Home
MLB 13 The Show News Post


Interested in MLB 13 The Show player ratings? Our friend chrisjohnson83 (with the only confirmed copy of the game so far) has provided them to us. Below are the top rated players at each position, to see the rest of the player ratings, check out the MLB 13 The Show screenshots page.

Updated rosters will no doubt be released before the March 5th release date, so keep that in mind.

Top Rated Players at Each Position

Top Rated First Basemen
  • 99 Albert Pujols, Angels
  • 98 Joey Votto, Reds
  • 95 Prince Fielder, Tigers
  • 94 Paul Konerko, White Sox
  • 93 Adrian Gonzalez, Dodgers
  • 92 Corey Hart, Brewers
  • 92 Allen Craig, Cardinals
  • 91 Mark Teixeira, Yankees
  • 89 Mike Napoli, Boston
  • 88 Ryan Howard, Phillies
Top Rated Second Basemen
  • 99 Robinson Cano, Yankees
  • 98 Dustin Pedroia, Boston
  • 95 Ian Kinsler, Rangers
  • 93 Brandon Phillips, Reds
  • 90 Jose Altuve, Astros
  • 89 Ben Zobrist, Rays
  • 88 Chase Utley, Phillies
  • 88 Omar Infante, Tigers
  • 87 Emilio Bonifacio, Blue Jays
  • 87 Howie Kendrick, Rangers
Top Rated Third Basemen
  • 99 Miguel Cabrera, Tigers
  • 96 Adrian Beltre, Rangers
  • 93 Evan Longoria, Rays
  • 93 David Wright, Mets
  • 91 Chase Headley, Padres
  • 91 Ryan Zimmerman, Nationals
  • 89 Aramis Ramirez, Brewers
  • 88 Alex Rodriguez, Yankees
  • 86 Pablo Sandoval, Giants
  • 85 Michael Young, Phillies
  • 85 David Freese, Cardinals
Top Rated Shortstops
  • 99 Troy Tulowitzki, Rockies
  • 95 Jose Reyes, Blue Jays
  • 93 Jimmy Rollins, Phillies
  • 90 Derek Jeter, Yankees
  • 90 Starlin Castro, Cubs
  • 88 Elvis Andrus, Rangers
  • 88 Rafael Furcal, Cardinals
  • 88 Hanley Ramirez, Dodgers
  • 85 Asdrubal Cabrera, Indians
  • 85 Erick Aybar, Angels
Top Rated Catchers
  • 99 Buster Posey, Giants
  • 98 Yadier Molina, Cardinals
  • 94 Carlos Ruiz, Phillies
  • 93 Joe Mauer, Twins
  • 93 Matt Wieters, O's
  • 87 Salvador Perez, Royals
  • 88 Brian McCann, Braves
  • 86 A.J. Pierzynski, Rangers
  • 86 Jonathan Lucroy, Brewers
  • 86 Wilin Rosario, Rockies
Top Rated Left Fielders
  • 99 Mike Trout, Angels
  • 99 Ryan Braun, Brewers
  • 99 Carlos Gonzalez, Rockies
  • 92 Yoenis, Cespedes, Oakland
  • 91 Matt Holliday, Cardinals
  • 87 Bryce Harper, Nationals
  • 86 Alfonso Soriano, Cubs
  • 86 Justin Upton, Braves
  • 85 Alex Gordon, Royals
  • 85 Josh Willingham, Twins
  • 85 David Murphy, Rangers
Top Rated Center Fielders
  • 99 Andrew McCutchen, Pirates
  • 99 Matt Kemp, Dodgers
  • 94 Jacoby Ellsbury, Boston
  • 91 Adam Jones, O's
  • 88 B.J. Upton, Braves
  • 87 Curtis Granderson, Yankees
  • 86 Shin-Soo Choo, Reds
  • 85 Coco Crisp, Oakland
  • 84 Austin Jackson, Tigers
  • 84 Angel Pagan, Giants
Top Rated Right Fielders
  • 99 Josh Hamilton, Angels
  • 98 Carlos Beltran, Cardinals
  • 98 Jose Bautista, Blue Jays
  • 95 Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins
  • 93 Nelson Cruz, Rangers
  • 93 Jay Bruce, Reds
  • 91 Jason Heyward, Braves
  • 90 Alex Rios, White Sox
  • 90 Hunter Pence, Giants
  • 89 Torii Hunter, Tigers
  • 89 Ichiro Suzuki, Yankees
Top Rated Designated Hitters
  • 94 Billy Butler, Royals
  • 91 David Ortiz, Boston
  • 88 Edwin Encarnacion, Blue Jays
  • 85 Kevin Youkilis, Yankees
  • 85 Victor Martinez, Tigers
  • 85 Kendrys Morales, Mariners
  • 84 Lance Berkman, Rangers
  • 83 Mark Trumbo, Angels
Top Rated Pitchers
  • 99 Jusin Verlander, Tigers
  • 99 Felix Hernandez, Mariners
  • 99 Stephen Strasburg, Nationals
  • 99 Aroldis Chapman, Reds
  • 99 Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers
  • 97 David Price, Rays
  • 96 Chris Sale, White Sox
  • 96 Cliff Lee, Phillies
  • 96 C.C. Sabathia, Yankees
  • 96 Yu Darvish, Rangers
  • 96 Adam Wainwright, Cardinals
  • 95 Matt Kain, Giants
  • 95 Kris Medlen, Braves
  • 94 Rafael Betancourt, Rockies
  • 94 Mat Latos, Reds
  • 94 Zack Greinke, Dodgers
  • 94 Roy Halladay, Phillies
  • 94 Cole Hamels, Phillies
  • 94 Josh Johnson, Blue Jays
  • 94 James Shields, Royals
  • 93 Jered Weaver, Angels
  • 93 R.A. Dickey, Blue Jays
  • 90 Jake Peavy, White Sox
Top Rated Closers
  • 99 Craig Kimbrel, Braves
  • 97 Mariano Rivera, Yankees
  • 95 Jonathan Papelbon, Phillies
  • 96 Jason Motte, Cardinals
  • 95 Joel Hanrahan, Boston
  • 94 Sergio Romo, Giants
  • 93 Fernando Rodney, Rays
  • 93 J.J. Putz, Dbacks
  • 93 Greg Holland, Royals
  • 90 Glen Perkins, Twins
  • 92 Steve Cishek, Marlins
  • 92 John Axford, Brewers
  • 92 Tom Wilhelmsen, Mariners
  • 91 Grant Balfour, Oakland
  • 91 Joe Nathan, Rangers
  • 90 Ryan Madson, Angels
  • 89 Jose Veras, Astros
  • 88 Chris Perez, Indians
To see all the MLB 13 The Show player ratings, check out the screenshots. Thanks again to chrisjohnson83, you can follow him on Twitter, right here.

