NBA 2K16 News Post

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

10:41 PM - August 21, 2015 by Steve_OS

Mike Stauffer, AKA Beds, has just posted an in-depth look at the changes to the NBA 2K16 ratings system. It is definitely an interesting approach that will generate plenty of discussion. Read it over and post your thoughts.

Game: NBA 2K16Reader Score: 8/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PC / PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 45 - View All

NBA 2K16 Videos

Member Comments

# 221 I Djm @ 08/25/15 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundown


	Mike mentioned team chemistry is more important this year. I really hope it means it's what I've wanted for some time-- good shot distribution and expected touches needed to keep teammates involved and humming in a game in all modes, and players who are frozen out being cold and upset. And I want this in ALL games and modes. This would affect everything holistically for the better, from better game to game simulation, to more realistic MyCareer, to a more realistic approach to team building in association-- to even MyTeam, so you can't just build a team full of superstars. I want to see attempting that being a challenging endeavor itself, just like it is in real life. Holy nuts. 37% and sub 30 from three. I'd give Kobe a 78 just to be generous.

We'll see but im betting teammates still gonna miss too many open looks and won't be to takeover especially if their the star of the team

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

# 222 BlessingSpore72 @ 08/25/15 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashidi


	No other team was as equipped to take advantage of the changes, which is why they dominated to the degree that they did. 1996: 115.2 ORTG (1st), 40.3 3PT% (3rd), 13.1 TO% (1st), 36.9 ORB% (1st) 1997: 114.4 ORTG (1st), 37.3 3PT% (6th), 12.5 TO% (1st), 35.9 ORB% (2nd) 1998: 107.7 ORTG (9th), 32.3 3PT% (23rd), 13.3 TO% (4th), 35.7 ORB% (2nd) Find the variable.

A friend of mine and myself have been saying this for a while that there should be an * by that 72 wins. It was a huge advantage for them, and definitely contributed to a few more wins. no other team had 2 players like Pippen and Jordan who were mediocre to poor at 3s and then went to amazing at 3s, for guys who shot the ball so much

# 223 jfsolo @ 08/25/15 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlessingSpore72


	A friend of mine and myself have been saying this for a while that there should be an * by that 72 wins. It was a huge advantage for them, and definitely contributed to a few more wins. no other team had 2 players like Pippen and Jordan who were mediocre to poor at 3s and then went to amazing at 3s, for guys who shot the ball so much

An asterix? What a world we live in now where nonsensical arguments are put forth without an ounce of self awareness of the level of inanity contained in them.

# 224 DocHolliday @ 08/25/15 11:43 AM

I hope this new scale allows for some real statistical outliers in the sim engine. Guys that have great years and pop a 15 rebound average or a 35 PPG average.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 225 Sundown @ 08/25/15 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashidi


	No other team was as equipped to take advantage of the changes, which is why they dominated to the degree that they did. 1996: 115.2 ORTG (1st), 40.3 3PT% (3rd), 13.1 TO% (1st), 36.9 ORB% (1st) 1997: 114.4 ORTG (1st), 37.3 3PT% (6th), 12.5 TO% (1st), 35.9 ORB% (2nd) 1998: 107.7 ORTG (9th), 32.3 3PT% (23rd), 13.3 TO% (4th), 35.7 ORB% (2nd) Find the variable.

Every ruleset is going to favor certain teams over others. Like I said, the rest of the league shot with the lines painted in the same place. Sure, it looks like the Bulls were built to take advantage of that better than most, and were balanced more precariously on that edge between being a good and poor 3-point shooting team (interestingly it seems to have affected Ron Harper the most, where he shot 19% from 3 in '98), but there's no unfair advantage that demeans the 72-win accomplishment. Every other team had the shortened 3-point line at their disposal. Every other team could have adjusted their roster and strategy accordingly. That '98 team still won 62 games and the championship when the line was moved back, after that roster crested it's prime.

I mean you could easily asterisk the Warriors for being so 3-point centric and reliant on a shot that has a 50% bonus payoff that's only 5-7 percent lower in make percentage over the average mid-range as compared to years before there even was a 3-point line, or years where hand checking might might have made it more difficult to shoot off the dribble, or where their defensive schemes and adjustments like not guarding Toney Allen would have been considered illegal defense. And I'm saying this as a giant Warriors homer.

