MLB 13 The Show News Post

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

02:48 PM - February 12, 2013 by Russell_SCEA

There will be a post with images about this later, but I figured a little teaser never hurt anyone.

If you didn't know, we changed the way we rate players and every position weigh different attributes differently. Before the change the game had 44 players rated 99 or higher. After the change there are 17, here is a little taste.

In no particular order.

T.Tulowitzki 99
A.Pujols 99
R.Braun 99
J.Hamilton 99
M.Cabrera 99
C.Kimbrel 99
C.Kershaw 99
A.Chapman 99
S.Strasburg 99
F.Hernandez 99
J.Verlander 99
B.Posey 99
M.Kemp 99
R.Cano 99
A.McCutchen 99
M.Trout 99
C.Gonzalez 99

J.Votto just missed the cut at a 98.

Second Baseman Top 5

Robinson Cano 99
Dustin Pedroia 98
Ian Kinsler 95
Brandon Phillips 93
Jose Altuve 90

Game: MLB 13 The ShowReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS Vita / PS3Votes for game: 36 - View All

MLB 13 The Show Videos

Member Comments

# 241 nomo17k @ 02/23/13 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanjeezy


	I wish the scale was more (for the lack of a better term) consistent across attributes. If you look at Knight's charts, 70 contact projects out to ~.270, which would be a 5 on the 2-8 scale, aka ML average. Look at power though, 70 power projects out to ~30 HR's, which would be a 7, or plus-plus. Ideally I would like to move over to the 2-8 scale, unless the letter grades covered a wider range, maybe something like this: A: 85-99 B: 70-84 C: 55-69 D: 40-54 That way, "average" would truly mean average, and hopefully the disparity between the best and the rest would increase... I hate that everything is bunched up at the top like a school grading system, not good for a sport with such a wide range of variability...

College grades have been inflated to cater to the students who insist on maintaining a decent GPAs solely for the purpose of moving on to the next phase of their lives (getting jobs, going to med schools, etc.). Higher education has become business....

Perhaps there are so many OVR 99 players in The Show to cater to the fragile egos of MLB players of recent years..... who knows MLBPA might be insisting that about 50% of all players to be rated at 99 OVR for MLB 14... and the SCEA shills in the forum defending the game saying SCEA cannot do anything about it because it's a contractual thing..... hahahaha.......

(that might actually propel the devs team to abandon number rating system ... okay I stop again....)

# 242 nomo17k @ 02/23/13 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvman


	If scea has some players rated higher than 99 doesn't that make roster editing pointless when we can only go to 99?

I believe those with a rating higher than 99 are ceiled at having a 99 rating for that attribute. From what Ramone said earlier it probably is the same for OVR.

# 243 MetsFan16 @ 02/23/13 03:07 PM

How about instead of complaining about how so many guys are 99's, when you get the game, the first thing you do is change the attributes...

# 244 pistolpete @ 02/23/13 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvman


	If scea has some players rated higher than 99 doesn't that make roster editing pointless when we can only go to 99?

Obviously they would have to allow for higher editing. Come on man.

Imagine someone runs a 4.20 40-yard dash and is therefore a 99 speed. What if in ten years guys are running 4.10 40s? Why not keep the same scale and they can now be 105 speeds.

The smartest people in comp science program these games, handling something like this they could do on a sheet of toilet paper.

# 245 nomo17k @ 02/23/13 07:16 PM

I'm actually curious who the hell came up with this 0 - 99 rating system that appears so prevalent among sports games in the past 10 - 20 years or so. The first game that I've played which uses this system was Front Page Sports Baseball.

Another old school manage-only type baseball game that I really enjoyed when I was a kid used letter grades (A, B, C, D, E ... that's it!) and it played very nice simulation baseball (for that generation).

In terms of programming, there really is no reason to keep numbers between 0 and 99 (although there is a reason that you might want to keep within 0 - 255... one byte to optimize memory usage).

I want to read a book titled "The History of Baseball Video Gaming" or something like that hahahaha.

# 246 sink4ever @ 02/23/13 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrOldboy


	I think part of it is that people feel a player does not deserve a 99 or another player deserves it because that 99 will reflect in the simmed stats. They see Strasburg at 99 and expect him to have 99 type stats, like a pitcher like Verlander who is also 99. It brings about comparisons when players max out at 99 like this I can understand why people would feel that way. Is it not understandable that a person would be upset about Chapman and Strasburg being 99 and potentially having 99 type stats when they do not believe they will have those type of stats this season? Its a thread on a forum dedicated to a sports game, this is what people want to argue about so what's the harm in letting them do so?

Remember, my statement was if the stats work out correctly, is there any reason to be upset that Player Q has X OVR rating? I'm not saying people can't complain (although I know I'm personally sick of the incessant whining), I was just asking why get your panties in a bunch before knowing how these ratings translate to stats/gameplay.

