NBA 2K14 Video - Player Ratings

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by J_Posse

Parker is no worse or better defensively in comparison to any of the point guards slotted ahead of him, except a healthy D-Rose and Rondo, and the fact that you are using that as a knock is reaching. Irving and Curry are considered worse as one-on-one defenders, yet neither is below Parker in overall. Parker is more efficient, less turnover prone, more "clutch" and far more experienced than almost everyone above him yet his intangible ratings are likely worse. He isn't being given the credit he's earned and is underrated. He should be in the elite company PGs with Rondo (healthy), Westbrook, Rose (healthy) and Paul. They all get their appropriate placing for the most part, while Parker is docked an arbitrary amount for weaknesses he no longer possesses. Bull****!!!! And obviously, I'm not saying he's without weaknesses because all players have them. He's just learned to minimize them with hard work and gearing his game towards his strengths. All this without being the lighting fast player he once was. He's lost a half a step or so, yet makes up for it with savvy, tremendous footwork and an under appreciated off-ball game. from Spurs Nation/Bills Backer HQ

Chris Paul's defense is also better than Parker's.

See, Parker's loss of athleticism hurts his overall rating. That's simply how 2K's overall formula works. It favors athleticism, hence the Roses and Westbrooks getting their dues. Parker may be properly rated in his strengths and actually be a more effective player when used correctly with tendencies balanced to his strengths but the Overall is not going to reflect that.

Parker's rating is also hurt in 2K because he's a mediocre shooter when in real life he remains efficient because he relies on his elite penetration and doesn't take volume jumpers. I am guessing he'll play like himself and be much more formidable than say, Ellis who's rated similarly but you can probably force to take a bunch of inefficient long jumpers due to his poor tendencies (when playing the CPU). This also applies to Westbrook to some extent. Kyrie and Curry's ratings remain high because they're both very good shooters from all spots on the floor and that inflates their Overalls.

So again, quibbling over a couple points of Overall is pointless since Overall is arbitrary and doesn't account for signature skills, shot selection and poor tendencies. I'd look at the ratings of individual attributes compared to other PGs before blowing a gasket over a few points. Hopefully his offensive awareness is notably higher than similarly rated PGs and his Floor General and 4th Quarter sig skills probably make him more valuable as well.

In short, Overall is meaningless when comparing players even in ballpark of each other-- which is the case regarding Westbrook/Curry/Parker/Irving/Rondo. Even real life analysts have a hard time clearly ranking that group. Your favorite player may not actually have been shafted-- but the formula for the Overall rating could use improvement even though it doesn't do a single thing in making him play better.

Holiday and Ginobli though-- SMH.

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by basketball444

This is what I was wondering. It is just going to be fluctuating based off the current ratings or will it create new ratings all together based purely on stats?

I am wondering the same thing. Hopefully they have their own ratings rather than basing it on what 2k has given them. I am optimistic that they will have their own rating system. Heck they cant get any worse than the incompetency of the 2k insider with ratings Some of these ratings that have been shown are definitely off.

[sreckless]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Chris Paul's defense is also better than Parker's. See, Parker's loss of athleticism hurts his overall rating. That's simply how 2K's overall formula works. It favors athleticism, hence the Roses and Westbrooks getting their dues. Parker may be properly rated in his strengths and actually be a more effective player when used correctly with tendencies balanced to his strengths but the Overall is not going to reflect that. Parker's rating is also hurt in 2K because he's a mediocre shooter when in real life he remains efficient because he relies on his elite penetration and doesn't take volume jumpers. I am guessing he'll play like himself and be much more formidable than say, Ellis who's rated similarly but you can probably force to take a bunch of inefficient long jumpers due to his poor tendencies (when playing the CPU). This also applies to Westbrook to some extent. Kyrie and Curry's ratings remain high because they're both very good shooters from all spots on the floor and that inflates their Overalls. So again, quibbling over a couple points of Overall is pointless since Overall is arbitrary and doesn't account for signature skills, shot selection and poor tendencies. I'd look at the ratings of individual attributes compared to other PGs before blowing a gasket over a few points. Hopefully his offensive awareness is notably higher than similarly rated PGs and his Floor General and 4th Quarter sig skills probably make him more valuable as well.

