Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking
-
Me and EJNave created a formula to better measure who the best players in MLB The Show are. We feel like the lifetime leaderboards reward players who no life the game more than players with more skill but don't play the game as much. Because of this, we created the Total Lifetime Equation. This is calculated using the formula (W-L)(W/L) + (OPS)(1000) - (ERA)(100). If pitching is not as RNG in 20 then we will add more weight to ERA. We took the top 150 players on the current lifetime leaderboards and put them into a spreadsheet, and calculated the Total Lifetime for all 150 players and sorted them. Hopefully this will serve as a better indication for who the best players in the world are. Unfortunately it is not perfect as personally my Total Lifetime is 1157, yet I am rated 811 on the lifetime leaderboards. We would like to try to expand it to 1000 players, but it might take a while for us to complete that. Hope you guys enjoy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xAbkNUbJ196P2qQQg-4BY9AUAOvLbIIlxlRR_8ycGuA/edit?usp=sharing
-
Who came up with the idea for using a formula?
-
@mitchhammond24 said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
Who came up with the idea for using a formula?
I love how just about everything we do starts off as a joke and then we run with it
-
Top 50? I’ll take it lol
-
59, not bad
-
Lol also me with the worst ERA out of all 150 players with a 5.61. Good [censored] mitch
-
Using this formula, it'd probably really downrate me. The first few months I wasn't really hitting for power, then things clicked and I mashed. Those few months have kept my overall stats down, for example in the current season my OPS is .886, (Which isn't elite, but it's fine I guess), but my lifetime is .770. But I've always been able to pitch and have a lifetime ERA of 3.69. I do get why you have to downrate it so much for the equation though, a lot of it is RNG.
I already know it overrates me in the actual rankings anyway because I've played a lot of games.
Not that it really matters, I'm looking forward to 20 where I can start in a much better place then I was at the start of 19. -
Interesting list, kudos on the work effort! Out of curiosity, where would I land on this list? My record is 115-35 with a .904 OPS and 3.70 ERA.
I stopped playing ranked in September so I didn't quite accumulate the same amount of games played as most guys on the list.
-
NIce job guys. If you can go to 1000 so I could maybe be there. Even though I dont play enough.
Wait 188-11 with a 1.436 ops? Cmon. And Mitch vouches for him? That is probably number one. Unless it is Pitching Rebels alt.
-
@ChuckCLC said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
NIce job guys. If you can go to 1000 so I could maybe be there. Even though I dont play enough.
Wait 188-11 with a 1.436 ops? Cmon. And Mitch vouches for him? That is probably number one. Unless it is Pitching Rebels alt.
Yeah that's some superhuman stuff right there
-
Here's to hoping I make top 150 next year
Update: by this calc and through my stats based on what I'm pretty sure I have I would have 690 points, or right solidly around 190, I'm going to re-calc later to double check
Finally ran the actualy calcs, my score was about 713.4 so this would have me at 182nd place on the leaderboard, not bad
-
-
IMO, it still weights games played too much. Somebody with that much higher of a winning percentage and that much higher of an OPS when the ERA is about the same (I think WHIP would be better than ERA anyway, not sure how that would change anything) makes me say Notorious should be above rebel. I think there should just be a min number of games played to be on the list. Just one opinion.
-
@raesONE said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
Interesting list, kudos on the work effort! Out of curiosity, where would I land on this list? My record is 115-35 with a .904 OPS and 3.70 ERA.
I stopped playing ranked in September so I didn't quite accumulate the same amount of games played as most guys on the list.
796.86
-
@ChuckCLC said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
NIce job guys. If you can go to 1000 so I could maybe be there. Even though I dont play enough.
Wait 188-11 with a 1.436 ops? Cmon. And Mitch vouches for him? That is probably number one. Unless it is Pitching Rebels alt.
That’s Notorious lol. He’s an absolute beast but just doesn’t play the game that much
-
@ag1982 said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
IMO, it still weights games played too much. Somebody with that much higher of a winning percentage and that much higher of an OPS when the ERA is about the same (I think WHIP would be better than ERA anyway, not sure how that would change anything) makes me say Notorious should be above rebel. I think there should just be a min number of games played to be on the list. Just one opinion.
That’s the biggest problem we ran into when creating the formula. I originally wanted to just make it win ratio but that would be problematic for someone that is say 40-10. Couldn’t make it W - L as that obviously favors the no life even more. Multiplying the two was the best thing we could come up with as IMO there just is no perfect way to do it.
-
I suck at this game compared to others, that is pretty cool you did that for all these great players. I think I might have figured out how to hit better. Need more practice. My Era is not bad.
-
@Like_A_Bus55743 said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
@ag1982 said in Top 150 MLB The Show Players Ranking:
IMO, it still weights games played too much. Somebody with that much higher of a winning percentage and that much higher of an OPS when the ERA is about the same (I think WHIP would be better than ERA anyway, not sure how that would change anything) makes me say Notorious should be above rebel. I think there should just be a min number of games played to be on the list. Just one opinion.
That’s the biggest problem we ran into when creating the formula. I originally wanted to just make it win ratio but that would be problematic for someone that is say 40-10. Couldn’t make it W - L as that obviously favors the no life even more. Multiplying the two was the best thing we could come up with as IMO there just is no perfect way to do it.
This is a concept I just came with to try to balance games played vs. Win %:
For a control group lets say a 500-300 player vs. A 150-50 player
so for the W-L something I tried was multiplying the losses by 1.3 before calculating, this means the 500 win player's win-loss is now 110, the 150 win player is set at 85 now, a much more fair playing field
Then, to emphasize winning % more, what I did was multiplied the total win÷loss by 1.3 to weight it higher than the W-L, so the 500 winner has a multiplier of ~2.16 and the 150 win player's multiplier is 3.9
This would give us a win/loss score of about 238 to the 500 game winner and a score of 331.5 to the 150 game winner
Imo this would be good because it weights the records a lot more fairly where the guy who wins 75% of his games is treated better than someone who wins 62.5% of their game, and it doesn't hurt/help anyone who plays more but also doesn't unfairly hurt/help the people who are 40-10
This is a very rough concept but it felt like a good idea to share
Another possibility is not adding the 1.3 multiplier to the win÷loss just to keep the scores closer between the 500-300 type players vs. The 150-50 players while still having the 150 win player have more points by a score of 255-183.67
Once more, this is a rough concept
-
What’s everyone’s goal for score in 20? I’m shooting for 3000
