MLB 13 The Show News Post

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

12:57 PM - February 22, 2013 by Steve_OS

Thanks to chrisjohnson83 (who has already confirmed his legit copy of the game with me), we have screenshots of the overall team ratings for MLB 13 The Show. This includes batting, pitching and defensive team ratings.

The ratings are accurate as of the January 24th roster update, so there will probably be subtle changes before release date on March 5th.

Overall Team Rating

1. Detroit Tigers
2. St. Louis Cardinals
3. Boston Red Sox
4. Los Angeles Angels
5. Toronto Blue Jays
6. Texas Rangers
7. Washington Nationals
8. Atlanta Braves
9. Cincinnati Reds
10. Philadelphia Phillies
11. New York Yankees
12. Los Angeles Dodgers
13. Colorado Rockies
14. Chicago White Sox
15. Arizona Diamondbacks
16. Tampa Bay Rays
17. San Francisco Giants
18. Oakland Athletics
19. Kansas City Royals
20. Milwaukee Brewers
21. Baltimore Orioles
22. Pittsburgh Pirates
23. Seattle Mariners
24. Cleveland Indians
25. San Diego Padres
26. Minnesota Twins
27. Chicago Cubs
28. New York Mets
29. Miami Marlins
30. Houston Astros

Team Batting

1. Detroit Tigers
2. Los Angeles Angels
3. Colorado Rockies
4. Boston Red Sox
5. Texas Rangers
6. Toronto Blue Jays
7. Cincinnati Reds
8. St. Louis Cardinals
9. Washington Nationals
10. Los Angeles Dodgers
11. New York Yankees
12. Atlanta Braves
13. Philadelphia Phillies
14. Milwaukee Brewers
15. Baltimore Orioles
16. Arizona Diamondbacks
17. Chicago White Sox
18. Kansas City Royals
19. Oakland Athletics
20. Pittsburgh Pirates
21. Cleveland Indians
22. San Francisco Giants
23. Seattle Mariners
24. Tampa Bay Rays
25. Miami Marlins
26. New York Mets
27. San Diego Padres
28. Minnesota Twins
29. Chicago Cubs
30. Houston Astros

Team Pitching

1. Philadelphia Phillies
2. Washington Nationals
3. Atlanta Braves
4. St. Louis Cardinals
5. Tampa Bay Rays
6. New York Yankees
7. Toronto Blue Jays
8. Los Angeles Dodgers
9. San Francisco Giants
10. Boston Red Sox
11. Cincinnati Reds
12. Texas Rangers
13. Detroit Tigers
14. Los Angeles Angels
15. Arizona Diamondbacks
16. Oakland Athletics
17. Chicago White Sox
18. Kansas City Royals
19. San Diego Padres
20. Seattle Mariners
21. Cleveland Indians
22. Pittsburgh Pirates
23. Colorado Rockies
24. Milwaukee Brewers
25. Baltimore Orioles
26. Chicago Cubs
27. Minnesota Twins
28. New York Mets
29. Houston Astros
30. Miami Marlins

Team Defense

1. New York Yankees
2. Los Angeles Dodgers
3. Los Angeles Angels
4. Tampa Bay Rays
5. Cincinnati Reds
6. Philadelphia Phillies
7. Atlanta Braves
8. Chicago Cubs
9. Baltimore Orioles
10. San Francisco Giants
11. Texas Rangers
12. Washington Nationals
13. Colorado Rockies
14. St. Louis Cardinals
15. Boston Red Sox
16. Kansas City Royals
17. Arizona Diamondbacks
18. San Diego Padres
19. Detroit Tigers
20. Houston Astros
21. Pittsburgh Pirates
22. Cleveland Indians
23. Seattle Mariners
24. Oakland Athletics
25. Miami Marlins
26. Toronto Blue Jays
27. Minnesota Twins
28. Milwaukee Brewers
29. Chicago White Sox
30. New York Mets

MLB 13 The Show screenshot gallery - Click to view

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

# 321 JoeCoolMan24 @ 02/26/13 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyg83


	How can the White Sox be last in fielding ratings? They had the best fielding percentage and fewest errors in the American League last year. And not a single significant defensive stat in the bottom third.

