NBA 2K16 Player Ratings - Top 10 Power Forwards

[BluFu]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

An opinion clearly not based on any short or long-term research. 2K doesn't need any Stan's to defend them.

Why do you keep calling me a 'Stan'....? Lol.... the ratings are of... ok, why does the entire algorithm need an overhaul?

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

why does the entire algorithm need an overhaul?

Read the previous post.

[J_Posse]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

What angers me is that I've been saying for the last month that the "Hall of Fame rating system" is over-hyped marketing trash, due in part to YEARS of saying the PF formula is clear-cut garbage. And here we are. SHOOTING GUARDS 94 - Allen Iverson (2001) 88 - Joe Dumars (1989) 86 - Richard Hamilton (2004) 85 - Michael Cooper (1987) 84 - Byron Scott (1987) 82 - Larry Hughes (2007) POWER FORWARDS 90 - Karl Malone (1998) 86 - Tim Duncan (1998) 85 - Dirk Nowitzki (2003) Please please please someone tell me I'm wrong. Because I'm not. This is ****ing pathetic. Edit: Regarding Griffin and Aldridge, their rebound/defense ratings will be stupid overrated per usual, par for the course when 2K wants a PF to have a high rating, because lying to your consumer over a 15-year period is more effective and an efficient use of everyone's time rather than spending like 6 hours re-working an ancient algorithm.

Yeah, when you put it like that then you begin to notice how ridiculously one sided the ratings algorithm is. Even though they claimed that they added different "archetypes" but that still hasn't alleviated the problem.

At no point in time were any of those guards, minus Allen Iverson, ever on the same stratosphere as rookie Tim Duncan. ****, no way is 39 year old Tim Duncan even with his rookie self. Older Duncan is smarter, a better passer and more battle tested (which doesn't matter in a game/ratings sense) but younger Duncan is superior in every other aspect of basketball.


from Spurs Nation/Bills Backer HQ

[BluFu]

Quote: Originally Posted by stillfeelme

Dribbling, speed, layup, outside scoring, perimeter defense, playmaking passing are lowering these bigs. Where rebounding, inside defense, strength is not really penalizing the guards.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rashidi

Read the previous post.

It's very well the case that Dirk is severely underrated rated in these categories.. Similar to how Griffin has been underrated in playmaking for a while. Also similar to how Kyrie/Lillard have been overrated in that area. Just because the ratings assigned to players have been incorrect, doesn't mean the algorithm used for overalls needs to be completely changed.

[cbpo]

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

It's very well the case that Dirk is severely underrated rated in these categories.. Similar to how Griffin has been underrated in playmaking for a while. Also similar to how Kyrie/Lillard have been overrated in that area. Just because the ratings assigned to players have been incorrect, doesn't mean the algorithm used for overalls needs to be completely changed.

The algorithm does need to be changed for bigs though, he's right. I'm anal about ratings so always redo them every year based off formulas and the overall algorithm for bigs does need to be tweaked, prime example of his posting karl malone/duncan/dirk.
Its very probable their ratings will be inflated to get their overall to levels that users would expect. Usually rebounding/defense will be overrated.

Also in previous years, the rebounding ratings are off as well relative to how they should be. Often times guards have very low rebounding averages when you simulate and if you fix the scale to how it should be it usually entails dropping the bigs rebounding ratings which significantly reduces their overall. Typically if you want actual individual ratings how they should be based off of real life performance Top tier pf's like aldridge will end up like an 85. The algorithm def needs to be changed

[stillfeelme]

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

It's very well the case that Dirk is severely underrated rated in these categories.. Similar to how Griffin has been underrated in playmaking for a while. Also similar to how Kyrie/Lillard have been overrated in that area. Just because the ratings assigned to players have been incorrect, doesn't mean the algorithm used for overalls needs to be completely changed.

