MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

[Jason_19]

Quote: Originally Posted by soxnut1018

I remember when Aardsma was on the White Sox and he was downright awful. What has changed to make you confident that last year wasn't simply a fluke?

Nothing has changed. Aardsma was always meant to be a closer. He has been blessed with an unbelievable amount of talent. With the White Sox, he only pitched in 25 games (32.1 innings). You can't really judge a player, especially someone who is only in their second year and who has just went from the N.L. to the A.L. (to an across town team, on top of that), based on a small amount of playing time. The season before that, in his first full season, he progressed greatly as the season went on. In 2008, with the Red Sox, he was mismanaged. In 2009, with the Mariners, he was finally given the chance to pitch in the manner that best suits him, his perceived mentality and his skill set. The results of this were exactly what I always expected to see from him as a closer.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by Focused One

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was based on a 3 year average, but why would Sony do that? Teams can completely change in one off season, and when it comes to pitching, Zito and Cain the only pitchers on the Giants roster that have been there long enough to even produce a realistic 3 year average... Has it always been like this?

Yes.
It's weighted...50-25-25....last year...two years ago...three years ago.
The individual ratings were always based that way.

M.K.
Knight165

[BatsareBugs]

Quote: Originally Posted by Scottdau

I wrote it wrong. It was meant say 3 years of rating with those guys are going to help your team ratings.

Just one more question regarding that then. Was that in response to my Padres Overall/Offense/Defense/Pitching post? If it is, then I'd have to say that Peavy and Hoffy's ratings no longer affect the Padres team ratings since those players are no longer on the roster. Their three-years ratings average are included on the White Sox and Brewers, respectively, even though they played for the Padres within those three years.

If it wasn't in response to my post, then mea culpa.

[xNobleEaglex]

Quote: Originally Posted by Focused One

Sorry, I didn't realise that it was based on a 3 year average, but why would Sony do that? Teams can completely change in one off season, and when it comes to pitching, Zito and Cain the only pitchers on the Giants roster that have been there long enough to even produce a realistic 3 year average... Has it always been like this?

I don't think Sony takes the team stats over 3 years. I believe it's a 3 year weighted average for each individual player. Then the individuals make up the team score. Hence the reason when he swapped the bench player from the Cardinals with Tatis from the Mets, both teams changed rankings because Tatis was rated higher than the STL CF bench player.

[SoMiss2000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Perfect Zero

Hmm... Seems like the ratings were based off of last year. I can't see the Angles being so high and the Mariners being so low in the AL West. I also don't see how Texas' batting is 4th when it should be lower. The good thing about The Show though is that any team can win on any given day.

offensively, Angels only lost Figgins and Vlad. They have a solid offense and nice rotation. I'm surprised they're ranked so low defensively.

[ParisB]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jason_19

I don't need more than one season before saying things like that. When it comes to scouting players and making projections, I'm hardly ever more than slightly off. In this case, I wasn't making a projection. As far as projected stats and performance goes, I'm not fully confident in saying that they will statistically be the best in baseball. As far as potential and "stuff" goes, I am very confident in what I said. I was simply saying that I think that Lowe, White, Fields and Aardsma would comprise what I would consider to be the best late inning relievers in baseball. I couldn't agree more.

Give me a break. Every major leaguer has "potential" and "stuff", that's why they're in the major leagues to begin with.

I stand by my comments I've been hearing the same things every offseason by Mariners fans. They're simply not on the same level as the Angels over a 162 game stretch. Simple as that.

[ParisB]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoMiss2000

offensively, Angels only lost Figgins and Vlad. They have a solid offense and nice rotation. I'm surprised they're ranked so low defensively.

Because most people twitch and react, but don't understand what is happening. The top tier organizations (like Boston, Anaheim etc.) have an endless supply of talent coming from their deep farm systems, to go along with shrewd management. It's not a coincidence that the Angels can lose a Glaus, K-Rod, and Teixeira in successive offseasons yet remain a top 3 AL team every year.

The Angels MASHED the ball last season, had the 2nd best offense behind the Yanks, and upgraded with Matsui over the aging Vlad. People focus on the players they lose, but not the players they gained. They lost Lackey, but their rotation still has the potential of being dominant, as usual.

[Jason_19]

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

Give me a break.

There's no need to get defensive.

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

Every major leaguer has "potential" and "stuff", that's why they're in the major leagues to begin with.

That's correct, but every player has a different skill set and a different amount of skill and potential.

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

I stand by my comments I've been hearing the same things every offseason by Mariners fans. They're simply not on the same level as the Angels over a 162 game stretch. Simple as that.

I couldn't agree more. It sounds like you think that I'm a Mariners fan. For the record, if I had to rank my favorite teams, the Mariners would be pretty far down on the list. Just because someone says something about a team or a player, it doesn't mean that they're a fan of that team or player. I follow every team, including the minor leagues, very closely. My opinion on this subject has nothing to do with being a "homer".