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

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Every ruleset is going to favor certain teams over others. Like I said, the rest of the league shot with the lines painted in the same place. Sure, it looks like the Bulls were built to take advantage of that better than most, and were balanced more precariously on that edge between being a good and poor 3-point shooting team (interestingly it seems to have affected Ron Harper the most, where he shot 19% from 3 in '98), but there's no unfair advantage that demeans the 72-win accomplishment. Every other team had the shortened 3-point line at their disposal. Every other team could have adjusted their roster and strategy accordingly. That '98 team still won 62 games and the championship after that roster crested it's prime. I mean you could easily asterisk the Warriors for being so 3-point centric and reliant on a shot that has a 50% bonus payoff that's only 5-7 percent lower in make percentage over the average mid-range as compared to years before there even was a 3-point line, or years where hand checking might might have made it more difficult to shoot off the dribble, or where their defensive schemes and adjustments like not guarding Toney Allen would have been considered illegal defense. And I'm saying this as a giant Warriors homer. Now if we're trying to compare teams across generations and differing rulesets in a fantasy head-to-head matchup, it's certainly something to consider, depending on whose rules we're playing under. But those classic teams operated under rules that would dull the strengths of some modern teams and vice versa. If anything, I would point to the dilution of the league due to expansion teams during the 72-win run. It's one reason why Kerr doesn't think the record will be broken. The other being Jordan was a maniac. As far as conference balance goes, it remains that whenever the Jordan Bulls made it out of the East, they defeated whatever team in the West they encountered in a 7-game series. SIX TIMES. In TWO Three-Peats.

You are generally missing your own points. Russell's Celtics accomplished a lot of things and were twice the dynasty of the 90s Bulls, but you'd be laughed out of the building if you actually believed they translate across eras.

A lot has changed in 20-30 years, not unlike the 60s/90s gap.

I don't understand the concept of asterisking a modern team under current rules but Jordan fans will come up with crazy things to enhance his legacy even further.

Quote:

Lebron certainly has not been able to do that in what is at least as comparatively weak a conference or worse. I mean just this year the Cavs had only to go through a sub-500 Celtics, an injured Bulls team, and an injured Hawks team with no superstar to begin with. For all the "asterisking" GSW haters do, the Warriors at least went through 3 rounds in the West against teams all featuring NBA First-Teamers and were able to field them at full health. Sure, Lebron didn't have the teams Jordan had these last two years-- but that's kind of the point being made, isn't it?

The Bulls never had competition in the first two rounds of the playoffs so I'm not exactly sure why you are discussing non-Conference Finals opponents. Jordan never had to beat a team with 7 more regular season wins to get to the Finals.

Korver missed as many games as Kyrie in the series. Oh man, Thabo Sefolosha missed as many games as Kevin Love, I guess I see your point. Minimizing LeBron's accomplishments while maximizing Jordan's is the name of the game for some people.

1991 (61-21)
39-43 Knicks (Bulls sweep)
44-36 Sixers (Bulls in 5)
50-32 Pistons (Bulls sweep)

LOL tell us more about the mountains Jordan climbed in his stacked conference

[SaruAqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by I Djm

Aye 11' heat v bulls was rigged don't speak of it again Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Lol, one of my favorite all time series as a Heat fan even though Wade struggled shooting (was clutch AF, though). All the talking that Bulls fans did about "owning" the Heat with that 3-0 regular season record and how Rose was unstoppable.



WELP!!

[I Djm]

Quote: Originally Posted by SaruAqua

Lol, one of my favorite all time series as a Heat fan even though Wade struggled shooting (was clutch AF, though). All the talking that Bulls fans did about "owning" the Heat with that 3-0 regular season record and how Rose was unstoppable. WELP!!

U entering dangerous territory it was rigged but at least they lost that year

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[SaruAqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Every ruleset is going to favor certain teams over others. Like I said, the rest of the league shot with the lines painted in the same place. Sure, it looks like the Bulls were built to take advantage of that better than most, and were balanced more precariously on that edge between being a good and poor 3-point shooting team (interestingly it seems to have affected Ron Harper the most, where he shot 19% from 3 in '98), but there's no unfair advantage that demeans the 72-win accomplishment. Every other team had the shortened 3-point line at their disposal. Every other team could have adjusted their roster and strategy accordingly. That '98 team still won 62 games and the championship when the line was moved back, after that roster crested it's prime. I mean you could easily asterisk the Warriors for being so 3-point centric and reliant on a shot that has a 50% bonus payoff that's only 5-7 percent lower in make percentage over the average mid-range as compared to years before there even was a 3-point line, or years where hand checking might might have made it more difficult to shoot off the dribble, or where their defensive schemes and adjustments like not guarding Toney Allen would have been considered illegal defense. And I'm saying this as a giant Warriors homer. Now if we're trying to compare teams across generations and differing rulesets in a fantasy head-to-head matchup, it's certainly something to consider, depending on whose rules we're playing under. But those classic teams operated under rules that would dull the strengths of some modern teams and vice versa. If anything, I would point to the dilution of the league due to expansion teams during the 72-win run. It's one reason why Kerr doesn't think the record will be broken. The other being Jordan was a maniac. As far as conference balance goes, it remains that whenever the Jordan Bulls made it out of the East, they defeated whatever team in the West they encountered in a 7-game series. SIX TIMES. In TWO Three-Peats. Lebron certainly has not been able to do that in what is at least as comparatively weak a conference or worse. I mean just this year the Cavs had only to go through a sub-500 Celtics, an injured Bulls team, and an injured Hawks team with no superstar to begin with. For all the "asterisking" GSW haters do, the Warriors at least went through 3 rounds in the West against teams all featuring NBA First-Teamers and were able to field them at full health. Sure, Lebron didn't have the teams Jordan had these last two years-- but that's kind of the point being made, isn't it? So while the Bulls may have had an easier road to the Finals in certain years (like the Heat/Cavs have had nearly every year), any argument that suggests the Bulls were great mainly because of a weak conference is a complete non-starter. I would say the same for similar arguments diminishing Lebron's legacy as a player (except where we're supposed to be awed by .40 FG% this year), but the Finals evidence is much more airtight in vindicating the Jordan Bulls from such claims.

