|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 28, 2014 21:51:38 GMT
Seems like we all agree we messed up on the initial rookie ratings. So here's a thread to fix it.
80 Andrew Wiggins -> 77
81 Jabari Parker -> 77
78 Joel Embiid -> 74
76 Aaron Gordon -> 74
77 Dante Exum -> 73
77 Marcus Smart -> 75
78 Julius Randle -> 75
77 Nik Stauskas -> 72
76 Noah Vonleh -> 72
75 Elfrid Payton -> 75
75 Doug McDermott -> 72
76 Dario Saric -> 71
75 Zach LaVine -> 75
76 T.J. Warren -> 73
75 Adreian Payne -> 71
73 Jusuf Nurkic -> 73
75 James Young -> 70
75 Tyler Ennis -> 70
76 Gary Harris -> 70
71 Bruno Caboclo -> 68
74 Mitch McGary -> 71
75 Jordan Adams -> 70
73 Rodney Hood -> 73
74 Shabazz Napier -> 74
72 Clint Capela -> 68
75 P.J. Hairston -> 68
72 Bogan Bogdanovic -> 68
73 C.J. Wilcox -> 69
71 Josh Huestis -> 67
74 Kyle Anderson -> 71
72 Damien Inglis -> 68
73 K.J. McDaniels -> 73
71 Joe Harris -> 69
74 Cleanthony Early -> 70
73 Jarnell Stokes -> 69
72 Johnny O'Bryant III -> 69
71 DeAndre Daniels -> 67
72 Spencer Dinwiddie -> 68
72 Jerami Grant -> 68
72 Glenn Robinson III -> 68
67 Nikola Jokic -> 65
72 Nick Johnson -> 68
69 Walter Tavares -> 65
70 Markel Brown -> 66
71 Dwight Powell -> 68
71 Jordan Clarkson -> 68
72 Russ Smith -> 69
70 Lamar Patterson -> 66
70 Cameron Bairstow -> 66
69 Alec Brown -> 65
70 Thanasis Antetokounmpo -> 66
68 Vasilije Micic -> 65
66 Alessandro Gentile -> 65
65 Nemanja Dangubic -> 65
69 Semaj Christon -> 66
69 Roy Devyn Marble -> 67
67 Louis Labeyrie -> 65
69 Jordan McRae -> 66
68 Xavier Thames -> 65
68 Cory Jefferson -> 68
I didn't go below 65 since players become useless in NBA Live once you starting getting down into the 60s. A few I left at the same rating but most got 3-5 point decreases. Make your votes below and I'll add the to this post so it's all summarized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 0:26:14 GMT
This is all way too early to change. I also feel like there is way more people up in arms about this year's class than any other year, and I wonder why that is. Is it b/c we created them ourselves and people just don't trust myself and the other RC members, while they somewhat blindly trusted "NBA Live" or whoever else created them before?
Dropping guys like Parker and Wiggins to a 77 is just so out of the norm from what we've done the last 3 years (and going back much further if you go before this exact league, like to original D5 or Legends or Rim Rockers, etc), I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Does everyone lack patience?
I'd also REALLY like individual threads here b/c I spent hours upon hours pouring over stats to make every one of these rookies, and on many of them it was hard to get them as low as they are. When it is one huge post, no one is chipping in with "we should probably lower his 3pt rating" or anything like that. The way you are doing it here Alex is going to make my job about 100x harder than if we had individual threads with real input.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 29, 2014 0:50:50 GMT
We can make our comment to each individual in this thread sir Walt.
