|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Apr 4, 2018 16:54:39 GMT
Current rating:85 Suggested:84
His offensive ratings (see player stats) are too high. Just compare it with Harden. His stats are lower this year a bit compared to last year.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 4, 2018 18:36:59 GMT
84 seems fair. Probably what Booker should've gotten too
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Apr 4, 2018 19:49:51 GMT
84
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 4, 2018 20:16:15 GMT
This is absolutely bonkers, look at their stats, McCollum is a more efficient shooter, a vastly better passer and like 2x the defender that Booker is. He averages almost 2 times the assist to turnover ratio that Booker averages and 2 less fouls per game. And is responsible for nearly 5 more win shares.
If Booker is an 85 then McCollum is an 87 easy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 4, 2018 21:02:55 GMT
Booker is clearly the better all around player IMO, especially in playmaking and defense. The fact that he is a few years younger is icing on the cake for me. McCollum is decent but is more of a roleplayer, and isn’t as good defensively. Also a worse playmaker, rebounder, and scorer.
With that being said, I do recognize that McCollum is contributing to a winning team while Booker is contributing to a losing team. McCollum needs a rework more than anything, as he somehow got the highest FG rating in the league but isn’t one of the uber-efficient players.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 4, 2018 21:49:02 GMT
Booker is clearly the better all around player IMO, especially in playmaking and defense. The fact that he is a few years younger is icing on the cake for me. McCollum is decent but is more of a roleplayer, and isn’t as good defensively. Also a worse playmaker, rebounder, and scorer. With that being said, I do recognize that McCollum is contributing to a winning team while Booker is contributing to a losing team. McCollum needs a rework more than anything, as he somehow got the highest FG rating in the league but isn’t one of the uber-efficient players. If you seriously believe that Booker is better on defense than McCollum I call every rating opinion you have ever had. Bad troll is bad.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 4, 2018 21:50:13 GMT
"Despite literally every piece of evidence that shows me why my stupid opinion is wrong I'm just gonna go with it"
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 4, 2018 22:36:30 GMT
85.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 5, 2018 1:01:51 GMT
Needs a re-work. I think his 85 was probably about right for him overall, and in an attempt to keep him there I'm gonna put in an 87 to balance out some of the 84s.
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Apr 5, 2018 3:49:02 GMT
Needs a re-work. I think his 85 was probably about right for him overall, and in an attempt to keep him there I'm gonna put in an 87 to balance out some of the 84s. So you add a rating just to change things how? How about you just take the Gms ratings and go from that...
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 4:58:25 GMT
Needs a re-work. I think his 85 was probably about right for him overall, and in an attempt to keep him there I'm gonna put in an 87 to balance out some of the 84s. So you add a rating just to change things how? How about you just take the Gms ratings and go from that... He is saying he's voting an 87 because he thinks the guy is not deserving of a lowering.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Apr 5, 2018 5:04:07 GMT
85
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 5, 2018 7:14:52 GMT
"Despite literally every piece of evidence that shows me why my stupid opinion is wrong I'm just gonna go with it" 24.9 ppg, 4.7 apg, 4.5 rpg, 0.9 spg, 0.3 bpg, 56.1 TS% 21.6 ppg, 3.4 apg, 3.9 rpg, 1.0 spg, 0.4 bpg, 54.5 TS% Guess who is who . It's great you are this self-aware.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 8:04:05 GMT
Player 1 purposely ignored stats: 50.1% Effective S%, 3.6 Turnovers, 31% Usage rate, 2.4 Win Shares Player 2 purposely ignored stats: 51.3% Effective S%, 1.8 Turnovers, 26% Usage rate, 6.7 Win Shares
So player 1 gets to run around chucking and flinging the ball to both teammates and opponents because it doesn't matter and player 2 doesn't get to use the ball as much and does more with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 8:04:49 GMT
I could have gotten really knit-picky with other stats but chose not to.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 5, 2018 8:12:23 GMT
I could have gotten really knit-picky with other stats but chose not to. My point is that you claim "literally every piece of evidence" supports your opinion, when in reality its quite the opposite. We can both sit here and nit-pick different stats to make either player look better. You seem to value having fewer turnovers more than scoring points, rebounding, and assisting, that is your choice. But don't act like McCollum is clearly a superior player and that anyone who holds a different opinion is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 9:26:51 GMT
You throw up a bunch of clearly empty stats without the other stats that provide context to those stats.
