|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 4, 2015 0:29:54 GMT
Current Rating: 76
Numbers - 3.5 pts, 15 games played
Advanced:
Per -
10.3
TS % -
52.3%
WS -
0.1
Assisted Shots - 50%
Suggestion: 70
Phoenix is not a very deep team and the fact that he cannot even enter the rotation is a big blow for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 4, 2015 2:00:54 GMT
71
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 2:11:49 GMT
72
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 4, 2015 4:00:50 GMT
Phoenix is actually very deep at his position. Gerald Green, marcus Morris, Markieff Morris, P.J. Tucker all play there, plus every once in awhile they even get crazy and play IT2/Bledsoe/Dragic together, taking away more SF minutes.
Anyway...
I'm gonna stand strong with my stance that we should wait until the end of this season to change Rookies. That doesn't mean I don't think he deserves a decrease, but I just think it's safest overall to wait for all rookies until after the season is through.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 4, 2015 12:29:48 GMT
70. He has played in the D league for most of the year. If he isn't even playing, I think ratings should reflect that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 7, 2015 6:27:10 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same.
He gets no playing time because the Suns have Green, Tucker, and a Morris brother playing in at the 3. He gets junk time minutes and is on the 12 man roster because he was averaging 35 a night in the d-league
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 6:50:21 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same. He gets no playing time because the Suns have Green, Tucker, and a Morris brother playing in at the 3. He gets junk time minutes and is on the 12 man roster because he was averaging 35 a night in the d-league I agree with Barkley and Walt. These uounger guys need to stay at their current rating until they log reserve mins. If and win a player goes from under 15mpg to over 25mpg avg for 20+ games then we can reevaluate and make rating changes. These younger guys need to stay at their rating until a set time that the league makes in the near future and not until they get more than garbage mins. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 7, 2015 14:31:54 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same. He gets no playing time because the Suns have Green, Tucker, and a Morris brother playing in at the 3. He gets junk time minutes and is on the 12 man roster because he was averaging 35 a night in the d-league And Tucker is rated 76 and Marcus is 75.. and Warren is 76.. letting a player who cannot even crack the rotation to be a 76 is just so so unfair. I respect your reasoning but put some respect too Charles. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 14:33:06 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same. He gets no playing time because the Suns have Green, Tucker, and a Morris brother playing in at the 3. He gets junk time minutes and is on the 12 man roster because he was averaging 35 a night in the d-league And Tucker is rated 76 and Marcus is 75.. and Warren is 76.. letting a player who cannot even crack the rotation to be a 76 is just so so unfair. I respect your reasoning but put some respect too Charles. Yeah why the hell is the rookie who cant play over Marcus Morris rated better than my Marcus Morris? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Feb 7, 2015 14:36:29 GMT
^ 72, and I'm a fan
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 7, 2015 23:02:01 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same. He gets no playing time because the Suns have Green, Tucker, and a Morris brother playing in at the 3. He gets junk time minutes and is on the 12 man roster because he was averaging 35 a night in the d-league And Tucker is rated 76 and Marcus is 75.. and Warren is 76.. letting a player who cannot even crack the rotation to be a 76 is just so so unfair. I respect your reasoning but put some respect too Charles. Why don't you post his real stats and not just the ones that support your argument. He is sitting on the end of the bench because he dominated the D-League. Be fair and present both sides of the argument and maybe you'd get a little bit of respect. And I don't feel like the call of decreasing the Rookies is up to you. I feel like its up to Walt or Ian. That's just me though. He gets no playing time, so how can you judge him one way or another. The basis of your argument is that he doesn't play. He doesn't play because PHX values their veterans. The don't want a slashing wing in their rotation because they have slashing guards, they want someone the guards can kick to. And Warren needs work on his 3PT shot which is why he isn't playing. I just feel like you making these threads is dumb. It should have been done by someone else with more authority. We had a huge argument on rookie ratings and we had stated that we wouldn't change them. So I just feel like it is above your head. That, and you only present facts to support your argument rather than show the whole picture like the rest of us do when making a stock watch thread. That is what I find fucking dumb. Not the idea of lowering their ratings. You can lower them all you want, TJ Warren is still going to be a slashing guard in the SIM who will put up 20 a night if given the opportunity. Bruno, a 68, was putting up 20 a night while playing for Memphis even though he is a 68. Scorers are going to score. That's how we created them. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 8, 2015 0:00:32 GMT