If they are really trying to make the algorithm be so overall rating equals overall compared to every position then they need to rethink the ratings. I don't know the details I am saying if you compare players across positions it becomes clear that the bigs are dropped because they probably don't have high ratings in things guards would do.

How do you justify Iverson 2001 being a 94 and Hakeem 1994 being an 93. I actually like Iverson but Hakeem is 99 post offense, 99 post control whatever post rating you want to give and probably is the most agile center in history. Could hit jumpers and defensively he was a beast. He could actually dribble in the post.

A peak Iverson might be 99 speed, and acceleration maybe handle. The guards/wings seem to be higher rated

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by J_Posse

Yeah, when you put it like that then you begin to notice how ridiculously one sided the ratings algorithm is. Even though they claimed that they added different "archetypes" but that still hasn't alleviated the problem. At no point in time were any of those guards, minus Allen Iverson, ever on the same stratosphere as rookie Tim Duncan. ****, no way is 39 year old Tim Duncan even with his rookie self. Older Duncan is smarter, a better passer and more battle tested (which doesn't matter in a game/ratings sense) but younger Duncan is superior in every other aspect of basketball. from Spurs Nation/Bills Backer HQ

This is a huge problem. I'm pretty happy with the stars and alot of rankings for players in the current league. But the algorithm doesn't seem to properly reward premier stretch 4's or even one of the best centers in history.


And it would be a lot less effort to come up with more archetypes and adjust weightings to get better OVRs than it would to rerate entire swaths of players (assuming the ratings are accurate and produce the correct results in the first place).

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

It's very well the case that Dirk is severely underrated rated in these categories.. Similar to how Griffin has been underrated in playmaking for a while. Also similar to how Kyrie/Lillard have been overrated in that area. Just because the ratings assigned to players have been incorrect, doesn't mean the algorithm used for overalls needs to be completely changed.

Chances are there are issues in both areas. Ratings should essentially be at least a two-step process.


1: Accurately rate players according to their peers, including those of previous eras as best as can be done, on a normalized scale, in a way that also plays properly.


2: Adjust OVR calcuation formulas and add needed archtypes to properly give players their values against the rest of the league and also against historical players.

[BluFu]

Quote: Originally Posted by cbpo

Also in previous years, the rebounding ratings are off as well relative to how they should be. Often times guards have very low rebounding averages when you simulate and if you fix the scale to how it should be it usually entails dropping the bigs rebounding ratings which significantly reduces their overall. Typically if you want actual individual ratings how they should be based off of real life performance Top tier pf's like aldridge will end up like an 85. The algorithm def needs to be changed

I've done a lot of simming myself... the major problem has always been that rebound ratings were not distinct enough across the board. This lead to no outliers with 14+ RPG, and most guards grabbing 5+ a game... So I've had quite the opposite experience.

Also in my own roster, I've got Lillard at a 83... I didn't go in and change the algorithm, I simply edited his ratings to reflect his inefficient scoring and subpar defense/playmaking.

Quote: Originally Posted by stillfeelme

If they are really trying to make the algorithm be so overall rating equals overall compared to every position then they need to rethink the ratings. I don't know the details I am saying if you compare players across positions it becomes clear that the bigs are dropped because they probably don't have high ratings in things guards would do. How do you justify Iverson 2001 being a 94 and Hakeem 1994 being an 93. I actually like Iverson but Hakeem is 99 post offense, 99 post control whatever post rating you want to give and probably is the most agile center in history. Could hit jumpers and defensively he was a beast. He could actually dribble in the post. A peak Iverson might be 99 speed, and acceleration maybe handle. The guards/wings seem to be higher rated

Again, Hakeem is without a doubt underrated in those areas. Iverson is looking like he has his shooting and defense overrated as well (had him in the high 80s in my roster). I'd like to continue this discussion once we can dive into the individual ratings for '16.

I'll say this.. It's a lot easier to overrate a guard simply because of the amount of individual ratings that are important to the position. So what 2K needs to do is try and get more ratings that favor bigs in the game.