G.U.A.R.D.S. - A New Rating System Suggestion
Feb 26, 2020 22:00:51 GMT
Danny Longley, Hanamichi Sakuragi, and 1 more like this
Post by James Kay on Feb 26, 2020 22:00:51 GMT
Let me suggest a new ratings system: G.U.A.R.D.S.
The sim we currently use, NBA Live 05, has a ratings system that rates players on the following (18) performance attributes, from 0-100: O. Aware, FG, 3PT, FT, Dunk, Inside Scoring, Pass, Handle, D. Aware, Steal, Block, O. Reb., D. Reb., Quick, Speed, Strong, Jump, and Fatigue. These total up to 1800 ratings points.
An ideal ratings system would allow for GMs to vote for each category separately. However, this asks too much – both from GMs as well as our industrious ratings czar Walt. However, I realized that we almost only vote to rate players within a 30-point range, rarely straying below 70. Since there are 1800 ratings points to go around, I attempted to devise a grouping of 6 categories that would streamline the voting process, while still allowing for individualized attention to the performance attributes.
I came up with G.U.A.R.D.S., which is something of a backronym for: Guard, Underneath, Athleticism, Rebounding, Defense, and Shooting. The attributes that comprise these categories are as follows:
Guard (O. Aware, Pass, Handle)
Underneath (Inside, Jump, Dunk)
Athleticism (Quick, Speed, Fatigue)
Rebounding (O. Reb, D. Reb, Strong)
Defense (D. Aware, Stl, Blk)
Shooting (FG, 3PT, FT)
GMs can rate a player’s abilities in these specific areas from 1-10. Afterwards, they add the total, divide by 2, and add 70. That is the OVR which will count as the GMs vote. The system will proceed as it has in the past. The only difference here is the requirement of GMs to submit their G.U.A.R.D.S. calculations alongside their final OVR vote.
GMs who wish to submit a stockwatch thread should copy a template which Ian Noble can make available in the stockwatch board, that would look something like this:
Player Name: Scrooge McDuck
Current Rating: 75
GMs who vote on these threads would not be required to copy the exact format of the opening post, but would be able to vote as follows:
10, 4, 10, 3, 4, 8 = 39/2 +70 = 89.5
My goals for this system were:
1) Allow for a more complete and transparent ratings system;
2) Allow for a ratings system that properly accounts for well-rounded and specialized players;
3) Avoid making it more difficult for Walt or any other contributor to make ratings adjustments; and
4) Avoid any radical changes to the ratings system, as much as possible.
I think that this achieves all four of these:
1) By using GUARDS, GMs are forced to spend more time on their ratings, and provide a more thorough and explicit rationalization for their vote;
2) GUARDS will allow GMs to take into different player attributes first before arriving at their OVR. (However, GMs may still circumvent this by arriving at an OVR and working backwards, but we shall see);
3) GMs are still forced to provide overall ratings votes, so Walt’s job is hardly changed; and
4) OVR ratings are still the basis of our ratings system.
Possible adjustments:
1) Simply have GMs cast their vote out of 30, or 60, and have the ratings committee do the final +70 calculation.
2) See Dunk problems, below.
3) Change the name and category titles. GUARDS sounded really nice because its basketball related, but “Guard,” “Underneath,” and “Athleticism” are somewhat misleading, in that “Guard” contains Offensive Awareness which big-men also have, “Underneath” involves lay-ups and drives, and “Athleticism” is mainly only how fast a player is.
Problems:
1) I included Dunk for Underneath. However, we’ve apparently determined that Dunk does not impact the game, and every player has been designated a dunk score of 60. This somewhat alters the value of Inside and Jump attributes, as a player with a 10 in the Underneath category will have points that should’ve been apportioned to his dunk rating elsewhere, and a player with a low score in the Underneath category will be forced to give points to the Dunk attribute. I’m actually a little stuck on how to solve this but I don’t think it will be too difficult, or demand rejecting this idea.
2) Each category contains 3 attributes, so a max score would technically only get you a 9. However, I think that having a point for wiggle room is just fine and GMs will be able to submit accurate ratings regardless.
3) There is not complete transparency, as some categories contain attributes that are not completely correlated especially the shooting category, as some players vary wildly in their ability to score from FT, mid-range, and 3PT. However, I think that the impact of forcing GMs to defend their ratings in this manner will still be beneficial for the ratings system.
4) All players would be required to be rated at least 70. I don’t really see this as a problem, though, as we very rarely are voting players into the 60s, and any downside from this is heavily outweighed by the benefits.
Examples:
Gobert: 3, 8, 5, 9, 10, 5 = 41/2 + 70 = 90
Whiteside: 1, 7, 1, 8, 6, 5 = 31/2 + 70 = 84
Giannis: 8, 10, 9, 8, 9, 6 = 50/2 + 70 = 95
Trae: 9, 6, 8, 2, 2, 7 = 32/2 + 70 = 87
These groupings are far from perfect. But our current ratings system is even further so. I think this idea or some variant of it deserves significant consideration from the league.