And Tucker is rated 76 and Marcus is 75.. and Warren is 76.. letting a player who cannot even crack the rotation to be a 76 is just so so unfair. I respect your reasoning but put some respect too Charles. Why don't you post his real stats and not just the ones that support your argument. He is sitting on the end of the bench because he dominated the D-League. Be fair and present both sides of the argument and maybe you'd get a little bit of respect. And I don't feel like the call of decreasing the Rookies is up to you. I feel like its up to Walt or Ian. That's just me though. He gets no playing time, so how can you judge him one way or another. The basis of your argument is that he doesn't play. He doesn't play because PHX values their veterans. The don't want a slashing wing in their rotation because they have slashing guards, they want someone the guards can kick to. And Warren needs work on his 3PT shot which is why he isn't playing. I just feel like you making these threads is dumb. It should have been done by someone else with more authority. We had a huge argument on rookie ratings and we had stated that we wouldn't change them. So I just feel like it is above your head. That, and you only present facts to support your argument rather than show the whole picture like the rest of us do when making a stock watch thread. That is what I find fucking dumb. Not the idea of lowering their ratings. You can lower them all you want, TJ Warren is still going to be a slashing guard in the SIM who will put up 20 a night if given the opportunity. Bruno, a 68, was putting up 20 a night while playing for Memphis even though he is a 68. Scorers are going to score. That's how we created them. I hope you should have put a rule that for the adjustment of Rookie rating should only be started by Walt or Ian. Unfortunately there is no rule for that. We never went to an agreement of not changing them. We only agreed to wait and IMHO, 3 months should be enough. I am showing facts to support my argument and yet you see me as dumb? Seriously?? I am putting up facts and I am dumb? What kind of logic is that? What is the difference if Walt or Ian created it by the way? Creating threads are only a starting of discussion. Its not like I am forcing everyone to follow and decrease them. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 8, 2015 0:03:32 GMT
about your argument with TJ, I will leave that to the comment of Jeremiah on the thread on the GD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 8, 2015 0:18:10 GMT
I just feel like you making these threads is dumb. It should have been done by someone else with more authority. We had a huge argument on rookie ratings and we had stated that we wouldn't change them. So I just feel like it is above your head. I disagree with this. We're not a bunch of rocket scientist sitting in a NASA lab making complex calculations. We're random people on the internet playing a fantasy basketball game. Who are you and why are you special? Should Hanamichi Sakuragi have read through past threads to get himself up to date? Ideally yes. But what is the big deal? There wasn't even league wide consensus about leaving all the rookies untouched. You were even saying players should be looked at individually as a better way to do it. There is really no justification for some of these rookie ratings, and judging by this thread there is a fair amount of consensus that TJ Warren needs a decrease. If you disagree and don't like Sakuragi's argument, then make a better one. No need to appeal to some non-existent authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 8, 2015 0:33:18 GMT
Also I vote 72. I like Warren a lot as a prospect, but he hasn't really done anything yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 8, 2015 0:38:27 GMT
I could really give 2 fucks about this. TJ Warren as a 76 will be the same as a 72. Same strengths, just lower a tad and a lot lower in weaknesses. The templates are set.
If you guys want to pass judgement on a player without seeing anything from him, that's on you. But don't bitch when someone makes a thread a year from now to raise him. And I don't want to hear, in that thread in the future, that he hasn't proven it.
The whole thing is just a major clusterfuck and is stupid imo. Should they be lower? Yeah. But they will still perform the same given minutes. Like, I think that's what everyone fails to understand; that the number next to their name really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. If you guys want to argue over it, go ahead. I'm done. I've made my case, or at least tried to make a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 8, 2015 1:44:20 GMT
This is a guy I would compromise on basically. Only because he is one of the higher ratings for rookies but isn't doing anything IRL. I'll go 74.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 4:55:18 GMT
I could really give 2 fucks about this. TJ Warren as a 76 will be the same as a 72. Same strengths, just lower a tad and a lot lower in weaknesses. The templates are set. If you guys want to pass judgement on a player without seeing anything from him, that's on you. But don't bitch when someone makes a thread a year from now to raise him. And I don't want to hear, in that thread in the future, that he hasn't proven it. The whole thing is just a major clusterfuck and is stupid imo. Should they be lower? Yeah. But they will still perform the same given minutes. Like, I think that's what everyone fails to understand; that the number next to their name really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. If you guys want to argue over it, go ahead. I'm done. I've made my case, or at least tried to make a point. What else are we supposed to argue over. We didnt get to see these templates to know that rodney hood is OP, like you do. Show us these templates and individual ratings before calling us stupid for using the information available to us. Its a disgusting amount of unfair that some people know these templates and ratings and use that knowledge during trades and transactions. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 8, 2015 5:35:11 GMT
Well, I will say, the "template" is just us being smart, or even just logical. We looked at all of their college stats and read some articles and draft prep work on guys, and we just saw where they were good and where they weren't. These players are who you expect them to be, at least based on their college stats.
