|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 24, 2020 12:21:36 GMT
I've been thinking about what Scalabrine said in the shoutbox yesterday. He was basically saying that as a league we have to do better about not taking stockwatches personally. And I was also thinking about what someone else said before, can't remember who, about how some people weaponize the stock watch, or at least use it strategically.
We all are certainly victims of our own biases, some of us are better than others at curbing that bias, but it's mostly inevitable.
While the stock watch can be a fun and engaging piece of the league, Brian mentioned how it can be toxic. Josh once mentioned he rarely participates any more because of that toxicity. And if I'm being honest, a big part of my day yesterday was spent feeling betrayed, upset, and defending a player I believe in with a lot of statistics that I feel was a big waste because at the end of the day, people probably won't even read it and just say what they think.
Have we ever considered using something objective and eliminating the stock watch? Perhaps we have before and there's a reason we use this method. But as I've been getting familiar with the league and getting more involved, I've noticed that our ratings are actually pretty damn close to the 2K ratings of each player. It's an objective source out of our control and 2K updates their ratings every month.
We could institute a less frequent timeline than monthly. And perhaps it's too much work to keep up with for Walt, but it was just a thought as multiple people have mentioned their displeasure with the stock watch concept.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Feb 24, 2020 12:42:31 GMT
2k ratings are trash. I keep meming about TDII but he is a 79 and Joe ingles a 78. No way that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 24, 2020 12:51:41 GMT
2k ratings are trash. I keep mending about TDII but he is a 79 and Joe ingles a 78. No way that makes sense. Davis: 17.6 MPG - 8.1 PPG/3.5 RPG/1.7 APG/15.51 PER on the 42-15 Raptors Ingles: 30.1 MPG - 9.9 PPG/4.0 RPG/5.2 APG/12.35 PER on the 36-20 Jazz Not saying one way or the other, just looking at the stats you can see the argument for that rating.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on Feb 24, 2020 12:58:40 GMT
2k ratings are trash. I keep mending about TDII but he is a 79 and Joe ingles a 78. No way that makes sense. Davis: 17.6 MPG - 8.1 PPG/3.5 RPG/1.7 APG/15.51 PER on the 42-15 Raptors Ingles: 30.1 MPG - 9.9 PPG/4.0 RPG/5.2 APG/12.35 PER on the 36-20 Jazz Not saying one way or the other, just looking at the stats you can see the argument for that rating. Any team would rather have Ingles over Davis, camon man how is this even an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 24, 2020 13:33:57 GMT
This is now a stock watch for Terrence Davis thread.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 24, 2020 13:35:53 GMT
Getting rid of the stockwatch is a terrible idea.
D720 did it and it cut down on engagement significantly.
Most of the posts during the season relate to stockwatch. It's a fun way to discuss the current nba with people whose opinions I trust, even if I don't always agree with it.
I've had players get stockwatched lower than I thought they deserve. It happens to everyone.
Not to be harsh, but people need to just get over it
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 24, 2020 13:36:47 GMT
Seriously though: I can definitely see how the stock watch is quite toxic, I get pissed off every time one of my players are up for review.