It's like people going apeshit over a LeBron triple double a month ago but not bringing up how he turned the ball over 8 times and they lost the game.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 9:35:58 GMT
Booker is good, but he's got a giant wart in his game right now on defense and his passing is impressive and surprising but he's not even at a 2-1 ast-tov ratio yet. He's in his third year he's got time to fix those issues. I have no doubt the second Phoenix gets a decent 2nd or 1st option his efficiency will go up too. But it's not there yet. He's not as valuable of a player as CJ McCollum as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 5, 2018 10:50:58 GMT
I think McCollum is probably somewhere between an 84 and 85, slightly worse than Booker. With that being said, I don't even know how to vote with Walt putting in an 87 to try to skew results. I didn't realize that was allowed and don't really think its fair. If the league thinks he is an 84, then he should be an 84.
With that being said, I guess I'll play villain here and vote 82 to average out Walt's 87 vote to an 84.5.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 5, 2018 11:24:09 GMT
I think McCollum is probably somewhere between an 84 and 85, slightly worse than Booker. With that being said, I don't even know how to vote with Walt putting in an 87 to try to skew results. I didn't realize that was allowed and don't really think its fair. If the league thinks he is an 84, then he should be an 84. With that being said, I guess I'll play villain here and vote 82 to average out Walt's 87 vote to an 84.5. Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 5, 2018 11:29:09 GMT
I think McCollum is probably somewhere between an 84 and 85, slightly worse than Booker. With that being said, I don't even know how to vote with Walt putting in an 87 to try to skew results. I didn't realize that was allowed and don't really think its fair. If the league thinks he is an 84, then he should be an 84. With that being said, I guess I'll play villain here and vote 82 to average out Walt's 87 vote to an 84.5. Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose. I legitimately have always thought we just didn't count those votes tbh. If two people voted 99 would we really factor one of them into the overall rating?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 5, 2018 12:42:11 GMT
Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose. I legitimately have always thought we just didn't count those votes tbh. If two people voted 99 would we really factor one of them into the overall rating? It legitimately hasn't happened. It's a lazy ish way for people to say "I either like or dislike this player more than everyone else, I'm going to make sure all the other highest/lowest votes count." FTR,I also believe McCollum is a better player than Booker so my vote reflects that as well. To answer your question directly, I would ask both managers to modify their vote to their true thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 18:02:14 GMT
I think McCollum is probably somewhere between an 84 and 85, slightly worse than Booker. With that being said, I don't even know how to vote with Walt putting in an 87 to try to skew results. I didn't realize that was allowed and don't really think its fair. If the league thinks he is an 84, then he should be an 84. With that being said, I guess I'll play villain here and vote 82 to average out Walt's 87 vote to an 84.5. People have done that a lot. In fact that was entirely what most of Billy King's 1 and 99 votes were.
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Apr 5, 2018 18:11:24 GMT
I think McCollum is probably somewhere between an 84 and 85, slightly worse than Booker. With that being said, I don't even know how to vote with Walt putting in an 87 to try to skew results. I didn't realize that was allowed and don't really think its fair. If the league thinks he is an 84, then he should be an 84. With that being said, I guess I'll play villain here and vote 82 to average out Walt's 87 vote to an 84.5. Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose. If someone posts an 1 or something unrealistic the vote should not be added in to the average. If a rating is more than -10 or +10 in either direction void that vote. It is easy. But dont just do what you want. That's not fair. No matter who decided on it.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 5, 2018 18:34:14 GMT
Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose. If someone posts an 1 or something unrealistic the vote should not be added in to the average. If a rating is more than -10 or +10 in either direction void that vote. It is easy. But dont just do what you want. That's not fair. No matter who decided on it. Top and bottom vote are never counted anyway. I think it's just a dramatic vote to show youre lower on a player than anyone else lol
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Apr 5, 2018 18:44:05 GMT
I think he meant to completely ignore the vote, so the next lowest/highest would be taken out.
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Apr 5, 2018 22:38:26 GMT
I think he meant to completely ignore the vote, so the next lowest/highest would be taken out. Exactly. If a vote is unrealistic why add it in or even get rid of the highest or lowest votes. Take all votes by the Gms that vote. If it is unrealistic(at least within the +10/-10) delete and ask for a realistic vote within range by the time the player is adjusted or lose out on voting at all!!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 5, 2018 22:39:42 GMT
Really? Maybe it's because I pay more attention in here but that move has been done in variuos ways ever since we started a Stockwatch. What do you think it means when someone comes into a thread and posts either a 1 or a 99? I could have probably just said "I fucking love CJ! 99" and no one would have said anything. And yet, it would serve the same purpose. If someone posts an 1 or something unrealistic the vote should not be added in to the average. If a rating is more than -10 or +10 in either direction void that vote. It is easy. But dont just do what you want. That's not fair. No matter who decided on it. I've posted 50's on players before which were always way lower than others. I meant those ratings.
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 6, 2018 21:57:42 GMT
85
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 7, 2018 2:50:14 GMT
For example, tonight LeBron had 44/11/11 however, if you account for his 8 turnovers you could say he didn't have as strong an impact on the game as may be implied. Because that line with 4 turnovers probably wins them the game.
|
|