MLB 13 The Show - Overall Team Ratings, Including Batting, Pitching and Defense

[mkoivu9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dannyc

PECOTA projected the Mets for 80 wins this season, they aren't that bad.

They are pretty awful

[ParisB]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dannyc

PECOTA projected the Mets for 80 wins this season, they aren't that bad.

Yes they are. In fact, that seems generous.

[cardinalbird5]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

As I've said, I've heard and talked to way too many people who know way more about it than anyone here dispute that. Tough to quantify yes, but a factor without a doubt. 80's A's team was also managed by someone who was a master of managing personalities and players. Of all the people in that organization I've known, never really heard about in team hatred. You obviously have to have talent to be succesful, but it's not the only thing required. If it was, the teams the list of World Series winning teams would look a lot different than it does today.

Sure it helps, but my point was that you are not going to win a World Series based on team chemistry alone. For all we know the team with the best team chemistry could have been the Royals or Twins or someone bad. We only know so much and as much as the camera's and media shows us. I remember the Cards won a WS in 06 with an above average team ,if that, while Rolen and LaRussa hated one another. Instead people labeled us as "lucky" more than anything, which may be true to an extent, but we were also just a team that got healthy at that right time.

It isn't really a competitive advantage in baseball. I also don't see how in the world they would implement a team chemistry rating into a baseball game besides giving every player an attribute increase, which I would hate to see. It'd be a silly rating they gave too mediocre teams that usually played above their heads and stats would suggest otherwise aka teams such as the Orioles and Giants.

I just hate when people say cliches such as "They won because they have heart!" or "They won because of their team chemistry" when in reality that had very little to do with it. Sure I said the same things when I was a 14 year old, but to believe those apply to MLB is really pushing it.

[MrOldboy]

If the ratings are based off of the entire organization that should change. It should represent the players on the 25 man roster. The only time I can really see the overall team ratings come into play is online as I'm sure some people base their decision on this, or base their opinion of opponents off of this. "Yeah, great, nice job picking the Tigers everytime." People who know won't care, but those who don't and think its based off of the 25 man roster might. I actually thought that they were based off of the 25 man roster until this thread.

[cardinalbird5]

Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.

[HustlinOwl]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.

fake minors with default rosters

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardinalbird7

Cards should be number 1 if it was based on entire organization. They have some studs all throughout the minors.

But its not top prospects, its every player in the system.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by HustlinOwl

fake minors with default rosters

So the fake minors don't have fake players to mimic the real player?