Hawks have 2nd best defense in NBA Ranked 19 on 2k

[alabamarob]

The Hawks have the number 2 ranked defense in the real life NBA, but no one has a defensive consistency rating over 75 on 2k16. Does anyone know why this is? Isn't that what the defensive consistency rating is for?

[jeebs9]

Good Luck with that one. I brought up why the 2001 are rated in the 80's. And the Warriors rated as high as the Bulls. I got shut out lol

[Kushmir]

Hmmm...its relevant but we don't want the Donnie Moore (Madden's old rating guy) weekly rating or whoever-is-playing-good-right-now-is-a-99 system anywhere near 2K. Keep in mind you can't be #1 in a year. Getting high ratings is a long process....it should also value consistency/longevity: Barry Sanders isn't one of the GOATS because he ran for 1,000 yds once (i'm looking at you julius jones) its because he averaged 1,300 yds a season and never rushed for less than 1,100 for an entire DECADE.

In that same sense, a team can't be rated the highest in say, offensive rebounding because they're #1 this year...how does their last 3 years stack up? what good offensive rebounders do they have? I agree that Atlanta should be ranked higher defensively (to me a team defense rating functions differently) and do all the little things like deflect passes, avoid silly fouls, challenge shots have few bad rotations and stay in good position. But #2 overall? NAH.

We just have to keep in mind that only making "right now" relevant is dangerous. Tracy Murray, Dana Barros, Tony Delk, Charles Smith and Willie Burton all have 50 pt scoring games in their NBA careers. Moral of the story: Sometimes its just a one-off thing...it doesn't always equal elite or greatness to come.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

Hmmm...its relevant but we don't want the Donnie Moore (Madden's old rating guy) weekly rating or whoever-is-playing-good-right-now-is-a-99 system anywhere near 2K. Keep in mind you can't be #1 in a year. Getting high ratings is a long process....it should also value consistency/longevity: Barry Sanders isn't one of the GOATS because he ran for 1,000 yds once (i'm looking at you julius jones) its because he averaged 1,300 yds a season and never rushed for less than 1,100 for an entire DECADE. In that same sense, a team can't be rated the highest in say, offensive rebounding because they're #1 this year...how does their last 3 years stack up? what good offensive rebounders do they have? I agree that Atlanta should be ranked higher defensively (to me a team defense rating functions differently) and do all the little things like deflect passes, avoid silly fouls, challenge shots have few bad rotations and stay in good position. But #2 overall? NAH. We just have to keep in mind that only making "right now" relevant is dangerous. Tracy Murray, Dana Barros, Tony Delk, Charles Smith and Willie Burton all have 50 pt scoring games in their NBA careers. Moral of the story: Sometimes its just a one-off thing...it doesn't always equal elite or greatness to come.

You are right and wrong I think.

At this point in the season if Atlanta has the number 2 ranked defense in the NBA the game should reflect that. However that does not mean that they are highly rated in a historical context. You are right about Madden's dreaded "current best at anything means a 99 rating" and that it should stay away from 2k, but there should be more of a middle ground. Atlanta should not be ranked 19th in the game.

To use your offensive rebounding example, the argument could be made that if a team is number one this year they should be in the game as well. What you bring up, the history, should influence exactly how highly they are rated. I hate the mindset that best=99.

Find the team that had the best defense in history. There is your current ceiling, then scale from there. So the best defense today may be rated 82, which would be highest among current teams but not touching historical levels.

Final sidenote, even with the historic scale 99's in anything should be extremely rare.

[Kushmir]

Agree that ATL should be rated higher and a good defensive team....second best because they finished 2nd? Disagree. Me, Bruce from the Sportsgaming Blog and another friend have rated guys for about 5yrs now and like most we never rated active players above 96 and compared them to the best at the position (most now call it the HOF Scale) rating need separators and consistency/longevity is easily the most accurate one after production. Alot of guys can score 27pts grab 7 boards and dish out 7 assists in a game, how many can do it for a month, a season or over a 5 yr period? Or for a career like Lebron? we've always found looking at a 3 year window with the most emphasis on the current year gives you the most accuracy.

