NBA 2K16 Player Ratings & Screenshots - Day Five: Morrow, Johnson, Turner & More

[Real2KInsider]

Some people just gonna twist words to suit their emotions and feelings.

*shrug*

[8KB24]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Some people just gonna twist words to suit their emotions and feelings. *shrug*

If you did not understand my point (which, IMO, is proven) then you obviously have reading comprehension difficulty.

[vtcrb]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauer4MVP

Come on now. You can't just simply do that. Would current big men struggle in the post if they time traveled back to that area? Probably. But I would say big men would struggle in current day basketball because the game has evolved and concepts and importance in skillset have changed so much. It's still nice to have a back to the basket player in today's game, but if that's all they can do (Okafor) then you are going to limit your ability. Regarding great shooters, the number of quality shooters has increased due to the increased importance of the 3 point game. Were there elite 3 point shooters? Sure. But look at 3 point attempts per game by year: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html There is definitely a much bigger focus on outside shooting which really can't be argued. And don't go the Chuck route and completely ignore statistics. It's a huge part in understanding the game. P.S.: You are doing rosters again, right? Love your roster sets!

I dont ignore Stats, but I dont feel you cant use them as a Fair Comparison when judging different Eras of basketball. Now the 3pt shot is what the Mid-Range shot was back before the 3pt line. The 3pt Shooting Evolution was due in part to the Lack of Low Post Offense threats.

I do agree some Bigmen would struggle some, but Not Ewing, Hakeem, DRob, Daugherty, Sabonis(hard to judge his NBA work, because of Injuries), Moses Malone, etc. Some of the Guys who were 5ft and in guys would struggle, but the Elite guys would be Elite and Dominate in Any Era.

I also weigh that Defense is NOT something that players Pride themselves on in Today's NBA. These guys Dominated in an ERA where Defense was not Only expected but Demanded. So I think some of the guys may be MORE Dominant in Today's NBA.


P.S. If all goes as Planned, yes I will have Rosters again for 2k16. Any Classic Team Project will be a Joint Venture with Sellaz. Thank you for the kind words.

[BigT34]

Quote: Originally Posted by vtcrb

That you put Jefferson, Lopez, Bogut in the SAME conversation and use them as a Comparison with the All-Time Great Centers(Hakeem, Ewing, DRob, etc) shows me all i need to see about Your Basketball Knowledge. Also guess their were no Great Shooters to take away Post touches( Reggie Miller, Steve Kerr, Mitch Richmond, Jerry West, Larry Bird, etc). So Okafor Doesnt do what is Expected of Modern Day Centers? Hmm. I guess Defensive Rebounding and Protecting the Rim werent done by Earlier Centers. Great Point there. LOL You Honestly dont think the Older HIGHER IQ players from the Past could Deal with ZONE Defenses. WOW. You forget how Physical Low Post DEFENSE was back in the Day when these guys Dominated. Let them Operate without a Bill Laimbeer throwing Elbows in their backs and see what happens. You just stay in Your STATS world and I will stay in the Real Basketball World. It is obvious you are NOT in touch with Old School Basketball. Have a great day.

I've got to say something about this. I've always given you credit for being a really thoughtful guy--I'd like to think you're bigger than falling into this black/white split of "real basketball" vs. stats. The point of stats is to try to portray what happens on the court.

Do you use things like points per game or rebounds per game to compare players? Those are statistics, too. A lot of these statistics like DRB% are simply dividing rebounds by possessions instead of rebounds by game played--it's still division, just with a different number.

I've played basketball my whole life, I grew up with the game. Everyone who has ever played basketball knows that the little things matter, such as how you set a screen, or that the pass that leads to the assist can be just as important as the assist itself. We've all played with guys who love to chuck and can score lots of points, but who don't pass the ball or who fail to see wide open players and thus hurt their team. We've all played with guys who seem to make everyone else better by doing the little things well, like boxing out, contesting shots, etc--these things don't get recorded in the box score.

Anyone who's ever played post defense knows that blocking shots is a tiny part of the equation--you have to have good footwork, you have to keep your guy from catching the ball deep, you have to stay vertical, you have to contest his shot if you can't block it. The beauty of more modern statistics is really that there is more nuanced DATA, e.g. that we can now, finally, actually measure how much contesting a shot impacts the chance it goes in--these stats allow us to appreciate, with numbers, why a guy like Tiago Splitter can actually be such a valuable player. The same can be said for assists--we all know the pain of making a perfect pass only to have our teammate miss the shot. But the pass was still a great pass. Things like SportVU, coupled with more modern analysis, allows us to start to quantify which players are making the best passes, regardless of whether their teammates are competent enough to make the shot.

Using numbers to compare players over time is part of what makes basketball fun. But nobody is saying they tell the ENTIRE story--they just enrich the picture. Stats and "old school basketball" are hardly mutually exclusive. And for a roster maker as passionate as you are, this stats revolution would seem to be a goldmine.

