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

[24ct]

Just because you make a shot doesn't make it a good shot. No matter how high the FG% is if you're taking contested layups/jumpers vs open ones and making them that isn't a good shot. Look at Kobe. He's been doing that his whole career and now he's declined athletically, they're not falling like they used to.

The sky hook isn't a bad shot at all btw. The guy isn't shooting over multiple ppl. He's posting up. Same with Jordan's turnaround. Even though fades are bad shots make or miss. The advantage to posting up is you control the pace of possession. Statistics show fades are bad shots on percentage but it's better than a face up jumper. KG, Rasheed Wallace were killers at the post fade. Once they got older they expanded beyond that. Sheed even started taking more 3s. Jordan on the Wizards was not that huge of a threat on post fades.

Curry takes some terrible shots. Just because they go in doesn't make them good looks. He's gonna get older and be a spot up guy. He'll be shooting Kyle Korver numbers because he's a pure shooter. We see a lot of his highlights but what we don't see is how many open looks he gets thanks to the warriors offensive ball movement.

A prime example is the finals. When delly had the energy he guarded curry effectively because he's a scorer that lives on shooting. They opened the floor with Green at the 5 and it was a field day for curry again. But the shots he was taking before looked terrible. He was bricking but you can't pull your star as a rookie coach. I guarantee Popovich would have had Curry on the bench. Probably every time he took a pull up from too deep considering he can get much better, more effective looks with patience. And bad 3s lead to leak outs and fastbreaks.

[lakers24]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

If you have to cherry pick a small segment of his season to show Kobe hasn't been terrible 8 games), and when his TS is STILL terrible have to cherry pick more games to remove from that sample set resulting in a tiny six game sample, then it's probably not a valid way to justify an 85 rating. Especially when we have a much, much, larger sample set to work from over the last two seasons. If Kobe is really improving, then just rate him at his average performance (80-82) and increase his rating when he shows it on the court in the 2015-2016 season. No one else gets to maintain a massive stat overrate from six games in two years. And while Kobe is skilled in a variety of ways, he isn't on one complete end of the court and his skills are declining (or rather athleticism is) so that he's not that effective on the other end either. His shot making is also down, and he's not a impact rebounder, so what are we left with? His passing is still great ironically, but he doesn't choose to nearly enough, so that should dock points from his IQ or vision. 2K ratings rate OVR by archetype, and I don't think there is an archetype that is "all-around offensively skilled player that actually has negative offensive impact". So more then likely Kobe is overrated on several categories with a hesitancy to dock him where he's been least effective.

Again, I said he was hot garbage most of those 35 games he played, but that portion of the season was the best he'd looked since coming back (most say it takes a little over a quarter of a season to begin to lose some rust, mind you he'd basically not played in a year and a half). I point out his overall skillset because I believe that's what's causing his overall to be boosted. People are too concerned with his actual overall than his individual ratings (which may be overrated in some areas but going off of his last 2k15 ratings I'd have to say he's been docked pretty damn good athletically and somewhat defensively). From what I remember, IQ ratings and offensive ratings boost players' overalls, and if that is still the case, then it isn't a mystery why his rating is still too high for you guys. I don't really care tbh though as he'll be adjusted after the first couple of weeks or so anyway, same with Rose, Durant (if he stinks it up), Melo, etc.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by 24ct

Just because you make a shot doesn't make it a good shot. No matter how high the FG% is if you're taking contested layups/jumpers vs open ones and making them that isn't a good shot. Look at Kobe. He's been doing that his whole career and now he's declined athletically, they're not falling like they used to. The sky hook isn't a bad shot at all btw. The guy isn't shooting over multiple ppl. He's posting up. Same with Jordan's turnaround. Even though fades are bad shots make or miss. The advantage to posting up is you control the pace of possession. Statistics show fades are bad shots on percentage but it's better than a face up jumper. KG, Rasheed Wallace were killers at the post fade. Once they got older they expanded beyond that. Sheed even started taking more 3s. Jordan on the Wizards was not that huge of a threat on post fades.

