MLB 2K9 News Post

MLB 2K9 Ratings: Hits and Misses

02:53 PM - February 27, 2009 by RaychelSnr

The 2008 season was a strange one for baseball. During the year, Tampa Bay emerged, the Mets and Yankees tanked, the Brewers and White Sox made waves and the Cubs collapsed -- all right so that last one was not so strange.

But the 2009 season is only six weeks away, so it is time to look back so we can look ahead. I plan to do that by looking at what players got hosed in the overall rating department. To do this, I will be using MLB 2K9 as my guide.

Of course, time will tell whether these players were justified in the rating they received, but for right now, this is who I think got hosed or overrated in MLB 2K9.

Read More - MLB 2K9 Ratings: Hits and Misses

Game: Major League Baseball 2K9Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 38 - View All

Major League Baseball 2K9 Videos

Member Comments

# 1 AftershockFx @ 02/27/09 03:10 PM

I agree with this Post entirely. It's no surprise K-Rod got a rating of a 96 but, in the clutch I'd take Papelbon or Rivera any day.

Jacoby Ellsbury isn't nearly the offensive threat McClouth is. McClouth also won a gold glove and as an all star last year. What I don't get is in 2K8 McClouth had a rating that shot up to an 83 or 84 yet he's only an 81 this year. Just another classic example of 2K over rating players who play in big name cities and forgetting about the smaller teams

. Freddy Sanchez got no love either and dropped from an 81 to a 78

.

Overall great article. Any more thoughts on player ratings ?

# 2 Trevytrev11 @ 02/27/09 03:23 PM

This is always a touchy subject, but some how the prior year has to have a large impact on the overall ratings, but not be the only contributor. I know historically 2K used a three year average, but because of this, there numbers are always a few years behind the players trend. Either players who had a great last season get brought too far down or players who had a great season two and three years ago get held too high up.

What do you do for a player in the middle of his career that had a great year following two mediocre ones? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt and think he has turned his career around or do you think it's the exception to his other seasons? What about a player with one bad year, maybe due to injuries.

I work in finance and we often use a lot of weighted trends always putting more emphasis on the most current trends, but also take into account what happened beyond that to a certain reasonable period. But what is that for baseball?

If 2K does use three year averages, how much weight to they give to that first year of the three. What if a player hits 20 HR's and then 38 and 42 the next two years. An average would project only 33, which would be a down year compared to the two. What happened three years ago in baseball almost seems to long ago to give considerable attention to.

A lot of credible sites put together projections for the upcoming year, which always seem to be much closer to realistic numbers for these guys than what 2K comes up with, so maybe they could just form some kind of a deal with these guys and apply 2K ratings to these projections or something.

The bottom line is no one can ever agree on ratings...every single player is going to be too high or too low. It's just with 2K, they are usually far beyond in each direction from what the average of consensus.

I say if they are going to take three years of history into consideration then do it so that much more ephasis is put on year three than on year one...say 10% year one, 30% year two and 60% year three or something like that.

# 3 AftershockFx @ 02/27/09 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevytrev11


	This is always a touchy subject, but some how the prior year has to have a large impact on the overall ratings, but not be the only contributor. I know historically 2K used a three year average, but because of this, there numbers are always a few years behind the players trend. Either players who had a great last season get brought too far down or players who had a great season two and three years ago get held too high up. What do you do for a player in the middle of his career that had a great year following two mediocre ones? Do you give him the benefit of the doubt and think he has turned his career around or do you think it's the exception to his other seasons? What about a player with one bad year, maybe due to injuries. I work in finance and we often use a lot of weighted trends always putting more emphasis on the most current trends, but also take into account what happened beyond that to a certain reasonable period. But what is that for baseball? If 2K does use three year averages, how much weight to they give to that first year of the three. What if a player hits 20 HR's and then 38 and 42 the next two years. An average would project only 33, which would be a down year compared to the two. What happened three years ago in baseball almost seems to long ago to give considerable attention to. A lot of credible sites put together projections for the upcoming year, which always seem to be much closer to realistic numbers for these guys than what 2K comes up with, so maybe they could just form some kind of a deal with these guys and apply 2K ratings to these projections or something. The bottom line is no one can ever agree on ratings...every single player is going to be too high or too low. It's just with 2K, they are usually far beyond in each direction from what the average of consensus. I say if they are going to take three years of history into consideration then do it so that much more ephasis is put on year three than on year one...say 10% year one, 30% year two and 60% year three or something like that.

