The Great Ratings Debate (long)

[SaC_KiNg09]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

I get what you are saying, my mind was in two different places at the same time....OVR ratings should reflect on stlye(run&gun, slow pace, def, etc) but players shouldnt LOSE a single rating...I agree

And this is kind of where it gets tricky...in regards to their rating being lowered....that isnt a bad thing, its just that maybe that particular player doesnt have that chemistry with the team or he doesnt fit the system that is in place. But just because his rating is lowered doesnt mean he shouldnt start. To stay with the Phenoix example....Shaq may not have been the best fit, but I wouldnt have started Robin Lopez over him either. Overall, 2k should implement a more dynamic system when it comes to ratings...let them fluctuate depending on what team their on, who their playing with, and their role on the team. But this is just Dream talk....stuff like that probably wont be implemented until 2k17 or something.

[kcarr]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

Rondo is an elite pg in the league we all k kw he's and avg jump shooter and Ana bow avg 3pt shooter but everything else he does at an elite level. His court IQ, penetration, he's the best defender at his position and probably the quickest, and a very good passer. Also don't forget he's a good finisher and a smart shooter ( just look at his %'s . For a guy that can't shoot he sure shoots a high percentage, that's 'cause he takes smart shots). And let's not forget the last 2 yrs he emerged as one of the best rebounding guards


So having defense actually mean something in the ratings I can see him being rated above other offense only pg's. Nash is one of the worst on ball defenders out of all guards in the L so givin that of course it's going to bring down his overall but he still is great in other areas.


All in all you have to see how each rating affects the overall before you can start debating whether a player is too high or too low

The thing is rondo is every bit as weak on offense as those guys are on defense. You put anyone with decent offensive capabilities in a position similar to rondo's situation last year where defenses keyed in on other better offensive players on that team to the point where he was constantly being left open and those better offensive players will force you to change that gameplan by actually being able to beat you with their offensive abilities.

give any of the other top 10 pgs an open shot from 15 feet out, they will take that shot with confidence and make it more often than not. Give rondo that same shot and he will hesitate, maybe take the shot and if he does maybe make it or more likely miss it, maybe drive to the hoop, or maybe just pass up the attempt. Most of his stats are purely a result of the talent around him and the fact that he is often seen as the weakpoint of the offense. He is weak shooter and probably an average penetrater. He does a solid job of finishing, but most of his penetration comes from being open through the ball rotation and being having an open drive other than the help defense. It is much easier to finish just worrying about help defense and not worrying about your man. He still should be above average in this area.

This also helps with his assists and rebounds which are the 2 stats where he is pretty solid. It is much easier to pass the ball when the defense is having to rotate and when you have better talent around you and still he is only slightly above average in assist and assist/turnover numbers as compared to other starting pgs in the nba. As far as rebounds he is among the top pgs but he gets a higher percentage from offensive boards than most pgs which is also helped slightly by people doubling off of him and not being around to put a body on him. That said, he should be probably the second best pg in terms of rebounding ratings.

The main problem that a player like this presents is do you give him the ratings to match his stats so sim stats are correct, which seems to be what they did, or do you give him ratings so that he plays as he actually does so other if other teams play him as they really do then and only then will he put up those numbers. The second way would be the accurate way and if you don't do it like that then if makes it easy to take a player like that and play above his actual ability putting up numbers that he shouldn't be able to in real life.

The thing is, he is a product of his environment. Take him and put him in a situation where he has to actually run the team on offense and he is a nobody. His defense is enough that he will remain in the starting lineup as long as they can get offense elsewhere but his offense is just as much of a liability as steve nash's deffense

[SaC_KiNg09]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

The thing is rondo is every bit as weak on offense as those guys are on defense. You put anyone with decent offensive capabilities in a position similar to rondo's situation last year where defenses keyed in on other better offensive players on that team to the point where he was constantly being left open and those better offensive players will force you to change that gameplan by actually being able to beat you with their offensive abilities.

give any of the other top 10 pgs an open shot from 15 feet out, they will take that shot with confidence and make it more often than not. Give rondo that same shot and he will hesitate, maybe take the shot and if he does maybe make it or more likely miss it, maybe drive to the hoop, or maybe just pass up the attempt. Most of his stats are purely a result of the talent around him and the fact that he is often seen as the weakpoint of the offense. He is weak shooter and probably an average penetrater. He does a solid job of finishing, but most of his penetration comes from being open through the ball rotation and being having an open drive other than the help defense. It is much easier to finish just worrying about help defense and not worrying about your man. He still should be above average in this area.