Now if we're trying to compare teams across generations and differing rulesets in a fantasy head-to-head matchup, it's certainly something to consider, depending on whose rules we're playing under. But those classic teams operated under rules that would dull the strengths of some modern teams and vice versa.

If anything, I would point to the dilution of the league due to expansion teams during the 72-win run. It's one reason why Kerr doesn't think the record will be broken. The other being Jordan was a maniac.

As far as conference balance goes, it remains that whenever the Jordan Bulls made it out of the East, they defeated whatever team in the West they encountered in a 7-game series. SIX TIMES. In TWO Three-Peats.

Lebron certainly has not been able to do that in what is at least as comparatively weak a conference or worse. I mean just this year the Cavs had only to go through a sub-500 Celtics, an injured Bulls team, and an injured Hawks team with no superstar to begin with. For all the "asterisking" GSW haters do, the Warriors at least went through 3 rounds in the West against teams all featuring NBA First-Teamers and were able to field them at full health. Sure, Lebron didn't have the teams Jordan had these last two years-- but that's kind of the point being made, isn't it?

So while the Bulls may have had an easier road to the Finals in certain years (like the Heat/Cavs have had nearly every year), any argument that suggests the Bulls were great mainly because of a weak conference is a complete non-starter. I would say the same for similar arguments diminishing Lebron's legacy as a player (except where we're supposed to be awed by .40 FG% this year), but the Finals evidence is much more airtight in vindicating the Jordan Bulls from such claims.

# 226 BellSKA @ 08/25/15 02:14 PM

I apologize if this has been brought up. I quickly went over the threads and could have missed what I want to say.

This looks to cover the actual NBA players. Have we seen anything about how our created MyPlayers are going to compare to this new ratings system? I would like to see what 2K plans on doing to combat Cs that can run point, pass with low TOs, and hit 3's from 30 feet.

Not trying to derail the original thread, just curious if the new ratings system will come into play for created MyPlayers.

I do like this change and am really interested in seeing it in motion. While I agree with some it does seem subjective. It's moderately subjective at best. Numbers are numbers. Hopefully some sort of balancing was accounted for in comparing eras.

# 227 24ct @ 08/25/15 02:22 PM

For CAP there just needs to be attribute caps for height and weight. Taller means higher block cap but lower dribbling cap. More weight less speed and vertical vs less weight being quicker and higher vertical etc. That's the only way they can prevent godly players. I was actually reading about live and they have this option this year so hopefully 2k does the same.

# 228 Real2KInsider @ 08/25/15 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundown


	Every ruleset is going to favor certain teams over others. Like I said, the rest of the league shot with the lines painted in the same place. Sure, it looks like the Bulls were built to take advantage of that better than most, and were balanced more precariously on that edge between being a good and poor 3-point shooting team (interestingly it seems to have affected Ron Harper the most, where he shot 19% from 3 in '98), but there's no unfair advantage that demeans the 72-win accomplishment. Every other team had the shortened 3-point line at their disposal. Every other team could have adjusted their roster and strategy accordingly. That '98 team still won 62 games and the championship after that roster crested it's prime. I mean you could easily asterisk the Warriors for being so 3-point centric and reliant on a shot that has a 50% bonus payoff that's only 5-7 percent lower in make percentage over the average mid-range as compared to years before there even was a 3-point line, or years where hand checking might might have made it more difficult to shoot off the dribble, or where their defensive schemes and adjustments like not guarding Toney Allen would have been considered illegal defense. And I'm saying this as a giant Warriors homer. Now if we're trying to compare teams across generations and differing rulesets in a fantasy head-to-head matchup, it's certainly something to consider, depending on whose rules we're playing under. But those classic teams operated under rules that would dull the strengths of some modern teams and vice versa. If anything, I would point to the dilution of the league due to expansion teams during the 72-win run. It's one reason why Kerr doesn't think the record will be broken. The other being Jordan was a maniac. As far as conference balance goes, it remains that whenever the Jordan Bulls made it out of the East, they defeated whatever team in the West they encountered in a 7-game series. SIX TIMES. In TWO Three-Peats.