In terms of website/game dynamics however the Stock Watch is essentially the "end game" and keeps activity/engagement super high even when you've run out of results to view or articles to write. The way the Stock Watch keeps the community here involved is a hugely valuable service itself.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 24, 2020 14:02:54 GMT
I suppose I was curious about finding an objective source, 2K or not, because multiple people have mentioned that they don't participate due to the toxicity, and I wondered if it was doing more harm than good. Usually only a handful of people vote anyway. People have even said they're afraid to post SW threads due to retaliation.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Feb 24, 2020 14:58:11 GMT
Getting rid of the stockwatch is a terrible idea. D720 did it and it cut down on engagement significantly. Most of the posts during the season relate to stockwatch. It's a fun way to discuss the current nba with people whose opinions I trust, even if I don't always agree with it. I've had players get stockwatched lower than I thought they deserve. It happens to everyone. Not to be harsh, but people need to just get over it Yeah I agree 100%. Stockwatch keeps the activity at a high level. It gives people without a draft pick or a good team engaged
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 24, 2020 19:20:41 GMT
Is there any reason we put non-shooting centers at 0 for 3PT? If we put them like 10-20 then we could lower some of their other stats to keep them at the overall we decide, but eliminate the issue Josh brought up about non-shooting centers being overpowered in their strengths because of the 0 to 3PT
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 24, 2020 19:27:05 GMT
Is there any reason we put non-shooting centers at 0 for 3PT? If we put them like 10-20 then we could lower some of their other stats to keep them at the overall we decide, but eliminate the issue Josh brought up about non-shooting centers being overpowered in their strengths because of the 0 to 3PT Worth a thought Walt Frazier
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 25, 2020 2:13:05 GMT
Is there any reason we put non-shooting centers at 0 for 3PT? If we put them like 10-20 then we could lower some of their other stats to keep them at the overall we decide, but eliminate the issue Josh brought up about non-shooting centers being overpowered in their strengths because of the 0 to 3PT Worth a thought Walt Frazier I would rather the league simply factor this into their ratings. The same way I would like people to factor in that swing players probably need an extra point or two overall since they need points in almost every category. I don't like the idea, specifically with the big men issue here, of giving points to players that potentially don't even sniff the 3pt line IRL. If you guys encourage me to put points in places players don't deserve, we're in for a bit of potential chaos. That said, nothing grinds my gears more than feeling like I have a LOT of points that a player doesn't need. I just wish people would consider the type of player they're voting on and understand what our categories are. If a big man doesn't shoot the 3, doesn't shoot hardly at all aside from a post game, doesn't pass much, isn't freakishly fast,etc... Their ceiling is limited. Gobert is basically a 99 for his player type, but is an 87 overall, in other words.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 25, 2020 3:27:47 GMT
I would rather the league simply factor this into their ratings. The same way I would like people to factor in that swing players probably need an extra point or two overall since they need points in almost every category. I don't like the idea, specifically with the big men issue here, of giving points to players that potentially don't even sniff the 3pt line IRL. If you guys encourage me to put points in places players don't deserve, we're in for a bit of potential chaos. That said, nothing grinds my gears more than feeling like I have a LOT of points that a player doesn't need. I just wish people would consider the type of player they're voting on and understand what our categories are. If a big man doesn't shoot the 3, doesn't shoot hardly at all aside from a post game, doesn't pass much, isn't freakishly fast,etc... Their ceiling is limited. Gobert is basically a 99 for his player type, but is an 87 overall, in other words. Well no player is really a 0 in shooting, even 3s. I mean I'm no expert - but I was thinking about it because I was looking at the 2K ratings. I think I saw Steven Adams with like a 21. Let's face it, a 21 is basically a 0 - you're not hitting a 3 with that rating. But then you don't have to overpower in other areas to get to the desired overall rating. Wanting people to take something into consideration doesn't mean they will. Sometimes you have to employ a system to get the results you want and not rely on hopes and wishes. We can try our best to take that into consideration, but I almost feel it's easier to just give bigs really low shooting ratings and decrease their other ratings. I don't think that will generate any chaos. They'll still have a minimized shooting tendency and really low values overall.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 25, 2020 3:42:27 GMT
I would rather the league simply factor this into their ratings. The same way I would like people to factor in that swing players probably need an extra point or two overall since they need points in almost every category. I don't like the idea, specifically with the big men issue here, of giving points to players that potentially don't even sniff the 3pt line IRL. If you guys encourage me to put points in places players don't deserve, we're in for a bit of potential chaos. That said, nothing grinds my gears more than feeling like I have a LOT of points that a player doesn't need. I just wish people would consider the type of player they're voting on and understand what our categories are. If a big man doesn't shoot the 3, doesn't shoot hardly at all aside from a post game, doesn't pass much, isn't freakishly fast,etc... Their ceiling is limited. Gobert is basically a 99 for his player type, but is an 87 overall, in other words. Well no player is really a 0 in shooting, even 3s. I mean I'm no expert - but I was thinking about it because I was looking at the 2K ratings. I think I saw Steven Adams with like a 21. Let's face it, a 21 is basically a 0 - you're not hitting a 3 with that rating. But then you don't have to overpower in other areas to get to the desired overall rating. Wanting people to take something into consideration doesn't mean they will. Sometimes you have to employ a system to get the results you want and not rely on hopes and wishes. We can try our best to take that into consideration, but I almost feel it's easier to just give bigs really low shooting ratings and decrease their other ratings. I don't think that will generate any chaos. They'll still have a minimized shooting tendency and really low values overall. Giving Steven Adams a 3 point shot might make him take it lol we don't really know how to say "you technically can shoot 15% on 3-pointers but please don't"
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 25, 2020 3:49:08 GMT
Giving Steven Adams a 3 point shot might make him take it lol we don't really know how to say "you technically can shoot 15% on 3-pointers but please don't" I think you can make their tendency to shoot a 0 And didn't Adams just hit a half court buzzer beater? 😏
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Feb 25, 2020 3:51:34 GMT
Giving Steven Adams a 3 point shot might make him take it lol we don't really know how to say "you technically can shoot 15% on 3-pointers but please don't" I think you can make their tendency to shoot a 0 And didn't Adams just hit a half court buzzer beater? 😏 I don’t think they went in depth like that back in live 07. 2k20 has all those features but live was made over a decade ago
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 25, 2020 3:57:02 GMT
We use Live 06, but, semantics...