[vtcrb]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigT34

I've got to say something about this. I've always given you credit for being a really thoughtful guy--I'd like to think you're bigger than falling into this black/white split of "real basketball" vs. stats. The point of stats is to try to portray what happens on the court. Do you use things like points per game or rebounds per game to compare players? Those are statistics, too. A lot of these statistics like DRB% are simply dividing rebounds by possessions instead of rebounds by game played--it's still division, just with a different number. I've played basketball my whole life, I grew up with the game. Everyone who has ever played basketball knows that the little things matter, such as how you set a screen, or that the pass that leads to the assist can be just as important as the assist itself. We've all played with guys who love to chuck and can score lots of points, but who don't pass the ball or who fail to see wide open players and thus hurt their team. We've all played with guys who seem to make everyone else better by doing the little things well, like boxing out, contesting shots, etc--these things don't get recorded in the box score. Anyone who's ever played post defense knows that blocking shots is a tiny part of the equation--you have to have good footwork, you have to keep your guy from catching the ball deep, you have to stay vertical, you have to contest his shot if you can't block it. The beauty of more modern statistics is really that there is more nuanced DATA, e.g. that we can now, finally, actually measure how much contesting a shot impacts the chance it goes in--these stats allow us to appreciate, with numbers, why a guy like Tiago Splitter can actually be such a valuable player. The same can be said for assists--we all know the pain of making a perfect pass only to have our teammate miss the shot. But the pass was still a great pass. Things like SportVU, coupled with more modern analysis, allows us to start to quantify which players are making the best passes, regardless of whether their teammates are competent enough to make the shot. Using numbers to compare players over time is part of what makes basketball fun. But nobody is saying they tell the ENTIRE story--they just enrich the picture. Stats and "old school basketball" are hardly mutually exclusive. And for a roster maker as passionate as you are, this stats revolution would seem to be a goldmine.

I would love to use Stats, but they dont have them to track back in the Earlier ERAs, so using them in Any conversation in a Historical Debate about who is best, for Me personally is useless. Plus Defense and the Way Players play Defense have changed as well. Now FT% is a transferable Stat in any ERA, but most other Stats cant be.

Now for Modern Basketball it works, but still has to be taken with a grain of salt. What i mean for example is % of contested shots made for example. If there is a stat that tracks the Individual Height of the Player and Defensive Ability of that player contesting, then it could work, but I havent found that site. Like people using the Per 36 min stats, etc. Those are Fine IF a player is Playing 36 minutes, but if there averages come off of 15 minutes of playing time, that doesnt work for me. Examples like that make me go back to basketball knowledge rather than Stats. I dont need Stats to be able to value a player, guys like you and I will be able to see there value from watching them play. Maybe some need stats, but i am more about the performance on the court.

As you brought up passing a PG could be a GREAT but lead the League in Turnovers due to his Teammates not anticipating where the pass is Going or stopping a cut to the basket to run back to the 3pt line. Now IF someone didnt watch the game and ONLY looked at the Stats, then they would say this PG is Turnover Prone.


I dont care what Stat is Used, in My basketball World(over 30 years playing, coaching, scouting, watching) no Post Player in Today's NBA can Compare to Ewing, Hakeem, or DRob. And to say they wouldnt have as much success in Today's NBA is Untrue in my opinion.

I honestly dont rely on Stats as much as some other Roster guys, for the simple fact Stats dont always Translate. I would rather watch Game Tape all day to evaluate a Player.

[vannwolfhawk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauer4MVP

Come on now. You can't just simply do that. Would current big men struggle in the post if they time traveled back to that area? Probably. But I would say big men would struggle in current day basketball because the game has evolved and concepts and importance in skillset have changed so much. It's still nice to have a back to the basket player in today's game, but if that's all they can do (Okafor) then you are going to limit your ability. Regarding great shooters, the number of quality shooters has increased due to the increased importance of the 3 point game. Were there elite 3 point shooters? Sure. But look at 3 point attempts per game by year: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html There is definitely a much bigger focus on outside shooting which really can't be argued. And don't go the Chuck route and completely ignore statistics. It's a huge part in understanding the game. P.S.: You are doing rosters again, right? Love your roster sets!

That's all they would need to do. Dwight Howard is considered 1 of the best centers in today's game. He has no stretch 3 pt game, or even a mid range game, and worst of all he doesn't even have a post up game. So 1 of the best centers in our game today does what exactly? He's athletic, plays d, plays perimeter pnr well. I'd take anyone over Dwight back in the day. Shaq was I won't say the same but he didn't have a perimeter game either and his post game was all overpower people. Today's centers can't even shoot free throws.

You don't think teams would be all over any center on that list today? Cmon! Just because the game has changed doesn't make them irrelevant in today's NBA. The game changed because there were no more centers like back in the day and European bigs came over who could stretch the floor. Sam Perkins was one of the original stretch 4's. Anyways, all those guys would have to do is dominate the blocks. You don't think teams back in the day tried to get mark eaton away from the hoop? Easier said than done and it goes back to team philosophy and scheme on both ends of the floor.

Would Kareem have averaged more points in the mid 80's on a team without magic and big game James? Obviously! But the lakers didn't need him to dominate but merely play his role. Another reason stats can't be the only decision factor in any argument.