You are generally missing your own points. Russell's Celtics accomplished a lot of things and were twice the dynasty of the 90s Bulls, but you'd be laughed out of the building if you actually believed they translate across eras.

A lot has changed in 20-30 years, not unlike the 60s/90s gap.

I don't understand the concept of asterisking a modern team under current rules but Jordan fans will come up with crazy things to enhance his legacy even further.

Quote:


	Lebron certainly has not been able to do that in what is at least as comparatively weak a conference or worse. I mean just this year the Cavs had only to go through a sub-500 Celtics, an injured Bulls team, and an injured Hawks team with no superstar to begin with. For all the "asterisking" GSW haters do, the Warriors at least went through 3 rounds in the West against teams all featuring NBA First-Teamers and were able to field them at full health. Sure, Lebron didn't have the teams Jordan had these last two years-- but that's kind of the point being made, isn't it?

The Bulls never had competition in the first two rounds of the playoffs so I'm not exactly sure why you are discussing non-Conference Finals opponents. Jordan never had to beat a team with 7 more regular season wins to get to the Finals.

Korver missed as many games as Kyrie in the series. Oh man, Thabo Sefolosha missed as many games as Kevin Love, I guess I see your point. Minimizing LeBron's accomplishments while maximizing Jordan's is the name of the game for some people.

1991 (61-21)
39-43 Knicks (Bulls sweep)
44-36 Sixers (Bulls in 5)
50-32 Pistons (Bulls sweep)

LOL tell us more about the mountains Jordan climbed in his stacked conference

# 229 SaruAqua @ 08/25/15 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Djm


	Aye 11' heat v bulls was rigged don't speak of it again Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Lol, one of my favorite all time series as a Heat fan even though Wade struggled shooting (was clutch AF, though). All the talking that Bulls fans did about "owning" the Heat with that 3-0 regular season record and how Rose was unstoppable.

WELP!!

# 230 I Djm @ 08/25/15 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaruAqua


	Lol, one of my favorite all time series as a Heat fan even though Wade struggled shooting (was clutch AF, though). All the talking that Bulls fans did about "owning" the Heat with that 3-0 regular season record and how Rose was unstoppable. WELP!!

U entering dangerous territory it was rigged but at least they lost that year

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

# 231 SaruAqua @ 08/25/15 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundown


	Every ruleset is going to favor certain teams over others. Like I said, the rest of the league shot with the lines painted in the same place. Sure, it looks like the Bulls were built to take advantage of that better than most, and were balanced more precariously on that edge between being a good and poor 3-point shooting team (interestingly it seems to have affected Ron Harper the most, where he shot 19% from 3 in '98), but there's no unfair advantage that demeans the 72-win accomplishment. Every other team had the shortened 3-point line at their disposal. Every other team could have adjusted their roster and strategy accordingly. That '98 team still won 62 games and the championship when the line was moved back, after that roster crested it's prime. I mean you could easily asterisk the Warriors for being so 3-point centric and reliant on a shot that has a 50% bonus payoff that's only 5-7 percent lower in make percentage over the average mid-range as compared to years before there even was a 3-point line, or years where hand checking might might have made it more difficult to shoot off the dribble, or where their defensive schemes and adjustments like not guarding Toney Allen would have been considered illegal defense. And I'm saying this as a giant Warriors homer. Now if we're trying to compare teams across generations and differing rulesets in a fantasy head-to-head matchup, it's certainly something to consider, depending on whose rules we're playing under. But those classic teams operated under rules that would dull the strengths of some modern teams and vice versa. If anything, I would point to the dilution of the league due to expansion teams during the 72-win run. It's one reason why Kerr doesn't think the record will be broken. The other being Jordan was a maniac. As far as conference balance goes, it remains that whenever the Jordan Bulls made it out of the East, they defeated whatever team in the West they encountered in a 7-game series. SIX TIMES. In TWO Three-Peats. Lebron certainly has not been able to do that in what is at least as comparatively weak a conference or worse. I mean just this year the Cavs had only to go through a sub-500 Celtics, an injured Bulls team, and an injured Hawks team with no superstar to begin with. For all the "asterisking" GSW haters do, the Warriors at least went through 3 rounds in the West against teams all featuring NBA First-Teamers and were able to field them at full health. Sure, Lebron didn't have the teams Jordan had these last two years-- but that's kind of the point being made, isn't it? So while the Bulls may have had an easier road to the Finals in certain years (like the Heat/Cavs have had nearly every year), any argument that suggests the Bulls were great mainly because of a weak conference is a complete non-starter. I would say the same for similar arguments diminishing Lebron's legacy as a player (except where we're supposed to be awed by .40 FG% this year), but the Finals evidence is much more airtight in vindicating the Jordan Bulls from such claims.

