Questionable Player Ratings

I really don’t and never have understood where or how they get their player ratings. I can tell you I think it stinks that Chris Paddack is gonna come out with a rating of 84 only playing one season with a 9-7 record. Yet they rated Corey Kluber, a 3 time All Star, multiple season winning records, and because he missed 2019 with an injury you rate him the same 84? Mind boggling! I guarantee if he would have been signed by the Dodgers, Red Sox, or Yankees San Diego Studios wouldn’t have hesitated to rate him close to or around 90.

Corey Kluber career 208 games 98-58 era 3.16

It's based on the last 3 years, so Kluber's 208 games don't matter. And if was on one of those other teams he def would not be a 90, there aren't many pitchers at 90, not even guys like Kershaw are, so you are over exaggerating.
Also yes, injuries hampered his 2019 campaign, but you can't say "Eh, just ignore the stats there." It happened, it has to be counted. I bet he bounces back in 2020, don't take this as me hating Kluber, but in no way should he be a 90.

Also, you are judging Paddack based on wins and losses? 2004 called, they want their stats back.

The biggest thing that bothers me is that Mike Trout, who might go down as the greatest baseball player ever, mixes out at a 95. How much better does he need to be to get a 99? That’s his live series card, which is supposed to reflect how good he is currently.

@carey_56 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

The biggest thing that bothers me is that Mike Trout, who might go down as the greatest baseball player ever, mixes out at a 95. How much better does he need to be to get a 99? That’s his live series card, which is supposed to reflect how good he is currently.

It's on purpose, you can't sell a 99 immortal/SS/Finest Trout if the LS is at 99. It is what it is, won't change, so I tend to just not get hung up about it.

@eatyum said in Questionable Player Ratings:

@carey_56 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

The biggest thing that bothers me is that Mike Trout, who might go down as the greatest baseball player ever, mixes out at a 95. How much better does he need to be to get a 99? That’s his live series card, which is supposed to reflect how good he is currently.

It's on purpose, you can't sell a 99 immortal/SS/Finest Trout if the LS is at 99. It is what it is, won't change, so I tend to just not get hung up about it.

I know, but I just wish they would do away with those super-mega fantasy cards. I want live series cards to still be useful at the end of the year.

Hear hear.

How about they made Pete Almonso an 85 just after one season even though the reason he's an 85 is because for his power but still. They don't really care about 3 year averages right?

@Perkosaurus13 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

How about they made Pete Almonso an 85 just after one season even though the reason he's an 85 is because for his power but still. They don't really care about 3 year averages right?

Yes they do, they can't use a 3-year average on Pete Alonso for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean they don't apply it to players that have 3+ years.

If Alonso struggles in 2020, he will be quick to go down because he can't rely on 3 years of stats.

The “3 year thing” is stupid! But like the previous gentleman said, it is what it is and it’s not going away. I would also like to do away with the “god cards”. Live series and tons of single season FB cards is good enough!

How about them debuting Vlad Jr. as a gold before he even played a game lmao.

That sure did work out great.

Trout's vision is always an area of concern for me. It's pretty insulting for a guy bound for the HOF.

@xxfireflyxx69 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

Trout's vision is always an area of concern for me. It's pretty insulting for a guy bound for the HOF.

I think they should do away with Vision as an attribute completely. It basically makes some of the best hitters in MLB useless in The Show, which is wrong.

One attribute should not be as important in terms of making or breaking a card as vision currently is.

I’m not sure what the solution would be, but it’s not like SDS will ever change it regardless.

@carey_56 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

@eatyum said in Questionable Player Ratings:

@carey_56 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

The biggest thing that bothers me is that Mike Trout, who might go down as the greatest baseball player ever, mixes out at a 95. How much better does he need to be to get a 99? That’s his live series card, which is supposed to reflect how good he is currently.

It's on purpose, you can't sell a 99 immortal/SS/Finest Trout if the LS is at 99. It is what it is, won't change, so I tend to just not get hung up about it.

I know, but I just wish they would do away with those super-mega fantasy cards. I want live series cards to still be useful at the end of the year.

I do agree, I hate the super cards.

SS is a joke. Statistically speaking Kerry Wood's best season was his rookie year. He had a HW card for that year. So where do they draw up his abilities for his SS card.

@DriveByTrucker17 said in Questionable Player Ratings:

I think they should do away with Vision as an attribute completely. It basically makes some of the best hitters in MLB useless in The Show, which is wrong.

One attribute should not be as important in terms of making or breaking a card as vision currently is.

I’m not sure what the solution would be, but it’s not like SDS will ever change it regardless.

Gallo is still god though (;

No, I agree with you though, there's no real way to do away with it, that I can think of, but i still don't think contact is as important as it could be and maybe thats a start?

Contact/ Power and discipline should be the only things effecting PCI size, and discipline/vision might as well be combined to one stat with a minimal effect on the PCI.

Log in to reply