I really want to decrease them now but let us wait for the end of Nov. to see there stats and make comparisons
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 0:52:22 GMT
haha, I'm no sir! That would certainly be helpful, but if everyone comes through with a sweeping set of #'s is doesn't help at all. And, we really should wait much longer to adjust rookies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 0:53:03 GMT
This is all way too early to change. I also feel like there is way more people up in arms about this year's class than any other year, and I wonder why that is. Is it b/c we created them ourselves and people just don't trust myself and the other RC members, while they somewhat blindly trusted "NBA Live" or whoever else created them before? Dropping guys like Parker and Wiggins to a 77 is just so out of the norm from what we've done the last 3 years (and going back much further if you go before this exact league, like to original D5 or Legends or Rim Rockers, etc), I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Does everyone lack patience? I completely disagree that it's too early. We are more than a third of the way through the season, this entire class won't suddenly start blowing us away with their performances. They've been a huge disappointment. That's also the main reason I think everyone is so up in arms. This class of rookies has performed on a historically bad level, and their ratings were given based on the hype they'd be historically good. How patient are we supposed to be? It seems like you want two separate standards where we judge vets for how they perform now and then judge rookies on what they are supposed to be. Obviously their original ratings have to be created on college stats and expectations, but why are we sticking with the estimates and ignoring the real life results until we pass some arbitrary threshold? When do we even cross that line? At what point have we been patient enough? We are about 30 games into this year. That's an entire college season. I'd also REALLY like individual threads here b/c I spent hours upon hours pouring over stats to make every one of these rookies, and on many of them it was hard to get them as low as they are. When it is one huge post, no one is chipping in with "we should probably lower his 3pt rating" or anything like that. The way you are doing it here Alex is going to make my job about 100x harder than if we had individual threads with real input. Isn't that what the ratings committee is for though? The general threads get the overall opinion and rating for a player, then the committee looks closer at everything to best match up their individual ratings to the real life performance. I think starting almost 60 threads will just spam the site and clog up an already slow process. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 0:53:55 GMT
For example, we are judging Julius Randle's 3 point decrease on, what exactly? He played 1 game, 13 and a half minutes total this season, and earned himself a 3-point decrease? That just shows how irresponsible these suggested changes are in a nutshell.
Give the Rookies time to work out the kinks and show who they are over a full season!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 0:58:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 29, 2014 0:58:29 GMT
For example, we are judging Julius Randle's 3 point decrease on, what exactly? He played 1 game, 13 and a half minutes total this season, and earned himself a 3-point decrease? That just shows how irresponsible these suggested changes are in a nutshell. Give the Rookies time to work out the kinks and show who they are over a full season! Let us leave those injured rookies as it is. how about we order the rookies in our suggestions, ranking them from the rookie that deserves a change the most upto the rookie that least deserves it. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 1:02:46 GMT
I completely disagree that it's too early. That's totally fine Alex, we just disagree, nbd. It seems like you want two separate standards where we judge vets for how they perform now and then judge rookies on what they are supposed to be. That's actually exactly what I'm saying. Rookies need time to adjust. Whenever we have Rookies performing well in these leagues, there is always a huge "wait and see" mentality. It takes a long time to bump ratings up even if they are being outperformed. I'm looking for some consistency in how we operate. We've ALWAYS been EXTREMELY careful with Rookie Ratings. I think that's the right way to go. Let them have an entire season of the NBA before we go messing with them. Veterans are different. They've already had their Rookie season. Some guys have had years upon years of data to judge on. We can see much more easily when they develop a new skill or deteriorate a part of their game. Why shouldn't it be different for Rookies? Isn't that what the ratings committee is for though? The general threads get the overall opinion and rating for a player, then the committee looks closer at everything to best match up their individual ratings to the real life performance. The ratings committee is supposed to dig in further, yes, but to be perfectly honest again, the ratings committee has been about 95% me, 4% Charles, and 1% a few other people combined. This is a bunch of shit to throw on my plate. If/when we get the RC really moving and grooving with help from everyone, maybe it would be easier! As it is now, all of these just won't get done in any timely manner. Give the Rookies time I say again! They are in fact different from Veteran NBA players. I don't see how that is not understood! I think starting almost 60 threads will just spam the site and clog up an already slow process. Which is why we shouldn't even attempt such a large-scale "this class sucks" rating in the first place. Give them time, keep an eye on their development or lack of it, and at the end of the season let's see where things shake out. I have a big fear that we are going to try to lower all of these players and then at the end of the season, 70% of them are going to come right back up to their original rating or close to it. Whereas, if we were to wait, we could just lower the 30% that actually needed to be lowered. Why is Embiid being lowered? Many thought and probably still do think he is the best talent in this class. I just don't get where your ratings are coming from tbh. You went with a "everyone needs lowered" mindset w/o actually thinking that much about any player. That's very dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Dec 29, 2014 1:06:42 GMT
I'm actually gonna agree with Walt for once. I don't really have a hand in the game since Jabroni's knee exploded, but at this point we have to treat them like any other player- adjusted up/down based on a body of work. Just like we are saying Jimmy Buckets shouldn't be upgraded yet, we can't decrease all the rookies before we see more. With that being said, I also think that protects Jabroni from being downgraded, as he was never given the opportunity to blossom  |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 29, 2014 1:07:59 GMT
That seems to be unfair for the others because it seems there is a bigger chance that they will not perform to those initial ratings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 1:16:36 GMT
I'd like to just go one step further with some of my comments. I did a lot of work on these Rookies. I'm totally, 100% willing to be wrong on them. Even all of them, whatever. It was a huge job and I did a lot of it on my own, and had to make a lot of decisions on my own along the way. Again, I'm 100% OK being wrong on every single one of them.
