Hyperbole in ratings...

[hear me now]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

Going back to the original argument of Dirk's Midrange rating of 89 compared to Porzingis' mid range of 91. I believe even though Dirk has the lower rating he will shoot better during gameplay. I had the same issue with Kawhi Leonard who currently has the 2nd highest 3 point rating in the game at 92. He has a higher 3 point rating than Klay Thompson which bothered me at first however I realized while actually playing the game Klay will hit more 3s. The reason is "Tendency" Ratings. 2k can rate actual attributes using real life %. But this doesn't account for volume, degree of difficulty and overall skill level. Because I'm sure anyone who understands basketball will select Klay as the better 3 point shooter. Same goes for Dirk, his mid range might be rated lower but his tendency is 95 from mid range while Porzingis is a lot lower. I believe this accounts for some of the intangible circumstances that % based statistics cannot account for so even though the actual rating is lower it is balanced a little by the Tenancy rating.

No, it's all the badges Dirk has.

[hear me now]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

Some of you are pretending that Okafor didn't have problems with defending and rebounding in college on a stacked team.
That's why he dropped from first in the draft.

[stlpimpmonsta]

Hyperbole in ratings...

Man people are really going out of their way to defend a player on a team with one win at the end of December? Okafor is a good OFFENSIVE player but ya going "he plays better when it matters" need to keep that junk to yourselves. Especially since many of their loses the sixers were within single digits in the 4th. Where was he then? Guess it didn't matter. Point being as that despite his offensive game (which he isn't even doing effectively) his defense is soo bad that the offense he gives doesn't even matter. Porzingas and Towns overall games are just slightly better right now because they are net positives for their teams and no it not just because of the team/talent they're playing with.

On the Rose thing I feel he needs to be at least in the low 70s when it comes to the mid range ratings.



from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HowDareI]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

Man people are really going out of their way to defend a player on a team with one win at the end of December? Okafor is a good OFFENSIVE player but ya going "he plays better when it matters" need to keep that junk to yourselves. Especially since many of their loses the sixers were within single digits in the 4th. Where was he then? Guess it didn't matter. Point being as that despite his offensive game (which he isn't even doing effectively) his defense is soo bad that the offense he gives doesn't even matter. Porzingas and Towns overall games are just slightly better right now because they are net positives for their teams and no it not just because of the team/talent they're playing with.

On the Rose thing I feel he needs to be at least in the low 70s when it comes to the mid range ratings.



from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you quoted me then maybe I'd keep the junk to myself...

It's not me defending Okafor, his numbers speak for themselves and all that advanced stuff doesn't mean anything if you don't watch the games to back it up.

The point being is that you can have all the "knowledge" in the world but if you're not actually watching for where the numbers are coming from you're not getting the full picture.

[capitolrf]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

I have to say... there are other ratings in play when it comes to certain ratings. I saw the OP compare Dirk and Porzingis. Offensive consistent has a lot to do with it.

I think Offensive Consistency is the most critical rating. I make more jumpers with Wall (76 3pt., 73 mid, 85 off. consistency) than Jared Dudley (87 3pt. 93 mid, 30 off. consistency) or Gary Neal (88 3pt. 85 mid. 60 off. consistency). Add the fact that Wall is always heavily covered while the latter are wide open. That's what gets me frustrated playing the game along with these cold blue ring taking over 3 players on the court every quarter.

But what really needs to be looked at is the new rhythm system and how it relates to these badges. I like what they did and all, but when I got 3 players cold with dble blue rings at tip-off that last for the whole game. It kinda tells me you not winning this game especially when Wall becomes one of them which happens all the time. Then I'm digging deep into the bench with lesser talented (rated) players that never seem to heat up or have that big game to compensate for the cold players.

[SonicMage]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

If you quoted me then maybe I'd keep the junk to myself...

It's not me defending Okafor, his numbers speak for themselves and all that advanced stuff doesn't mean anything if you don't watch the games to back it up.

The point being is that you can have all the "knowledge" in the world but if you're not actually watching for where the numbers are coming from you're not getting the full picture.

