|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 6, 2014 12:07:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 6, 2014 16:07:01 GMT
I do believe the ratings of Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker are too high. The numbers that they are producing does not deserve an 80 and 81... maybe 78 and 79..
I do believe KJ deserves to be a 77..
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 6, 2014 18:56:23 GMT
I do believe the ratings of Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker are too high. The numbers that they are producing does not deserve an 80 and 81... maybe 78 and 79.. I do believe KJ deserves to be a 77.. I've tried this before, no one listens  |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 6, 2014 19:03:06 GMT
I think Sakuragi is correct. Also I think there's too many over 70s, but we can adjust over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Dec 6, 2014 20:15:43 GMT
I do believe the ratings of Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker are too high. The numbers that they are producing does not deserve an 80 and 81... maybe 78 and 79.. I do believe KJ deserves to be a 77.. KJ a 77? I think most rookies would average his numbers on the 76ers... |
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 6, 2014 20:33:32 GMT
Stauskus is not a 77 and Ennis should be better than Napier
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 6, 2014 22:38:47 GMT
Guys have to keep in mind, creating these rookies is a LONG process. One which started probably 2 months ago when these guys hadn't played any NBA games. I'm working on finishing the creation of these rookies, and we can adjust a bit here and there, but the priority is to create them somewhat close to where they should be and then we'll adjust probably around midseason.
Also, a guy like Wiggins has his rating boosted by a lot of athleticism and just generally being not-terrible across the board. But he's actually not all that good in any one area yet either as far as individual ratings go.
Lastly (for now), these ratings are close to in line with a normal NBA Live Rookie release which happens before they play games as well. We'll adjust as needed, but let's give them some time. Jabari has been developing quickly actually, in another month or two he could make that 81 look low instead of high.
In short, please enjoy the fact that great care has been put into rating each and every one of these rookies by myself and other staff members; enjoy the fact that we have them at all! And, enjoy the fact that we can fix them pretty easily going forward, but let's not jump into "fixing" what isn't necessarily broken just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 6, 2014 22:40:37 GMT
Oh, and would also accept some brief input on those 2nd round rookies, just an overall rating that anyone thinks they should be around. Personally I like Clarkson and Dinwiddie the most out of that crew. Johnson and McRae have some things going for them too. The others I don't know much about or I think lowly of, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 6, 2014 22:45:10 GMT
66 Jordan McRae
69 Spencer Dinwiddie
65 Roy Devyn Marble
67 Deandre Daniels
69 Jordan Clarkson
70 Nick Johnson
68 Cameron Bairstow
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 7, 2014 0:03:40 GMT
66 Jordan McRae
69 Spencer Dinwiddie
65 Roy Devyn Marble
65 Deandre Daniels
72 Jordan Clarkson
71 Nick Johnson
67 Cameron Bairstow
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 7, 2014 6:51:22 GMT
Nick Johnson showed some crazy flash in Summer League in terms of athleticism. He had a triple double and what not. Just make his vertical his best stat and then go from their probably no better than a 69 at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 7, 2014 6:52:31 GMT
WE NEED TO LOWER MARCUS SMART for .....reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 7, 2014 6:54:38 GMT
I think any 2nd rounder who hasn't logged any real minutes should be defaulted to 65's or so.
|
|
Chris Mullin
 Golden State Warriors
Starter
Posts: 1,303
Feb 19, 2024 21:58:28 GMT
|
Post by Chris Mullin on Dec 7, 2014 8:00:34 GMT
I understand its a long process to make all the rookies in the game. However, like most rating changes made in this league statistics often have a heavy influence. Seems like rookies get inflated ratings based on hype/potential instead of what they're actually producing in real life.
Based on these ratings, Klay Thompson (2nd best player on the league best 17-2 Warriors) has the same rating as Wiggins and is rated lower than Jabari Parker. Believe me I understand the potential/upside of those 2 players are both higher than Thompson, but it has taken Thompson 4 seasons to finally be rated an 80.
Wiggins and Parker are both putting up numbers of players that would get rated in the 75-76 range. IMO most rookies should start in the low 70's, with maybe a few guys in the 75 range. Rookies should stay there until they show over a period of time they deserve to be rated higher. As soon as they start producing numbers and their teams start winning games then absolutely bump them up to where they deserve to be.
|
|
Chris Mullin
Golden State Warriors
Starter
Posts: 1,303
Feb 19, 2024 21:58:28 GMT
|
Post by Chris Mullin on Dec 7, 2014 8:08:38 GMT
Just 1 example, but how is Dante Exum a 77?
