MLB '10: The Show Official Team Ratings and Explanation

[metsman8669]

Quote: Originally Posted by BKBond007

Roy Halladay...lol

I'd seriously have a hard time rooting for the guy if he said that.

One thing for some mediocre starter to answer with someone else...quite a bit different if it's someone like Santana, whether it's "true" or not.

[MelMan1486]

Quote: Originally Posted by tommyjesus

i don't understand why they even do a three year analysis. it makes no sense. logically, a game should be representative of how a player plays most recently; if a player gets injured and never pitches the same, why should he be better in the game because of the weights from his previous two years? i'm sure it's to lessen the impact of an "uncharacteristically" good or bad year, but then the game fails to accurately capture how the player is performing most recently. but anyway, the ratings will be adjusted when the season updates anyway... as for the ratings themselves, they look...terrible. sorry, that's just my opinion.

I think the 3 year analysis is great. It measures the overall ability of a player. I mean even the great players go through HUGE slumps where they hit like .100, does that mean they should see a huge ratings drop? As for injured players I think they should be given the benefit of a doubt that they can still produce unless they prove otherwise.

The last thing I want is this game to turn into a Madden type game where people come on here and argue that their players rating should be bumped up because they've had a couple good consecutive games.

[roolz]

Reds probably living about right, the NL Central holds 4 of the bottom 12 rated teams.

Things always get shaked up a bit once Knight brings out his superb rosters with updates etc

[JaSnake16]

Quote: Originally Posted by MelMan1486

I think the 3 year analysis is great. It measures the overall ability of a player. I mean even the great players go through HUGE slumps where they hit like .100, does that mean they should see a huge ratings drop? As for injured players I think they should be given the benefit of a doubt that they can still produce unless they prove otherwise. The last thing I want is this game to turn into a Madden type game where people come on here and argue that their players rating should be bumped up because they've had a couple good consecutive games.

Just to chime in on this,
I am a big proponent of the three year average however there needs to be a more accurate way to gauge age / injury in the system. The weighted system which SCEA uses has flaws because players in obvious decline (Papi, Vlad) were still getting too much of the benefit of the doubt and their individual ratings would be way too inflated. Im sure with these two players that I cited as examples that will change in this years version because their '09 was down in the end but as the year plays out there will be other examples from other players where the same scenario will play out (Posada?). I know this is tough to gauge especially upon release but in updates as the season wears on there should be drastic changes to certain players to reiterate such.

SCEA also had a knack for inflating power ratings, someone with 99 power for example could sim out with close to 65 - 70 bombs in a majority of simmed seasons. I hope its safe to say those days are over in real life ( ) and a 99 should equal say 45 - 50 homers with the rare 55 during sim seasons.. Just a hope

[Copernico]

That's the beauty of editing. Making the game the most editable possible would make of an epic video game a much better and adaptable to everyone’s taste.

Take it easy with the rankings! These people at SD are paid to make a game, we buy it and we do ours with all adjustments available.>>
>>>>
Copernico>>>>
PTY>>
>>

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by metsman8669

Amen pal. As much as I love the non-stop sports coverage nowadays, it's also a detriment compared to the pre-Internet era. Everyone needs to get some type of "scoop" As you said...it's a story when a player says it's his goal to win the World Series? Or yesterday, in Johan Santana's case, some idiot (seriously, how do these reporters get their jobs?) asks him point blank who the best pitcher in the NL East is. He says "Johan Santana." Wow...he's really stirring it up there. What's he supposed to say?

That is our media for us, sensationalism. It is a whole around the world. They play on peoples emotions that they know will get them glued to a story.

Quote: Originally Posted by MelMan1486

I think the 3 year analysis is great. It measures the overall ability of a player. I mean even the great players go through HUGE slumps where they hit like .100, does that mean they should see a huge ratings drop? As for injured players I think they should be given the benefit of a doubt that they can still produce unless they prove otherwise. The last thing I want is this game to turn into a Madden type game where people come on here and argue that their players rating should be bumped up because they've had a couple good consecutive games.

Exactly!

[Jdurg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tyused

Found the team stats for defense...I find it interesting how the team who was 13th in Errors is #2 on defense, and 19th in Fielding %. How is this physically possible?! I understand they use a different system, but maybe it needs to be changed. Pittsburgh actually lead the league in fewest errors and highest fielding %, Phillies 2nd fewest errors and 3rd best fielding %. So why is it that the Mets rate 18 spots higher then the pirates on defense, and 3 spots higher then the phillies? This is like saying Shaq is a better free throw shooter than Mark Price! The numbers don't lie! http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/...ors/order/true

#1: Those are team stats. SCEA's team rankings are not based one iota on team stat composites. (Because every 2010 team has zero stats for this baseball year).

#2: SCEA's rankings are composite rankings of all the individual fielders on a team. The 2009 Mets are not composed of the exact same players as the 2010 Mets are. The game's rankings are obtained by taking each individual player, isolating them into their own team, then combining all the stats of all the isolated players to create the stats for the "team". These are then ranked and that's how you get the rankings. Throw any and all merged team stats out the window.

[VitaminKG21]

No chance the Giants pitching staff should be ranked behind the Twins.