The sky hook is a difficult shot. So is Jordan's turnaround fade. Just because they're aestheticly "posting up" doesn't automatically make them good shots. What posting up and fading does is make it difficult to guard because of body positioning. And what makes them good shots for Jordan and Kareen is their moves can make it more difficult for their defender to guard than it makes it difficult for them to finish.


This is the exact function of Curry's quick release, off the dribble shooting, and plethora of crossovers into step backs. It creates unguardable separation and it's consistent and repeatable for an all-time shooter. It makes it more difficult for defenders to guard than it does for Curry to make the basket. When the point value of the shot is considered, that is a good shot and has to be the only definition of one that actually matters.

Quote:

Curry takes some terrible shots. Just because they go in doesn't make them good looks. He's gonna get older and be a spot up guy. He'll be shooting Kyle Korver numbers because he's a pure shooter. We see a lot of his highlights but what we don't see is how many open looks he gets thanks to the warriors offensive ball movement.

Curry has been shooting with the same accuracy for the entirety of his career. It's not just due to the Warriors' ball movement. Kerr only coached GSW last season.


The only major dropoff was the season prior (still shooting 40%+) under Jackson's bottom of the league isolation and ball movement offense. The year before that he had his first record breaking season at 45%+, still under Jackson. That offense wasn't a ball movement heavy offense either, yet Curry posted the best accuracy on volume for his career. Yes, a league bottom offensive gameplan can hurt Curry's accuracy, but that's not nearly the same thing as saying his accuracy is only a result of a top offensive system. The numbers and history simply do that support that fact.


Saying Curry shoots the way he does because of a ball moving offense is about the same as saying Jordan is the player the is because of the Triangle. Curry creates as much ball movement and spacing as a shooting threat for his teammates as he gets looks from it, so it's not the one sided relationship you're suggesting. Both are as responsible for the systems they play in as much as they benefit from it.

Quote:

A prime example is the finals. When delly had the energy he guarded curry effectively because he's a scorer that lives on shooting.

This happened for ONE game (Game 2). At the same time, no one on the team could buy a bucket. It was a game where Mo Speights couldn't finish a dunk and the Warriors went 8-35 as a team. That is not a sample set I think is worth considering as "a prime example". It's a powerful narrative though.

Quote:

They opened the floor with Green at the 5 and it was a field day for curry again. But the shots he was taking before looked terrible. He was bricking but you can't pull your star as a rookie coach. I guarantee Popovich would have had Curry on the bench. Probably every time he took a pull up from too deep considering he can get much better, more effective looks with patience. And bad 3s lead to leak outs and fastbreaks.

Curry was missing open and contested shots in Game 2. Plenty of them were "good shots". And Curry started grooving before the Warriors even went pure small ball with Green at the 5. It was actually when David Lee was inserted late in Game 3 in the pick and roll and Curry ended the game shooting 50%. All this occured while Green was still calling himself a dissapointment and a let down.


Now maybe you might be right that Curry can get a better shot on some of his takes. But I think it's arguable whether passing all of those shots really helps the Warriors' offense. Maybe it does, but it's also possible that him picking up defenders at half court and constant traps because he can and will pull up from 35 is beneficial for a team offense.


So in summation:


1. Curry has shot similarly his entire career, in both top and mediocre offenses. His worst in a league bottom ball moving offense is still elite with league leading volume.
2. Curry shot poorly for one game in the Finals. I don't think that's a great sample set compared to six seasons, hundreds of games, and several playoff series.
3. Curry started shooting the way he always did before Green was part of a major offensive adjustment.
4. Curry maintained the level of play we expect from him taking "terrible shots" for the rest of that series. Dellavedova not "having the energy" to guard Curry is more a function of the type of shots Curry is liable to take and how difficult it is to guard him an entire series than Curry's accuacy is a function of Dellavedova's energy.


Let me ask, what makes Curry's shot selection terrible, if it's not his efficiency, accuracy, consistency, or how it might hamper a team offense?


When Curry shoots a cross-over step back 3, do you:


1. Think he's not going to make it?
2. Think it's going in?
3. Think it's going in, but it's a terrible shot because...


If it's 3, then that qualifier is purely an emotional and aesthetic preference. Any evaluation of whether a shot is a good one without consideration for efficiency in large sample sets is completely meaningless. But I can concede that some of his shots could be better, but the line blurs for a player and shooter like him. If he's in rhythm and isolated against a player, I absolutely have no problem with him pulling up. He wouldn't be as impactful a player as he is if he didn't.


