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

[Houston]

Lorne should create a ratings generator and go player by player, team by team using something like baseballreference.com and this probably would end a lot of debate about ratings letting the SHOW fans know how the players are being rated. Because nothng would be done by personal opinions but how the player preformed in real actual games.

EXAMPLE: If this was the method being used with the generator they could base it off the first 50 games played this year. You have your default roster and whatever the ratings are go with that then after we see how players are actually performing then adjust the ratings based off a certain amount of games using a generator.

What I cant stand is you will have guys wanting a player to be jack up with a high rating because the first month or 2 hes hitting bombs or for a great average then in the 2nd half he goes cold. A rating generator would be the way to go. MVPEDIT was awesome.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by Houston

Lorne should create a ratings generator and go player by player, team by team using something like baseballreference.com and this probably would end a lot of debate about ratings letting the SHOW fans know how the players are being rated. Because nothng would be done by personal opinions but how the player preformed in real actual games. ...

This is actually pretty close to how the rating is done right now at SCEA.... and you can see people do still complain, hahahaha.....

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by paradox1987

Carlos Gonzalez is rated 99 but Joey Votto isn't? Tulo rated 99 I can agree with, his numbers are at least similar at Coors and away from Coors. Cargo's Home and Away splits for the last two years as an example: 2012; Home: .368/13 HRs/58 RBIs/.437 OBP (68 Games) Away: .234/9 HRs/27 RBIs/.301 OBP (67 Games) 2011; Home: .331/16 HRs/60 RBIs/.402 OBP (66 Games) Away: .252/10 HRs/32 RBIs/.317 OBP (59 Games) The number's don't lie, if he's as good as everyone think's he is he'd be putting up numbers away from Coors as well. Take him away from Coors and I'd be willing to bet he'd just be an average player, if that. Also, while Trout did have an amazing rookie year last year, I don't think one amazing year in the league warrants a 99 rating. He deserves a rating in the 90s, but definitely not a 99 rating. I would absolutely love to see the rating system changed to what you suggested, it makes the most sense.

What about Chapman? Not only did he have one amazing year as a relief pitcher, but he's going to be a starter! Next up is Posey, and how many seasons has he had better than Trout? Then there is Strasburg who hasn't had one single season of 200+ innings with a sub 3.00 ERA, and he is a starter. I agree with you on Gonzalez.

Having said all that, I don't know of a perfect rating system that would please everyone.

[tvman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

What about Chapman? Not only did he have one amazing year as a relief pitcher, but he's going to be a starter! Next up is Posey, and how many seasons has he had better than Trout? Then there is Strasburg who hasn't had one single season of 200+ innings with a sub 3.00 ERA, and he is a starter. I agree with you on Gonzalez. Having said all that, I don't know of a perfect rating system that would please everyone.

It's almost as though media hype factored into some of the ratings.

I also agree with Houston that no player should ever be rated a 99 in any game.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by tvman

It's almost as though media hype factored into some of the ratings. I also agree with Houston that no player should ever be rated a 99 in any game.

I'd still say 99 could be reserved for the top rated player (as calculated by the game) with all other players ratings scaled accordingly. 99 doesn't mean perfect, it just means the max rating displayed by the game. What is weird though is if a player can be 99, why not 100? Does 100 bring about thoughts of perfection, 100%?

[Houston]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

I'd still say 99 could be reserved for the top rated player (as calculated by the game) with all other players ratings scaled accordingly. 99 doesn't mean perfect, it just means the max rating displayed by the game. What is weird though is if a player can be 99, why not 100? Does 100 bring about thoughts of perfection, 100%?

Nobody ever should ever be rated 99 more less about 15 -20 players. This is crazy insane and taking things in the wrong direction there's nothing realistic about a player being rated 99.

[Houston]

If there was a player rating generator and you took the top 5 guys on that list and how the preformed in 2012 I seriously doubt there ratings come out to be 99.

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Houston

Nobody ever should ever be rated 99 more less about 15 -20 players. This is crazy insane and taking things in the wrong direction there's nothing realistic about a player being rated 99.

But what does a player being rated 99 mean? To you, to the devs, to everyone it can mean something different.

What does a 99 mean to you?