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
# 81 MetsFan16 @ 02/25/13 08:17 PM
Looking at these ratings for everybody, I would say that they are pretty accurate. Some might be too high or too low, but for the most part they are accurate. Homers will be Homers and will always say that their backup 2nd Baseman should be 3 points higher but that's just passion for their team so you can't blame them for anything. I feel the Metsies ratings are good. DWright's 93 is a good rating for him. Can't wait to get this game and just go to work
 
# 82 brewersfan84 @ 02/25/13 08:22 PM
I am thoroughly impressed with the player ratings and rosters. Thank you very much for this inside look.... although this made the wait even harder, lol. Unless you have more to share??
 
# 83 sydrogerdavid @ 02/25/13 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by assclown25
Thank God for the ability to edit player, cause as I've stated before NO ONE deserves a 99 overall! Every player has their flaws. I like how the rosters look otherwise though. Another great job by the SCEA Team. Bring on March 5th!
Some would say that a 99 overall is the cap because it prevents any player from having a perfect rating of 100. Also, not every 99 rated player has all of their attributes maxed out, do they? That shows flaws in a player's game in it's own right.
 
# 84 dcmantommy72 @ 02/25/13 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sydrogerdavid
Some would say that a 99 overall is the cap because it prevents any player from having a perfect rating of 100. Also, not every 99 rated player has all of their attributes maxed out, do they? That shows flaws in a player's game in it's own right.