Damn, you did all the work for me. Thanks, dude.


Also, this myth that Jordan started hitting 3's at a high clip when they shortened the three-point line is nonsensical:


'91-'93 P/O:


'91: 38.5%3PT
'92: 38.6%3PT
'93: 38.9%3PT


'91-'93 Finals:


'91: 50%3PT (only 4 total attempts so I'll disregard it)
'92: 42.9%3PT (12-28)
'93: 40%3PT (10-25)


Jordan himself said that he could hit the 3 ball except that he seldom attempted them.


I too was defending your Warriors' road to the Finals. The Pelicans were easy pickings, no question about that.


The Grizzlies were a great team, though. Conley was out for ONE game (injury didn't stop him from going off in G2). Big deal. Allen missing/playing a few games hurt meant something, though. He did a great job defensively on Thompson/Curry in games 2/3. However, the Grizzlies' biggest problem all these years has been the 3 ball, which they never had. Tony Allen sure as hell wasn't going to make a difference in that department.



People that bring up D-Mo/Beverley's injuries are funny to me. Unlike Memphis, Houston virtually had no shot to beat Golden State as they went 0-4 vs them in the regular season including three blowouts. Beverley defended Curry worse than Terry did. Torched. I'll admit though, G's 1/2 of the wcf were very close. Still, Houston went 1-8 vs GS for the year.


Cleveland is picking your poison. On one hand, Love/Irving definitely improve Cleveland's O and take great pressure off LBJ. On the other, they're both horrible defenders and take minutes away from Delly and Thompson whose defense helped the Cavs' win both games 2 and 3 like Memphis did. Personally , I had GS winning no matter what in 6/7 but the series could've gone either way.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

You are generally missing your own points. Russell's Celtics accomplished a lot of things and were twice the dynasty of the 90s Bulls, but you'd be laughed out of the building if you actually believed they translate across eras. A lot has changed in 20-30 years, not unlike the 60s/90s gap. I don't understand the concept of asterisking a modern team under current rules but Jordan fans will come up with crazy things to enhance his legacy even further.

Actually I think you missed my point. I don't think either players nor their accomplishments need asterisking. Just like I don't think GSW needs their championship asterisked for injuries to opponents they couldn't help. As far as I can tell, the only talk of asterisking seems to be directed towards the Bulls for having a perceived unfair advantage due to a shortened 3-point line.

Quote:

The Bulls never had competition in the first two rounds of the playoffs so I'm not exactly sure why you are discussing non-Conference Finals opponents. Jordan never had to beat a team with 7 more regular season wins to get to the Finals.

I'm discussing non-Conference Finals opponents because the argument seems to be that the Bulls' greatness should be diminished because they feasted on weak Conference opponents. The fact that they three-peated twice proves that patently false. The fact that Lebron teams also thrived in a weak East suggests the same could be said about them, except his teams stand at 2-3 instead of 6-0, with a somewhat noteworthy failure in 2011.

Quote:

Korver missed as many games as Kyrie in the series. Oh man, Thabo Sefolosha missed as many games as Kevin Love, I guess I see your point. Minimizing LeBron's accomplishments while maximizing Jordan's is the name of the game for some people. 1991 (61-21) 39-43 Knicks (Bulls sweep) 44-36 Sixers (Bulls in 5) 50-32 Pistons (Bulls sweep) LOL tell us more about the mountains Jordan climbed in his stacked conference

You're assuming a lot. I'm not a particularly invested Jordan fan nor a Lebron naysayer. If anything it at least appears you're minimizing Jordan's accomplishments to bolster Lebron's legacy. I actually don't have that much of a dog in this fight, and I'm not sure why you would so quickly assume that I have an agenda, though it does make me question if I should be assuming likewise.


