Kyle Kuzma

[Jerry West]

Current: 80

Proposed: 76

Really bad defender, all he could was score and even that he did on awful percentages. Averaging 12 points with 3.5 rebounds per game. 0.8 assists - 0.4 steals - 0.4 blocks.

Percentages: 43% - 35% - 72% so not even a good shooter even while being the 3rd or 4th option.

0.5 A/TO

BPM: -4.8 (Really bad) VORP: -0.4 PER: 10.9 (awful)

This being done while still getting a 22.7 usage rate, just 0.9 lower than last year

[George Gervin]

77

[Tim Duncan]

77

[Brian Scalabrine]

76

[Amare Stoudemire]

78

[Jared Montini]

78

[Kevin Hollis]

77

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

80 I am not a fan but the guy is adjusting in a very different role from last year.

[Walt Frazier]

^ While true, I think we adjust ratings often enough in here that we can just raise him in March/April IF he has figured it out by then.

His current stats are pretty mediocre or even bad. Maybe more accurately, just not impactful. The 80 is definitely too high imo.

I'll go 77

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Jan 1, 2020 18:37:39 GMT Walt Frazier said:

^ While true, I think we adjust ratings often enough in here that we can just raise him in March/April IF he has figured it out by then.

His current stats are pretty mediocre or even bad. Maybe more accurately, just not impactful. The 80 is definitely too high imo.

I'll go 77

My problem about this thought process, a lot of us are applying it, is, it is not realistic. I believed, we do stockwatch to determine the overall rating that correspondences to the current skill levels of the player. Not putting a number that correspondence to the current production of the player.

[Walt Frazier]

Jan 4, 2020 0:12:11 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

Jan 1, 2020 18:37:39 GMT Walt Frazier said:

^ While true, I think we adjust ratings often enough in here that we can just raise him in March/April IF he has figured it out by then.

His current stats are pretty mediocre or even bad. Maybe more accurately, just not impactful. The 80 is definitely too high imo.

I'll go 77

My problem about this thought process, a lot of us are applying it, is, it is not realistic. I believed, we do stockwatch to determine the overall rating that correspondences to the current skill levels of the player. Not putting a number that correspondence to the current production of the player.

I'm not sure there's a league-wide consensus on any of this. People have their own methods and reasoning, and that's fine.

The problem that I personally see with the way you are framing this (rate players based on their skills, not their production), is that it is SUPER subjective (or at least could be / can be super subjective).

Additionally, most of the individual categories/ratings are based on production, at least mostly. i.e.:

If you shoot 34% from 3, you get a 70 on 3PT Rating
If you pull down 2 OReb in 32-36 minutes a game, you get about a 40 OReb rating
If you dish 8 apg in 32-36 mpg, you get about an 80 passing rating

Not every rating coincides this way but enough of them do. I personally like this as it takes my personal opinion out of it while I'm working on the ratings, so maybe I go very much to that side of things personally, due to my ratings work. (Doesn't make me right, just why I think how I think, I guess.)

Anyway, we always advise that team situation and the sim engine itself are a huge wildcard, but I'm wary of giving a 2-apg player a 50 pass rating, b/c more often than not, that player will now avg 5apg in our sim due to that rating. So, when your "I think his skill is a 50, even though his production is a 20" rating comes through, it has more of a negative affect on the game more often than not, imo.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Jan 4, 2020 0:41:35 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Jan 4, 2020 0:12:11 GMT Hanamichi Sakuragi said:

My problem about this thought process, a lot of us are applying it, is, it is not realistic. I believed, we do stockwatch to determine the overall rating that correspondences to the current skill levels of the player. Not putting a number that correspondence to the current production of the player.

I'm not sure there's a league-wide consensus on any of this. People have their own methods and reasoning, and that's fine.

The problem that I personally see with the way you are framing this (rate players based on their skills, not their production), is that it is SUPER subjective (or at least could be / can be super subjective).

Additionally, most of the individual categories/ratings are based on production, at least mostly. i.e.:

If you shoot 34% from 3, you get a 70 on 3PT Rating
If you pull down 2 OReb in 32-36 minutes a game, you get about a 40 OReb rating
If you dish 8 apg in 32-36 mpg, you get about an 80 passing rating

Not every rating coincides this way but enough of them do. I personally like this as it takes my personal opinion out of it while I'm working on the ratings, so maybe I go very much to that side of things personally, due to my ratings work. (Doesn't make me right, just why I think how I think, I guess.)

