Legitimate gripe with some of the All-Time Legends ratings...

[GisherJohn24]

Quote: Originally Posted by BA2929

He's rated normally on the other rosters. I use him quite frequently. In my opinion, the All-Time roster players are all "over-statted", and I think that's on purpose. They want them to feel powerful on those teams.

Kinda perplexed . Makes,it less strategic of everyone is juiced on all categories. Anyone else unrealistically rated ??

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by GisherJohn24

Kinda perplexed . Makes,it less strategic of everyone is juiced on all categories. Anyone else unrealistically rated ??

Yeah I mean the thing is if you're using All-Time Teams how strategic were you really looking to get?

[aakaido]

I mean I get why they would do this. Just the average nba player are a hell of a lot more athletic and skilled (handling and shooting, not fundamentals) than alot of players in the 80s and on back. We have no idea how good or not good alot of players would be in today's game and rules, including 3 point shooting. It doesn't surprise me that they would beef up many of the hall of fame greats ratings within the game.

I don't think neither Wilt or Bill Russell would be as near dominant as they were back in their day due new rules and playing against players who are athletic enough to keep up with them and generally more skilled than most of the guys they have ever played against. But I'm quite sure they've made both of them beasts with monster stats within the game because of what they did against who they played against. Whether that's right or not it's up to debate.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Operation Sports mobile app

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by aakaido

I mean I get why they would do this. Just the average nba player are a hell of a lot more athletic and skilled (handling and shooting, not fundamentals) than alot of players in the 80s and on back. We have no idea how good or not good alot of players would be in today's game and rules, including 3 point shooting. It doesn't surprise me that they would beef up many of the hall of fame greats ratings within the game. I don't think neither Wilt or Bill Russell would be as near dominant as they were back in their day due new rules and playing against players who are athletic enough to keep up with them and generally more skilled than most of the guys they have ever played against. But I'm quite sure they've made both of them beasts with monster stats within the game because of what they did against who they played against. Whether that's right or not it's up to debate.

The issue here is that there's two sets of legends ratings here:

1) Classic Team Ratings (Ex: 1996 Bulls, 1998 Spurs, 2002 Nets)

2) All-Time Team Ratings (Ex: All-Time Bulls, All-Time Spurs, All-Time Nets)

The classic teams have ratings that align very well across eras and most of the players from those teams have accurate strengths and weaknesses (with some possible embellishment here or there).

The All-Time Teams, in contrast, seem to have ratings that are just broadly inflated across the board.

Greg Ostertag, 1998 Utah Jazz - 69 overall
Greg Ostertag, All-Time Jazz - 80 overall

James Worthy, 1991 Lakers - D 3-point rating
James Worthy, All-Time Lakers - B 3-point rating

Those classic teams (1998 Jazz, 1991 Lakers, etc) all compete against every other team well enough as it is. The ratings make sense. Artificially boosting all attributes as they have on the all-time teams tends to just reduce individuality while departing from realism.

[Fakename22]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Bill Russell would be a scrub in today's league. .

Um what.

In a league where 6 foot 6 Quincy Acy can grab 19 freaking rebounds in a game. The 6-10, completely shredded prime Bill Russell who averaged 22 rebounds per game FOR HIS 13 YEAR CAREER would be garbage?

Did you miss the Ben Wallace era?

You under a rock for the Draymond Green show?

Watch more basketball.

[aakaido]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fakename22

Um what. In a league where 6 foot 6 Quincy Acy can grab 19 freaking rebounds in a game. The 6-10, completely shredded prime Bill Russell who averaged 22 rebounds per game FOR HIS 13 YEAR CAREER would be garbage? Did you miss the Ben Wallace era? You under a rock for the Draymond Green show? Watch more basketball.

No he's absolutely right. I wouldn't say a scrub but I'm not sure if he'd be an all star in today's league and this is coming from a very big Celtics fan. He would've been like a Draymond Green type player if he could've upped his assists per game average up, but no way was he ever going to ever average 20 rebounds a game. Same with Wilt. Never would've came close to a 50pt 20reb season.

Watch some film on these guys. They played against some very slow, flat footed, and non-athletic players with very little basketball skills in the infancy of the game, creating some very inflated stats. Not to mention they towered over everyone when height, not skill, was a determining factor in the game. Pit them against today's athletic freaks who've been playing since they were 3 years old and have point guards dunking on centers. A completely different stats and career.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Operation Sports mobile app

[nyk1985]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

The issue here is that there's two sets of legends ratings here: 1) Classic Team Ratings (Ex: 1996 Bulls, 1998 Spurs, 2002 Nets) 2) All-Time Team Ratings (Ex: All-Time Bulls, All-Time Spurs, All-Time Nets) The classic teams have ratings that align very well across eras and most of the players from those teams have accurate strengths and weaknesses (with some possible embellishment here or there). The All-Time Teams, in contrast, seem to have ratings that are just broadly inflated across the board. Greg Ostertag, 1998 Utah Jazz - 69 overall Greg Ostertag, All-Time Jazz - 80 overall James Worthy, 1991 Lakers - D 3-point rating James Worthy, All-Time Lakers - B 3-point rating Those classic teams (1998 Jazz, 1991 Lakers, etc) all compete against every other team well enough as it is. The ratings make sense. Artificially boosting all attributes as they have on the all-time teams tends to just reduce individuality while departing from realism.

Yes. It makes no sense for the same players to be so much better on All-time teams than the classic teams.

There were many players on All-time rosters who weren't on any classic rosters who I wanted to use for league rosters and couldn't because the ratings don't really reflect who they were as players.

It also diminishes the true greats by comparison, since All-time Steph Curry is not getting the same inflation as All-time Greg Ostertag.

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by ThaMastamind

Don’t know if this is the correct spot for this, but here goes: Some of the ratings for these guys doesn’t make sense to me. For example, why in the world does James Worthy on the All Time Lakers team deserve a 3? A 80+ 3? Just played a Play Now Online game and he torched me from deep, but he’s a lifetime 24% shooter from downtown... He even had 4 seasons where he shot 0% from 3! Why 2K, why? Not trying to bash the game at all, I truly love it. But, it seems like no research went into the ratings. It’s like they said, “This guy was a great player, let me set this rating to this.” No substance or research behind it.

Yeah they have been very poor every since they started putting them into the game. But considering how poorly done they do the players of today in the league, I guess we shouldnt expect them to rate guys, that likely the roster ratings people never saw play, and expect them to get it right, when they cant get the players of this era correct.

Some of the ratings, and tendencies make no sense whatsoever. Jerry West juets for a example, has a 0 for 3pt tendency, and while there wasnt a 3pt line back then, Jerry West as did other players shoot from than range. Granted they werent chucking them up like Curry, but they werent just shooting 15-16 ft jumpers either,lol.
What I have asked for every since they put the classics in, to give us the ability to turn off the 3pt shot, that would be a easy fix, no instead they decide this yr, to just say well there is no 3pt line back then, so we wont give any players a 3pt tendency. Sometimes I wonder what these ratings guys are smoking, when doing these ratings and tendencies, they surely arent that clueless.