Ratings and MyLeague

[Hengist]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauer4MVP

I mean I do agree, but we also have no idea how the game simulates. Like what if 2k18 has changed their algorithm for simulation as well? Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using Operation Sports mobile app

You can't possibly be this naive

[Hengist]

Ive been saying it since 2k16. ADD 10 to dreb for elite teams, SUBTRACT 10 for dreb for crap teams. Wins are directly correlated to rebounding ovr's. How has nobody else gotten this?

Seriously, try it yourself. If you want a team to really suck/dominate, then add/subtract 15.

Note: you do this for each player on a team.

[infemous]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hengist

Ive been saying it since 2k16. ADD 10 to dreb for elite teams, SUBTRACT 10 for dreb for crap teams. Wins are directly correlated to rebounding ovr's. How has nobody else gotten this? Seriously, try it yourself. If you want a team to really suck/dominate, then add/subtract 15. Note: you do this for each player on a team.

officially intrigued. will test now

[wodi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Godgers12

Still trying to figure out the best way to get realistic win totals, so that the Warriors win, say, 70 games, whereas the Nets scrape by at 15. Right now the highest win totals are right around 55-60 and the lowest is around 30-35.

This is the problem with rating so many guys 70s and 80s.....

[antdoggydogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by infemous

that was a bad example tbh. hoping to just find a way so that some teams sign mind level players to more expensive deals. players like Speights who are super effective take minimum deals and makes it too easy to stay in cap and hoard cap space for year 2 or 3. Basically I just wanna create more parity by pushing up the cost of below average players but also tweak it so high reputation ex stars on the decline can be realistic about free agency earning potential.

I think once I get my hands on 2K18 we'll be able to find the happy medium for the intangibles rating.

Quote: Originally Posted by Hengist

Ive been saying it since 2k16. ADD 10 to dreb for elite teams, SUBTRACT 10 for dreb for crap teams. Wins are directly correlated to rebounding ovr's. How has nobody else gotten this? Seriously, try it yourself. If you want a team to really suck/dominate, then add/subtract 15. Note: you do this for each player on a team.

The problem with this is we don't want to have to artificially lower each players attributes, most, if-not all of their ratings are based off a scale of advanced statistics, a few of which I've pretty much figured out. Ideally we don't want to have to inaccurately represent players league-wide.

[wodi]

Remember when 2k was stretching ratings out to an all time scale?

They just put out more ratings, I legit think they will rate 0 players under a 70.

This is insane how much the company is worried about hurting players feelings.

[Hengist]

Quote: Originally Posted by antdoggydogg

I think once I get my hands on 2K18 we'll be able to find the happy medium for the intangibles rating. The problem with this is we don't want to have to artificially lower each players attributes, most, if-not all of their ratings are based off a scale of advanced statistics, a few of which I've pretty much figured out. Ideally we don't want to have to inaccurately represent players league-wide.

If anything, this makes rebounding numbers more realistic.

[antdoggydogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by Hengist

If anything, this makes rebounding numbers more realistic.

It probably does but it means we're going against the grading scale for rebounding that every player is being rated on. The fix would be fine tuning other areas of the game to make up for the large number of rebounds available during games and simulations. Through my research I've noticed that a lack of points in the paint is what might be causing so many available rebounds.

With my correct POE's set and corrected three-point shooting tendencies, a simulated NBA season resulted in the average team scoring only 23.5 points in the paint. In real life the average team scored 43.3 points in the paint.

The average team in this simulation shot 25 threes a game, which is close to the real life average, so the problem must be that players tendencies to shoot close/mid-range shots are too high and are taking away from inside shot oppurtunities. They need to be more concentrated on the three-point line and paint in general. Close/Mid-range shots are less efficient and may be contributing to more missed shots/available rebounds. There were 49.9 (Let's call it an even 50) offensive/defensive rebounds collected by the average team.

As another test, I made a league compromised of mostly classic teams to see if there would be a difference. Again, I used accurate POE's. Most retro teams didn't shoot a lot of threes so the average team shot about 15 threes a game. Which means more shots were taken from inside, close and mid-range, this resulted in an average of 38.8 points in the paint. That's pretty damn close to real averages. Since they are attempting less threes, that means they are taking and making closer shots, which results in less rebounds. A total of 48 offensive/defensive rebounds available on average. That saves 2 rebounds per game compared to the previous simulation.

Also keep in mind, in both simulations, the average Pace of play was almost identical at 96.4 and 96.7. So they played at the same pace and their were less rebounds available in the retro league.