The sim we currently use, NBA Live 05, has a ratings system that rates players on the following (18) performance attributes, from 0-100: O. Aware, FG, 3PT, FT, Dunk, Inside Scoring, Pass, Handle, D. Aware, Steal, Block, O. Reb., D. Reb., Quick, Speed, Strong, Jump, and Fatigue. These total up to 1800 ratings points.
An ideal ratings system would allow for GMs to vote for each category separately. However, this asks too much – both from GMs as well as our industrious ratings czar Walt. However, I realized that we almost only vote to rate players within a 30-point range, rarely straying below 70. Since there are 1800 ratings points to go around, I attempted to devise a grouping of 6 categories that would streamline the voting process, while still allowing for individualized attention to the performance attributes.
I came up with G.U.A.R.D.S., which is something of a backronym for: Guard, Underneath, Athleticism, Rebounding, Defense, and Shooting. The attributes that comprise these categories are as follows:
Guard (O. Aware, Pass, Handle)
Underneath (Inside, Jump, Dunk)
Athleticism (Quick, Speed, Fatigue)
Rebounding (O. Reb, D. Reb, Strong)
Defense (D. Aware, Stl, Blk)
Shooting (FG, 3PT, FT)
GMs can rate a player’s abilities in these specific areas from 1-10. Afterwards, they add the total, divide by 2, and add 70. That is the OVR which will count as the GMs vote. The system will proceed as it has in the past. The only difference here is the requirement of GMs to submit their G.U.A.R.D.S. calculations alongside their final OVR vote.
GMs who wish to submit a stockwatch thread should copy a template which Ian Noble can make available in the stockwatch board, that would look something like this:
Player Name: Scrooge McDuck
Current Rating: 75
Guard (O. Aware, Pass, Handle) | Underneath (Inside, Jump, Dunk) | Athleticism (Quick, Speed, Fatigue) | Rebounding (O. Reb, D. Reb, Strong) | Defense (D. Aware, Stl, Blk) | Shooting (FG, 3PT, FT) | Total | OVR |
GMs who vote on these threads would not be required to copy the exact format of the opening post, but would be able to vote as follows:
10, 4, 10, 3, 4, 8 = 39/2 +70 = 89.5
My goals for this system were:
1) Allow for a more complete and transparent ratings system;
2) Allow for a ratings system that properly accounts for well-rounded and specialized players;
3) Avoid making it more difficult for Walt or any other contributor to make ratings adjustments; and
4) Avoid any radical changes to the ratings system, as much as possible.
I think that this achieves all four of these:
1) By using GUARDS, GMs are forced to spend more time on their ratings, and provide a more thorough and explicit rationalization for their vote;
2) GUARDS will allow GMs to take into different player attributes first before arriving at their OVR. (However, GMs may still circumvent this by arriving at an OVR and working backwards, but we shall see);
3) GMs are still forced to provide overall ratings votes, so Walt’s job is hardly changed; and
4) OVR ratings are still the basis of our ratings system.
Possible adjustments:
1) Simply have GMs cast their vote out of 30, or 60, and have the ratings committee do the final +70 calculation.
2) See Dunk problems, below.
3) Change the name and category titles. GUARDS sounded really nice because its basketball related, but “Guard,” “Underneath,” and “Athleticism” are somewhat misleading, in that “Guard” contains Offensive Awareness which big-men also have, “Underneath” involves lay-ups and drives, and “Athleticism” is mainly only how fast a player is.
Problems:
1) I included Dunk for Underneath. However, we’ve apparently determined that Dunk does not impact the game, and every player has been designated a dunk score of 60. This somewhat alters the value of Inside and Jump attributes, as a player with a 10 in the Underneath category will have points that should’ve been apportioned to his dunk rating elsewhere, and a player with a low score in the Underneath category will be forced to give points to the Dunk attribute. I’m actually a little stuck on how to solve this but I don’t think it will be too difficult, or demand rejecting this idea.
2) Each category contains 3 attributes, so a max score would technically only get you a 9. However, I think that having a point for wiggle room is just fine and GMs will be able to submit accurate ratings regardless.
3) There is not complete transparency, as some categories contain attributes that are not completely correlated especially the shooting category, as some players vary wildly in their ability to score from FT, mid-range, and 3PT. However, I think that the impact of forcing GMs to defend their ratings in this manner will still be beneficial for the ratings system.
4) All players would be required to be rated at least 70. I don’t really see this as a problem, though, as we very rarely are voting players into the 60s, and any downside from this is heavily outweighed by the benefits.
Examples:
Gobert: 3, 8, 5, 9, 10, 5 = 41/2 + 70 = 90
Whiteside: 1, 7, 1, 8, 6, 5 = 31/2 + 70 = 84
Giannis: 8, 10, 9, 8, 9, 6 = 50/2 + 70 = 95
Trae: 9, 6, 8, 2, 2, 7 = 32/2 + 70 = 87
These groupings are far from perfect. But our current ratings system is even further so. I think this idea or some variant of it deserves significant consideration from the league.