The Great Ratings Debate (long)

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tubaker

Also, just reviewing my team ( kings ) ratings .. some things just dont make sense. Beno Udrih has a better inside rating than everyone on the team besides spencer hawes .. are you kidding me? Better inside game then Jason Thompson, Kevin Martin and Tyreke Evans? no way jose. Also, Evans at 71 as the Kings second best player? Again, thats just not true at this point. Jason Thompson and Spencer Hawes are both on there way up .. should be low 70's .. Nocioni and Garcia also got shafted. And again, Kevin Martin with a B- for perimeter D .. this guy is the worst perimeter defender the kings have, and he is rated the same as Nocioni and Garcia .. rediculous...

i totally agree on the tyreke evans point. you already know how i feel about rookies coming in with high ratings.even lebron i wouldn't have rated higher than say a 65. "you go UP, when you SHOW UP." PERIOD.

see...these are the reasons why we need one person (someone objective and familiar with the team they're rating) per team on the roster project. i just too big a task. things like this get lost...i looked at their numbers and rated thompson and hawes a 71. and say what you want about nocioni (14 ppg 6 rpg and 44% from 3) his game might not be pretty but he's effective. i rated him a 73. i live in atlanta and while i'm not a hawks fan many people are totally upset about the fact that flip murray went to charlotte....he was instant offense off the bench and their best one-on-one creator regardless of position. he was also a solid defender (bibby can't stay in front of anyone) sure they picked up jamal crawford..but he's always been a volume shooter--while murray contributed efficiently without dominating the ball.

[Real2KInsider]

Just skimming through, I find myself disagreeing with most of your changes. Not that the defaults are right, but I have a bigger issue with all the players rated in the 60s than I do the players 70 and above.

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jukeman

What is it that Rondo has to do that will earn him a 87? Score 20 ppg? Shoot 50% The best PG arent scorers... 1. His shooting rating prolly isnt high 2. His consistency rating prolly isnt high 3. He has a great rating in 2 of the 3 displayed catorgories....

the answer to your question is easy: SHOW consistency...i don't like high ratings. (they hurt the game) i'm just not big on breaking the "80 barrier" with players until it's deserved. even after the year rose had as a rookie (playing the game's hardest position no less) i gave him an 80 going into this year.

[Jukeman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

the answer to your question is easy: SHOW consistency...i don't like high ratings. (they hurt the game) i'm just not big on breaking the "80 barrier" with players until it's deserved. even after the year rose had as a rookie (playing the game's hardest position no less) i gave him an 80 going into this year.

they have a single rating for that



For the record, im not saying Rondo should be a 87 just cause he is Rondo, but if his indivisual ratings are fine and it equals up to a 87 then its cool....

Ratings shouldnt be about a popularity contest....Someone said Rondo should be a 78, why is that? Because you think he's the 10th best PG in the league?

If his indivisual ratings are way overrated then we do have a problem but right now its too early and all we are doing is basing ratings on popularity....

As for rookies, they should start off with room for improvement...Their AWR shouldnt be close to a 4+ year VET....

[Keaton]

Guys, this is total senseless and a waste of your time...the ratings are NEW and only a handful of people (who played the game) know how the ratings will play out this year. You argue over something that u dont really know...

Skipp it, play the game and start arguing afterwards.

[Kushmir]

i like Rondo. i think he's good too. my problem isn't his 87.

its the fact that players like billups, parker, rose, nash and others with better numbers (and any other measurables you can bring to the table) are rated lower than an 87.

rather than rate them higher...why not just lower him to the the high 70's his play has dictated he be awarded and go from there?

that said, jason kidd was a 92 last year and he played like an 80 so that's the most important thing...how the game PLAYS. conversely kidd is an 80 this year

[Tubaker]

Well, Im hoping that with the PreSeason they'll be able to evaluate the players and teams little bit better..I get the feeling they just forgot about some stuff about players over the offseason. Rondo had a great postseason, so hes rated high .. you look at his regular season and he could be 5 or more points lower.

I generally agree that overall ratings shouldnt matter, but the fact is they do. In franchise it effects trades and free agency .. and when your an online league guy like myself, overall ratings effect those trades you make with players aswell.. Im at the point where I wish they would just take them out so you would have to evaluate a player on you own with there individual catagory stats.

[bowdown2shadi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bornindamecca

You're judging players by overall and which is always wrong. Wait until we see the numbers, and see what is affecting the overall. The overall rating of a player has nothing to do with how effective he is in his area of expertise.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Especially with the rookies. I understand they should be lower, but you can't just say "I rate him 65". Give him the correct attributes, then see what his overall will be.