LOL, that's what I was thinking too. White Sox were one of the best defensive teams in baseball last year.....yet have the 2nd worst ratings in the game...lol.

Only spots of suspect defense are LF and 1B. CF and C are average. SS, 3B, 2B, RF, and our pitchers are ALL plus defensive positions for this team......

Guess I'll have to adjust ratings again. They always short Alexei and Beckham on defense, despite being possibly the best DP combo in baseball.

# 322 OUSOONERS#1 @ 02/26/13 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardinalbird7


	Actually Chemistry means very little in baseball. Sure it helps, but nothing compared to NHL, NBA, or NFL. MLB teams have whole new rosters every 2-3 years anyways. Giants just played well at that right time, simple as that. There was nothing magical about it.

IM biggest Cardinals fan there is and I can tell you this the Giants run was pretty magical .Also there is no way the Cardinals win the 2011 WS without the team chemistry they had.

P.S. Do you not remember "Happy Flight"?

# 323 cardinalbird5 @ 02/26/13 02:51 AM

If team chemistry is such a big deal then why do teams get a whole new roster every 2-3 years? Wouldn't they rather keep their players to have that "team chemistry"? Sorry, I don't believe in team chemistry in baseball as much as I do in basketball or football. I think you can put the best teams together and they'll dominate right away, unlike in basketball or even football. The only player that needs to have good team chemistry is the catcher really. But if you put a team together of 9 superstars in baseball they'll dominate. If you put together a team of a HOF PG, best center in the league, one of the best players ever, and a top 10 PF they might not even make the playoffs.

I know it sounds good putting cliches and feel good stories in your beliefs, but that doesn't mean they are always true.

Giants were a good team that made the playoffs and played well when it mattered. I don't see any magic there. Jesus wasn't walking on water or anything last October.

# 324 g-burn @ 02/26/13 12:35 PM

Did Justin Upton get traded to the Braves in time to be included on the Show's roster?

# 325 ROABS @ 02/26/13 07:03 PM

Wow the redsox are rated #3 thats a surprise . Being a sox fan i find that a little high.

# 326 bdubz91 @ 02/27/13 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardinalbird7


	If team chemistry is such a big deal then why do teams get a whole new roster every 2-3 years? Wouldn't they rather keep their players to have that "team chemistry"? Sorry, I don't believe in team chemistry in baseball as much as I do in basketball or football. I think you can put the best teams together and they'll dominate right away, unlike in basketball or even football. The only player that needs to have good team chemistry is the catcher really. But if you put a team together of 9 superstars in baseball they'll dominate. If you put together a team of a HOF PG, best center in the league, one of the best players ever, and a top 10 PF they might not even make the playoffs. I know it sounds good putting cliches and feel good stories in your beliefs, but that doesn't mean they are always true. Giants were a good team that made the playoffs and played well when it mattered. I don't see any magic there. Jesus wasn't walking on water or anything last October.

So this is your logic for 2010 and 2012, where they had the same dominant pitching staff, and won the world series? Give me a break. The Giants pitching staff which has stayed pretty much the same since 2010, won them the world series (with some timely hitting of course). Never discount the value of playing together as a team in any sport.

# 327 D0GGERT D0G @ 02/27/13 10:15 AM

I just don't quite understand how the Rockies are 13th when they were the 3rd worst team in baseball last year

# 328 soxin12 @ 02/27/13 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROABS


	Wow the redsox are rated #3 thats a surprise . Being a sox fan i find that a little high.

I thought the same thing. With a productive offseason I thought we look better than we did last year, but still there are too many question marks to have us ranked so high. I realize the ranking is probably the potential for what we have, fast guys or power guys that CAN produce but in reality fall flat sometimes.

They should make all players on the sox injury prone on the game, because we all know thats how it is in real life

.
I have a feeling that John Ferrell will make a difference on the pitching staff and that the new strategy of building team chemistry will work out moreso than having a team of big headed superstars.

At least I don't have to make big moves to ensure my red sox will be contenders in the Franchise mode! haha

# 329 catswithbats @ 02/27/13 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maizeandbluekid


	Hmm. With the starting rotation that the Tigers have, why are they 13th in Team Pitching? I know there's questions on the back end of the bullpen, but when you have studs like Verlander, Fister, Scherzer, and Sanchez, I think it balances that out. More than that, I think.

