Please Understand This About Overall Ratings

[TeamBuilder]

Now that overall ratings for 2K19 are starting to come out, please take time to try to understand and remember the following.

Overall Ratings Are Position-Dependent

NBA 2K games assign an overall rating to a player based on specific skill attributes whose significance to overall rating are weighted by assigned positions (PG, SG, SF, PF, and C). This means that the calculations for overall rating has a degree of dependence on which position a player is listed at. For example, point guards with higher passing stats are valued higher in the overall rating formula than centers with high passing stats.

Player Example: Nikola Jokic, the center for the Nuggets, is a very skilled passer who is likely to have higher passing attributes than most centers. However, the game does not place significant overall rating value on passing attributes for centers. Instead, centers will boast a higher overall rating if they possess high attributes in rebounding and interior defense.



For a player like Jokic, his true value on the court won't be represented accurately by an overall player rating because the overall rating calculation system in 2K doesn't value his passing enough - simply because Jokic is listed as a center. This means that Ricky Rubio's passing attributes carry far more weight in an overall player rating than Nikola Jokic's passing attributes, even though Jokic is such a vital playermaker in the Nuggets offense that he rivals opposing teams' point guards playmaking ability.

Overall player rating isn't a big deal because it does not accurately represent a player's value in the game. If we had a system that truly values players' attributes on a 1:1 scale, regardless of position, then an overall rating would matter more. But to debate cross-positional overall ratings and say that point guard [x] should have a higher overall rating than power forward [y], or to say that certain players' overall rating make them overrated/underrated just doesn't really make much sense without questioning the current position-centric system of overall rating calculation that 2K implements.

[Real2KInsider]

1. Ratings are position dependent but Attribute WEIGHT is wildly out of context relative to actual positional value. Jokic with 25 Passing Vision / Accuracy / IQ suffers only a 1-point drop to his OVR rating. Some of the best centers of all-time were fantastic passers.

2. Intangibles is a gigantic band-aid that only serves to mask a high OVR player with sub-par attributes or a low OVR player with formulaic inadequacies (Jokic = 98).

[SonicMage]

Been saying this for years, thank you TeamBuilder.

On the Intangibles subject, it is absolutely unnecessary to give players different values for that rating if all the rest of the attributes are done right. In my roster, after inputting all my generated values, I set Intangibles to 75 for everybody and noticed immediately that the overalls on the roster made more sense.

On another note about position-dependent overalls, some of their formulas are worse than others. The one for power forwards is notoriously bad; athletic and/or stretch fours always receive a steep decline because those kind of attributes are not valued. For instance, my roster has Lebron set to PF so he has an 86 overall, which puts him at about fifth highest in the league. Setting him to SF instantly shoots him up to 92, best in the league.

[Comduklakis]

the problem with all this is that position dependent or not, intangibles being a bandaid or not (it is), overall still impacts Free agency, contracts, and trades.

So while a lower overall doesn't reflect how a player will play, it does hurt their trade value, their contract they sign for, whether they get an extension, etc.

As a result, IMO, 2k overvalues attributes for certain types of players. Rim protectors with limited offense and 3 and D guys like Korver are two prime examples. In order to give these players more value in the FA/Trade system they overinflate some athleticism categories. Which in turn contributes to the difficulty (again my observations) in seeing superstars truly seperate themselves in the game.

[TeamBuilder]

Quote: Originally Posted by Comduklakis

the problem with all this is that position dependent or not, intangibles being a bandaid or not (it is), overall still impacts Free agency, contracts, and trades. So while a lower overall doesn't reflect how a player will play, it does hurt their trade value, their contract they sign for, whether they get an extension, etc. As a result, IMO, 2k overvalues attributes for certain types of players. Rim protectors with limited offense and 3 and D guys like Korver are two prime examples. In order to give these players more value in the FA/Trade system they overinflate some athleticism categories. Which in turn contributes to the difficulty (again my observations) in seeing superstars truly seperate themselves in the game.

Potential/Age also factors into trade value, contract, etc.

[turty11]

I still believe intangibles has a large impact on what players the CPU teams go after. If you go into edit coach you can see they can have a player target of high intangibles and I assume it means they go after the higher intangible players.

[Comduklakis]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeamBuilder

Potential/Age also factors into trade value, contract, etc.

potential absolutely. In fact it overvalues this IMO. Age, not so sure. I've seen teams offer up some pretty good packages over the years for guys like Dirk or Pau Gasol.

But regardless, OVR is a big factor in the transactions the game does, which causes (IMO) the roster creators employed by 2k to overcompensate for guys with one or two strong skills, which while making them useful players with the right team, often would give them a significantly lower OVR than some of the guys who can jump out of the gym but can't actually play.