However, that being said, let the Rookies develop over a full season. We have given every other NBA player that opportunity, let's not change that now. Also, once we have a full season of data on these guys, it will help me and the rest of the RC figure out some things. Where we overrated, if we overrated at all, where we may have underrated. I and We (the RC) are trying to figure out how to rate these players based on their College stats for the most part. Once we have more NBA data, we can see what correlates and what doesn't, or to what level certain things translate from the NCAA to the NBA.
Give it time, please. Not just b/c I spent a ton of time on it, but also because it's really the safest thing to do with the Rookies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 1:19:26 GMT
I don't think rookies should be treated as special. I consider the time needed to learn the NBA game and adjust to this level of play to be a weakness that should impact their rating, not be a protection against changing it. It's basically a now vs future potential argument. It doesn't really matter how they should play when the figure out the NBA game, it matters how they are playing right now. Once they start to figure it out we can raise the ones that deserve it in their 2nd or 3rd season. Seems to me like this is being done backwards, where we are going to have rookies 'grow into their ratings' then lower the ones that never raised their game instead of just giving ratings based on merit. Whatever though, I think the real important lesson will be to show a lot more caution when we make next years rookie class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 1:24:04 GMT
How about we just rate all Rookies in the 60-70 area from now on Alex? They we can just raise as they get better. That's what you'd like to see? B/c you can't have it both ways. What have some of these rookies done to even deserve above a 65, your lowest rating? They haven't actually done anything.
So, please, don't sit in the middle if that is your argument. Let's rate them all super low to start and raise them as they go, or do it the way we and NBA Live have done it for over a decade, but not something in the middle that doesn't accomplish anyone's goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 29, 2014 1:25:17 GMT
Yup. It seems what we can only do right now is to have a better and more cautious way of rating the rookies next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 1:29:01 GMT
I'd like to just go one step further with some of my comments. I did a lot of work on these Rookies. I'm totally, 100% willing to be wrong on them. Even all of them, whatever. It was a huge job and I did a lot of it on my own, and had to make a lot of decisions on my own along the way. Again, I'm 100% OK being wrong on every single one of them. However, that being said, let the Rookies develop over a full season. We have given every other NBA player that opportunity, let's not change that now. Also, once we have a full season of data on these guys, it will help me and the rest of the RC figure out some things. Where we overrated, if we overrated at all, where we may have underrated. I and We (the RC) are trying to figure out how to rate these players based on their College stats for the most part. Once we have more NBA data, we can see what correlates and what doesn't, or to what level certain things translate from the NCAA to the NBA. Give it time, please. Not just b/c I spent a ton of time on it, but also because it's really the safest thing to do with the Rookies. I don't think you're being defensive and I haven't considered this at all when reading your arguments. I'd be right there with you since every player's overall rating is just what I gave them: dynasty5ive.proboards.com/thread/4546/2014-rookiesI just think we screwed up right out of the gate, and we need to fix it. Nothing more to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 1:31:38 GMT
How about we just rate all Rookies in the 60-70 area from now on Alex? They we can just raise as they get better. That's what you'd like to see? B/c you can't have it both ways. What have some of these rookies done to even deserve above a 65, your lowest rating? They haven't actually done anything. So, please, don't sit in the middle if that is your argument. Let's rate them all super low to start and raise them as they go, or do it the way we and NBA Live have done it for over a decade, but not something in the middle that doesn't accomplish anyone's goal. If you want to take my point of view and turn it up to 11 then sure, this is a fine hyperbolic summarization of my argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 29, 2014 1:31:39 GMT
Maybe we can decrease them after we finish November. A general decrease on their skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 1:35:41 GMT
Thanks Alex. I'm really not being that defensive, I created the Rookies with the thought that we wanted the class to look like a traditional NBA Live Rookie Class. This one does that.