I'm guessing MLB the Show doesn't think too highly of the Tigers' bullpen and its rookie closer then.

ETA

Apparently the Show has Phil Coke as closer. Huh.

# 330 foreverasnake @ 02/27/13 03:46 PM

This is ridiculous, The World Champions 17th, and the team voted most likely to win the world series is 5th, and Marlins are better than Jays on defense?? Somebody clearly has no idea what theyre doing

# 331 Metsfan31 @ 02/27/13 05:03 PM

My Mets 28th? Wow they really are expecting no production this year.

# 332 Metsfan31 @ 02/27/13 05:03 PM

The Blue Jays should be a little better than that!

# 333 Metsfan31 @ 02/27/13 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metsfan31


	The Blue Jays should be a little better than that!

I'd switch the Blue Jays and Red Sox.

# 334 HustlinOwl @ 02/27/13 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metsfan31


	I'd switch the Blue Jays and Red Sox.

at MLB level maybe, but these represent the entire organization including minor league players

# 335 cardinalbird5 @ 02/27/13 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdubz91


	So this is your logic for 2010 and 2012, where they had the same dominant pitching staff, and won the world series? Give me a break. The Giants pitching staff which has stayed pretty much the same since 2010, won them the world series (with some timely hitting of course). Never discount the value of playing together as a team in any sport.

Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though.

Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.

# 336 bdubz91 @ 02/27/13 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardinalbird7


	Yeah it is called they were good and once you make the playoffs anything could happen. There was no magical team chemistry that put them over the edge. You don't think every team has little antics and pre-game rituals they do as a team? That doesn't make you a good team though. Trust me, I am about team chemistry and cohesion, but it matters very little in baseball. I coach both baseball and basketball and I can tell the difference. If players aren't getting along in baseball it had no impact on the game. If players weren't getting along in basketball it made a direct impact. If you have the talent, you'll win in baseball. The only exception is the catcher really. It is important they are smart and can work with any pitcher.

But i thought the Tigers had more talented players going into the world series than the Giants? Isn't that why they were the heavy favorites? You should just change your argument to "they were lucky". That's what most of the Giants haters say. Yeah luck will totally win you two world series in three years, fools. Good pitching, defense, and team chemistry in the playoffs won the world series.

# 337 cardinalbird5 @ 02/27/13 09:43 PM

I don't get what you are saying? All I said was Team Chemistry was not the reason the Giants won. You are putting words into my mouth as if I am saying the Giants were lucky and did not deserve it. They were a good team that got hot at the right time. It has nothing to do with team chemistry... give me a break. It just so happens when teams are winning they can come up with these antics or pre-game rituals. However if you are never winning then things like this never come up.

In fact...enlighten me. Give me an example of their team chemistry and how that transitioned onto the field? I love listening to cliches in every sports. Are you trying to tell me the Reds, Cardinals, and Tigers did not have team Chemistry and that the players hated each other or did not get along with one another?

Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?

# 338 bkrich83 @ 02/28/13 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardinalbird7


	Also no one answered my question from above....if team chemistry is such a huge deal in MLB then why don't teams try to resign players that have been playing with one another over the course of a few seasons?

Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that.

The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.

# 339 bautistabomb @ 02/28/13 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkrich83


	Eh, what? They do.. Baseball economics however, plays a factor in that. The notion that chemistry doesn't play a factor in a team sport that's played over a 6 month span and covers 162 games plus playoffs is laughable. Is it quantifiable? Not really, it's intangible, but it's there, and I've heard far too many people who know more about the game of baseball than anyone here comment on what a big factor it can play.

Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.

# 340 bkrich83 @ 02/28/13 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bautistabomb


	Of all the major professional team sports, chemistry plays the smallest factor in baseball, simply because of how the game is played. Its mostly made up of a bunch of individual efforts. Pitchers and catchers are the only real positions that there needs to be some chemistry as both usually need to be on the same page to be succesful defensively. Its a known fact that the A's teams in the 80s hated each other and yet were very successful.

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.

« Previous 1 2…11 12 13 14 15 161718 19 Next »

More Links

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