This also helps with his assists and rebounds which are the 2 stats where he is pretty solid. It is much easier to pass the ball when the defense is having to rotate and when you have better talent around you and still he is only slightly above average in assist and assist/turnover numbers as compared to other starting pgs in the nba. As far as rebounds he is among the top pgs but he gets a higher percentage from offensive boards than most pgs which is also helped slightly by people doubling off of him and not being around to put a body on him. That said, he should be probably the second best pg in terms of rebounding ratings.

The main problem that a player like this presents is do you give him the ratings to match his stats so sim stats are correct, which seems to be what they did, or do you give him ratings so that he plays as he actually does so other if other teams play him as they really do then and only then will he put up those numbers. The second way would be the accurate way and if you don't do it like that then if makes it easy to take a player like that and play above his actual ability putting up numbers that he shouldn't be able to in real life.

The thing is, he is a product of his environment. Take him and put him in a situation where he has to actually run the team on offense and he is a nobody. His defense is enough that he will remain in the starting lineup as long as they can get offense elsewhere but his offense is just as much of a liability as steve nash's deffense

My thing is if the tendencies are truly implemented like they say they are, then they dont have to boost his ratings so that they match his sim stats, he should play like he really does and his stats should match what he is putting up in real life. I know I am starting to sound like a broken record but if his ratings are a product of team chemistry, tendencies, and they system then Rondo's rating shouldn't matter. My only gripe is that if Rondo is traded from the Celtics to a team that doesn't have as good shooters as the Celtics does then his ratings should reflect that. So if he is on a team that really doesn't have a dynamic offense his stats should take a fall.

Players Ratings need to reflect the team that they are playing with, their tendencies, and the players around them.

Simple formula in my opinion......Team Style+Individual Tendencies+Team Chemistry=Individual Rating.

[kcarr]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

My thing is if the tendencies are truly implemented like they say they are, then they dont have to boost his ratings so that they match his sim stats, he should play like he really does and his stats should match what he is putting up in real life. I know I am starting to sound like a broken record but if his ratings are a product of team chemistry, tendencies, and they system then Rondo's rating shouldn't matter. My only gripe is that if Rondo is traded from the Celtics to a team that doesn't have as good shooters as the Celtics does then his ratings should reflect that. So if he is on a team that really doesn't have a dynamic offense his stats should take a fall.

Players Ratings need to reflect the team that they are playing with, their tendencies, and the players around them.

Simple formula in my opinion......Team Style+Individual Tendencies+Team Chemistry=Individual Rating.

And herein lies the problem. NBA 2k and really any sports video game to this point does not have a sim engine advanced enough to take into consideration opportunities created by other mismatches on the team. Really, their in game engine at least through last year, we will see about this year, is not even good enough to realize those mismatches and resulting opportunities so how can their sim engine be any better.

[broy07]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

roy's rating of 87 is pretty good considering he is only an average defender. Aldridge however is only a 77 which is below andre miller which is just wrong. Last year Aldridge averaged 18 and 8 then 20 and 8 in the playoffs which are very solid pf numbers and he had pretty much the same stats in 07-08. also to please one of kushmirs criteria Portland and a borderline contending team with a bright future.

[cdiddy71323]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

I know there is a lot more ratings this year, but if anyone with the game could do an excel sheet listing the ratings for the players, it would be a huge help for us all

[jrich05]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

roy's rating of 87 is pretty good considering he is only an average defender. Aldridge however is only a 77 which is below andre miller which is just wrong. Last year Aldridge averaged 18 and 8 then 20 and 8 in the playoffs which are very solid pf numbers and he had pretty much the same stats in 07-08. also to please one of kushmirs criteria Portland and a borderline contending team with a bright future.

Considering that Dirk is 83, I think Aldridge is 80 tops. Aldridge is a better defender, but Dirk is much more dominant offensively.