Damn, you did all the work for me. Thanks, dude.

Also, this myth that Jordan started hitting 3's at a high clip when they shortened the three-point line is nonsensical:

'91-'93 P/O:

'91: 38.5%3PT
'92: 38.6%3PT
'93: 38.9%3PT

'91-'93 Finals:

'91: 50%3PT (only 4 total attempts so I'll disregard it)
'92: 42.9%3PT (12-28)
'93: 40%3PT (10-25)

Jordan himself said that he could hit the 3 ball except that he seldom attempted them.

I too was defending your Warriors' road to the Finals. The Pelicans were easy pickings, no question about that.

The Grizzlies were a great team, though. Conley was out for ONE game (injury didn't stop him from going off in G2). Big deal. Allen missing/playing a few games hurt meant something, though. He did a great job defensively on Thompson/Curry in games 2/3. However, the Grizzlies' biggest problem all these years has been the 3 ball, which they never had. Tony Allen sure as hell wasn't going to make a difference in that department.

People that bring up D-Mo/Beverley's injuries are funny to me. Unlike Memphis, Houston virtually had no shot to beat Golden State as they went 0-4 vs them in the regular season including three blowouts. Beverley defended Curry worse than Terry did. Torched. I'll admit though, G's 1/2 of the wcf were very close. Still, Houston went 1-8 vs GS for the year.

Cleveland is picking your poison. On one hand, Love/Irving definitely improve Cleveland's O and take great pressure off LBJ. On the other, they're both horrible defenders and take minutes away from Delly and Thompson whose defense helped the Cavs' win both games 2 and 3 like Memphis did. Personally , I had GS winning no matter what in 6/7 but the series could've gone either way.

# 232 Sundown @ 08/25/15 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rashidi


	You are generally missing your own points. Russell's Celtics accomplished a lot of things and were twice the dynasty of the 90s Bulls, but you'd be laughed out of the building if you actually believed they translate across eras. A lot has changed in 20-30 years, not unlike the 60s/90s gap. I don't understand the concept of asterisking a modern team under current rules but Jordan fans will come up with crazy things to enhance his legacy even further.

Actually I think you missed my point. I don't think either players nor their accomplishments need asterisking. Just like I don't think GSW needs their championship asterisked for injuries to opponents they couldn't help. As far as I can tell, the only talk of asterisking seems to be directed towards the Bulls for having a perceived unfair advantage due to a shortened 3-point line.

Quote:


	The Bulls never had competition in the first two rounds of the playoffs so I'm not exactly sure why you are discussing non-Conference Finals opponents. Jordan never had to beat a team with 7 more regular season wins to get to the Finals.

I'm discussing non-Conference Finals opponents because the argument seems to be that the Bulls' greatness should be diminished because they feasted on weak Conference opponents. The fact that they three-peated twice proves that patently false. The fact that Lebron teams also thrived in a weak East suggests the same could be said about them, except his teams stand at 2-3 instead of 6-0, with a somewhat noteworthy failure in 2011.

Quote:


	Korver missed as many games as Kyrie in the series. Oh man, Thabo Sefolosha missed as many games as Kevin Love, I guess I see your point. Minimizing LeBron's accomplishments while maximizing Jordan's is the name of the game for some people. 1991 (61-21) 39-43 Knicks (Bulls sweep) 44-36 Sixers (Bulls in 5) 50-32 Pistons (Bulls sweep) LOL tell us more about the mountains Jordan climbed in his stacked conference

You're assuming a lot. I'm not a particularly invested Jordan fan nor a Lebron naysayer. If anything it at least appears you're minimizing Jordan's accomplishments to bolster Lebron's legacy. I actually don't have that much of a dog in this fight, and I'm not sure why you would so quickly assume that I have an agenda, though it does make me question if I should be assuming likewise.