His numbers on a bad Utah team: 4.5 ppg / 1.5 rpg / 2.1 apg / FG: 36% / 3PT: 29.8% / FT: 59%
If someone posted a stock watch thread on ANY other player putting up those same numbers on a bad team, how many of us would honestly say that player deserved to be rated 77?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 7, 2014 20:51:12 GMT
Just 1 example, but how is Dante Exum a 77? His numbers on a bad Utah team: 4.5 ppg / 1.5 rpg / 2.1 apg / FG: 36% / 3PT: 29.8% / FT: 59% If someone posted a stock watch thread on ANY other player putting up those same numbers on a bad team, how many of us would honestly say that player deserved to be rated 77? The second we add them to the game we can just put in stock watch threads for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 7, 2014 20:52:05 GMT
BUT, if it's like Walt said and a guy like Wiggins only averages like 40% in the engine and like 10pts then I won't have an issue with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 7, 2014 23:31:22 GMT
BUT, if it's like Walt said and a guy like Wiggins only averages like 40% in the engine and like 10pts then I won't have an issue with it. Well I can't really predict how the game is going to play, but.... Wiggins has a 78 Dunk, 75 FT, 85 speed and quick, 90 jump. and 70 FG. Nothing else is above a 70. So he's not terrible but also not that good in all of these areas - O. Aware, 3pt, pass, handle, inside scoring, rebound (O & D), Steal, Block, Strength...even stamina and injury. Overall it's a fairly good representation of what he is IRL at this point. Athletic, solid-ish across the board, but not great or even all that good most places so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 8, 2014 23:52:05 GMT
BUT, if it's like Walt said and a guy like Wiggins only averages like 40% in the engine and like 10pts then I won't have an issue with it. Well I can't really predict how the game is going to play, but.... Wiggins has a 78 Dunk, 75 FT, 85 speed and quick, 90 jump. and 70 FG. Nothing else is above a 70. So he's not terrible but also not that good in all of these areas - O. Aware, 3pt, pass, handle, inside scoring, rebound (O & D), Steal, Block, Strength...even stamina and injury. Overall it's a fairly good representation of what he is IRL at this point. Athletic, solid-ish across the board, but not great or even all that good most places so far. may I ask if who is his closest clone according to ratings? |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 10, 2014 3:32:16 GMT
Well I can't really predict how the game is going to play, but.... Wiggins has a 78 Dunk, 75 FT, 85 speed and quick, 90 jump. and 70 FG. Nothing else is above a 70. So he's not terrible but also not that good in all of these areas - O. Aware, 3pt, pass, handle, inside scoring, rebound (O & D), Steal, Block, Strength...even stamina and injury. Overall it's a fairly good representation of what he is IRL at this point. Athletic, solid-ish across the board, but not great or even all that good most places so far. may I ask if who is his closest clone according to ratings? You can ask but that would entail me looking through everyone in the Rating Database. I/we created these guys from scratch so that's not an easy answer, and I have more pressing things to take care of for now than searching the DB for his clone. Sorry man! We'll find out soon though! |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 10, 2014 7:04:18 GMT
I would like to echo Walt's sentiments here.
These rookies were rated off of who we thought they were. And the ratings were made before the first week of the season had started.
When you look at these ratings, you have to understand that these are solid ratings. Wiggins at an 80 doesn't mean every stat of his is an 80, he has most of his points in athleticism. Every player we made has a solid template underneath those ratings and each rating of every player we made and re-worked is as close as in line to their real life performance as possible.
For example, Wiggins' 80 isn't the same as Klay Thompson's 80. Klay is severely underrated in my opinion, and I imagine his rating will be increased during our mid-season reviews at the All-Star Break. But when you look at each of the player's ratings, they aren't the same. Their OVR may be the same, but they are vastly different players and they each have vastly different ratings.
Our goal with these rookies was to create a solid template to build upon in further rating changes. We used scouting reports and comparisons to NBA players. These were made with just summer league play and college play to go off of. Could some guys be brought down some? Yeah. Totally agree. But we accomplished our main goal, developing a template, and we did it really well. I'd imagine nearly every rookie will be changed at the All-Star Break. And we kept that in mind. For example, how are we supposed to decrease a guy like Exum who is only getting 10 minutes a night? Well, we decrease his ratings via a baseline. He isn't getting minutes, it doesn't mean he is bad, it just means he isn't seeing the court. So we just decrease every stat by a certain baseline, and his overall will go down, but his template remains intact. And that is what we tried to do. The ratings that we did are all manageable; they are all in line with the players they are on the court. And previously, that was no where near the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 10, 2014 23:33:53 GMT