The argument against having anybody at 99 is that they are already at the "cap" of an overall rating and since this game is played with a franchise mode that can span a decade people like to see if Strasburg can get even better say 5 years from now but sadly his ovr will never increase. The ovr number should not be capped at all imo, and should certainly be based on 0-100 but if a player is seriously outperforming his peers year after year his "value" and his "skill" should increase as time progresses. Not be capped to last years stats. Does he have the same skill or "value" as say Nolan Ryan at his peek? No. But 3 or 4 years from now he could wind up having better stats than Ryan and should therefore it be reflected on his OVR rating. Always putting the BEST ahead of everyone else. For example lets say in your franchise Strasburg ends up with a 1.93 ERA after your first season, well thats a hell of a leap from having a 3.16 ERA last year, sooo he improved didnt he?? Since when did we cap human ability?

It's just something that I hope is looked at for the future. No big deal, will just have to edit some people back a notch or two. (Or if everyone in the game could be notched back about 5 points it could solve it)
 
# 85 philmnn @ 02/25/13 10:09 PM
Jim Johnson isn't in the top 10 closers...?
 
# 86 Nooooovak @ 02/25/13 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcmantommy72
The argument against having anybody at 99 is that they are already at the "cap" of an overall rating and since this game is played with a franchise mode that can span a decade people like to see if Strasburg can get even better say 5 years from now but sadly his ovr will never increase.
From what I understand, it is just the number that caps, but you can still significantly improve them. If you have a player with completely maxed out stats, obviously he will be listed as a 99 overall, but he will probably play like a guy who is 110 or so. This is why I don't like the number ratings, specifically in terms of the overall rating. People put way too much emphasis on a single number, rather than the player's entire collection of attributes.
 
# 87 philmnn @ 02/25/13 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philmnn
Jim Johnson isn't in the top 10 closers...?
wait that list has 18 closers and Jim Johnson isn't even on it. good thing ratings are changeable.
 
# 88 SDPadres2012 @ 02/25/13 10:12 PM
I think 99% of the ratings are spot on. The few that make me scratch my head are Tom Wilhelmsen at a 93, Erasmo Ramirez at a 87, Clayton Richard at a 77 (Was by far best starter for Padres last year) and Kris Medlen, I mean he had one good half of a season and is ranked higher than Jered Weaver! Other than that, my applause to the SECA team!
 
# 89 Nooooovak @ 02/25/13 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPadres2012
I think 99% of the ratings are spot on. The few that make me scratch my head are Tom Wilhelmsen at a 93, Erasmo Ramirez at a 87, Clayton Richard at a 77 (Was by far best starter for Padres last year) and Kris Medlen, I mean he had one good half of a season and is ranked higher than Jered Weaver! Other than that, my applause to the SECA team!
Richard isn't a head scratcher. Statistically, he had a pretty average season last year. A 77 is fine.
 
# 90 dcmantommy72 @ 02/25/13 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nooooovak
From what I understand, it is just the number that caps, but you can still significantly improve them. If you have a player with completely maxed out stats, obviously he will be listed as a 99 overall, but he will probably play like a guy who is 110 or so. This is why I don't like the number ratings, specifically in terms of the overall rating. People put way too much emphasis on a single number, rather than the player's entire collection of attributes.
Yes the players individual ratings can improve so year one you have 17 players at 99 overall.. year 5 you might have 30.

your right tho its really up to the player to determine who is "better" for there needs when choosing between 10 99ovr players. I guess the "99" could be called "Elite", 98-92 "superstar", 92-87, "Allstar" so on... If you just had that instead of the OVR number system it would make sense. And would make you HAVE to look deeper into the players individual attribs. Oh dude I like that thought!
 
# 91 Dr.Livingdead @ 02/25/13 10:42 PM
Man, welcome to the AL West Houston. One win away from having 3 90+ win teams last year. Must have some die hard fans
 
