Anthony Davis

[Andrei Kirilenko]

Current: 92
Suggested: 92 Rework

24.2 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 1.1 spg, 2.6 bpg
.549 / .368 / .820 splits
.615 TS%

- Leads league in total rebounds per game (#2 in DReb and #4 in OReb)
- 4th in blocks per game
- 3rd in stocks per game


Basically, I am asking for a few specific rework areas. First off, AD is set to Score Area 10 which is the perimeter shooting big man score area. AD’s game has changed over the years and he has taken a total of 19 threes all season this year, even going a month without attempting one. The first rework I am requesting is to be set to Score Area 9.

Secondly, his rebounding is too low. He current leads the league in rebounds but his ratings are 59 OReb and 80 DReb. These both should be in the 90s.

I think we can take points away from his 3p shooting (currently 36) and allocate to these other areas.

[Jared Montini]

91

[Brad Stevens]

92.7 last year & 92.8 this year.

92.77

[Walt Frazier]

92

[George Gervin]

93

[Jerry West]

90

[Steve Nash]

92

[Chauncey Billups]

Let’s not jump the gun. It’s very early in the season and the Lakers are barely hanging onto a play-in spot.

91

[Arvydas Sabonis]

90

Edit. After consideration I have changed my vote to 90. As I write below I do find it hard to justify any big man who doesn't have a complete all-around game (including threes or elite passing. Eg. Jokic/Embiid) or out of the world physicals (like Giannis) to ever need a rating over 90. If AD doesn't shoot threes anymore he doesn't need those extra skill points for a realistic build.

[Dell Demps]

92

[Brian Scalabrine]

91 voting lower on every stock watch until game 41

[Mark Price]

93

[Tom Izzo]

92

[Amare Stoudemire]

92.5

[Sam Presti]

91

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

Dec 20, 2023 1:35:55 GMT Brad Stevens said:

92.7 last year & 92.8 this year.

92.77

92.77

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

92

[Arvydas Sabonis]

Walt Frazier based on what you wrote on Mobley's SW thread, I would like to get your opinion here. 

Essentially Josh is asking the 3-point rating to be nerfed since AD doesn't take them anymore. But if he doesn't need those points, do we still need to give him a 92 to make it realistic?

After thinking about this, I do find it hard to justify any big man who doesn't have a complete all-around game (including threes or elite passing. Eg. Jokic/Embiid) or out of the world physicals (like Giannis) to ever need a rating over 90.

Are we not just giving him a 90+ because that is what a proven playoff performer all-star should have? But it's kinda not needed to create a player that is in offense mostly inside or mid range scoring threat with very limited passing, and in defense elite defender & rebounder? 

But since he is actually shooting three's at a almost 40% rate, maybe should not nerf his three point rating, but just change the score area to a inside scorer, so whenever he does take a three, it at least does have a chance to go in.

Considering lowering my vote but would like to get Walt's and other people's thoughts on this

[Brad Stevens]

I have a bad habit of not reading much of the initial propaganda post. Why would we be dropping his 3pt from 36? If that is the route taken then I would drop my vote

[Walt Frazier]

Dec 26, 2023 7:59:57 GMT Arvydas Sabonis said:

Walt Frazier based on what you wrote on Mobley's SW thread, I would like to get your opinion here. 

Essentially Josh is asking the 3-point rating to be nerfed since AD doesn't take them anymore. But if he doesn't need those points, do we still need to give him a 92 to make it realistic?

After thinking about this, I do find it hard to justify any big man who doesn't have a complete all-around game (including threes or elite passing. Eg. Jokic/Embiid) or out of the world physicals (like Giannis) to ever need a rating over 90.

Are we not just giving him a 90+ because that is what a proven playoff performer all-star should have? But it's kinda not needed to create a player that is in offense mostly inside or mid range scoring threat with very limited passing, and in defense elite defender & rebounder? 

But since he is actually shooting three's at a almost 40% rate, maybe should not nerf his three point rating, but just change the score area to a inside scorer, so whenever he does take a three, it at least does have a chance to go in.

