Astros
  • 30. Miami Marlins
Team Defense
  • 1. New York Yankees
  • 2. Los Angeles Dodgers
  • 3. Los Angeles Angels
  • 4. Tampa Bay Rays
  • 5. Cincinnati Reds
  • 6. Philadelphia Phillies
  • 7. Atlanta Braves
  • 8. Chicago Cubs
  • 9. Baltimore Orioles
  • 10. San Francisco Giants
  • 11. Texas Rangers
  • 12. Washington Nationals
  • 13. Colorado Rockies
  • 14. St. Louis Cardinals
  • 15. Boston Red Sox
  • 16. Kansas City Royals
  • 17. Arizona Diamondbacks
  • 18. San Diego Padres
  • 19. Detroit Tigers
  • 20. Houston Astros
  • 21. Pittsburgh Pirates
  • 22. Cleveland Indians
  • 23. Seattle Mariners
  • 24. Oakland Athletics
  • 25. Miami Marlins
  • 26. Toronto Blue Jays
  • 27. Minnesota Twins
  • 28. Milwaukee Brewers
  • 29. Chicago White Sox
  • 30. New York Mets

MLB 13 The Show screenshot gallery - Click to view MLB 13 The Show screenshot gallery - Click to view
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
# 341 HustlinOwl @ 02/27/13 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsfan31
I'd switch the Blue Jays and Red Sox.
at MLB level maybe, but these represent the entire organization including minor league players
 
# 342 cardinalbird7 @ 02/27/13 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdubz91
So this is your logic for 2010 and 2012, where they had the same dominant pitching staff, and won the world series? Give me a break. The Giants pitching staff which has stayed pretty much the same since 2010, won them the world series (with some timely hitting of course). Never discount the value of playing together as a team in any sport.
Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though.

Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.
 
# 343 bdubz91 @ 02/27/13 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though.

Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.
But i thought the Tigers had more talented players going into the world series than the Giants? Isn't that why they were the heavy favorites? You should just change your argument to "they were lucky". That's what most of the Giants haters say. Yeah luck will totally win you two world series in three years, fools. Good pitching, defense, and team chemistry in the playoffs won the world series.
 
# 344 cardinalbird7 @ 02/27/13 07:43 PM
I don't get what you are saying? All I said was Team Chemistry was not the reason the Giants won. You are putting words into my mouth as if I am saying the Giants were lucky and did not deserve it. They were a good team that got hot at the right time. It has nothing to do with team chemistry... give me a break. It just so happens when teams are winning they can come up with these antics or pre-game rituals. However if you are never winning then things like this never come up.

In fact...enlighten me. Give me an example of their team chemistry and how that transitioned onto the field? I love listening to cliches in every sports. Are you trying to tell me the Reds, Cardinals, and Tigers did not have team Chemistry and that the players hated each other or did not get along with one another?

Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?
 
# 345 bkrich83 @ 02/27/13 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?
Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that.

The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.
 
# 346 bautistabomb @ 02/27/13 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that.

The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.
Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.
 
# 347 bkrich83 @ 02/28/13 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bautistabomb
Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.
As I've said, I've heard and talked to way too many people who know way more about it than anyone here dispute that. Tough to quantify yes, but a factor without a doubt.

80's A's team was also managed by someone who was a master of managing personalities and players. Of all the people in that organization I've known, never really heard about in team hatred.

You obviously have to have talent to be succesful, but it's not the only thing required. If it was, the teams the list of World Series winning teams would look a lot different than it does today.
 
# 348 Dannyc @ 02/28/13 09:57 PM
PECOTA projected the Mets for 80 wins this season, they aren't that bad.
 
# 349 ParisB @ 03/01/13 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyc
PECOTA projected the Mets for 80 wins this season, they aren't that bad.
Yes they are. In fact, that seems generous.
 
# 350 cardinalbird7 @ 03/01/13 04:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkrich83
As I've said, I've heard and talked to way too many people who know way more about it than anyone here dispute that. Tough to quantify yes, but a factor without a doubt.