# 247 pistolpete @ 02/24/13 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomo17k


	In terms of programming, there really is no reason to keep numbers between 0 and 99 (although there is a reason that you might want to keep within 0 - 255... one byte to optimize memory usage).

No, it's all for the sake of communicating their skill. Just the idea of it makes sense. Percentages are done out of 100, so it's easy for people to understand.

# 248 Equinox831 @ 02/24/13 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavicchi


	Braun linked to performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be a 99.

Well when ratings are based off of stats and observing the player it's hard to deny him the 99. I don't really know what kind of deductions you could make just because they're linked to steroid usage. If The Show implemented classic teams and they managed to get Barry Bonds' likeness in the game would you want him to have a measly 50 power just because of the allegations against him or would you want him to be at his best regardless of the situation? At the end of the day it's a video game and dammit I want Ryan Braun to be a tree trunk wielding, bear tranquilizer drinking, 350 pound HGH injecting monster!

# 249 Cavicchi @ 02/24/13 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox831


	Well when ratings are based off of stats and observing the player it's hard to deny him the 99. I don't really know what kind of deductions you could make just because they're linked to steroid usage. If The Show implemented classic teams and they managed to get Barry Bonds' likeness in the game would you want him to have a measly 50 power just because of the allegations against him or would you want him to be at his best regardless of the situation? At the end of the day it's a video game and dammit I want Ryan Braun to be a tree trunk wielding, bear tranquilizer drinking, 350 pound HGH injecting monster!

As I see it, "cheaters" are not heroes or superstars.

# 250 bp4baseball @ 02/24/13 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavicchi


	As I see it, "cheaters" are not heroes or superstars.

Regardless of how he is achieving his stats, he is achieving them, and I think the game should accurately reflect them

# 251 Cavicchi @ 02/24/13 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bp4baseball


	Regardless of how he is achieving his stats, he is achieving them, and I think the game should accurately reflect them

Yes, after all, they didn't deduct anything from Melky, just a 50 game suspension. I guess you can always do that in this game.

# 252 pistolpete @ 02/24/13 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox831


	Well when ratings are based off of stats and observing the player it's hard to deny him the 99. I don't really know what kind of deductions you could make just because they're linked to steroid usage. If The Show implemented classic teams and they managed to get Barry Bonds' likeness in the game would you want him to have a measly 50 power just because of the allegations against him or would you want him to be at his best regardless of the situation? At the end of the day it's a video game and dammit I want Ryan Braun to be a tree trunk wielding, bear tranquilizer drinking, 350 pound HGH injecting monster!

As a slightly more ****** observer of baseball I get the idea that Ryan Braun is great!!!

You mentioning Barry Bonds though is an argument against the 0-100 rating system. Are there any players in baseball in the same league as Bonds was during his peak? I doubt it. But, if they were on the same game it would come across that Carlos Gonzalez is of the same ilk as Barry Bonds.

# 253 paradox1987 @ 02/25/13 02:49 AM

Carlos Gonzalez is rated 99 but Joey Votto isn't? Tulo rated 99 I can agree with, his numbers are at least similar at Coors and away from Coors.

Cargo's Home and Away splits for the last two years as an example:

2012;
Home: .368/13 HRs/58 RBIs/.437 OBP (68 Games)
Away: .234/9 HRs/27 RBIs/.301 OBP (67 Games)

2011;
Home: .331/16 HRs/60 RBIs/.402 OBP (66 Games)
Away: .252/10 HRs/32 RBIs/.317 OBP (59 Games)

The number's don't lie, if he's as good as everyone think's he is he'd be putting up numbers away from Coors as well. Take him away from Coors and I'd be willing to bet he'd just be an average player, if that.

Also, while Trout did have an amazing rookie year last year, I don't think one amazing year in the league warrants a 99 rating. He deserves a rating in the 90s, but definitely not a 99 rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatsareBugs


	Overall ratings need to go, let's just have a 20-80 scale for hitting, fielding, power, speed, and arm for position players and stamina, control, individual pitch grades, etc. for pitchers. On a more serious note, I don't find a problem with the ratings, it's just that if you did have a well-balanced pitcher or position player, let's say 70's across the board, they'll easily get close to that 99 or A+ rating without really having an outstanding tool. I recall I reached max overall in RTTS with none of my rating grades as a C, so yes, players can have ratings that push them above 99 that the game can't reflect. I don't see what's wrong with it, some players now are just as good as HOF'ers of the past, maybe not for their career.

I would absolutely love to see the rating system changed to what you suggested, it makes the most sense.