My arguments about not being particularly impressed with Lebron's 2015 performance come solely from his actual efficiency and how weak the East actually was this season. It's the evaluation I've been making all playoffs long simply as a GSW fan who had to put up with "asterisking" talk for months about playing against injured opponents, when the Cavs' road to the Finals was clearly easier against teams that were even less healthy.

All this actually has zero to do with Jordan. It has entirely everything to do with how unimpressive the Celtics, injured Bulls, and the starless injured Hawks were. The Celtics are... well, the Celtics. The Hawks' "four All-Stars" were done as soon as Korver was out, and he wasn't playing well to begin with. A banged up Caroll and Horford didn't help. Lebron's toughest team (the Bulls) was arguably a weaker or less healthy opponent than the Warriors' easiest team (the Davis lead Pelicans).

And finally, it has to do with Lebron's own high volume, inefficient shooting that GSW allowed all series. Lebron didn't have many other options-- but it doesn't mean I have to be particularly enamoured with what I consider losing basketball either.

My simple takes are that greatness of the six-peat Jordan teams' accomplishments are cemented by their Finals victories against all comers from the West. And what Lebron accomplished this season was historically interesting, noteworthy and impressive by that merit -- but volume shooting at 40% and being contained by Iguodala (rendering him Finals MVP) just doesn't register on the GOAT scale for me, nor even Lebron's own best performances.

They are two completely separate observations. You can conflate the two if you are particularly invested in establishing your perceived GOAT pecking order, but for me they stand on their own. Take Jordan out of sight and out of mind and not one point regarding my take on Lebron this year would change. I'm a Warriors fan. Low-efficiency, high volume iso-ball is obviously not going to move the meter for me.

# 233 Sundown @ 08/25/15 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaruAqua


	The Grizzlies were a great team, though. Conley was out for ONE game (injury didn't stop him from going off in G2). Big deal. Allen missing/playing a few games hurt meant something, though. He did a great job defensively on Thompson/Curry in games 2/3. However, the Grizzlies' biggest problem all these years has been the 3 ball, which they never had. Tony Allen sure as hell wasn't going to make a difference in that department.

Thanks dude. Salty Cavs and Rockets fans got intolerable with the asterisk talk.

Actually, I tend to think the opposite about Conley and Allen. Conley really hurt us in Game 2. Another one of those games would have put the series in a precarious position. But he did sort of regress-- people will say he wasn't healthy, but he was healthy enough.

Allen however was hurt only after the Warriors adjusted to "defend" him with Bogut. He was rendered effectively unplayable because the Grizzlies were playing 4 on 5 offense with Allen on the court, and Jorger had to pull him to play more of Courtney Lee who also provided little. Sure, Allen had a hammy but after he was "solved" (like the Spurs solved him in the WCF), I kind WANTED him to stay healthy and play to remove one unknown.

Quote:


	People that bring up D-Mo/Beverley's injuries are funny to me. Unlike Memphis, Houston virtually had no shot to beat Golden State as they went 0-4 vs them in the regular season including three blowouts. Beverley defended Curry worse than Terry did. Torched. I'll admit though, G's 1/2 of the wcf were very close. Still, Houston went 1-8 vs GS for the year. Cleveland is picking your poison. On one hand, Love/Irving definitely improve Cleveland's O and take great pressure off LBJ. On the other, they're both horrible defenders and take minutes away from Delly and Thompson whose defense helped the Cavs' win both games 2 and 3 like Memphis did. Personally , I had GS winning no matter what in 6/7 but the series could've gone either way.

Curry's pretty much figured Beverley out these couple seasons so I wouldn't have been too concerned about that. But I think he's still a better player than Terry, so it might have rachetted the difficulty level. I can't completely say about D-Mo but I don't know if he would really swing the series past 6.

Now Delly played great defense (with some dirtiness) in Game 2, but the narrative that Delly was somehow a Curry stopper is silly. Yes, he caused Curry to have one terrible Game 2 for the ages, where GSW would have won anyway if Mo Speights could just finish a single breakaway dunk-- but for the rest of the series, Curry completely destroyed him. Even in Game 3, Curry got going and ended up shooting 50%. Delly needed an IV afterwards.