Also, your ratings above are not 100% correct. I'm not sure where you pulled them from but a few guys have different ratings by a point or two from what you listed. This happened while creating them in the game and seeing how points stacked up to give an OVR rating in the game. I may not have finished updating one of those master lists or maybe Ian didn't, but if you check in the database you'll see some different ratings than what you have listed as the originals.
And I really think we were "cautious", but maybe I'm just picking on people's choice of words. I poured over the stats for all players and aimed to create the class the same was that NBA Live would have when it was in full gear. I'm sure our ratings are different than theirs would have been in some areas, but overall I think it looks a lot like an NBA Live Rookie class. Guess what guys? We are using an NBA Live sim engine! If we want the game to work right, we need to keep basing it on that. I am sure a lot of you are used to 2k ratings now, and if we were using 2k to sim, we should make ratings like they do...BUT, we're not so we shouldn't.
I'm OK with us fixing things but as as general rule I still don't think we should touch Rookies until they get a season under their belts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 29, 2014 1:37:42 GMT
How about we just rate all Rookies in the 60-70 area from now on Alex? They we can just raise as they get better. That's what you'd like to see? B/c you can't have it both ways. What have some of these rookies done to even deserve above a 65, your lowest rating? They haven't actually done anything. So, please, don't sit in the middle if that is your argument. Let's rate them all super low to start and raise them as they go, or do it the way we and NBA Live have done it for over a decade, but not something in the middle that doesn't accomplish anyone's goal. If you want to take my point of view and turn it up to 11 then sure, this is a fine hyperbolic summarization of my argument. Not my intention, truly. If your argument is that these players haven't proven anything, then we should start the season with them as non-impact players. Every month or two we can bump up the guys who deserve it and leave the rest alone. I'm honestly not that opposed to that as long as we make a system and stick to it. I think when you are handing out 77's to players who were 80's previously and stating your reasoning that they haven't proven anything yet, there is something wrong with that still. 77 can start and make an impact in this game. They should be rated lower if that is your argument. Not an attack, that's honestly what I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Dec 29, 2014 20:01:47 GMT
I'd like to see the points that are raised here primarily as constructive suggestions for when we start work on next season's rookies.
In a lot of instances I think we are factoring into a lot of rookies ratings their potential to deliver and as such they're overrated. NBA Readiness may be the factor we've missed out, but that's a difficult thing to quantify with such a small sample of games, and guys like Exum and Vonleh have suffered due to lack of minutes and may otherwise have been producing.
Walt pretty much has the toughest job in the league. The Stock Watch Discussion is endless, ENDLESS work and it sure was impossible for me to keep on top of it all, so managing expectations is important. The nature of the Stock Watch is that nobody will ever be 100% happy, it's a conglomeration of all our opinions and experiences that are infinitely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 29, 2014 21:43:51 GMT
I'm with Walt's first comment, make individual threads.
How do you drop someone three points but keep others the same? Is there a reason for that? I'd rather see it in individual threads, its easier to work off of that than just a big list where it doesn't seem like anyone is even voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 29, 2014 22:47:49 GMT
Alex, you're suggesting a decrease for guys like Micic and Gentile who aren't even in the NBA and are over seas and will be for a bit. It seems like you've gone thru and suggested a 2-3 point decrease for everyone besides a select few. I'd like to know why those players particularly don't deserve a decrease. From my point of view, the only reason a guy like LaVine appears better than someone like Exum is because of minutes. Exum does the same thing Napier does in less minutes per game and you have Napier rated a point higher, its these inconsistencies I don't understand but I feel like I would if there were individual threads, and if not individual threads, then a thread for each position group for the rookies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Dec 29, 2014 23:57:53 GMT
Alex, you're suggesting a decrease for guys like Micic and Gentile who aren't even in the NBA and are over seas and will be for a bit. It seems like you've gone thru and suggested a 2-3 point decrease for everyone besides a select few. I'd like to know why those players particularly don't deserve a decrease. From my point of view, the only reason a guy like LaVine appears better than someone like Exum is because of minutes. Exum does the same thing Napier does in less minutes per game and you have Napier rated a point higher, its these inconsistencies I don't understand but I feel like I would if there were individual threads, and if not individual threads, then a thread for each position group for the rookies. I went through and made some general decreases, since if we're going to decrease the top of the draft class, then you kind of have to decrease the rest of the players to keep everything in line. I don't think it really matters though, if a player is a 67 or a 65 they will still be awful and never play in the sims. There was a lot of complaining about the rookie ratings, so I made this to start the discussion. But apparently nobody actually wants to decrease them after all. At least no one else has made their own suggestions or arguments on correcting the ratings. So what has all the complaining been about? I think the ratings are too high across the board, but I don't have a horse in this race anymore, I traded away Vonleh. So whatever, looks like we'll wait and see at the end of the year if any rookies will have started to play better. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 29, 2014 23:59:20 GMT
