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

[BBallcoach]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

No, it's not quite the same thing to say that a player can be rated numerically and that a player's true skill can be rated at all. As anyone who deals with statistics in life knows, all such activities come up with *estimates* of what the numbers should represent. I have no issues with MLB scout using 20 - 80 scale to rate players. But I have an issue with exposing player ratings in a game like this, only because that's actually the true skill of the player. A Contact = 66 player should hit .255 on average, since the game is actually tuned precisely to produce such a player. Unless I'm doing editing, I really don't want to know that much detail about a player. It takes fun away from me.

Not sure you understand the concept of ratings. If a guy is a 66 in contact that doesn't mean he'll hit .255 no matter what... Especially in baseball games. Ratings factor in a ton like is it R or L contact for a R or L pitcher who has a dominate FB but a bad changeup, how often does he throw it for strikes and how many balls in play does the batter have vs the change up? there are tons of variables. You see a 66 and expect a .255 hitter I see a 66 and see the possibility of a .270 and up pending on who's around him and who he faces... ratings aren't singular things, they are very fluid in the whole scheme of the game. No to mention if he is a 66 R contact, whats his vision and discipline? If they are high he will bat higher than .255

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

Could park factors be taken into account when simming by just giving a boost/minus from player ratings? I'd assume if Coors gave players a small power boost simulated games would result in a higher HR factor over a season maybe.

In theory the game could do such a thing, but I don't see any indication that it does, when I sim a few seasons and take team stats average, etc. I don't see the difference in batting in the Rockies' home vs. away stats, for example.

But even then it would still not be optimal since the park factors *in the game* are different from those of real-life stadiums, because not everything is perfectly replicated (of course!). In such a case, should the game consider real-life or in-game park factors? ... so not taking into account at all may be the best compromise.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBallcoach

Not sure you understand the concept of ratings. If a guy is a 66 in contact that doesn't mean he'll hit .255 no matter what... Especially in baseball games. Ratings factor in a ton like is it R or L contact for a R or L pitcher who has a dominate FB but a bad changeup, how often does he throw it for strikes and how many balls in play does the batter have vs the change up? there are tons of variables. You see a 66 and expect a .255 hitter I see a 66 and see the possibility of a .270 and up pending on who's around him and who he faces... ratings aren't singular things, they are very fluid in the whole scheme of the game. No to mention if he is a 66 R contact, whats his vision and discipline? If they are high he will bat higher than .255

Right, I'm of course talking about the average after numerous at bats, over which all those external factors themselves are averaged out.

[seanjeezy]

Here's my argument against visible numerical ratings -

The way I see it, ratings should be an "under the hood" kind of thing... Think of it this way - say you are trailing late and you need a big hit. You have the choice of pinch hitting for a player with 60 contact for a player with 70 contact... Naturally you select player B right? Well what if player A is batting .300 to player B's .250, and you weren't able to see those ratings... what would you do then? What would an actual manager do? Of course he would choose the guy with the better average, and if the ratings were hidden so would everybody else...

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

Here's my argument against visible numerical ratings - The way I see it, ratings should be an "under the hood" kind of thing... Think of it this way - say you are trailing late and you need a big hit. You have the choice of pinch hitting for a player with 60 contact for a player with 70 contact... Naturally you select player B right? Well what if player A is batting .300 to player B's .250, and you weren't able to see those ratings... what would you do then? What would an actual manager do? Of course he would choose the guy with the better average, and if the ratings were hidden so would everybody else...

That's when things can be interesting... not just the batting average though that point in that season, but what if player A's career batting average is .240, but that of B is .270?? It really gives much more interesting flavor to strategy aspect of baseball.

In the game, you of course should go with the guy with 70 Contact, given all else equal.


But it's pretty clear that not many guys want to take the game that far and that's understandable. I personally think the Show would be a good one to at least try such a way of obscuring player ratings, given that almost everything else can feel very authentic and realistic. I can solve my own issue by not looking at ratings too much at all myself though. I don't care about OVR and potential and such at all (probably the reason why I play franchise less than other modes), and when I substitute players I just quickly glance at the bar ratings and don't really care +/- 10 ratings differences, haha.

[Russell_SCEA]

Quote: Originally Posted by seanjeezy

Isn't it pretty self-explanatory? Obviously it means his speed will regress... By saying it was a good sign I was referring to the potential system, not the fact that his speed will regress... Regression in some attributes is good, that means the system is closer to mirroring what actually happens in real life.

Or the scout's report is wrong there is human element in scouting now.

[Russell_SCEA]

Quote: Originally Posted by SportsGamingBlake

Man, 17 players rated 99 seems like a lot to me. And to think that they originally had 44!? Since this is my first year playing The Show, I'm used to having like 3 or 4 99's. But I 100% trust the SCEA team and have complete faith in them that they will always give us a great game no matter what they do. So I try to keep my mouth shut and let them do their thing and know that I will get an excellent baseball sim on March 5th.

There are about 1,280 players in the MLB the game has chosen 17 of them to be 99 overall. That's less than 2% of the entire league that are considered the elite of the elite.

[rjackson]

I just think tha a lot of people are not really getting the concept of the overall rating. Let me try to reiterate it in another way and maybe 1 or 2 people (that's probably it) will get it and stop with the absurdity.

Miguel Cabrera is atrocious when he is manning 3B. If anyone not named Konerko can drag a decent bunt in his direction, he'll probably get on base. He is also one of the best hitters in the game. Somebody who plays terrific defense is more valuable to a baseball team up the middle and Cabrera types are more valuable providing their offense from 3B and getting less balls hit in their direction.

The overall potential just tries to reflect that. That's it. If you kept all else equal and changed Cabrera to a SS, you'd see the overall drop.

I'm sure that you can find some darn good parts for your team if you don't focus on the overall. Having the right bench parts and plattoons is what makes a good team great.