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

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by SaruAqua

Very interesting. Definitely liking what I'm seeing but the only killer for me is LBJ at a 94 and KD at a 91. No way should there be a three rating gap between those two unless their ratings are evaluated off of their careers. When healthy, KD is the best player on the planet, IMO. They should both be a 94 or KD should be a point higher.

Durant is a better scorer, but in everything else LBJ is better and it is not even close.

This is coming from a Wizard fan who grew up in Maryland and is hoping Durant comes home.

[MoneyOvaHuds]

Yea no question Lebron should be the best player in the game current era . KD has missed some time and other Stars have caught up for that 2nd best player argument because of that . KD rating is justified , I expect Harden / CP3 / Davis / Curry / Russ to be 90's if the scale is going by what we think .

[dxyyz1]

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.

Yeah its almost like if you played before the early 70s stauff isnt labeling you as an all time great player .Bill and wilt both are the only players in NBA history to have 50 rebound games and multiple 40 rebound games. But, since stats like offensive and defensive rebounds werent counted before the early 1970s (blocks and steals as well among others) neither one labeled as the greatest offensive and defensive rebounder of all time is pretty disrespectful imo. Also, since blocks/steals weren't counted back then when they played either both wouldve easily most likely averaged a triple double too which imo puts Wilt ahead of MJ on my list of greatest basketball players because of his extraordinary ability on both sides of the court.

[dxyyz1]

Quote: Originally Posted by MoneyOvaHuds

Well tech their stats don't count and the level of play back then was meh IMO and for their physical stature the game was pretty easy . Not trying to down them but any star from the late 80's / 90's /00's would put up insane numbers prob better than theirs . With all said in sure those guys will get their justice but Rodman was in a more physical era getting those rebound numbers at 6'7 .

Really... their were many players who were taller and bigger then Wilt, Russell, and Nate when they played.

[Trackball]

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.

That list is for offensive rebounding only--and offensive boards weren't a separate stat until about 1973, after Russell and Chamberlain retired.

Anyway, again, I didn't know Basketball Reference had stats for that, so I admit defeat there...man, if Rodman were six inches taller, he'd probably have averaged 20 boards for his career...

[KSOR24]

I think it's stupid that an entire ratings system is based on something so subjective. I would take advanced stats into consideration more than consensus opinions about players who played in easier eras. The ratings should be relative to all the players CURRENTLY in the league so there aren't as many variables.

[Sundown]

This is how I always thought it should be ever since the greats were playable in 2K11. 99 should really be the highest anyone can get or ever has gotten in proficiency at an area. Not just really, really, good but we're out of numbers, so 99 for you too.

This also leaves more room at the top end to really compare players across all of NBA history, and hopefully 2K won't feel the need to tweak ratings to get players to rate an overall marching casual fans' expectations.

Also. I hope this means that Harden won't be overrated just because he is extremely effective. It would be perfectly consistent with my world view if Harden rated an all time 87, but was very difficult to stop because of draw foul and flop cheese. Playing against him should feel aggravating and slightly cheesy-- because that's how one actually should feel about his game. Stopping him would require disciplined defense without reaching and taking his strength away from him. He likely rates a 90+, though, since 2K said there are 6 players who do.

[2_headedmonster]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeebs9

Yea if you can't admit that LeBron is the best player in the nba right now. I don't need to explain. Just keep believing yourself. And then trying to compare him to someone who barely played last season. It's not even a contest hahaha.

personally i'd take a healthy Durant, his MVP season proved what he's capable of. Time will tell if his foot will allow his to return to form. A.T.D tho

The beauty of the new approach would suggest whatever evidence would be available will be represented in-game without bias...im excited.