# 92 gator3guy @ 02/25/13 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by detfan
Shouldn't Trout have to get a few more seasons in to see if what he was last year happens again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdlanni1
Mike Trout 99? Sure he had an amazing year but it's only his second year in the league. Look out for the ol' sophomore slump
No. He was the best player in the game last year. Called up a month into the season and was a full 2 wins better than the next closest guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Trout deserves a 99 based on defense,arm strength, and speed alone. Factor in his hitting and there is no doubt he is a 99. If anything Pujols shouldn't be a 99. Don't base their rating on something they did 2-3 years ago AKA A-Rod and Pujols. A guy that posted an .850 OPS is solid no doubt, but should not be 99 rated when players like Craig, Fielder, and Encarnacion all posted better numbers but are rated lower.
I am really glad some of you guys aren't in charge of rosters or work for SCEA. It would take players like Trout until MLB 15 before he gets his deserved rating.
Well his arm certainly didn't get him a 99 rating as that is his only average/below average tool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Majingir
I know ppl don't like when a team that already has good players doesn't like the rating of one of their guys but....Lawrie probably should be higher based on how other 3B are rated. On multiple fantasy rankings from sites like yahoo and espn, he's rated a top 103B.

Though if it makes you feel better...Bonifacio should be fairly lower. I'd put Bonifacio at like 80 and Lawrie at 85.

Though not gonna care bout these things now, especially when SCEA said that rating system was done way diff this year. Cause depending on a players position and stuff, certain attributes impact their ratings alot. Cause Lawrie had most errors committed as a 3B, but he's also had top 10 fielding% of all 3B. So I'm guessing the errors played a big role in his fielding rating which did hurt his overall rating.
That's the arument you're bringing to the table? Look he's a talented player no doubt, but he was average at best last year. Didn't walk and didn't show the pop he showed in his debut. I fully expect him to turn it around, but he's about right as is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedFastball
OK, it looks great. But I do have an issue: Anthony Rizzo vs Mike Trout
337 AB vs 559 AB_ .342 OBP vs .399 OBP_ .463 SLG vs .564 SLG
15 HR (over 200 less at bats) vs 30 HR
Now we all know the Cubs.....well BLOW, so I'm not taking into account RBI's, But here is my point How is Rizzo only a 79? I'm just saying from all the stuff I have read in Baseball America, had he played a whole season like Trout had he might have taken a swing at ROY on his own. Im not taking away from Trout, i'm just saying that 79 is a bit of an injustice. And before you say "Defense!" sure, but Rizzo is a 1st baseman, and therefore D doesn't factor into the rating as much.
If they gave Trout a 99 than Rizzo should have been at least an 88, but it really should be Trout 94 Rizzo 84
I won't even bother arguing this too much, but besides having a much better offensive and defensive season at a much more valuable position, he also lead the league in stolen bases after missing the first month of the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedFastball
In MLB The Show 11 Ubaldo Jimeniz was given the "Top Pitcher Award"
But only 2 years later he is rated an 81.
Did you watch him pitch last year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slickkill77
Adam Jones has done really well for many years. His only real flaw from what I've seen are his lack of walks. Jackson hasn't been good long enough to be rated higher than him imo
His defense is his real flaw.
 
# 93 slickkill77 @ 02/25/13 11:10 PM
Unfortunately defense means little in the show. All you need to be is a big power hitter and you'll be highly rated
 
# 94 thrasher8 @ 02/25/13 11:34 PM
Thanks for the post! Interested in progression. Are you able to post a pic of maybe the top 50 players (ratings wise) in whatever year you have simmed to? (2017 etc.)

Thanks again!
 
# 95 ondreythegiant @ 02/26/13 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedFastball
I never said they shouldn't take Trout over anyone. I said it is ridiculous to give a player a 99 rating after one year. Just because I used Rizzo as an example, does not make me a Cubs fan. I'm no more a Cubs fan than the Devs are Red Sox fans. Seriously though, the point I was making is that this whole 99 rating feels a little bias. But after reading this thread, I believe that if I wanted to look for an UNBIAS opinion, this is NOT THE PLACE TO LOOK.
It doesn't matter if it was his first year or fifth year, the ratings are based off of what the player did in the previous season. Trout had a historic year and would've been MVP if Cabrera didn't win the Triple Crown. So if it took a Triple Crown to keep the MVP away from him, and Cabrera is a 99, it seems fitting.
 
# 96 WickedFastball @ 02/26/13 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sydrogerdavid
Some would say that a 99 overall is the cap because it prevents any player from having a perfect rating of 100. Also, not every 99 rated player has all of their attributes maxed out, do they? That shows flaws in a player's game in it's own right.
I agree with this statement to a point, but I do still see somewhat of a bias when it comes to ratings in this game. Red Sox are still ranked 3rd even though they have NO shot at the post season this year. Mike Trout is a 99 after one (still great but still ONE) season. Its true that no player in this game has maxed out ratings, so even the term 99 is subjective. Maybe next year they can have just have split ratings. One general rating for defense and one for offense. Instead of blending the two to get one number. Have two numbers.
 