If you need an IV to guard your opponent and he still shoots 50%, you're not actually guarding him.

# 234 hokupguy @ 08/25/15 06:53 PM

for those wanting more info go listen to leftos interview on nlsc http://www.nba-live.com/post-game-po...m-in-nba-2k16/

# 235 SaruAqua @ 08/25/15 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundown


	Now Delly played great defense (with some dirtiness) in Game 2, but the narrative that Delly was somehow a Curry stopper is silly. Yes, he caused Curry to have one terrible Game 2 for the ages, where GSW would have won anyway if Mo Speights could just finish a single breakaway dunk-- but for the rest of the series, Curry completely destroyed him. Even in Game 3, Curry got going and ended up shooting 50%. Delly needed an IV afterwards. If you need an IV to guard your opponent and he still shoots 50%, you're not actually guarding him.

Absolutely agree about Delly. It's funny because right after game 3 on twitter, I predicted that Curry would solve Delly's defense and the Cavs wouldn't win another game in the series (still had GS winning in 6).

The way Curry cooked Delly in the 4th Quarter of game 5, dude had me jumping up and down like an idiot, rofl.

# 236 videlsports @ 08/25/15 08:23 PM

this is great news for 2k fans, HOF's should set the bar, with Lebron being the exception , because he Plays D, Scores, Rebounds, passes, and while not a great 3 point shooter he can hit it with some consistency, Best player on the planet. (No emotion involved. A lot of LeBron hate is from Lebron Fatigue, But no body Got tired of Jordan and he talked trash and was Arrogant.

# 237 CaseIH @ 08/25/15 10:07 PM

This sounds like ratings might finally be close to accurate to where there don't need to be a bunch of editing made before its playable in Association mode, and Im sure for those online players this should make a positive impact if its done the way 2k says it is.

Had been considering niot buying 16, but I do like all the new additions to the game, so definitely considering it day1. Really hope with the new addition of classic teams, that the Euro League is still in the game and improved upon. Oddly enough when they 1st decided to add foreign teams I thought big deal who cares, but I have to say I really enjoyed playing with these teams in 15, and would love to see improve upon them.

# 238 janmagn @ 08/26/15 09:01 AM

Just hope that the sim stats actually are realistic

# 239 Dlongz @ 08/26/15 09:29 AM

This actually sounds awesome and it makes sense. But I do have some questions?

Does the new ratings actually have an affect on how they play? I other words will players who's ratings have dropped to the 70s who was once in the 80s, will their playing ability actually go down? or is it just strictly how they are rated?

I don't see the point in having someone play worse in 2k because they are now being rated with the Hall Of Famers. Especially if they are still playing exceptionally well in todays league.

Also, i'm pretty sure (correct me if i'm wrong) that 2k doesn't have the license for every Hall Of Famer(s). So how accurate would the rating be if some of the best are missing?

# 240 stillfeelme @ 08/26/15 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlongz


	This actually sounds awesome and it makes sense. But I do have some questions? Does the new ratings actually have an affect on how they play? I other words will players who's ratings have dropped to the 70s who was once in the 80s, will their playing ability actually go down? or is it just strictly how they are rated? I don't see the point in having someone play worse in 2k because they are now being rated with the Hall Of Famers. Especially if they are still playing exceptionally well in todays league. Also, i'm pretty sure (correct me if i'm wrong) that 2k doesn't have the license for every Hall Of Famer(s). So how accurate would the rating be if some of the best are missing?

I think these things will have an effect on game play. You shouldn't be able to routinely make players play as good as the person who was the best in history at doing the particular skill set. It is just about making players play within or close to how they are rated.

I thought about it some more. All this means is what 99 means to the game as far as success rate is determined by the best in history.

99 offensive rebounding should correspond to a certain % of the best in history

99 Post fade should be the best post fade in history and a certain success rate.

99 Blocking should be the same the best in history etc a certain block %.

They basically changed the scale range.

If everything is tuned close to right whatever is in the roster should reflect what you see in the sim engine and be fairly close to what you can get playing the game.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 9 10 111213 14 15 Next »

More Links

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