Rookie Ratings Adjustment

[Deleted]

I didn't read all of this but I feel for Walt. Therefore, here are two solutions I think he would go for:

1. Start every rookie around 70 and move them up and/or down in subsequent years. This will be a problem, however, if a rookie makes a big impact from the start like Lebron James or Anthony Davis.

2. Keep the ratings as they are. While I understand English's point, why make it harder on Walt when we don't need to? Besides, it helps the crappier teams a little bit.

[Ian Noble]

Dec 29, 2014 23:59:20 GMT James Kay said:

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.

I've always been wary of a Universal Rating System. Any system, once implemented, tends to eventually produce some extremes and those are what we should be trying to avoid. I think the ad-hoc system we currently have is really good, there's not been even one single example of a player whose rating has been changed that has led a GM to getting angry about that rating change. Also it allows for a lot of banter and engagement with the league that is essentially the life blood of D5 - I constructed the Stock Watch with that in mind, so that there's always something to get involved in after you've looked at results, adjusted your depth chart, pursued trades etc. There's always the Stock Watch that is intentionally endless.

It would be useful to have a checklist of factors that should be considered each time we rate a player. Any player on the real-life Sixers should have their situation included in any fair assessment of their ability, because all their stats are inflated really.

[Jeremiah Hill]

I'm with Ian part of the reason I even log on is just to argue about basketball with people. Even me and Vlades Bosh thing was incredibly entertaining to say the least even if we did get a bit douchey with it. My team is in flat out draft and hope mode. Without a stock watch I would basically just say e- mail me when its draft day and not log on for a few months. At that point I might as well not even be in the league.

What makes this is our community. The people who partake in it are the ones who stay usually. The people who think this is 2K are the ones that end up sucking balls and quitting.

[James Kay]

Dec 30, 2014 14:22:15 GMT Ian Noble said:

Dec 29, 2014 23:59:20 GMT James Kay said:

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.

I've always been wary of a Universal Rating System. Any system, once implemented, tends to eventually produce some extremes and those are what we should be trying to avoid. I think the ad-hoc system we currently have is really good, there's not been even one single example of a player whose rating has been changed that has led a GM to getting angry about that rating change. Also it allows for a lot of banter and engagement with the league that is essentially the life blood of D5 - I constructed the Stock Watch with that in mind, so that there's always something to get involved in after you've looked at results, adjusted your depth chart, pursued trades etc. There's always the Stock Watch that is intentionally endless.

It would be useful to have a checklist of factors that should be considered each time we rate a player. Any player on the real-life Sixers should have their situation included in any fair assessment of their ability, because all their stats are inflated really.

After reading that, I think I'm in agreement with you - arguing is half the fun here haha. But I wasn't talking so much as a strict "system," I meant more like the checklist that you brought up.