I think Walt and Alex both have excellent points. Alex, I definitely agree that the CURRENT level of performance of these rookies IRL is about 1-3 points below what they are rated in D5. However, I think Walt made several great counter-points, in that: 1)These ratings should be given time to level out. Yes, we are about 1/3 through the season but most of (if not all) of the rating changes suggested for non-rookies are based off of more than just their performance in the 2014-2015 season. Just of the top of my head, I know we have threads for Draymond, Deron, JSmoove, ect. And these players are not being judged for JUST this season, they are being adjusted for this season as well as their 2013-2014 seasons. In that respect, I think it is premature to judge these rookies for their small sample size, in both games played as well as minutes played (See Charles' comparison Exum vs. Napier vs LaVine) 2)Walt's summation of your argument was fairly hyperbolic, yes, but that is essentially what you were saying. No ratings given until ratings earned. However, D5 is all about putting players in different situations - how would LaVine perform backing up Kemba Walker, how would Marcus Smart play if he was expected to be the leading scorer on a team worse than the IRL 76ers(sorry Jeremiah  ), how would KJ perform if not let off the leash like he is with Brett Brown - so I think we need to give some leeway to our pre-season rankings and have some faith in them, if only because those were the ratings we judged before they joined a team and began to be molded into that IRL situation. Finally, something I've been thinking about for a while. We should try to invest some time into constructing a universal rating system. It may be extremely difficult to integrate all of the different criterion that goes into ratings, but I think it would be VERY valuable to at least have a universal weighting system of some sort. Of what kind, I'm not sure, as I believe that will be a contentious issue on its own, but it could clear things up when we have some people basing ratings largely based on stats, and others largely based on eye-test, and others based on situational circumstance, and others based on who's-better-than-who, ect, ect. For example, I think players such as MCW and Kawhi are particularly problematic for some GMS to rate as it seems that they could achieve different things given more or less opportunity. Personal opinion will still come into play, obviously, but I think with some sort of universal rating system that is explicit and codified, we would have a much easier time discussing player rating adjustments, as well as creating the new rookie class ratings. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 30, 2014 0:02:17 GMT
Isn't that what the ratings committee is for though? The general threads get the overall opinion and rating for a player, then the committee looks closer at everything to best match up their individual ratings to the real life performance. The ratings committee is supposed to dig in further, yes, but to be perfectly honest again, the ratings committee has been about 95% me, 4% Charles, and 1% a few other people combined. This is a bunch of shit to throw on my plate. If/when we get the RC really moving and grooving with help from everyone, maybe it would be easier! As it is now, all of these just won't get done in any timely manner. Give the Rookies time I say again! They are in fact different from Veteran NBA players. I don't see how that is not understood! [/quote] I am the 1%!!  Sorry Walt, the RC and me in particular were most unhelpful, but tbh, I surveyed most of your ratings and didn't find issue with enough that I thought were even worth mentioning. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 30, 2014 0:41:02 GMT
Isn't that what the ratings committee is for though? The general threads get the overall opinion and rating for a player, then the committee looks closer at everything to best match up their individual ratings to the real life performance. The ratings committee is supposed to dig in further, yes, but to be perfectly honest again, the ratings committee has been about 95% me, 4% Charles, and 1% a few other people combined. This is a bunch of shit to throw on my plate. If/when we get the RC really moving and grooving with help from everyone, maybe it would be easier! As it is now, all of these just won't get done in any timely manner. Give the Rookies time I say again! They are in fact different from Veteran NBA players. I don't see how that is not understood! I am the 1%!! Sorry Walt, the RC and me in particular were most unhelpful, but tbh, I surveyed most of your ratings and didn't find issue with enough that I thought were even worth mentioning.[/quote] Haha, those #'s were off the cuff, but you did have some input. Alex too. Ian chimed in, so did Barber. Didn't mean to cut anyone short, just saying it was a lot on me. I kind of volunteered for it, and now I know just how much time it will take, which I didn't before, but the point basically stands. I do understand your last sentence, I know Charles and the others were operating on that level a lot of the time as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 30, 2014 1:06:39 GMT
But to sum it up, all of them, except for a few, are overrated at their current performance.
