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

[swac07]

I really hope these rating changes pan out for the better because people on social media have started a panic fueled wildfire just because their favorite players arent ranked "very high " smh

[Focus10]

Quote: Originally Posted by swac07

I really hope these rating changes pan out for the better because people on social media have started a panic fueled wildfire just because their favorite players arent ranked "very high " smh

Its just because people arent used to new ratings, once they play the game and get used it to it, they'll be cool

[MarkWilliam]

Quote: Originally Posted by Focus10

Its just because people arent used to new ratings, once they play the game and get used it to it, they'll be cool

Totally agree. It's just a system by which they can have players measure up against one another.

There is NO WAY they will compromise how players mimic their real life counterparts and churn out realistic post game stats.

And if there is severe panic, can you not just modify the ratings to make your player rated lower/higher or whatever you want?

I personally think it sounds great. It creates benchmarks for different skills and now creates emphasis on specific players specific skill sets based on said benchmarks.

It just means you'll need to play more like the real life counterparts to have success and frankly, sounds brilliant.

All this is obviously my opinion, but I just don't get why some people are worried about players being rated too high or low when it can easily be edited.....

[Black Bruce Wayne]

Quote: Originally Posted by ThaLiveKing

Shouldn't they do Eras instead of HOF overall? Great rebounder back then might not be as good as a rebounder now. Or the other way around, maybe I'm missing something. I also feel that most of the best rebounders like Rodman should be irritant, have that personality of an aggressive rebounder to go along with their rating. If they could some how take the mental aspect of the game and coincide it with the ratings system, they could be onto something. Maybe have ratings fluctuate throughout the game based on what's going on. If Rodman is playing aggressive grabbing 18 rebounds in a game, you should see that effect on the opposing player bringing that rating down. I think we could have a realistic approach that way. NOt sure how if can be implemented, it's just an idea. New system looks interesting though. I'm just thinking out loud

I like the way you think. Definitely dig the "Eras" angle because some might say Wilt was the best.

[janmagn]

How is DeAndre the best in the NBA right now? Andre Drummond's ORB% is about 2% better

[rjsuperfly66]

Quote: Originally Posted by twinsfan34

That's a great list (and stat to back up the ratings), but it doesn't include the really GREAT rebounders, e.g. Chamberlain, Russell, Thurmond. If you assume they played every minute (many of them did) their rebound rates are 23-25% on average. No way to tell unless someone can watch game film to figure out the difference between OFF/DEFF, but either way, not hard to imagine Chamberlain and Russell (et al) being superior rebounders to Rodman. Also, Rodman only had sustained elite level rebounding for 7 seasons. Chamberlain and Russell were well over 10+ seasons at that level.

Different eras, can't just look at stats. During Chamberlains best rebounding season, they were knocked out of the playoffs by Syracuse. The best rebounder on Syracuse, Dolph Shayes, was 6'7, 195. Remember that Wilt was 7'1, 275. His 2nd best rebounding season was the following season, in the playoffs he matched up against Red Kerr, 6'9 235, before playing the Celtics in the following round. The 2nd best rebounder on Syracuse that season was Dave Gambee, 6'6 215. Played again in the playoffs 2 years later, played St. Louis in the playoffs, and their rebounding duo of Bob Petit, 6'9 225, and Bill Bridges, 6'6 228.

The point of this historical exercise isn't to dismiss the accomplishments of guys like Chamberlain and Russell because they would have been very good players in any era, but that it's impossible to quantify how their stats would translate to the modern NBA. They played in an era where more shots were taken (Chamberlains 3rd mentioned playoff team took ~7800 shots in 80 games, this years Golden St. took ~7100 shots in 82 games), and overall they typically had huge size advantages, not many within 4-5 inches or 50 pounds of.

Chamberlains 100 point game, they played the Knicks. The best rebounders on the Knicks that season were Johnny Green and Willie Naulis. Green, the top rebounder on the Knicks that year by nearly 200, was 6'5, 200. Naulis was 6'6 225. 3rd best rebounder, Richie Guerin, 6'4 195. Again, just a little perspective.

[ojandpizza]

If a current LeBron is a 94 and a 1998 Jordan is a 99, that will just be lol..

But I guess he is Jordan after all, I'm sure even with this new ratings system every version of him past 85 will be a 99 overall.. Even though this new ratings systems seems like it should bring him down a slight. I would have expected guys like Hakeem, Bird, Duncan, Bron, etc to be the ones to take a bump up.

A big 3 LeBron (if that team makes the list) I expect to be ranked very highly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The 24th Letter]

Quote: Originally Posted by 2_headedmonster

dont worry its easier for someone to take, and stand firm on a position when they take the "its beneath me" approach and don't have to defend it... and again, once a player hits unrestricted free agency he CHOOSES which conference he plays in...

Until I see headline "LeBron James releases the 2016 schedule" or "playoff schedule" all I know is that a player signs with a team and plays who is in front of them...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk