NBA 2K16 Player Ratings & Screenshots - Day Four: Kobe, Wall, Ross & More

[GudStuffzz]

LOL @ Ross believing he should be higher than a 73, in fact he should be HAPPY 2k gave him a 73. Dude regressed like crazy. He was missing easy 3 point shots, and his defense which has usually been solid was non existent. He really offered nothing on the court if his 3 point shot wasnt falling. Ever since that Nets playoff series, he really hasn't been the same

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

Here's the question, in this new system are those old ratings still going to be applied to those players at those ages with those numbers. If they do then they're undermining their whole system. The post baseball MJ really is a 92-93 Ovr player. His mythological status makes people want to apply the 99 to him for that time period. The 1987-1992 Mike was the 99 player, the same case can be made for the 2007-2013 LeBron.

LBJ shouldnt be a 99 in '07 & '08, no way. 2011 too

[Chocolate Chip]

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

Now I'm really interested to see how everyone reacts when Paul George gets an 87+ overall after averaging 9 points on 36% shooting.. should be fun

he only played 6 games...not a big sample size

[DC]

Like it was mentioned in the SIm Hangout, 2K needs to stop letting Ronnie be buddy buddy with those dudes on Twitter. All a player has to do is cry about a rating and Ronnie looks out.

I remember they gave Kyrie a 91 vertical one year because he said something to Ronnie. A 91 man. For Kyrie.

Same with Whiteside

[GSW]

Quote: Originally Posted by DC

Like it was mentioned in the SIm Hangout, 2K needs to stop letting Ronnie be buddy buddy with those dudes on Twitter. All a player has to do is cry about a rating and Ronnie looks out. I remember they gave Kyrie a 91 vertical one year because he said something to Ronnie. A 91 man. For Kyrie. Same with Whiteside

Yea,

That's ruining the game. Of course NBA players want ridiculous ratings. I noticed Ronnie likes to say "That's my boy" about these guys too the guy really enjoys the limelight and attention thats for sure.

I be wanting to say "That's not your boy, bro." but...whatever. Lol. Keep doin you, player.

[Daddy123]

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

Here's the question, in this new system are those old ratings still going to be applied to those players at those ages with those numbers. If they do then they're undermining their whole system. The post baseball MJ really is a 92-93 Ovr player. His mythological status makes people want to apply the 99 to him for that time period. The 1987-1992 Mike was the 99 player, the same case can be made for the 2007-2013 LeBron.

I guess we'll see how they are adjusted. They were slightly high compared to more modern stars the past two years, and this new ratings system seemed from the description like it was only going to worsen that. But hopefully not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[24ct]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

I still think 94 is fine for his seasonal performance. Again, this is supposed to be an all-time great scale, and 94 is perfectly good for not-pure-peak Lebron whose athleticism has dropped off a bit as well as his shooting and defense. 91 for injured/limited games Durant is also fine on that scale. I'd have Curry with a 91 to 93 on that scale and Harden a 87-90. AD would fall 91-93 and Westbrook 87-89. If the ratings this year are really supposed to be scaled against all time greats, let's make it actually count instead of giving everyone the usual 95-98's like every season. What's not fine is the inflated ratings for run of the mill stars. Wall's a bit too high for me though it's not far off. And what's not fine is Kobe only two points lower than John Wall, which effectively makes his rating even HIGHER than last year's which wasn't scaled against greats. That's just ridiculous. The more I think about it the more it's completely unjustifiable. "He was injured for seasons and actually sucked a little less before he was injured again so let's just pretend he's still great" is not a valid rating methodology. Vegas doesn't work this way. NBA front offices don't work this way. Sports journalism and analysis doesn't work this way. I don't see why 2K should work this way.

Good post bra. I can respect that answer and these ratings.