The opposite is true, too. People who only watch games and don't understand the stats behind them are also not getting the full picture. Stats are the "what" and watching is the "how", and theyre both important. That's why every NBA team has an analytics department, some just choose to use them more than others. They're even trying to get fans more involved with the analytics movement, with the new data tracking. As of last year, they started showing Four Factor stats at halftime on the scoreboard during Clipper games which was a pleasant surprise.

The problem with people who only watch games is that they have selective memories. There's not a person on this Earth who can remember every made or missed shot, steal, rebound, so what people will tend to do is only remember highlights. One good example is Larry Bird and 3-point shooting. Everybody remembers that last shot from the first 3-point contest, so now he is considered one of the best 3-point shooters of all time, especially from Celtics fans. Even 2K has historically rated him as such. The truth of the matter is he was just an okay shooter from beyond the arc by today's standards for much of his career, and we have stats to back that up. That's why I personally love basketball analytics, it helps us remove our personal biases and get a full picture of a player's and team's abilities.

[HowDareI]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

The opposite is true, too. People who only watch games and don't understand the stats behind them are also not getting the full picture. Stats are the "what" and watching is the "how", and theyre both important. That's why every NBA team has an analytics department, some just choose to use them more than others. They're even trying to get fans more involved with the analytics movement, with the new data tracking. As of last year, they started showing Four Factor stats at halftime on the scoreboard during Clipper games which was a pleasant surprise.

The problem with people who only watch games is that they have selective memories. There's not a person on this Earth who can remember every made or missed shot, steal, rebound, so what people will tend to do is only remember highlights. One good example is Larry Bird and 3-point shooting. Everybody remembers that last shot from the first 3-point contest, so now he is considered one of the best 3-point shooters of all time, especially from Celtics fans. Even 2K has historically rated him as such. The truth of the matter is he was just an okay shooter from beyond the arc by today's standards for much of his career, and we have stats to back that up. That's why I personally love basketball analytics, it helps us remove our personal biases and get a full picture of a player's and team's abilities.

That's true too, but to have a full understanding you gotta see everything...we can agree on that, right?

I'm not gonna say anything crazy and compare rookies to vets or anything but saying that he's shooting poorly when he sees doubles all game because his team can't shoot or set up the offense is what I see every single Sixers game lol

[SonicMage]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

That's true too, but to have a full understanding you gotta see everything...we can agree on that, right?

I'm not gonna say anything crazy and compare rookies to vets or anything but saying that he's shooting poorly when he sees doubles all game because his team can't shoot or set up the offense is what I see every single Sixers game lol

As far as his inability to shoot, I'm not seeing it being as a result of double teams, but simply that he's a bad shooter from anywhere outside 6 feet. Since I live on the West Coast and the Sixers being as bad as they are, the chances I have of actually watching them play outside of highlights the next day are slim to none. So I've got to dig into the stats.

Here we go, first thing I did was look into his shot breakdowns, which can be done here:

http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/1626143/stats/shooting/

He looks decent on the box, but 52 for 206 (25.2%) for jump shots? That's atrocious. So I decided to look deeper into that and look into the shot charts.

http://on.nba.com/1O8MCDA

He looks good from the right side of the floor, but once again atrocious from everywhere else. But maybe it's because he's being closely guarded, like you claim, so I decided to look further into that:

NBA.com Shot Tracker

Nope. Looking at "Closest Defender shot > 10ft.", we can see that he consistently shoots awful from ten feet and out whether he's closely guarded or not, and most of the time he's taking open shots.

So the last thing I did was look into the video for some of his shots to find out a little more. That can be done by going back to the link below, clicking on the Mid-Range FGA under the Shot Area and clicking Video. Most of what I saw were really poor open misses. The offense would get confused and Okafor would be standing there open around the free throw line, so they'd get the ball to him, and he'd take the shot and miss. And not just miss, but miss poorly. Shots hitting the backboard instead of the rim. Bricks off the very edge or back of the rim. If I was any of the coaching staff looking at this, I'd ask him not to shoot from that area anymore this year. Not even if wide open.