You bring up an interesting point about how tendencies may work to balance out some of the more egregious ratings when playing against the CPU. But there's still the issue of playing user vs. user, since that's what I and many others focus on.

In user v. user, OVR and ratings matter a lot more, and Ellis is far, far more effective in 2K than Parker is. Ellis is an A+ elite scorer in the game, a mini-Michael Jordan who can shoot threes off the dribble, rain mid-range jumpers, or penetrate and dunk over and through post defenders.

VC has the very bad tendency of gifting streaky volume scorers like Ellis and Jamal Crawford with ratings as if they're on a perpetual hot streak. Their baseline ratings are simply far too high.

[Melbournelad]

Can someone explain to me why in the world the clown of an insider rated Chauncey Billups and Eric Bledsoe as borderline Allstars?

[JazzMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Melbournelad

Can someone explain to me why in the world the clown of an insider rated Chauncey Billups and Eric Bledsoe as borderline Allstars?!

Reputation.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by sreckless

You bring up an interesting point about how tendencies may work to balance out some of the more egregious ratings when playing against the CPU. But there's still the issue of playing user vs. user, since that's what I and many others focus on. In user v. user, OVR and ratings matter a lot more, and Ellis is far, far more effective in 2K than Parker is. Ellis is an A+ elite scorer in the game, a mini-Michael Jordan who can shoot threes off the dribble, rain mid-range jumpers, or penetrate and dunk over and through post defenders. VC has the very bad tendency of gifting streaky volume scorers like Ellis and Jamal Crawford with ratings as if they're on a perpetual hot streak. Their baseline ratings are simply far too high.

I do agree the Crawfords and Ellis's get too much credit for their shots. Ellis should not have as high a midrange as he does after last season, and Crawford should be a 75-78 player and useful mainly because of Microwave or a similar sig skill in limited minutes. If they have good shots, their consistencies should then be dropped.

There's not much you can do about a User using Ellis smartly and not putting up 27 shots, many contested, and hitting 38% though. But if his shot and other attributes were rated properly, he should be a good 2nd option or a super Jason Terry.

Also Ellis is a crummy 3 point shooter. Off the dribble 3's with him is just wrong. Then again, 3's were wrong all around in 2K13 online.

[CaliDude916]

These ratings are absolutely HORRIBLE, just like every year. Do they just throw in random numbers? Cause I really don't understand how they come up with these ridiculous ratings.

I know I'm gonna come off as a homer for this but, DeMarcus Cousins only a 79? REALLY? He's a top 5 center in the league.

[andeee]

Quote: Originally Posted by RipCityAndy

Like I said in my original comment, if it is based solely on attempts/made statistics, an F is accurate. I couldn't argue with your statement. But I think that is better reflected in a low three point tendency. However, an F outside shooting rating doesn't reflect ability, in my opinion. If the user wants to jack up threes with Meyers, I think at least SOME should go in. If the user shoots 10 threes with Leonard I believe more should go in than if the user shoots 10 threes with Perkins, for example. A little support for his shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPsDSmQNneM Also: http://www.blazersedge.com/2013/7/9/...-chart-defense There is a good quote in there from Stotts showing confidence in his outside shot. Expect him to shoot some this season. Fine, you don't have to agree with how I adjusted him in my roster. But this is where I'm coming from. I don't think it's unreasonable.

Regardless of him having a decent outside shot, 70 is still entirely way too high. You have to balance out percentages and attempts. I would give a 70 to someone who takes an average amount of 3pt attempts and makes them at about 30%.

Leonard took 7 3pt attempts and made 3. I would give him a 60 at best(preferably high 50s). With that rating it's makeable, but it's not an incredibly high percentage shot. A 70 makes him a stretch big, which he's not.

By the way, every time I went to a game at the UC when Ben Wallace was on the Bulls he would be draining 3s before the game like it was nothing. Making 3s in practice or warm ups is not a testament to your shooting ability.