# 97 cardinalbird7 @ 02/26/13 12:59 AM
Can't believe you are still arguing about Trout. He had one of the best years ever. Also was 10+ wins above replacement. If it was Pujols sophomore year he'd be a 99 too. There is no bias there. This isn't the HOF we are talking about. Players don't have to be dominant for 3-4 years to be considered the best. In fact the only thing I disagree with on the Angels roster is Pujols being a 99, because that means they probably overrated his contact or power vs righties.

It isn't like they give out the overall ratings to individuals. They simply do each individual rating based on that position. It just so happens to work out that Trout is a 99 once you include his speed, fielding, arm, power, contact, plate disc, plate vision, baserunning, clutch, etc. They don't see a list of players and go "well trout is a 99, uhh aybar he is about an 89, and pujols is definitely a 99." That isn't how it works at all.
 
# 98 WickedFastball @ 02/26/13 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcmantommy72
The argument against having anybody at 99 is that they are already at the "cap" of an overall rating and since this game is played with a franchise mode that can span a decade people like to see if Strasburg can get even better say 5 years from now but sadly his ovr will never increase. The ovr number should not be capped at all imo, and should certainly be based on 0-100 but if a player is seriously outperforming his peers year after year his "value" and his "skill" should increase as time progresses. Not be capped to last years stats. Does he have the same skill or "value" as say Nolan Ryan at his peek? No. But 3 or 4 years from now he could wind up having better stats than Ryan and should therefore it be reflected on his OVR rating. Always putting the BEST ahead of everyone else. For example lets say in your franchise Strasburg ends up with a 1.93 ERA after your first season, well thats a hell of a leap from having a 3.16 ERA last year, sooo he improved didnt he?? Since when did we cap human ability?

It's just something that I hope is looked at for the future. No big deal, will just have to edit some people back a notch or two. (Or if everyone in the game could be notched back about 5 points it could solve it)
But you need to remember the other side of that coin. Remeber Ubaldo Jimenez! He was rated "Top pitcher of MLB The Show 11!"! And yet only two years later is rated an 81 How the mighty have fallen! I remember playing 11 he was a killer for the next decade. But not so much in real life My point is that when the game bases too much of their ratings on one great season, you end up with a skewed view of the overall picture. Maybe ol' StevO will be a 115 overall in 3 years?!?! Maybe he will be an 81......Its the same reason I get upset over Trout, I don't dislike him at all, I just think prematurely jumping to the conclusion of a 99 overall is like taking the Ubaldo approach again
 
# 99 WickedFastball @ 02/26/13 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardinalbird7
Can't believe you are still arguing about Trout. He had one of the best years ever. Also was 10+ wins above replacement. If it was Pujols sophomore year he'd be a 99 too. There is no bias there. This isn't the HOF we are talking about. Players don't have to be dominant for 3-4 years to be considered the best. In fact the only thing I disagree with on the Angels roster is Pujols being a 99, because that means they probably overrated his contact or power vs righties.

It isn't like they give out the overall ratings to individuals. They simply do each individual rating based on that position. It just so happens to work out that Trout is a 99 once you include his speed, fielding, arm, power, contact, plate disc, plate vision, baserunning, clutch, etc. They don't see a list of players and go "well trout is a 99, uhh aybar he is about an 89, and pujols is definitely a 99." That isn't how it works at all.
But didnt you just contradict yourself? You just said you disagree with him being a 99, but yet he IS A 99? Humm....?
 
# 100 Nooooovak @ 02/26/13 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WickedFastball
But didnt you just contradict yourself? You just said you disagree with him being a 99, but yet he IS A 99? Humm....?
You completely missed the point of what he was saying. The last sentence was him speaking from the viewpoint of the people who make the ratings and had nothing to do with his opinion of Pujols at all.

He is saying that they do the individual ratings and those end up adding up to a 99 overall. They don't sit around saying, "we believe Player X is a 99 overall, so we are going to edit him to make him as such"
 


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