To let them play with their current ratings means giving unfair advantage to those that are holding them because they will perform much better than what their real life performance is. I think one of the problem right now is that we are almost running on the same time with real life NBA making us hesitant to do some adjustments.
But I do know that Walt's job is really hard so I think we just need to do it better for the future draft batches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 30, 2014 1:23:48 GMT
Alex, you're suggesting a decrease for guys like Micic and Gentile who aren't even in the NBA and are over seas and will be for a bit. It seems like you've gone thru and suggested a 2-3 point decrease for everyone besides a select few. I'd like to know why those players particularly don't deserve a decrease. From my point of view, the only reason a guy like LaVine appears better than someone like Exum is because of minutes. Exum does the same thing Napier does in less minutes per game and you have Napier rated a point higher, its these inconsistencies I don't understand but I feel like I would if there were individual threads, and if not individual threads, then a thread for each position group for the rookies. I went through and made some general decreases, since if we're going to decrease the top of the draft class, then you kind of have to decrease the rest of the players to keep everything in line. I don't think it really matters though, if a player is a 67 or a 65 they will still be awful and never play in the sims. There was a lot of complaining about the rookie ratings, so I made this to start the discussion. But apparently nobody actually wants to decrease them after all. At least no one else has made their own suggestions or arguments on correcting the ratings. So what has all the complaining been about? I think the ratings are too high across the board, but I don't have a horse in this race anymore, I traded away Vonleh. So whatever, looks like we'll wait and see at the end of the year if any rookies will have started to play better. For me, personally, it doesn't matter what these guys are rated. The most important thing coming out of the off-season with the Rookie Creation Process was that we built the player properly. A lot of it was Walt building the player correctly. We would chime in if we disagreed about something. But, the most important part of it was building them correctly. We can decrease everyone by 3 points, they are still going to have the same strengths and weaknesses as before which mimic their real life strengths and weaknesses. That was the hardest part about creating the rookies imo, when I did create a few. And it wasn't just the Rookies, it was with every player that we adjusted. They all got the same treatment of creating their template. I just think that more people would chime in and vote if it wasn't one big thread, and the ratings for each would be more specific. To me, it doesn't really matter what the Rookies are rated, so long as they represent their real life counterparts as closely as possible. I drafted Randle to play the post, not to shoot 3's. And we created him to play the post. Whether he is an 80 or a 70, right now, all he is good at is post play. That is what I think is the most important thing about this process. And I think a lot of people are forgetting that. If we lower someone by 3 points, that's ~48 total rating points that need to be taken away, and those 48 points will likely come from their weak stats already; a few may come from their strong stats. But they are still going to be the same player, regardless of their overall rating. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 30, 2014 2:58:49 GMT
I think that athleticism was underestimated in terms of how much it effected in-sim success however. I believe that Wiggin's stats mimic his real life strengths and weaknesses but he still has to be averaging WAY too high of a FG% which is indicative of how good the team he's on is however I think that we need to just get the overall knowledge out that hey rating doesn't matter as much any more. And you actually have to try and aim for the best player in general.
I mean obviously we want to reserve the 87+ ratings for the real stars of the league given that those players are almost always so good at many things instead of specializing in one or two things like most players in the league. Obviously to varying effect. Do you guys have testing instances of the game program available? Like what happens if we put a 99 3pt shooter on a good team, a bad team. Then compare the results. Things like that, anyways different conversation.
|
|
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
Cleveland Cavaliers
Brooklyn Nets
Boston Celtics
Charlotte Hornets
), how would KJ perform if not let off the leash like he is with Brett Brown - so I think we need to give some leeway to our pre-season rankings and have some faith in them, if only because those were the ratings we judged before they joined a team and began to be molded into that IRL situation. 