Walt could weigh in but I'm pretty sure they have shot tendencies, no?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 25, 2020 4:17:49 GMT
We use Live 06, but, semantics... Walt could weigh in but I'm pretty sure they have shot tendencies, no? We have 3pt %, meaning, the % of the shots they take that are from 3. So if we give them a 2%, 2 of every 100 shots will be from 3. Then there is a "style" number... There are about 6 different styles available. They're not perfect and they won't entirely keep a player from shooting 3s, etc, not theoretically they help shape the area of the floor they spend their time in, offensively.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 25, 2020 4:20:00 GMT
Well no player is really a 0 in shooting, even 3s. I mean I'm no expert - but I was thinking about it because I was looking at the 2K ratings. I think I saw Steven Adams with like a 21. Let's face it, a 21 is basically a 0 - you're not hitting a 3 with that rating. But then you don't have to overpower in other areas to get to the desired overall rating. Wanting people to take something into consideration doesn't mean they will. Sometimes you have to employ a system to get the results you want and not rely on hopes and wishes. We can try our best to take that into consideration, but I almost feel it's easier to just give bigs really low shooting ratings and decrease their other ratings. I don't think that will generate any chaos. They'll still have a minimized shooting tendency and really low values overall. Giving Steven Adams a 3 point shot might make him take it lol we don't really know how to say "you technically can shoot 15% on 3-pointers but please don't" This (basically). The system isn't perfect and the sim engine isn't either. Look, I'm personally okay with me moving rating points places they shouldn't be, responsibly, but I pretty much guarantee I'll get a lot more complaints overall if I start doing this. Just, apparently, maybe, not from you.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 25, 2020 6:26:48 GMT
I would rather the league simply factor this into their ratings. The same way I would like people to factor in that swing players probably need an extra point or two overall since they need points in almost every category. I don't like the idea, specifically with the big men issue here, of giving points to players that potentially don't even sniff the 3pt line IRL. If you guys encourage me to put points in places players don't deserve, we're in for a bit of potential chaos. That said, nothing grinds my gears more than feeling like I have a LOT of points that a player doesn't need. I just wish people would consider the type of player they're voting on and understand what our categories are. If a big man doesn't shoot the 3, doesn't shoot hardly at all aside from a post game, doesn't pass much, isn't freakishly fast,etc... Their ceiling is limited. Gobert is basically a 99 for his player type, but is an 87 overall, in other words. I have been banging the door about the emphasis on the attributes for a while now. I am not pretty sure anyone listened.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Feb 25, 2020 11:43:40 GMT
Giving Steven Adams a 3 point shot might make him take it lol we don't really know how to say "you technically can shoot 15% on 3-pointers but please don't" This (basically). The system isn't perfect and the sim engine isn't either. Look, I'm personally okay with me moving rating points places they shouldn't be, responsibly, but I pretty much guarantee I'll get a lot more complaints overall if I start doing this. Just, apparently, maybe, not from you. Well my original thought was that we could give them very low 3PT ratings and make their 3PT tendency 0, thus meaning they never shoot 3s. But I guess my understanding of the game mechanics is wrong. Of course I don't think Gobert and others should be taking 3s. Having said that, I do think we should tackle the Center issue, like you said, Gobert is basically a 99 overall.
|
|