[Kushmir]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

roy's rating of 87 is pretty good considering he is only an average defender. Aldridge however is only a 77 which is below andre miller which is just wrong. Last year Aldridge averaged 18 and 8 then 20 and 8 in the playoffs which are very solid pf numbers and he had pretty much the same stats in 07-08. also to please one of kushmirs criteria Portland and a borderline contending team with a bright future.

no argument here....i had him rated him an 85.

[st0rmb11]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

On the topic of the rookie ratings.

I hate NBA Live, and really haven't played it since NBA Live 2005, but to me, they rate rookies far better than 2K.
If I remember correctly, LeBron was rated a 67 or so in NBA Live 2004. LeBron, to me, is the best rookie to come into the league since...Jordan. (no offense Kobe..but you were pretty bad your rookie year). For them to rate LeBron that low, proves that most rookies should be in that range. You don't rate them as they were in college (or high school in LeBron's case). You rate them as what a rookie is going to do in the league, and then maybe release a roster update after a month or so to update the ratings based on their play. I think Blake Griffin is a very overrated rookie, and having him rated in the 70s just proves it. To me, Griffin's a 62. He really has a lack of talent on offense. And he's not gonna be the same rebounder immediately in the NBA as he was in college.

[broy07]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

dirk should be like 90. in my opinion and the stats agree he is easily one of the top five scorers in the nba

[kcarr]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

dirk should be like 90. in my opinion and the stats agree he is easily one of the top five scorers in the nba

Yes, but he is a weak defender and really as a scorer does not have the post moves expected for a 90 overall 7'0" pf. Also, as a rebounder he does not do what a 7' pf should do. His weaknesses drop his overall down but in the areas he is strong he should be strong enough to be the dominant scorer that he is.

[nogster]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

looks like im going to have to customise the ratings yet again. sigh.
for every other year its been what i looked forward to. this year however, with my family life being so much busier. i was hoping 2k would get it right.

i would assume 82games are only doing the tendencies. and we are still stuck with having the "insider". doh.
i really dont want to go through every player though. just a comb over this season.

[broy07]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

Yes, but he is a weak defender and really as a scorer does not have the post moves expected for a 90 overall 7'0" pf. Also, as a rebounder he does not do what a 7' pf should do. His weaknesses drop his overall down but in the areas he is strong he should be strong enough to be the dominant scorer that he is.

yea i agree with you and his rating doesn't really matter and he will be a dominant scorer regardless of his rating

[kcarr]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

yea i agree with you and his rating doesn't really matter and he will be a dominant scorer regardless of his rating

Yes, players who are one dimensional like that should really end up with pretty low overalls because of their weaknesses but need to be dominant in the areas where they really are. Too often designers will overpower these player's weaknesses because they want them to be star players and as such think that they should be good at everything or at least without serious weaknesses. Hopefully this year that is not the case.

[Kushmir]

Re: The Great Ratings Debate (long)

On the topic of the rookie ratings.

I hate NBA Live, and really haven't played it since NBA Live 2005, but to me, they rate rookies far better than 2K.
If I remember correctly, LeBron was rated a 67 or so in NBA Live 2004. LeBron, to me, is the best rookie to come into the league since...Jordan. (no offense Kobe..but you were pretty bad your rookie year). For them to rate LeBron that low, proves that most rookies should be in that range. You don't rate them as they were in college (or high school in LeBron's case). You rate them as what a rookie is going to do in the league, and then maybe release a roster update after a month or so to update the ratings based on their play. I think Blake Griffin is a very overrated rookie, and having him rated in the 70s just proves it. To me, Griffin's a 62. He really has a lack of talent on offense. And he's not gonna be the same rebounder immediately in the NBA as he was in college.

totally agree here...( i had griffin rated a 65 and curry a 62) in my initial post I made an example of rookies who were "supposed" to come in and be world-beaters and weren't. i think its pretty safe to say judging talent is a crapshoot. on another note, while dirk's rating is a causing alot of controversy....i agree that he is more of a one-dimensional player but he's an elite player in his prime and so i think he deserves to be rated as such...which is why i gave him a higher rating than KG and Duncan (elite players--but on the decline)