Revamped Overall Formula for NBA 2K15 Player Ratings Explained

[stillfeelme]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

This is a serious, not trolling question: Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?

In reality it probably isn't needed except for the most casual of casual fans. I think it generate interest/debate and gets people talking about the game. That makes me believe it will never be taken out. Madden has made video games all about knowing the overall which is now part of marketing or revealing the game details. NBA players want to know how they compare to the best fans want to know.

[Hassan Darkside]

Quote: Originally Posted by threattonature

I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.

I suggested this in the wishlist thread. Madden does this based off of coaching scheme and it was at first mildly confusing not knowing the true value of my players but then it became irrelevant as my focus turned to who fit my scheme best.

[Hassan Darkside]

Quote: Originally Posted by Da_Czar

Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system. wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system? We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ? What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both. To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it. So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL. ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.

The way I was thinking was that schemes/systems and/or coaching sliders would influence that. Like the triangle would value defensive awareness, offensive awareness, and 3 point shooting higher than say D'Antoni's 7 second or mess offense which values offensive awareness, ball handling, and passing per say. Derek Fisher would rate much more favorably under the triangle than D'Antoni.

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

This is a serious, not trolling question: Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?

CPU AI needs to know how to properly value players and a lot of the logic is still tied to overall. I guess it could be hidden from the user but heh.

[adamisla]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ruff Ryder

I suggested this in the wishlist thread. Madden does this based off of coaching scheme and it was at first mildly confusing not knowing the true value of my players but then it became irrelevant as my focus turned to who fit my scheme best.

I feel that players roles are what determines their effectiveness, rather than schemes. For example, if a player is an effective spot up shooter, then he retains the ability to shoot, regardless of what scheme is being used. However the scheme might not prioritise getting open looks for spot up shooters. Therefore that player who is effective at spot up shooting is asked to score in other ways that are outside of his skill set thus reducing his effectiveness.

[threattonature]

Quote: Originally Posted by Da_Czar

Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system. wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system? We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ? What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both. To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it. So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL. ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.

Someone just posted the example that I was going to use but for instance say D'antoni is the coach. He may value a player in his system that has high three point shooting and athleticism and would not be concerned so much about defense or post skill or mid range jumpers or even passing ability. A player in a Popovic system would be judged based off of passing ability, shooting, screen setting, defensive and offensive awareness and not necessarily judged more off of all around game and not as much based off of athleticism. A Thibs coached team valuing defensive ability.

Pau Gasol on the Lakers appeared not very valuable due to him not fitting the D'antoni system. So due to overall fit just using base OVR Pau could be looked at as a 75 in the Lakers system as he provides some value but you put him in a Memphis or San Antonio and he could be an 80 or and 85. So in terms of overall value the players attributes don't change but their fit with a team's sytem will better utilize their skills and make them more valuable.

So basically what I'm suggesting is that there be different coaching types for offense/defense. Basic fundamental ones such as offensive type. If you get a P&R PG matched up with a coach that stresses half court offense or pick and roles then it's considered a beneficial match and the player's overall rating is higher versus if a half court/P&R PG is matched with a coach that wants to run his overall rating can drop.

Like someone else mentioned with Madden, I love that they have the player type and system type and that plays a factor in the ratings each team has for each player.

I can sort my thoughts and explain this later. On a conference call and trying to explain is a pain.

[eko718]

I really don't understand the desire to remove overalls. There won't ever be a perfect formula, because who knows what the perfect formula is? But the harm of having overalls is unclear to me. If they were to be removed, there would still need to be an alternative to organize players... hard to imagine a fantasy draft and even prospect scouting in Association with no such system of organization. There will always need to be a method by which to arrange players, whether it be overall, letter grade, etc. A letter grade would be ambiguous and potentially spark more debate. I prefer the specificity of the overall rating.

[NDAlum]

Quote: Originally Posted by eko718

I really don't understand the desire to remove overalls. There won't ever be a perfect formula, because who knows what the perfect formula is? But the harm of having overalls is unclear to me. If they were to be removed, there would still need to be an alternative to organize players... hard to imagine a fantasy draft and even prospect scouting in Association with no such system of organization. There will always need to be a method by which to arrange players, whether it be overall, letter grade, etc. A letter grade would be ambiguous and potentially spark more debate. I prefer the specificity of the overall rating.

Who said there was any harm to having overalls?

Players in today's NBA don't have any overalls attached to them. Rookies in the scouting combine don't have overalls attached to them.

Can't you look at individual attributes and make your own determination? The overall rating is just a number and has no substantial meaning to me. I'm confident I could go in there and make a 90 OVR player that nobody would want on their team.

[knick9]

I'm lost but I know a couple of things:

In the past users look mainly at speed, dunk, and 3pt shooting ratings because they are the most valuable.

And signature skills SHOULD factor into a player's overall rating because some are really powerful. Two equal players shouldn't be rated equal if one has posterizer and finisher and the other has nothing.