Considering lowering my vote but would like to get Walt's and other people's thoughts on this

I guess, a few things:

1. I don't want to tell anyone how to vote. We've got a mix of philosophies which I think is great. And all of this discussion is great. Never want that to go away.
2. Your question: "if (AD) doesn't need those points, do we still need to give him a 92 to make it realistic?" - Well, first - We don't need to do anything, lol. But secondly - I think this is also thinking about things in reverse, kind of. Although I don't mind when people start to dig into the individual categories, I'm ultimately not sure that is the most useful way to vote. I actually kind of like the "feel" approach, to some extent. Especially at the top end of the ratings. Do you think AD is the "nth" best player in the NBA so far this year? Does your OVR rating match that or pretty close? Cool, done. I'll figure it out in the build. And if it's really messy I'll let people know.

That said, if your philosophy on rating IS to look into some of the categories, as long as you're taking an all-encompassing, full picture of things, that's fine. To some extent, some of this is still opinion-based, but I can tell people the general guidelines I use to make ratings. I don't mind doing that. I'm just not sure we should be trying to reverse-engineer entirely. This system we have has worked pretty well overall, for a long, long, long time.

If you're a reverse-engineer-er, though, then do your thing. I'm happy to answer specific questions about how I do the ratings. And I'm happy to make corrections to my process, too. But I kind of don't really want to directly answer your question, to be honest. haha. Vote your heart, vote your mind, vote your process or system. Do what makes sense to you.

[Arvydas Sabonis]

Dec 28, 2023 3:30:56 GMT Walt Frazier said:

Dec 26, 2023 7:59:57 GMT Arvydas Sabonis said:

Walt Frazier based on what you wrote on Mobley's SW thread, I would like to get your opinion here. 

Essentially Josh is asking the 3-point rating to be nerfed since AD doesn't take them anymore. But if he doesn't need those points, do we still need to give him a 92 to make it realistic?

After thinking about this, I do find it hard to justify any big man who doesn't have a complete all-around game (including threes or elite passing. Eg. Jokic/Embiid) or out of the world physicals (like Giannis) to ever need a rating over 90.

Are we not just giving him a 90+ because that is what a proven playoff performer all-star should have? But it's kinda not needed to create a player that is in offense mostly inside or mid range scoring threat with very limited passing, and in defense elite defender & rebounder? 

But since he is actually shooting three's at a almost 40% rate, maybe should not nerf his three point rating, but just change the score area to a inside scorer, so whenever he does take a three, it at least does have a chance to go in.

Considering lowering my vote but would like to get Walt's and other people's thoughts on this

I guess, a few things:

1. I don't want to tell anyone how to vote. We've got a mix of philosophies which I think is great. And all of this discussion is great. Never want that to go away.
2. Your question: "if (AD) doesn't need those points, do we still need to give him a 92 to make it realistic?" - Well, first - We don't need to do anything, lol. But secondly - I think this is also thinking about things in reverse, kind of. Although I don't mind when people start to dig into the individual categories, I'm ultimately not sure that is the most useful way to vote. I actually kind of like the "feel" approach, to some extent. Especially at the top end of the ratings. Do you think AD is the "nth" best player in the NBA so far this year? Does your OVR rating match that or pretty close? Cool, done. I'll figure it out in the build. And if it's really messy I'll let people know.

That said, if your philosophy on rating IS to look into some of the categories, as long as you're taking an all-encompassing, full picture of things, that's fine. To some extent, some of this is still opinion-based, but I can tell people the general guidelines I use to make ratings. I don't mind doing that. I'm just not sure we should be trying to reverse-engineer entirely. This system we have has worked pretty well overall, for a long, long, long time.

If you're a reverse-engineer-er, though, then do your thing. I'm happy to answer specific questions about how I do the ratings. And I'm happy to make corrections to my process, too. But I kind of don't really want to directly answer your question, to be honest. haha. Vote your heart, vote your mind, vote your process or system. Do what makes sense to you.

Haha, what a class answer. I did kinda put you on spot there, but respect how you handled it not taking sides

(obviously I'm reading between the lines that I'm right, but you just don't want to start arguing with Josh lol)

I think I'll start mixing up some individual categories change based voting to normal gut feeling votes.

[George Gervin]

THREAD CLOSED.

Rework at 92 (91.9)