MLB 11: The Show's Different, Wrong Approach To "Number One"

An article from 4th String about the interesting decision to rank the World Series-winning San Francisco Giants at #3 in MLB 11: The Show, and the different "approaches" in sports video games.

From 4thString.com: "We already know that cover athlete rights can go to nearly any player that amazed us in the real-life season. But what matters to players more is what their favorite teams and players are rated at, as this affects gamers directly. It's the result of an interesting concoction to say the least, one that is a microcosm of the entire genre."

[M-Easy]

Good story, Giants got screwed.

[indiemike]

Couldn't agree more. But it's still interesting that there really is two approaches to making an annual sports game in my eyes.

Some people seem to think that the #1 team doesn't have to be the winning team.

[jrisner]

Sounds like a butt hurt giants fan who needed something to whine about today.

[indiemike]

For the record - Brewers fan.

[jrisner]

ok seriously...were the giants the best team in the league last year? No they weren't. They got hot at the right time, and didn't they lose a couple players as well as Boston added a few key players.

[indiemike]

Can't disagree with your points. But #1 overall to the Red Sox, a non-playoff team?

Basically, that's the speculative side of the argument. I think the fact is, the Giants won it all, so why wouldn't they be represented as the team to beat to start the season, and launch the game? Game updates can change as the season wears on anyways.

[dinkeldinkse]

If the Padres didn't suck down the stretch, Giants wouldn't have made the playoffs. They clearly were not the best team last year until the playoffs started.

[ShAkKa]

The Show much like MLB Network or ESPN ranks the teams based on players talent so the team that looks better on paper is ranked #1 in this case The Red Sox.
I personally think the Giants got ranked higher than they actually should've of been.The Phillies should be #2 and this is coming from a Mets:( fan.

[Metfanant]

Now this is coming from a Mets fan, so i can be completely unbiased here because my team sucks...

Im not sure if its even possible for me to disagree with this article more...

You bring up some good points, but your ignore the most important of all facts

if rankings are to be based on previous year's performance than how do you account for the fact that rosters reflect THIS YEAR's rosters?

if the rosters were last year's then yes, you might have a point, but the game (and all sports sims) is meant to simulate the upcoming season, not the previous season.

How do you account for the Red Sox adding players like Carl Crawford to their already insane team, when you are going to rank them based on last year?...Did the Red Sox not suffer through TERRIBLE injury problems last year? I mean the Red Sox lineup was already going to be good, but then you go and add Carl Crawford, AND Adrian Gonzalez. And you want to tell me they deserve to be ranked as a "non playoff team?" Come on...

You also seem to misunderstand how the rankings are calculated. They are based on the players that are on the team. And they change dynamically in the game as you add or remove players from your roster. To achieve the results you're looking for (defending champ being number 1), then The Show would have to artificially overrate the PLAYERS on the Giants roster to make the team better.

I also do not think its unreasonable to think the "best" team in the NL is behind the best two teams in the AL...that is fairly common knowledge...

To wrap it up, your entire logic is unfortunately flawed in that you're assuming the winner of the Championship is the best team in the league on pure talent and ability, and that is simply NOT the case. I am a die hard Giants fan (NFL). And when we take a look back at the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years back...do I honestly think the Giants were the best team from top to bottom in the league that year? NO WAY! Did they deserve to be the #1 team in Madden the following year? NO WAY. They peaked at the proper time and went on a run through the playoffs. They were a very good team, but when you compared the Giants and Pats player for player, it was no contest.

[indiemike]

A lot of excellent points here. I like that this discussion is focused around trying to define what makes a team #1.

I’m not in any way misunderstanding anything. This is just an attempt at opening up a dialogue, a discussion about how these things work, and what the better approach is.

In my opinion, a team can be better than the sum of its parts. And by mentioning that the Red Sox added guys like Carl Crawford and Adrian Gonzalez, you’re still implying that the preferred method of ranking teams is based on speculation on offseason additions. There’s no 100% guarantee what these players will do, it’s an educational guess.

But it’s still 100% fact that the Giants won the World Series. That makes them #1 to start, regardless of roster changes. Is it likely they’d stay at #1? Absolutely not. And yes, it DOES make them the best team of 2010, because they won the World Series.

I’m a Packers fan, and the upset a few years ago by the Giants reassured me that my team was beaten by the best TEAM. It doesn’t matter that the Patriots were made up of superstars, they lost. They weren’t as good. Sounds pretty cut n’ dry to me!

Regardless, I love the discussion, and I respect every viewpoint on this. It’s good to discuss!