Team ratings are no different. Ratings during the year are soooo hard. So much is in flux...you have to make sure you're looking at a long enough period and not knee-jerk reacting to highlights or a game or a few games. Teams rarely start & end the season with the same level of play--but the end of the season stats always tells the truth. And even then you want to make sure you're looking at the right info...i'm just spit-balling but was ATL #2 overall or #2 in pts allowed? maybe it was FG% defense or defensive +/- there's so many ways to gauge it. Even then its a good idea to look at the last three years and then slot teams correctly....we never want to be the guy rating Doug Martin the second-best back in the NFL just because he as 2nd in rushing this year (Mcfadden was 4th) especially when he had 456yds in 2013 and 494yds in 2014.

And when you rate ATL second just because they finished #2 that's what your doing. History didn't start yesterday and guys don't start over with a clean slate every year...neither do teams. What happened before has meaning, relevance and value.

[Mbunn1993]

Like previous posters are saying theres a lot that goes into it and you really have to earn these ratings. The Hawks are a good example of the "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" quote. They are a good defensive team in large part because of coaching and gameplan execution, not because they are all good individual defenders. You can in large part thank Mike Budenholzer for their defensive rating. They also didn't start consistantly defending until halfway into the season (which sorta makes their overall rankings pretty impressive)

This is from the beginning of March -

[Kushmir]

Agree here: The Hawks are a good example of the "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" because you look at them and don't see elite defenders oon the roster but their D is really good.

This tho? "They also didn't start consistantly defending until halfway into the season (which sorta makes their overall rankings pretty impressive)" is biased and flawed. Says who? even then...thats their fault. The numbers are the numbers...you can't throw out data you don't like based on "alleged" poor effort--which can't be measured btw.

They're easily a good defensive team....2nd in the league because they finished second? IMO that's a bad way to rate...horrible precedent.

[abuC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

Agree that ATL should be rated higher and a good defensive team....second best because they finished 2nd? Disagree. Me, Bruce from the Sportsgaming Blog and another friend have rated guys for about 5yrs now and like most we never rated active players above 96 and compared them to the best at the position (most now call it the HOF Scale) rating need separators and consistency/longevity is easily the most accurate one after production. Alot of guys can score 27pts grab 7 boards and dish out 7 assists in a game, how many can do it for a month, a season or over a 5 yr period? Or for a career like Lebron? we've always found looking at a 3 year window with the most emphasis on the current year gives you the most accuracy. Team ratings are no different. Ratings during the year are soooo hard. So much is in flux...you have to make sure you're looking at a long enough period and not knee-jerk reacting to highlights or a game or a few games. Teams rarely start & end the season with the same level of play--but the end of the season stats always tells the truth. And even then you want to make sure you're looking at the right info...i'm just spit-balling but was ATL #2 overall or #2 in pts allowed? maybe it was FG% defense or defensive +/- there's so many ways to gauge it. Even then its a good idea to look at the last three years and then slot teams correctly....we never want to be the guy rating Doug Martin the second-best back in the NFL just because he as 2nd in rushing this year (Mcfadden was 4th) especially when he had 456yds in 2013 and 494yds in 2014. And when you rate ATL second just because they finished #2 that's what your doing. History didn't start yesterday and guys don't start over with a clean slate every year...neither do teams. What happened before has meaning, relevance and value.

You're overthinking this, the Hawks have the 2nd best defense over the course of the season based on points per 100 possessions which is a very accurate way of grading defenses in the NBA. They are also first in opponent FG%, there's no reason for them to be ranked 19th defensively behind teams like the Bucks or Pistons.


2k makes all sorts of adjustments to rankings during the season to reflect the current season, however they're grading team defense does not reflect reality.