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

[Hustle Westbrook]

Kobe is horribly inefficient now and hasn't been a top 10 player in the league since 2013.

He shouldn't be more than an 83.

[Trackball]

Quote: Originally Posted by ReyTV

Look at the team around him dude. But aye, don't take it from me: https://youtu.be/6d2WSBadyTU Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that makes this justified? Instead of...I don't know...PASSING?

http://hardwoodparoxysm.com/2014/11/...left-for-kobe/

(And I think this thread's been derailed enough...)

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trackball

And that makes this justified? Instead of...I don't know...PASSING? http://hardwoodparoxysm.com/2014/11/...left-for-kobe/ (And I think this thread's been derailed enough...)

Heh. To be honest, when discussing the ratings of NBA players, I never understood why discussing the ACTUAL players themselves in depth and at length is considered derailing. It seems necessary to me in determining ratings that encompass all factors and relevant contexts.

Without in depth, nuanced discussion that rivals an actual basketball board, we just have causal hand waved impressions based on PER or PPG to work with. And that's everything we say we don't want.

[Trackball]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Heh. To be honest, when discussing the ratings of NBA players, I never understood why discussing the ACTUAL players themselves in depth and at length is considered derailing. It seems necessary to me in determining ratings that encompass all factors and relevant contexts. Without in depth, nuanced discussion that rivals an actual basketball board, we just have causal hand waved impressions based on PER or PPG to work with. And that's everything we say we don't want.

Well, PER isn't something you should totally disregard.

I mean, yeah, the difference between 30 and 29 is debatable (one should then look into other numbers to see what your team needs more), but you'd still want a player with a PER of 30 instead of a player with a PER of 10.

[LO6IX]

I'm not feeling this. They're underrating current players just to overrate retired players, only to build the current players back up with roster updates. Is this by any chance tied to the dynamic cards in MyTeam and them wanting the base cards to be nerfed?
Chris Paul is the best mid range shooter in the NBA but he's probably not going to get the rating he deserves because Michael Jordan was also a great mid range shooter. Because Michael Jordan is Michael Jordan and he's retired they have to make today's players lose attribute points? I don't get this. Are Terrence Ross and Gerald Green going to get a lower driving dunk ratings because they aren't considered all-time greats like '00 Vince Carter, Julius Erving, and Jordan?
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this whole thing. Isn't LeBron considered an all time great already? If they're going to dock his attributes then they should do the same to other legends too.

[JazzMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by LO6IX

I'm not feeling this. They're underrating current players just to overrate retired players, only to build the current players back up with roster updates. Is this by any chance tied to the dynamic cards in MyTeam and them wanting the base cards to be nerfed? Chris Paul is the best mid range shooter in the NBA but he's probably not going to get the rating he deserves because Michael Jordan was also a great mid range shooter. Because Michael Jordan is Michael Jordan and he's retired they have to make today's players lose attribute points? I don't get this. Are Terrence Ross and Gerald Green going to get a lower driving dunk ratings because they aren't considered all-time greats like '00 Vince Carter, Julius Erving, and Jordan? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding this whole thing. Isn't LeBron considered an all time great already? If they're going to dock his attributes then they should do the same to other legends too.

I don't think you get it.

If Player A is the best 3-point shooter in NBA history and is retired, and Player B is currently the best 3PT shooter in the league, but not the shooter that Player A is, then why should he get Player A's rating? What if Player C develops his shot to match Player A as the best 3PT shooter of all time and surpasses Player B?

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trackball

Well, PER isn't something you should totally disregard. I mean, yeah, the difference between 30 and 29 is debatable (one should then look into other numbers to see what your team needs more), but you'd still want a player with a PER of 30 instead of a player with a PER of 10.

PER is pretty bad because it doesn't penalize for inefficiency on offense and doesn't incorporate any of the little things on defense or offense that don't show up on a box score but show up on the scoreboard.

It tends to overrate high volume chuckers and underrate gritty glue guys with high basketball iq, defense, that make the right plays and result in better point differentials.

JR Smith has a higher PER than Finals MVP Iguodala.

Jamal Crawford has a higher PER than Defensive Player of the Year runner up Draymond Green.

I pretty much knew who to check to find guys who are overrated and underrated by PER and where the lower rated PER players are massively more impactful than their similarly or better rated peers. Actually that's probably a little unfair to JR since he was playing with better defense and efficiency than he ever had once he joined the Cavs. But he's not close to the impact an Iguodala is.

A better stat is RAPM or RPM, but there's a fair amount of noise and one needs to know to filter out the low minute backups when they show up high.

PER is only really kind of useful between players with similar roles and usage, and even then it doesn't account for efficiency and defense enough, which is why Westbrook's stat padding 30+ PER isn't as impressive as Davis's.

[LO6IX]

Quote: Originally Posted by JazzMan

I don't think you get it. If Player A is the best 3-point shooter in NBA history and is retired, and Player B is currently the best 3PT shooter in the league, but not the shooter that Player A is, then why should he get Player A's rating? What if Player C develops his shot to match Player A as the best 3PT shooter of all time and surpasses Player B?

In a lot of minds the best 3 point shooter ever is active and is only 27. The second best is semi-retired. It just doesn't make sense for them to take attributes away from someone because some else who played before them was great at the same thing.