An In-Depth Look at the Changes to the NBA 2K16 Ratings System

[raiderphantom]

Quote: Originally Posted by DTHEGAWD

How is KD only a 91? Steph better not have a higher rating than LeBron too, LeBron deserved a 95 his RS stats weren't as good as last year's due to injuries and adjusting to a new system but he was sensational in the playoffs. I always tinker with the ratings and make my own roster when the game comes out actually analyzing advanced stats and shooting charts so it really doesn't matter to me. Also, why is that scrub Dellavadova a 71 he deserves nothing above a 69... 2K will make '98 Michael Jordan a 99 and then give players like LBJ and KD who were better than him by that point less than a 95 c'mon a lot of these historical players are overpowered if we're being real yet they set the bar.

I respect that you use metrics to rate players and have some knowledge of roster making but I don't understand these type of posts. How do you know 2K hasn't altered the overall formula or added more attributes? You already have it narrowed down to the exact overall?

[DTHEGAWD]

If it's based on advanced stats than Anthony Davis would be the highest rated player in the game...

If it's based on advanced stats '98 MJ isn't a 99

If it's really based on advanced stats how did a player with a single digit PER, who shot damn near 35% in the season and who despite his efforts projects as an average defender like Dellavedova get a 71 overall?

[lakers24]

Quote: Originally Posted by DTHEGAWD

If it's based on advanced stats than Anthony Davis would be the highest rated player in the game... If it's based on advanced stats '98 MJ isn't a 99 If it's really based on advanced stats how did a player with a single digit PER, who shot damn near 35% in the season and who despite his efforts projects as an average defender like Dellavedova get a 71 overall?

Just because it's based on it, that doesn't mean it makes up the entire formula.

[DTHEGAWD]

Quote: Originally Posted by raiderphantom

I respect that you use metrics to rate players and have some knowledge of roster making but I don't understand these type of posts. How do you know 2K hasn't altered the overall formula or added more attributes? You already have it narrowed down to the exact overall?

I don't know that I'm guessing they haven't because it's been pretty much the same for years. Those are ratings I came up with at the end of the '15 season.

[Luke Skywalker]

I can only imagine what my favorite NBA player Deron Williams will be rated in 2K16 ... probably low-to-mod 70s ... I like this idea though, helps out a lot with simulation statistics. Imagine if Madden or other video games followed this same concept?

[QNo]

This is really exciting, should make the game a lot better if it works out as well as it sounds. It would seem reasonable to me to have a few players have 99 rating in some instances, especially when they played in different eras.

Wilt Chamberlain is easily the strongest player of all times, but I'd also give Shaq a 99 rating since he was the player to use his strength to his advantage much more because of the way the refereeing has changed over the years. If you watch old film you notice that the refs are very quick to call offensive fouls for what we would consider harmless contact.

There is also an inherent difficulty in comparing eras. Despite the common conception that Wilt played against tiny white Cs while Shaq had to battle through the golden C era, Wilt played against great Cs much more often since the league was much smaller back then. See e.g. https://twitter.com/WiltCArchive/sta...21329528610817

This also applies to comparing other stats, such as the already discussed rebounding issue. Stats, no matter how advanced, can only be used to compare players of the same era since they would face a roughly similar competition and ruleset.

[GSW]

Quote: Originally Posted by QNo

This is really exciting, should make the game a lot better if it works out as well as it sounds. It would seem reasonable to me to have a few players have 99 rating in some instances, especially when they played in different eras. Wilt Chamberlain is easily the strongest player of all times, but I'd also give Shaq a 99 rating since he was the player to use his strength to his advantage much more because of the way the refereeing has changed over the years. If you watch old film you notice that the refs are very quick to call offensive fouls for what we would consider harmless contact. There is also an inherent difficulty in comparing eras. Despite the common conception that Wilt played against tiny white Cs while Shaq had to battle through the golden C era, Wilt played against great Cs much more often since the league was much smaller back then. See e.g. https://twitter.com/WiltCArchive/sta...21329528610817 This also applies to comparing other stats, such as the already discussed rebounding issue. Stats, no matter how advanced, can only be used to compare players of the same era since they would face a roughly similar competition and ruleset.

Yea,

I want to see how this plays out into the physical attributes. Who has the highest vertical? Are we saying that Raptors Vince Carter is the pinnacle? How do you measure speed/quickness/agility/"awareness" etc..

Seems like guess work is taken out of the stats ratings but physical attributes are going to be somewhat biased, no?

[8KB24]

Quote: Originally Posted by MP.Trey

Couldn't disagree more about basketball being nothing but numbers and probability. You have to watch tape to see HOW a player does something to truly understand what they're good and not good at. Just looking at Kerr's percentages, he shoots it better than Curry, but Curry by far takes more shots and more diffcult shots and is a much more impressive shooter. I think 2k does well with rating players but acting like numbers are the be all end all is pretty ridiculous imo.

that's why there are ratings and tendencies for standing and moving jumpers/3 point shot and kerr would probably have 99 standing and lower moving 3pt shot while i predict curry has 93-95 in both categories and also high tendency to shoot off the dribble while kerr would have high tendency to spot up and almost never shoot off the dribble.