Anyway, we always advise that team situation and the sim engine itself are a huge wildcard, but I'm wary of giving a 2-apg player a 50 pass rating, b/c more often than not, that player will now avg 5apg in our sim due to that rating. So, when your "I think his skill is a 50, even though his production is a 20" rating comes through, it has more of a negative affect on the game more often than not, imo.

I actually see it the other way around. 

This

If you shoot 34% from 3, you get a 70 on 3PT Rating

If you pull down 2 OReb in 32-36 minutes a game, you get about a 40 OReb rating

If you dish 8 apg in 32-36 mpg, you get about an 80 passing rating

is more applicable to the thought-process of the current production coincides with their ratings. This is not realistic to me because skill levels of in-prime players do not realistically decreased by 20 or even attribute points in a single year. For example, CJ McCollum is a 40% career shooter from beyond the arc but he is currently shooting 37.5% this year and even last season. So, we will decrease his 3PT but the question is, did his three-point shooting skill really decreased?


The thought process of determining the current skill level in the stockwatch, instead of simply putting a number that correspondence to the production of a player, is actually more objective because you try to weigh all the other things involve. 

[Walt Frazier]

But end of the day, we are changing players (when needed) two times per season. So, if McCollum WAS a 90 (due to 40% 3pt) and is now shooting 37.5%, let's give him an 82 rating. If he shoots 42% in Jan/Feb/early-March, let's boost him back to a 90.

Also, there are times when an injury or sudden-team-situation-shake-up can definitely be factors.

But if you just "think" McCollum is the same shooter he was, you have nothing to quantify that, and it's incredibly difficult to have a conversation about it. It goes like this.

Person A - "Well, the ground was green yesterday, but since it snowed today, now the ground is white."

Person B - "Well, actually, the ground is still green, but you can't see it due to the white stuff on top of it."

Person A - "I guess, sure, but when you look down, what do you see - Green or White?"

Person B - "That's irrelevant, there's green grass down there."

Person A - "Why can't we say that when we look down right now, we see white, but if the snow melts, it'll probably be green again?"

Person B - "No, it's green under there."

Person A - *Jumps out of the car to get away from this madness*


It's just really hard to have that conversation every time. Our ratings produce individual, categorical ratings, which affect the production of the player. Thus, if a players production changes IRL, we should change the ratings in D5, to reflect the production change. That's a blanket statement, and there ARE exceptions.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Jan 4, 2020 2:18:11 GMT Walt Frazier said:

But end of the day, we are changing players (when needed) two times per season. So, if McCollum WAS a 90 (due to 40% 3pt) and is now shooting 37.5%, let's give him an 82 rating. If he shoots 42% in Jan/Feb/early-March, let's boost him back to a 90.

Also, there are times when an injury or sudden-team-situation-shake-up can definitely be factors.

But if you just "think" McCollum is the same shooter he was, you have nothing to quantify that, and it's incredibly difficult to have a conversation about it. It goes like this.

Person A - "Well, the ground was green yesterday, but since it snowed today, now the ground is white."

Person B - "Well, actually, the ground is still green, but you can't see it due to the white stuff on top of it."

Person A - "I guess, sure, but when you look down, what do you see - Green or White?"

Person B - "That's irrelevant, there's green grass down there."

Person A - "Why can't we say that when we look down right now, we see white, but if the snow melts, it'll probably be green again?"

Person B - "No, it's green under there."

Person A - *Jumps out of the car to get away from this madness*


It's just really hard to have that conversation every time. Our ratings produce individual, categorical ratings, which affect the production of the player. Thus, if a players production changes IRL, we should change the ratings in D5, to reflect the production change. That's a blanket statement, and there ARE exceptions.

I misread your first reply. My bad.

Going back, I am not in favor of this thought process. You said that team context in D5 matters. That is way more true in real life. We also need to consider the context of each player's production and not make the production the end-all-be-all.

I am hoping for more balance between the two.

[Walt Frazier]

Will be lowered to a 77

THREAD CLOSED - Ian Noble