MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

[WickedFastball]

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.

[cardinalbird5]

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.

[WickedFastball]

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

[WickedFastball]

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....?

[Nooooovak]

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"

[WickedFastball]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nooooovak

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"

And you are missing my point
If people disagree that Pujols should be a 99 than why is he? If they (the Devs) don't say "Oh, Pujols should be a 99" than what did they say? Why IS he a 99? Don't tell me how I'm missing someone else's point, when you are missing mine

[ParisB]

Quote: Originally Posted by WickedFastball

And you are missing my point If people disagree that Pujols should be a 99 than why is he? If they (the Devs) don't say "Oh, Pujols should be a 99" than what did they say? Why IS he a 99? Don't tell me how I'm missing someone else's point, when you are missing mine

Because probably only a healthy Votto is better than him. People focus on his "decline" but overlook that he's still an elite player. He had a disastrous April last year for many reasons, yet still finished with solid numbers. From May through September he was as good as anyone. Unfortunately by then he was overshadowed by Trout, who established himself as the best all around player in baseball.

[ballaholic04]

I think I am speaking for everyone when I say : "can you guys shut up!?".
Arguing over the overall ratings without seeing their attributes is silly.