For what it's worth, I'm actually not sure Curry is going to be as good as spot up shooter like Korver and Allen at the end of his career. I sure hope so, but he's a much smaller player than either and not quite as difficult to guard if he's just standing in the corner and not moving. Korver, Allen, and Klay are difficult perimeter spot up shooters to guard because of their height. Curry's difficult to guard because of his mobility and ability to get off a quick release with or without the ball. FIBA spot-up Curry is not much to get excited about.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by lakers24

I don't really care tbh though as he'll be adjusted after the first couple of weeks or so anyway, same with Rose, Durant (if he stinks it up), Melo, etc.

I don't think this is something to count on, considering 85 was Kobe's rating AFTER his horrid season. And if he plays even decently, I wouldn't be surprised if he got a boost to 88, with the reasoning "well if he was 85 when he was bad, he's certainly higher now".

[Steve_OS]

Added Anthony Tolliver to the OP, FYI.

[Clappington]

Quote: Originally Posted by The 24th Letter

You drop a stream of you scoring 80 on HOF/Simulation with Rudy Gay and I'll donate in your honor... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As much as I'd hate to say it I've played my friends (some are big time cheesers) drop 40-50 with Rudy Gay same with Paul George. poster dunks all game long lol. so I wouldnt past him dropping 80 on HOF/SIM.

[WTF]

Rudy Gay is cheese too. Crazy easy release, lol.

[24ct]

You're missing my point Sundown. All I'm saying is those are not good looks from any perspective. Posting up isn't the same. It's not facing up a guy and trying to cross him to get open. Essentially you're gonna shoot when you want posting. But posting up is difficult to do in general. That's why players work on posting. That's why Durant doesn't post yet. There are plenty of guards who try to cross over step back shoot. Not as elite as curry but curry is a SHOOTER. You don't shoot almost 90 on freethrows unless you can shoot like Nash.

Curry wasn't always playing like this either. This just started during Marc Jacksons last year. Before he played a lot off ball and with Ellis he definitely wasn't the Steph we see today.

Sidenote: Curry moves great off the ball like Ray Allen so he'll be a fine spot up shooter but I still don't agree the difficult shots he takes are good looks. Even the little floater layup he does takes tremendous touch. Not saying Curry isn't the best shooter off the dribble but we're talking about a guy known for shooting. We see highlights of his incredible shots but we don't see the ball movement that evens his percentage out. That's all I'm really saying. If every shot he took was a crossover step back his percentage wouldn't be that sweet. But he had other creators like Livingston, Iggy, Green, Bogut, Lee at those big positions that helps spacing. (Also I meant Lee not Green but when Green came alive it definitely didnt hurt.

Also it's worth noting Curry evened his percentage out in those games but just because he was shooting a better percentage at the end doesn't negate how/why the Cavs were even in those games to begin with. He was shooting poorly in Game 1 until overtime. It continued up until Game 3. By poorly I don't mean 3/12...I mean the shots he was taking looked out of rhythm & rushed. Which is how the Cavs stayed close. Just because he shot 50% by game end doesn't mean the shots he took before heating up didn't hurt/were good looks.

Same as how LeBron shooting 40% didn't hurt his team as much. He was essentially missing layups. The shots LeBron was taking were actually perfect looks minus some greatly contested drives but his usage was so high his percentage was low. But if it wasn't for those looks his team would have lost by a lot more. The opposite can be said for Curry because those looks he usually hits lead to easy breaks for Cleveland. The difference is where the shots were taken and how fast in the shotclock. All that plays into a look being good vs bad IMO. Not saying LeBron was shooting better but he wasnt putting his team in bad situations by shooting a low percentage on drives. But Curry on some missed long 3s was putting his team in bad situations from leakouts. It's like JR Smith being cold all game 6 but heating up with 6 minutes left. Did that really mean he didn't play bad just because he finished with like 18 shooting a higher percentage than what he started? Yes Curry finished games strong but the box score or shooting percentage never tells the full story.