It's a good theory but, there's still a few major issues with it. How could you account for someone who spent half their season at AAA and then got called up at the trade deadline for a year then played the next two ?

How could you justify counting 2 previous years where a player was a 4th OF and finally got an opportunity to start and had an awesome year (Nate McClouth) ?

How would injuries effect the ratings when the injury sliders hardly work anyways (Jason Bay) ?

It seems like 2K sports does a 3 year plan for everyone regardless of all circumstances.

# 4 Trevytrev11 @ 02/27/09 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AftershockFx


	It's a good theory but, there's still a few major issues with it. How could you account for someone who spent half their season at AAA and then got called up at the trade deadline for a year then played the next two ? How could you justify counting 2 previous years where a player was a 4th OF and finally got an opportunity to start and had an awesome year (Nate McClouth) ? How would injuries effect the ratings when the injury sliders hardly work anyways (Jason Bay) ? It seems like 2K sports does a 3 year plan for everyone regardless of all circumstances.

I agree that there would have to be all sorts of special circumstances taken for all sorts of different groups of players...rookies, sophomores, juniors, injuries, players transitioning from part time to full time (Reliever to Starter), etc.

I think you do this generic spread for as many players that qualify and then you do everyone else seperately...then of course (and this is probably something 2K doesn't do very well at all), you take a step back and then re-look at it for realism and sanity. Does it make sense that a 40 year old outfielder coming off of a sub par year should have a all-star caliber rating? Probably not. And then adjust.

It would be nice to have some explanations of how they arrive at their ratings and whether or not they actually believe them to be fair.

# 5 sirwoodz @ 02/27/09 05:04 PM

so let me get this straight - a guy breaks the record for saves in a year, has had 4 straight 40+ save seasons, has pitched in 450 innings, and has struck out (brace yourself) almost 590 batters...shouldn't be the highest rated pitcher in the game? is not the better than mariano rivera?

uhhh okay. I'll be on that little place called planet earth if you all need me.

# 6 Chavez21 @ 02/27/09 05:33 PM

I'm not sure if you noticed but Mariano Rivera had an ERA almost a full run lower, the same amount of strikeouts, fewer hits, more innings and six walks the entire season. Six! Mariano Rivera gave up one walk a month in 2008. Think about that. I'll meet you on earth if you happen to get there.

# 7 Trevytrev11 @ 02/27/09 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirwoodz


	so let me get this straight - a guy breaks the record for saves in a year, has had 4 straight 40+ save seasons, has pitched in 450 innings, and has struck out (brace yourself) almost 590 batters...shouldn't be the highest rated pitcher in the game? is not the better than mariano rivera? uhhh okay. I'll be on that little place called planet earth if you all need me.

Do you really honestly believe that Saves is the tell all stat for quality pitcher or relief pitchers at that?

Basically you are saying that he is better than every other closer because he had more opportunities even though he has a higher whip, fewer k's per 9 and a higher ERA than others. Had those guys had his opportunities, there is a very good chance they would have done more.

Example from his record breaking save:
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Francisco-...ken-Blog-11808

Quote:


	In Thursday night's game between the Angels and Mariners, Francisco Rodriguez made history. But that's not all he did. While tying Bobby Thigpen's record for most saves in a single season, Rodriguez showed everyone why the save stat is broken, and shouldn't be the stat by which closers are measured. When K-Rod entered the game, there were runners on 1st and 2nd. Rodriguez pitched one inning, allowed one of those runners to score, gave up 2 hits, and was arguably a main reason the game was ever in question at all. Should a closer get credit for "saving" the game, when they are part of the reason the game NEEDS saving? What about situations when the game is never even in jeopardy at all? K-Rod entered this game with a 4-run lead, with 3 outs left

# 8 Coug00 @ 02/27/09 06:35 PM

I think Lee's rating is decent. The guy was awful in '07 and mediocre in '06. Until he can repeat success I think an 87 is fine.

JJ Putz is the guy who got robbed. Paps is the only closer in MLB who could even compare to Putz in '06 and '07. JJ was pitching last year with separated cartilage from his ribs and elbow inflammation, which caused his numbers to drop to that of an average closer. That deserves an 80?