Looking at both stats and video are vital, IF you want to evaluate a player as an NBA fan or coach. I think when building an NBA AI system in terms of its structure, you need to study the game thoroughly from poring over video after video to find patterns in the way that real NBA players and teams behave, to correctly capture the right animation triggers or flow or reactions or state transitions. For creation of ratings for the NBA 2K video game, however, stats are about 90% of the game. The way game AI works, under the hood, is all based on logic, state machines, and probabilities. It's all stat driven. So it would make sense that the numbers that drive the AI behaviors are also based solely off stats, where possible. I've been re-rating players purely and without bias from stats for close to two decades now, and this method hasn't steered me wrong yet.

[jeebs9]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

I think Offensive Consistency is the most critical rating. I make more jumpers with Wall (76 3pt., 73 mid, 85 off. consistency) than Jared Dudley (87 3pt. 93 mid, 30 off. consistency) or Gary Neal (88 3pt. 85 mid. 60 off. consistency). Add the fact that Wall is always heavily covered while the latter are wide open. That's what gets me frustrated playing the game along with these cold blue ring taking over 3 players on the court every quarter.

But what really needs to be looked at is the new rhythm system and how it relates to these badges. I like what they did and all, but when I got 3 players cold with dble blue rings at tip-off that last for the whole game. It kinda tells me you not winning this game especially when Wall becomes one of them which happens all the time. Then I'm digging deep into the bench with lesser talented (rated) players that never seem to heat up or have that big game to compensate for the cold players.

Thank you... This exactly what I've been talking about. Young Jordan has a bad 3 point shooting rating. But because his offensive consistency I'm still able to hit 3 at look enough rate. I have a love hate relationship with rating. Because it keeps players like you mentioned from getting too crazy. And I totally agree with that. But like you said. When you get a wide open shot with these kind of rated players. It's pretty hard to hit a shot.

I really think Curry should be rated 99 in the rating. Player that you mentioned should at least be a 50. Any player with 30 or lower is a trap lol

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[jeebs9]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

The opposite is true, too. People who only watch games and don't understand the stats behind them are also not getting the full picture. Stats are the "what" and watching is the "how", and theyre both important. That's why every NBA team has an analytics department, some just choose to use them more than others. They're even trying to get fans more involved with the analytics movement, with the new data tracking. As of last year, they started showing Four Factor stats at halftime on the scoreboard during Clipper games which was a pleasant surprise.

The problem with people who only watch games is that they have selective memories. There's not a person on this Earth who can remember every made or missed shot, steal, rebound, so what people will tend to do is only remember highlights. One good example is Larry Bird and 3-point shooting. Everybody remembers that last shot from the first 3-point contest, so now he is considered one of the best 3-point shooters of all time, especially from Celtics fans. Even 2K has historically rated him as such. The truth of the matter is he was just an okay shooter from beyond the arc by today's standards for much of his career, and we have stats to back that up. That's why I personally love basketball analytics, it helps us remove our personal biases and get a full picture of a player's and team's abilities.

They just lowered Larry Bird 3 point shooting rating. From like 97 to like 78 I think...

There are certain advance stats I don't care about. I just want the players to play like themselves. That's all I want at the end of the day. Iverson would be a terrible player if we went by the advance stats wouldn't he?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[SonicMage]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

They just lowered Larry Bird 3 point shooting rating. From like 97 to like 78 I think...

There are certain advance stats I don't care about. I just want the players to play like themselves. That's all I want at the end of the day. Iverson would be a terrible player if we went by the advance stats wouldn't he?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily, he'd be the best in the league at driving layups, he'd be more than decent at steals, ball handling, mid-range shooting. And with shot tendency and touches at max he'd be the league's leading scorer as expected. The only major problem I've seen with him in the past 2K's is how often he'd get blocked due to his height, it's a bit of the Muggsy syndrome. I haven't played around with him yet this year to see if that's still the case though, especially after my shot block fixes.

Getting players to be a decent facsimile of themselves is what we all want. You can't just ignore certain stats though, their whole purpose is to give us a read into a player's performance and characteristics.

[CaseIH]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

The opposite is true, too. People who only watch games and don't understand the stats behind them are also not getting the full picture. Stats are the "what" and watching is the "how", and theyre both important. That's why every NBA team has an analytics department, some just choose to use them more than others. They're even trying to get fans more involved with the analytics movement, with the new data tracking. As of last year, they started showing Four Factor stats at halftime on the scoreboard during Clipper games which was a pleasant surprise.

