09-24-2010, 11:54 AM
|
#480
|
|
Rookie
|
OK I understand the danger of that. But let's look at everything you've said there. Take Wade James and Bryant. Are those three not the best three players in the game? (Sans Durant, which is a whole 'nother can of worms, which quite frankly can be quickly summed up as, he doesn't create for his teamates the way the other three CAN, and isn't nearly the defender the others are YET). They aren't 99s because they aren't Jordan. Would you disagree that Jordan in his prime was the closest example we've ever had to a perfect player?
The reality is that, when you have a cap, when you have a top, when you have a max, you have to start there and work backwards. So, if 99 is the best you can possibly be at your given position, where would guys like James Wade and Bryant fit? Well, pretty darn close to the top. When you PREDETERMINE that 99 is your cap, you are absolutely confined to starting the bar somewhere. If you predetermine the top, you have to pick some spot to start at. They decided to say the three best players in the game are 97s. They have room for improvement, but not much, and there aren't any other players currently playing that are as good as them. That seems reasonable to me. I mean, say this era of basketball had less talent than other eras, and this was generally acknowledged. Let's say Jordan is still going to be in this game and is still going to be an essentially perfect shooting guard. He's the cap of 99. Well say the best play currently in the league is no where near as good Jordan. And I mean no where. Let's say Brandon Roy is the best player in the league. IF Jordan is in this game and he's a 99, with no room for improvement, then Brandon Roy still needs to be 87-88 ish. This is all about relativity. If Jordan wasn't in the game and Roy was the best player in the world, you could make him a 95 all of a sudden. I mean, is this rambling too much? Because they arbitrarily decide 99 is the best anyone can be in their rating system, they have no choice but to arbitrarily start somewhere within that limit. But once they do, it only matters that people are where they are RELATIVE to the initial starting point.
That was a novel, sorry. If anything, I'd like to see the ratings look more like this.
Jordan SG 99
James SF 97
Kobe SG 95
Wade SG 95
Durrant SF 94
But I guess all I'm saying is at least the starting point is predetermined, and there's simply no way around it because the range of a players rating is ALSO predetermined. There's just no way around it.
Also, this is in the context of position. Let's not make any mistake about it. If you put Kobe at center, he's not a 97 any more. Dude is like a 50.
So it's a balancing act between position and overall. Dwight Howard might be the best center in the game right now. And no center should currently playing should be higher than him. But that doesn't mean he should be a 97, because he's nowhere near the player James is.
God I hope what I just typed made some sort of sense.
|
|
|