My arguments about not being particularly impressed with Lebron's 2015 performance come solely from his actual efficiency and how weak the East actually was this season. It's the evaluation I've been making all playoffs long simply as a GSW fan who had to put up with "asterisking" talk for months about playing against injured opponents, when the Cavs' road to the Finals was clearly easier against teams that were even less healthy.


All this actually has zero to do with Jordan. It has entirely everything to do with how unimpressive the Celtics, injured Bulls, and the starless injured Hawks were. The Celtics are... well, the Celtics. The Hawks' "four All-Stars" were done as soon as Korver was out, and he wasn't playing well to begin with. A banged up Caroll and Horford didn't help. Lebron's toughest team (the Bulls) was arguably a weaker or less healthy opponent than the Warriors' easiest team (the Davis lead Pelicans).


And finally, it has to do with Lebron's own high volume, inefficient shooting that GSW allowed all series. Lebron didn't have many other options-- but it doesn't mean I have to be particularly enamoured with what I consider losing basketball either.


My simple takes are that greatness of the six-peat Jordan teams' accomplishments are cemented by their Finals victories against all comers from the West. And what Lebron accomplished this season was historically interesting, noteworthy and impressive by that merit -- but volume shooting at 40% and being contained by Iguodala (rendering him Finals MVP) just doesn't register on the GOAT scale for me, nor even Lebron's own best performances.


They are two completely separate observations. You can conflate the two if you are particularly invested in establishing your perceived GOAT pecking order, but for me they stand on their own. Take Jordan out of sight and out of mind and not one point regarding my take on Lebron this year would change. I'm a Warriors fan. Low-efficiency, high volume iso-ball is obviously not going to move the meter for me.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by SaruAqua

The Grizzlies were a great team, though. Conley was out for ONE game (injury didn't stop him from going off in G2). Big deal. Allen missing/playing a few games hurt meant something, though. He did a great job defensively on Thompson/Curry in games 2/3. However, the Grizzlies' biggest problem all these years has been the 3 ball, which they never had. Tony Allen sure as hell wasn't going to make a difference in that department.

Thanks dude. Salty Cavs and Rockets fans got intolerable with the asterisk talk.


Actually, I tend to think the opposite about Conley and Allen. Conley really hurt us in Game 2. Another one of those games would have put the series in a precarious position. But he did sort of regress-- people will say he wasn't healthy, but he was healthy enough.


Allen however was hurt only after the Warriors adjusted to "defend" him with Bogut. He was rendered effectively unplayable because the Grizzlies were playing 4 on 5 offense with Allen on the court, and Jorger had to pull him to play more of Courtney Lee who also provided little. Sure, Allen had a hammy but after he was "solved" (like the Spurs solved him in the WCF), I kind WANTED him to stay healthy and play to remove one unknown.

Quote:

People that bring up D-Mo/Beverley's injuries are funny to me. Unlike Memphis, Houston virtually had no shot to beat Golden State as they went 0-4 vs them in the regular season including three blowouts. Beverley defended Curry worse than Terry did. Torched. I'll admit though, G's 1/2 of the wcf were very close. Still, Houston went 1-8 vs GS for the year. Cleveland is picking your poison. On one hand, Love/Irving definitely improve Cleveland's O and take great pressure off LBJ. On the other, they're both horrible defenders and take minutes away from Delly and Thompson whose defense helped the Cavs' win both games 2 and 3 like Memphis did. Personally , I had GS winning no matter what in 6/7 but the series could've gone either way.

Curry's pretty much figured Beverley out these couple seasons so I wouldn't have been too concerned about that. But I think he's still a better player than Terry, so it might have rachetted the difficulty level. I can't completely say about D-Mo but I don't know if he would really swing the series past 6.


Now Delly played great defense (with some dirtiness) in Game 2, but the narrative that Delly was somehow a Curry stopper is silly. Yes, he caused Curry to have one terrible Game 2 for the ages, where GSW would have won anyway if Mo Speights could just finish a single breakaway dunk-- but for the rest of the series, Curry completely destroyed him. Even in Game 3, Curry got going and ended up shooting 50%. Delly needed an IV afterwards.


If you need an IV to guard your opponent and he still shoots 50%, you're not actually guarding him.

[hokupguy]

for those wanting more info go listen to leftos interview on nlsc http://www.nba-live.com/post-game-po...m-in-nba-2k16/

[SaruAqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Now Delly played great defense (with some dirtiness) in Game 2, but the narrative that Delly was somehow a Curry stopper is silly. Yes, he caused Curry to have one terrible Game 2 for the ages, where GSW would have won anyway if Mo Speights could just finish a single breakaway dunk-- but for the rest of the series, Curry completely destroyed him. Even in Game 3, Curry got going and ended up shooting 50%. Delly needed an IV afterwards. If you need an IV to guard your opponent and he still shoots 50%, you're not actually guarding him.

Absolutely agree about Delly. It's funny because right after game 3 on twitter, I predicted that Curry would solve Delly's defense and the Cavs wouldn't win another game in the series (still had GS winning in 6).


The way Curry cooked Delly in the 4th Quarter of game 5, dude had me jumping up and down like an idiot, rofl.