# 9 dukeblue @ 02/27/09 06:45 PM

I understand McCann is a very good catcher, but he is not as good as Mauer. Having watched Mauer ever since he came up to the pros, no catcher is on the same level. The guy already has 2 batting titles, and has played 4 whole seasons excluding 2004. He will get more batting titles in the future, and the sky is the limit for him.

Don't get me wrong about McCann, he is very good, but Mauer should be about 89-90 and McCann at 88. Mauer only had 2 less rbi's last season, but of course McCann had more home runs. In my mind, home runs are not that big of a deal as hitting a guy in from 2nd for an rbi and hitting a solo home run is not much difference. Sure it looks real nice for catchers hitting home runs, don't get me wrong, but Mauer produces just as much if not more.

Call me a homer, I really don't care. But for those of you that think McCann is on an even level with Mauer I just can't understand. I am not saying McCann is not deserving, he is the 2nd best catcher in the league. I am just trying to point out Mauer should be a little higher.

# 10 redsox0717 @ 02/27/09 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirwoodz


	so let me get this straight - a guy breaks the record for saves in a year, has had 4 straight 40+ save seasons, has pitched in 450 innings, and has struck out (brace yourself) almost 590 batters...shouldn't be the highest rated pitcher in the game? is not the better than mariano rivera? uhhh okay. I'll be on that little place called planet earth if you all need me.

lol saves.

# 11 yanks26ngoin @ 02/27/09 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirwoodz


	so let me get this straight - a guy breaks the record for saves in a year, has had 4 straight 40+ save seasons, has pitched in 450 innings, and has struck out (brace yourself) almost 590 batters...shouldn't be the highest rated pitcher in the game? is not the better than mariano rivera? uhhh okay. I'll be on that little place called planet earth if you all need me.

Umm get off the drugs. Why dont you look at ERA? A 2.24 ERA is great, when your a starter or a bullpen pitcher who pitches more than 2 innings. But for a closer? That is not good what so ever. You shouldnt really be allowed to comment if you try to say that K-Rod is better than Mo. Mo is still better than K-Rod, and Mo is 38. No closer in the MLB right now is better than Mo. Mo is the best closer in the MLB, and is the greatest closer to ever walk the planet.

# 12 AftershockFx @ 02/27/09 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevytrev11


	I agree that there would have to be all sorts of special circumstances taken for all sorts of different groups of players...rookies, sophomores, juniors, injuries, players transitioning from part time to full time (Reliever to Starter), etc. I think you do this generic spread for as many players that qualify and then you do everyone else seperately...then of course (and this is probably something 2K doesn't do very well at all), you take a step back and then re-look at it for realism and sanity. Does it make sense that a 40 year old outfielder coming off of a sub par year should have a all-star caliber rating? Probably not. And then adjust. It would be nice to have some explanations of how they arrive at their ratings and whether or not they actually believe them to be fair.

Point taken. Explanations would be great because it's math that I know we were not taught in grade school

. They need to stop favoring guys who play for Boston, NYY, NYM, LAD and LAA and rate them accurately. I'm willing to bet you if Jack Wilson got dealt to the Dodgers this winter his rating would've jumped from a 73 to a 78 or 79 just because he played in LA ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirwoodz


	so let me get this straight - a guy breaks the record for saves in a year, has had 4 straight 40+ save seasons, has pitched in 450 innings, and has struck out (brace yourself) almost 590 batters...shouldn't be the highest rated pitcher in the game? is not the better than mariano rivera? uhhh okay. I'll be on that little place called planet earth if you all need me.

Save's aren't everything and numbers don't lie. With Rivera's numbers it's very possible he could've broken that record if the Yankees played as many close games as the Angels ... I'll be on earth if you want to chat schematics sometime.

# 13 Coug00 @ 02/28/09 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanks26ngoin


	Why dont you look at ERA?

Why don't we just scratch ERA as a form of measuring relievers?

Reliever A comes into the game with 2 men on and a 2 run lead. He gives up a 2-run tying double, then gets out of the inning. Its a blown save, but leads to a positive effect on his ERA.

Reliever B comes into his game with a 2 run lead and gives up a solo HR then gets the next 3 outs. He gets the save, but his ERA for the inning is 9.00.

Those two situations had different difficulty levels, but leverage situations are never equal between relievers in baseball. Bottom line is ERA sucks.

More Links

MLB 2K9 Ratings: Hits and Misses