The problem with people who only watch games is that they have selective memories. There's not a person on this Earth who can remember every made or missed shot, steal, rebound, so what people will tend to do is only remember highlights. One good example is Larry Bird and 3-point shooting. Everybody remembers that last shot from the first 3-point contest, so now he is considered one of the best 3-point shooters of all time, especially from Celtics fans. Even 2K has historically rated him as such. The truth of the matter is he was just an okay shooter from beyond the arc by today's standards for much of his career, and we have stats to back that up. That's why I personally love basketball analytics, it helps us remove our personal biases and get a full picture of a player's and team's abilities.

I wouldnt go as far as to say Bird was just a average 3pt shooter, there is also other factors at play, like for example being the star and taking tough shots, compare to say a guy like a Steve Kerr or Korver who are just role players, not to knock them or even say Birds better for that matter. Plus the last few years of Birds career was spent in traction because of his back problems, its amazing he could even play at the high level he played at.

Personally outside of Steph Curry I dont think there is anyone who deserves a high 90's 3pt %, seen a lot over my years and saw really good shooters in the league as well as players that didnt really have the overall talent to play pro or have much of a impact, but there isnt anyone who I have seen be in Curry's world, he is on another level from everyone with shooting. I told my wife he reminds me of a combo of Isiah Thomas ballhandling and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen shooter, but better than they were.

I do agree about analytics, it tells a lot and what I really like is it gives value to guys that may not light up the stat sheet quite as much, but have a impact on the game. To be honest, I think the anlaytics is better for basketball than it baseball to be quite honest, because there are some analytics in baseball that are quite worthless imo.

[jeebs9]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

I wouldnt go as far as to say Bird was just a average 3pt shooter, there is also other factors at play, like for example being the star and taking tough shots, compare to say a guy like a Steve Kerr or Korver who are just role players, not to knock them or even say Birds better for that matter. Plus the last few years of Birds career was spent in traction because of his back problems, its amazing he could even play at the high level he played at.

Personally outside of Steph Curry I dont think there is anyone who deserves a high 90's 3pt %, seen a lot over my years and saw really good shooters in the league as well as players that didnt really have the overall talent to play pro or have much of a impact, but there isnt anyone who I have seen be in Curry's world, he is on another level from everyone with shooting. I told my wife he reminds me of a combo of Isiah Thomas ballhandling and a Reggie Miller/Ray Allen shooter, but better than they were.

I do agree about analytics, it tells a lot and what I really like is it gives value to guys that may not light up the stat sheet quite as much, but have a impact on the game. To be honest, I think the anlaytics is better for basketball than it baseball to be quite honest, because there are some analytics in baseball that are quite worthless imo.

Not even Ray Allen?

[jeebs9]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

Not necessarily, he'd be the best in the league at driving layups, he'd be more than decent at steals, ball handling, mid-range shooting. And with shot tendency and touches at max he'd be the league's leading scorer as expected. The only major problem I've seen with him in the past 2K's is how often he'd get blocked due to his height, it's a bit of the Muggsy syndrome. I haven't played around with him yet this year to see if that's still the case though, especially after my shot block fixes.

Getting players to be a decent facsimile of themselves is what we all want. You can't just ignore certain stats though, their whole purpose is to give us a read into a player's performance and characteristics.

Was Iverson a good mid range shooter?

[CaseIH]

Re: Hyperbole in ratings...

Not even Ray Allen?

I think Ray Allen is a notch below Steph, even as great as Ray was, not sure I put him there, just my opinion, Ray Allen is definitely one of the all time great shooters of all time, but what Curry does night in and night out all while being the top guy for the D to contain puts him on another level for me.

I actually was watching Round table and some of the guys were debating greatest shooters of all time, and I forget who all it was that still out Reggie over Ray. Mainly because Ray never carried a team on his back, like Reggie did,, nor did he hit all the clutch shots that Reggie did. Now there is no bigger Reggie fan than myself, but not sure if I can agree with those guys,lol, but they do make good arguement for that being the case.