MLB 13 The Show Player Ratings For Every Team

[3fiddy]

I hope this helps man Harper had 100 hits vs rhp. Trout had 143 vs rhp. So harper had roughly 2/3 of the hits but was tied with trout for 2bs and 3bs +\- 1. Harper 20 2b vs rhp 5 triples vs rhp 16 hrs vs rhp. Trout 19 2bs vs rhp 6 3bs vsrhp 23 hrs vs rhp. Those facts are for you Cavicchi. If they tied in hits Harper would have more doubles triples and same homers. Harper doesn't have near the contact of Trout so to get a guy with near the same totals as trout but hit .270 he has to have a slight edge in power. Better contact and better power would not get you these results.

Trout hit a homer in that angels ranger vid. It's gonna be all good.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by 3fiddy

I hope this helps man Harper had 100 hits vs rhp. Trout had 143 vs rhp. So harper had roughly 2/3 of the hits but was tied with trout for 2bs and 3bs +\- 1. Harper 20 2b vs rhp 5 triples vs rhp 16 hrs vs rhp. Trout 19 2bs vs rhp 6 3bs vsrhp 23 hrs vs rhp. Those facts are for you Cavicchi. If they tied in hits Harper would have more doubles triples and same homers. Harper doesn't have near the contact of Trout so to get a guy with near the same totals as trout but hit .270 he has to have a slight edge in power. Better contact and better power would not get you these results. Trout hit a homer in that angels ranger vid. It's gonna be all good.

Look, Slg % tells me more than what you say above. Trout had a higher Slg % and higher OPS against RHP than Harper, and that to me is the bottom line.

[Cavicchi]

2012 Top 5 rated players for Slugging:

1. Giancarlo Stanton

2. Miguel Cabrera

3. Ryan Braun

4. Josh Hamilton

5. Mike Trout

Where is Harper? Harper is 45th!

[MrOldboy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

I believe it will affect more than online play. I think it will make a difference in franchise mode as well.

In other modes you have the option to adjust rosters. Sure it would be nice to have the ratings be a bit more accurate and less arbitrary, but since you can edit them if anyone has a disagreement with the ratings they can alter them to their liking.

For online though you have to use the SCEA roster.

[Cavicchi]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

In other modes you have the option to adjust rosters. Sure it would be nice to have the ratings be a bit more accurate and less arbitrary, but since you can edit them if anyone has a disagreement with the ratings they can alter them to their liking. For online though you have to use the SCEA roster.

I'm not 100% certain the game will 100% accept the edit; for example, let's say I make Trout's power vs RHP 80, or reduce Harper to 70. I still think players will play as they are coded into the game. Now I may be wrong about that, maybe, but I've seen what happens when I increased Kershaw's control rating, and it was as if I never adjusted it.

Kershaw was one example.

The other game has Trout vs RHP with 85 for power and Harper with 79. Now I'm not certain the difference is that large, something between 2-5 points higher for Trout against RHP would seem fairly accurate to me.

[ERA]

Where is Cameron Maybin? I think he is a top 10 CF..

And Chase Headley is the only one on the roster with an above 90 overall.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

Why would they use minor league stats when they have major league stats to use? Trout hit more home runs than Harper, so I don't get your point there.

I'm just relaying the fact that the player raters at SCEA would try to dig into more auxiliary info (such as minor league stats) when a particular player has had limited playing time at the MLB level. And I'm just saying *if* (I don't know for sure) SCEA did use minor league stats, Trout having rated lower than Harper in Power does make sense.

That's partly the reason SCEA rates players on weighted 3-year averages, because their strategy is to *try* to rate players based on their intrinsic abilities that could be observed over a longer time span, not just based on limited sample size like one year which can totally be dominated by injuries, luck, and other external factors.

The reason why sophomore jinx *appears* to exist is actually because of this.... people tend to notice and emphasize a great performance by a rookie, but when he performs exceptionally well, beyond well above average, it usually involves a fair amount of luck as well. So his next year, when he isn't as lucky, he regresses to his normal performance level. The resulting stats don't look as good as in the first year. And people call this sophomore jinx, when it's actually a natural result of statistical/performance fluctuation.... the result of Mother Nature... hahhahaha.

Rating players using more stats than just the first year at the MLB level avoids that kind of overrating players performing beyond their true abilities.

Not saying the resulting ratings always come out reasonably though. Rating players isn't as cut and dry as you might be thinking here, although for the purpose of making the game most aspect of rating is very systematized.

Gamers just think their know better because it always feels more accurate when a player is rated to their liking, and complain when he isn't.

Quote: Originally Posted by MrOldboy

In other modes you have the option to adjust rosters. Sure it would be nice to have the ratings be a bit more accurate and less arbitrary, but since you can edit them if anyone has a disagreement with the ratings they can alter them to their liking. For online though you have to use the SCEA roster.

It's really not random.... they use formulas.

... and for online leagues, you can use your own roster, though not for Play Now/game rooms....

Quote: Originally Posted by Cavicchi

I'm not 100% certain the game will 100% accept the edit; for example, let's say I make Trout's power vs RHP 80, or reduce Harper to 70. I still think players will play as they are coded into the game. Now I may be wrong about that, maybe, but I've seen what happens when I increased Kershaw's control rating, and it was as if I never adjusted it. Kershaw was one example. The other game has Trout vs RHP with 85 for power and Harper with 79. Now I'm not certain the difference is that large, something between 2-5 points higher for Trout against RHP would seem fairly accurate to me.

Comparison to other games like this isn't really meaningful as well... since 2 - 5 points difference in The Show isn't really the same as that in the other games.




Again, I'm just relaying the info that I've gathered from things like this site and the CD event. Not trying to stir up or being defensive or anything.

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by ParisB

I'm convinced Trout hits the ball harder though. Most of his home runs are a product of him using his quick compact swing of just mashing the ball around the field and they just carry over the fence because he's a good hitter. He knows he has a chance of creating a single (and then a steal), or double or triple or a walk at a much higher rate, but when he's up there with a home run mentality he has absolutely crushed balls. They're not big bloopers but they just leave the yard the way mike piazza used to...even his singles just carry like they have some kind of top spin. He's crazy, and unless people watch him they miss out on how special he is.

Yeah...... he's such a complete player...... he's really really mature for his age.... hahah. Great years ahead of him. Agree somewhat on Piazza.... compact but powerful swing... hit for high average and can produce power.

...but I think Trout is overall a much better player. Piazza could muscle everything, but he wasn't really that skillful or athletic.... at least Tony Gwynn didn't think so highly of Piazza for similar reasons, haha....