I would like to echo Walt's sentiments here. These rookies were rated off of who we thought they were. And the ratings were made before the first week of the season had started. When you look at these ratings, you have to understand that these are solid ratings. Wiggins at an 80 doesn't mean every stat of his is an 80, he has most of his points in athleticism. Every player we made has a solid template underneath those ratings and each rating of every player we made and re-worked is as close as in line to their real life performance as possible. For example, Wiggins' 80 isn't the same as Klay Thompson's 80. Klay is severely underrated in my opinion, and I imagine his rating will be increased during our mid-season reviews at the All-Star Break. But when you look at each of the player's ratings, they aren't the same. Their OVR may be the same, but they are vastly different players and they each have vastly different ratings. Our goal with these rookies was to create a solid template to build upon in further rating changes. We used scouting reports and comparisons to NBA players. These were made with just summer league play and college play to go off of. Could some guys be brought down some? Yeah. Totally agree. But we accomplished our main goal, developing a template, and we did it really well. I'd imagine nearly every rookie will be changed at the All-Star Break. And we kept that in mind. For example, how are we supposed to decrease a guy like Exum who is only getting 10 minutes a night? Well, we decrease his ratings via a baseline. He isn't getting minutes, it doesn't mean he is bad, it just means he isn't seeing the court. So we just decrease every stat by a certain baseline, and his overall will go down, but his template remains intact. And that is what we tried to do. The ratings that we did are all manageable; they are all in line with the players they are on the court. And previously, that was no where near the case. If what he said is accurate than we are at the first step of having players perform in a similar manner as they do in real life. So hopefully if this works we won't have to worry about why a certain player is performing abnormally because we can then say its because of the team he's on. For example, Kyle Korver should have a really high 3pt% no matter what because that is just a pure high level talent. However a guy like Eric Bledsoe could really only have a high 3pt% on a team with other good options to draw coverage. So if in the sim Bledsoe is on a solid team we could expect him to have a higher percentage and we have an explanation for that. If everyone gets to that point then we can have more interesting arguments on ratings. Like a lot of people after seeing the ratings initially I was like really pissed. (My idea of a highest rated rookie would be around 75-76) But I'm OK with letting it work itself out and I'm confident they made the right call. None of these ratings are nearly as egregious as some of the ones we've seen (insert Josh Smith/Bosh joke). So lets just see how it works out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 12, 2014 23:21:40 GMT
Updated second round signings. |
|
Larry Bird
 Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Dec 23, 2014 14:41:41 GMT
I would like to echo Walt's sentiments here. These rookies were rated off of who we thought they were. And the ratings were made before the first week of the season had started. When you look at these ratings, you have to understand that these are solid ratings. Wiggins at an 80 doesn't mean every stat of his is an 80, he has most of his points in athleticism. Every player we made has a solid template underneath those ratings and each rating of every player we made and re-worked is as close as in line to their real life performance as possible. For example, Wiggins' 80 isn't the same as Klay Thompson's 80. Klay is severely underrated in my opinion, and I imagine his rating will be increased during our mid-season reviews at the All-Star Break. But when you look at each of the player's ratings, they aren't the same. Their OVR may be the same, but they are vastly different players and they each have vastly different ratings. Our goal with these rookies was to create a solid template to build upon in further rating changes. We used scouting reports and comparisons to NBA players. These were made with just summer league play and college play to go off of. Could some guys be brought down some? Yeah. Totally agree. But we accomplished our main goal, developing a template, and we did it really well. I'd imagine nearly every rookie will be changed at the All-Star Break. And we kept that in mind. For example, how are we supposed to decrease a guy like Exum who is only getting 10 minutes a night? Well, we decrease his ratings via a baseline. He isn't getting minutes, it doesn't mean he is bad, it just means he isn't seeing the court. So we just decrease every stat by a certain baseline, and his overall will go down, but his template remains intact. And that is what we tried to do. The ratings that we did are all manageable; they are all in line with the players they are on the court. And previously, that was no where near the case. If what he said is accurate than we are at the first step of having players perform in a similar manner as they do in real life. So hopefully if this works we won't have to worry about why a certain player is performing abnormally because we can then say its because of the team he's on. For example, Kyle Korver should have a really high 3pt% no matter what because that is just a pure high level talent. However a guy like Eric Bledsoe could really only have a high 3pt% on a team with other good options to draw coverage. So if in the sim Bledsoe is on a solid team we could expect him to have a higher percentage and we have an explanation for that. If everyone gets to that point then we can have more interesting arguments on ratings. Like a lot of people after seeing the ratings initially I was like really pissed. (My idea of a highest rated rookie would be around 75-76) But I'm OK with letting it work itself out and I'm confident they made the right call. None of these ratings are nearly as egregious as some of the ones we've seen (insert Josh Smith/Bosh joke). So lets just see how it works out. To echo this about Klay Thompson and Andrew Wiggins. I am a teacher. This semester when I had to turn in grades, it somehow worked out that I had 5 students in one class who scored an 84%. I thought. That is very strange. I went back and looked at their first nine weeks grades, their second nine weeks grades, and then finally their semester test grade. Each of those grades (the individual point values for our players here) were vastly different. You can add 1 6 15 and 12, average it out to get 8 or you can add 3, 7, 9, and 13, average that out and still get 8. |
|
80 Andrew Wiggins
81 Jabari Parker
78 Joel Embiid
77 Marcus Smart
78 Julius Randle
76 Noah Vonleh
76 Aaron Gordon
75 Elfrid Payton
75 Doug McDermott
75 Zach LaVine
77 Nik Stauskas
72 Tyler Ennis
74 Kyle Anderson
73 PJ Hairston
75 KJ McDaniels
74 Gary Harris
65 Roy Devyn Marble
68 Cameron Bairstow
65 Joe Harris
Cleveland Cavaliers
Brooklyn Nets
Minnesota Timberwolves