[vannwolfhawk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

That is necessary in today's NBA where quickness and agility supersede size and strength. Teams stopped wasting draft picks on projects who never develop and instead focus on basketball players. A high degree of skill is required in today's NBA. Much more is asked of NBA big men now then to either be the post guy or a fouling goon.

I think I covered this in the above post...

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Part of the reason the center position evolved is because the PF position evolved. Centers dominated the NBA throughout it's history and as previously stated it wasn't until Malone/Barkley when that changed. PFs are vastly better than they were in the 80s which is another reason stiff centers fell by the wayside in favor of smaller players who could actually play the game This is a commonly over-stated trope that applied 10-15 years ago (when Dale Davis and Antonio Davis were all-star centers) that simply does not apply now. Beyond Al Horford and Tim Duncan, what starting center in the NBA isn't a true center?

id say 75% of the leagues centers today would be power forwards yesterday and not considered true centers with a few exceptions. Obviously guys like... Now do any of those guys stretch the floor, play the way you describe? Don't you think more teams would be all over guys like this if they existed? That's the thing the center hasn't really existed over the last so many years as there just wasn't any true centers out there. So the game had to change. I think personally the post game isn't taught at the younger ages up they high school is part of the problem but that's a whole different subject. But I guarantee you teams would take a back to the basket big man if the option was available. Look at the last few years drafts and the top picks especially this last years draft.

Dwight Howard
Jahlil Okafor
Karl Anthony towns
Roy Hibbert
Andrew Bogut
Marc Gasol

The guys I listed above are true centers IMO. Most all others are PF back in the day or backups like the list I put up earlier.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

I have seen the 90s, but my point in this topic from the jump (before people started nitpicking PER) is that the NBA has fundamentally changed and the OVR rating must reflect the present (and the early data suggests that it does not). The great centers of the past would no doubt be able to play in today's NBA but the other 90% was primarily BBQ chicken that did nothing offensively. I'm sure Wilt Chamberlain had a wee bit more post skill than your average center in 2015, but the reality is we have a 3PT lane, a lane larger than 12 feet, and centers larger than 6'6" nowadays. What worked in the past doesn't automatically translate. Three is greater than two. Bigs acquire different skills for a VERY different NBA. They are much more well-rounded now instead of specialists.

The only reason this all started was because you stated that the 15-20 centers of today (I don't even call them centers but more centers by default) would crush the 10-15 centers of yesterday. You go off stats but didn't even see the 80's and said you saw the 90's. So how can your argument hold any weight? Again my above post says it all as some guys could have dominated in different systems and with different player personnel on their team.

You now say 90% of centers would be BBQ chicken nowadays. Lol! I say that's the other way around! Sure no one argues the top 5-8 centers who were some of the greatest of all time like Olajuwon, Ewing, etc would dominate today, But I guarantee you the Jack Sikmas of the 80's would do his thing too. The Sikma move is taught everywhere. Guys had post moves and counters to those moves. The jump hook was unstoppable but somewhere along the lines it was stopped being taught apparently as that fundamental move was lost somewhere. But the jump hook is really undefendable so how would guys stop that today when it couldn't be stopped 30 years ago.

Again, the bottom line is if bigs from the 80's existed today you would see a whole different style of play again. You for surely would see more post ups. Coaches adjust and scheme to their personnel and if they don't have a low post scorer on the block no **** they will play more spread and look for advantages in other places like the 3 ball. You mentioned Riley earlier and he is a prime example of how different his teams played while at LA as opposed to his teams in New York. Why do you think that was?

One last thing as I've seen posted a few times, sure scores were high in the 80's and teams ran and it was up and down which led to high scores. Thats because teams ran and all used the fast break. But that does not mean teams could not play defense in the half court! The battles bird, mchale, and parish had with magic, worthy, Rambis, or jabaar were legendary. The way it used to be was run for 3qtrs and half court in the 4th. So again stats are skewed and it's not true at all there was not defense especially in the post because it was a physical game that the guys today would want no part of.

[stillfeelme]

I said this before but a large portion of centers now probably more athletic than 90's but are not fundamentally sound. So most of their athleticism can mainly be used in rim protection, and lobs. They are essentially space creators on offense

• DeAndre Jordan is very athletic I would bet money that he has better dunk moves than post moves. The guy left school early and was very raw but athletically he is elite. He has become a better defender but offense is limited.
• Dwight Howard extremely limited on the post even after working with Hakeem for what 2 years and is probably the best center in the last 10 years. Dwight is not getting doubled every time he gets the ball.
• Andre Drummond another freak athlete who has some moves but is basically limited on offense because he can't score if he doesn't have a easy layup or dunk.
• Javele Mcgee another freak athlete but he just doesn't have a fundamental game mentally. If he had just basic fundamentals the guy would be a top 5 center but again no post game.
• Cousins is probably the best center offensively he at least has multiple post moves and can score outside of dunks but he is not that effective in the lane if he can't get to he rim and shoots way too many jumpers.

Rashidi,


You might not have said this directly but you seem to be implying zone defense killed the big man. A large amount of players just didn't develop a post game. They limited their own self with lack of development in post scoring early on. Now I say that these players still have very real value on rim protection defense and pick and roll offense but yeah besides that they are limited.