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

[Cavicchi]

I like the number ratings. I just don't get a relief pitcher, Chapman, being rated a 99 in the starting pitcher category.

[nomo17k]

I am actually willing to bet a huge chunk of money (which in my world is in cents) that ratings are historically limited to 0 - 99 purely to save screen estate.... 2 chars instead of 3.. that used to be a huge thing when games were displaying with fixed font within limited screen size at low resolution...

[birthday_massacre]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

slick...nothing against you....but this is EXACTLY why I have been against #'s from the start. How can I argue something that isn't real? Nowhere outside a video game is this even used. It's preposterous... ..and you bring up Altuve. What is a 90 in this game? What is an 85? What is the actual difference? ...and going past a 99.....how can it be? If a guy with 87/88....92/94.....and nothing at 99 except for say fielding is a 99(which it is in the game once you see it)....then obviously higher ratings will translate into an ACTUAL(not displayed) OVR above a 99. While CPU GM's do see the OVR as a tool in trades/moves/signings etc....I believe they also see it on the true scale(in which the human player is forced to actually put some further investigation into(stats/etc)...so they see a player is 110 etc... Why didn't they display past 99?...IDK M.K. Knight165

You do make a great point that is probably why letters should have been used instead of numbers. Over a 99 could be an A+ for example.

Please using letter grades (a B for example could be 84-86) you would have a range of numbers and not an exact number. I still never liked just the bars but I think a letter grade would be better than the number ratings

With the letters you could also rate them at each position, for example a RP could be an A- but as a starter they could be a C.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by birthday_massacre

You do make a great point that is probably why letters should have been used instead of numbers. Over a 99 could be an A+ for example. Please using letter grades (a B for example could be 84-86) you would have a range of numbers and not an exact number. I still never liked just the bars but I think a letter grade would be better than the number ratings With the letters you could also rate them at each position, for example a RP could be an A- but as a starter they could be a C.

Letters have been used before, for fielding, hitting, running and pitching. I'm okay with that method, but I'm also okay with the numbers method. Actually, I prefer the numbers rating better because it can be more precise when comparing players.

[slickkill77]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

slick...nothing against you....but this is EXACTLY why I have been against #'s from the start. How can I argue something that isn't real? Nowhere outside a video game is this even used. It's preposterous... ..and you bring up Altuve. What is a 90 in this game? What is an 85? What is the actual difference? ...and going past a 99.....how can it be? If a guy with 87/88....92/94.....and nothing at 99 except for say fielding is a 99(which it is in the game once you see it)....then obviously higher ratings will translate into an ACTUAL(not displayed) OVR above a 99. While CPU GM's do see the OVR as a tool in trades/moves/signings etc....I believe they also see it on the true scale(in which the human player is forced to actually put some further investigation into(stats/etc)...so they see a player is 110 etc... Why didn't they display past 99?...IDK M.K. Knight165

That's true, but the bar is still an arbitrary number is it not? So why would that make a difference? I'm not trying to be a douche about this either. I just want an answer because you are one of the biggest supporters when it comes to just bars. Really, if anything, the overall should be scrapped completely. That would put a bigger emphasis on scouting and getting players you really want/need. And really don't the numbers just make everyone's job easier that do the rosters?

Numbers are used in scouting scales either 20-80 or 2-8 so either of those would be acceptable to me or letters. I'm merely saying that if the ratings are going to stay how they are, they need to change.

[Knight165]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickkill77

That's true, but the bar is still an arbitrary number is it not? So why would that make a difference? I'm not trying to be a douche about this either. I just want an answer because you are one of the biggest supporters when it comes to just bars. Really, if anything, the overall should be scrapped completely. That would put a bigger emphasis on scouting and getting players you really want/need. And really don't the numbers just make everyone's job easier that do the rosters? Numbers are used in scouting scales either 20-80 or 2-8 so either of those would be acceptable to me or letters. I'm merely saying that if the ratings are going to stay how they are, they need to change.

You don't have to convince me...
I'd rather nothing than #'s OR bars...I'd prefer 20-80...but I'd take nothing if we couldn't get that.

For me...
20-80 > NOTHING > BARS > NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING



M.K.
Knight165

[slickkill77]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You don't have to convince me... I'd rather nothing than #'s OR bars...I'd prefer 20-80...but I'd take nothing if we couldn't get that. For me... 20-80 > NOTHING > BARS > NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING > BARS >NOTHING M.K. Knight165

Glad we could agree on that

[Qb]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You don't have to convince me...I'd prefer 20-80

Can't wait to read something like, "Why is Stanton's power only 80?!? It has to be 99!!!"