# 254 nomo17k @ 02/25/13 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradox1987


	Carlos Gonzalez is rated 99 but Joey Votto isn't? Tulo rated 99 I can agree with, his numbers are at least similar at Coors and away from Coors. Cargo's Home and Away splits for the last two years as an example: 2012; Home: .368/13 HRs/58 RBIs/.437 OBP (68 Games) Away: .234/9 HRs/27 RBIs/.301 OBP (67 Games) 2011; Home: .331/16 HRs/60 RBIs/.402 OBP (66 Games) Away: .252/10 HRs/32 RBIs/.317 OBP (59 Games) The number's don't lie, if he's as good as everyone think's he is he'd be putting up numbers away from Coors as well. Take him away from Coors and I'd be willing to bet he'd just be an average player, if that. Also, while Trout did have an amazing rookie year last year, I don't think one amazing year in the league warrants a 99 rating. He deserves a 90 rating, but definitely not a 99 rating.

I think the park factors aren't rigorously considered when rating players. Maybe the game should consider them more.

# 255 Houston @ 02/25/13 04:25 AM

I don't think any player should be rated 99 and I hope that the SHOW doesn't turn into what Donny Moore did with Madden with all his 99 player ratings.

# 256 Houston @ 02/25/13 04:39 AM

Lorne should create a ratings generator and go player by player, team by team using something like baseballreference.com and this probably would end a lot of debate about ratings letting the SHOW fans know how the players are being rated. Because nothng would be done by personal opinions but how the player preformed in real actual games.

EXAMPLE: If this was the method being used with the generator they could base it off the first 50 games played this year. You have your default roster and whatever the ratings are go with that then after we see how players are actually performing then adjust the ratings based off a certain amount of games using a generator.

What I cant stand is you will have guys wanting a player to be jack up with a high rating because the first month or 2 hes hitting bombs or for a great average then in the 2nd half he goes cold. A rating generator would be the way to go. MVPEDIT was awesome.

# 257 nomo17k @ 02/25/13 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Houston


	Lorne should create a ratings generator and go player by player, team by team using something like baseballreference.com and this probably would end a lot of debate about ratings letting the SHOW fans know how the players are being rated. Because nothng would be done by personal opinions but how the player preformed in real actual games. ...

This is actually pretty close to how the rating is done right now at SCEA.... and you can see people do still complain, hahahaha.....

# 258 Cavicchi @ 02/25/13 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paradox1987


	Carlos Gonzalez is rated 99 but Joey Votto isn't? Tulo rated 99 I can agree with, his numbers are at least similar at Coors and away from Coors. Cargo's Home and Away splits for the last two years as an example: 2012; Home: .368/13 HRs/58 RBIs/.437 OBP (68 Games) Away: .234/9 HRs/27 RBIs/.301 OBP (67 Games) 2011; Home: .331/16 HRs/60 RBIs/.402 OBP (66 Games) Away: .252/10 HRs/32 RBIs/.317 OBP (59 Games) The number's don't lie, if he's as good as everyone think's he is he'd be putting up numbers away from Coors as well. Take him away from Coors and I'd be willing to bet he'd just be an average player, if that. Also, while Trout did have an amazing rookie year last year, I don't think one amazing year in the league warrants a 99 rating. He deserves a rating in the 90s, but definitely not a 99 rating. I would absolutely love to see the rating system changed to what you suggested, it makes the most sense.

What about Chapman? Not only did he have one amazing year as a relief pitcher, but he's going to be a starter! Next up is Posey, and how many seasons has he had better than Trout? Then there is Strasburg who hasn't had one single season of 200+ innings with a sub 3.00 ERA, and he is a starter. I agree with you on Gonzalez.

Having said all that, I don't know of a perfect rating system that would please everyone.

# 259 tvman @ 02/25/13 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavicchi


	What about Chapman? Not only did he have one amazing year as a relief pitcher, but he's going to be a starter! Next up is Posey, and how many seasons has he had better than Trout? Then there is Strasburg who hasn't had one single season of 200+ innings with a sub 3.00 ERA, and he is a starter. I agree with you on Gonzalez. Having said all that, I don't know of a perfect rating system that would please everyone.

It's almost as though media hype factored into some of the ratings.

I also agree with Houston that no player should ever be rated a 99 in any game.

# 260 MrOldboy @ 02/25/13 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvman


	It's almost as though media hype factored into some of the ratings. I also agree with Houston that no player should ever be rated a 99 in any game.

I'd still say 99 could be reserved for the top rated player (as calculated by the game) with all other players ratings scaled accordingly. 99 doesn't mean perfect, it just means the max rating displayed by the game. What is weird though is if a player can be 99, why not 100? Does 100 bring about thoughts of perfection, 100%?

« Previous 1 2…7 8 9 10 11 121314 15 Next »

More Links

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