80's A's team was also managed by someone who was a master of managing personalities and players. Of all the people in that organization I've known, never really heard about in team hatred.

You obviously have to have talent to be succesful, but it's not the only thing required. If it was, the teams the list of World Series winning teams would look a lot different than it does today.
Sure it helps, but my point was that you are not going to win a World Series based on team chemistry alone. For all we know the team with the best team chemistry could have been the Royals or Twins or someone bad. We only know so much and as much as the camera's and media shows us. I remember the Cards won a WS in 06 with an above average team ,if that, while Rolen and LaRussa hated one another. Instead people labeled us as "lucky" more than anything, which may be true to an extent, but we were also just a team that got healthy at that right time.

It isn't really a competitive advantage in baseball. I also don't see how in the world they would implement a team chemistry rating into a baseball game besides giving every player an attribute increase, which I would hate to see. It'd be a silly rating they gave too mediocre teams that usually played above their heads and stats would suggest otherwise aka teams such as the Orioles and Giants.

I just hate when people say cliches such as "They won because they have heart!" or "They won because of their team chemistry" when in reality that had very little to do with it. Sure I said the same things when I was a 14 year old, but to believe those apply to MLB is really pushing it.
 
# 351 MrOldboy @ 03/01/13 07:13 AM
If the ratings are based off of the entire organization that should change. It should represent the players on the 25 man roster. The only time I can really see the overall team ratings come into play is online as I'm sure some people base their decision on this, or base their opinion of opponents off of this. "Yeah, great, nice job picking the Tigers everytime." People who know won't care, but those who don't and think its based off of the 25 man roster might. I actually thought that they were based off of the 25 man roster until this thread.
 
# 352 cardinalbird7 @ 03/01/13 11:17 AM
Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.
 
# 353 HustlinOwl @ 03/01/13 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.
fake minors with default rosters
 
# 354 MrOldboy @ 03/01/13 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.
But its not top prospects, its every player in the system.
 
# 355 Cavicchi @ 03/01/13 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HustlinOwl
fake minors with default rosters
So the fake minors don't have fake players to mimic the real player?
 
# 356 HustlinOwl @ 03/01/13 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavicchi
So the fake minors don't have fake players to mimic the real player?
nope, wait for OSFM
 
# 357 Steve40 @ 03/01/13 12:53 PM
A better overall ranking of the teams IMO as of March 1st.
1. Nationals
2. Angels
3. Tigers
4. Blue Jays
5. Dodgers
6. Yankees
7. Cardinals
8. Reds
9. Rays
10. Rangers
11. Giants
12. Braves
13. Red Sox
14. Phillies
15. A's
16. Orioles
17. Diamondbacks
18. Royals
19. Brewers
20. White Sox
21. Pirates
22. Indians
23. Mariners
24. Rockies
25. Padres
26. Cubs
27. Twins
28. Mets
29. Marlins
30. Astros
 
# 358 cardinalbird7 @ 03/01/13 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40
A better overall ranking of the teams IMO as of March 1st.
1. Nationals
2. Angels
3. Tigers
4. Blue Jays
5. Dodgers
6. Yankees
7. Cardinals
8. Reds
9. Rays
10. Rangers
11. Giants
12. Braves
13. Red Sox
14. Phillies
15. A's
16. Orioles
17. Diamondbacks
18. Royals
19. Brewers
20. White Sox
21. Pirates
22. Indians
23. Mariners
24. Rockies
25. Padres
26. Cubs
27. Twins
28. Mets
29. Marlins
30. Astros
That looks pretty fair and was about what I was expecting. Did they release the update today?
 
# 359 Steve40 @ 03/01/13 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
That looks pretty fair and was about what I was expecting. Did they release the update today?
No they were not released as far as I know, that's just my personal opinion about how the teams should be ranked overall.
 
# 360 cardinalbird7 @ 03/01/13 04:14 PM
Well I think they are releasing a new roster on release day.
 


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