This seems so logical you are probably all asking yourself, "yea, so?" But unfortunately, having looked at some of the rookie ratings we imported the last couple years, that was not always done. I'm not sure why not, but those ratings were poorly done. This year's were MUCH better. If a guy was a great 3pt shooter with zero steals and blocks per game and just a little passing, he probably came in around a 70-75 3pt shooter (out of 100), and steal and block ratings under 15-20, with passing around 20 or even less as well. I'm being very general, but it's just logical. We took the time to figure out everyone's strengths and weaknesses.
What Charles is saying is, even if you all vote to decrease a player 4-5 points, when we go to look at their current stats this season, if that same player still sucks at passing, steals, and blocks, but has shown a solid 3pt shot, we will most likely take those steal/block/passing ratings down to under 10 each, and then pull a very small amount off of some of his other areas. Barely affecting what type of player he is, really, but just bringing down his OVR rating.
That being said, if that same player comes in and shoots 28% from 3 over a full season playing around 20 mpg or more, THEN we would bring down his 3pt rating significantly and change what type of player he is a little bit.
As for the individual ratings, I'm still torn on it. We only get to see it because we are adjusting the players. Hard to adjust them if we can't see what they are! To my knowledge, none of us use this knowledge to our advantage. I'm like 2 or 3 different guys while in this league. When my team is playing, I'm just the TWolves manager, hoping for a win or a loss like everyone else. If I'm working a trade, I'm looking at real-life stats and what I believe the players' potential to be, just generally how much I like them, and paying an appropriate amount for that player. When I am changing a player's rating, then I am the Rating guy, looking in depth at all the players' ratings and adjusting them properly. It's not really opinion based either. I just look at stats and what people have said (when there has been good input in threads...which there isn't always...:-p) and make proper adjustments, no matter who the player is.
The reason I'm torn is that we just can't have everyone nitpicking ratings. We are doing a solid job of rating players appropriately, proper strengths, proper weaknesses, fixing their "styles" and 3pt% of shots taken, etc. Things are getting vastly better. People nitpicking "oh, you guys should have really put 2 more points on this, taken 5 away from this, and changed this rating to this" is not going to help anything. Nothing at all. It's a slippery slope, I hope we can all accept it as what it is for now.
I hope that at least helps you loosen up a little bit Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 8, 2015 5:54:17 GMT
I'm still against changing most rookie ratings from this season because I think they were designed to be the player they actually are in terms of the shooters are shooters the defensive guys are defensive etc. The rooks are playing the game they would play in real life, I just think they are too good overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Feb 8, 2015 6:05:32 GMT
I could really give 2 fucks about this. TJ Warren as a 76 will be the same as a 72. Same strengths, just lower a tad and a lot lower in weaknesses. The templates are set. If you guys want to pass judgement on a player without seeing anything from him, that's on you. But don't bitch when someone makes a thread a year from now to raise him. And I don't want to hear, in that thread in the future, that he hasn't proven it. The whole thing is just a major clusterfuck and is stupid imo. Should they be lower? Yeah. But they will still perform the same given minutes. Like, I think that's what everyone fails to understand; that the number next to their name really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. If you guys want to argue over it, go ahead. I'm done. I've made my case, or at least tried to make a point. What else are we supposed to argue over. We didnt get to see these templates to know that rodney hood is OP, like you do. Show us these templates and individual ratings before calling us stupid for using the information available to us. Its a disgusting amount of unfair that some people know these templates and ratings and use that knowledge during trades and transactions. Honestly how many trades have the members of the trade committee been a part of since its formation? Pull up some numbers before you start throwing around accusations involving unfair ascant ages And anyway I really don't see the advantage in knowing how a players points are distributed I mean we all know which players are good at what |
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Feb 8, 2015 8:22:07 GMT
Billy King 2.0
|
|
|
|
Post by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Feb 8, 2015 12:24:57 GMT
72 ^^
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 15:02:38 GMT
What else are we supposed to argue over. We didnt get to see these templates to know that rodney hood is OP, like you do. Show us these templates and individual ratings before calling us stupid for using the information available to us. Its a disgusting amount of unfair that some people know these templates and ratings and use that knowledge during trades and transactions. Honestly how many trades have the members of the trade committee been a part of since its formation? Pull up some numbers before you start throwing around accusations involving unfair ascant ages And anyway I really don't see the advantage in knowing how a players points are distributed I mean we all know which players are good at what I'm not saying its a conspiracy, or saying that they are bad people. But they do know these things, whether it is subconcious or consciously taken into account. I can only assume, it's just naturally unfair. I'm sure they would open the ratings to us if they could, but they haven't been opened yet, and until then it is unfair. And if we don't talk about it being unfair, it will never change. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 15:03:16 GMT
Fuck you. Everything I said has made sense and is perfectly reasonable. I may be a bit brash, but I'm not a troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 8, 2015 15:15:20 GMT
They did open the ratings a few times I don't have the link still.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:37:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 15:18:48 GMT
They did open the ratings a few times I don't have the link still. Man, a link to all the individual ratings would stroke my autism so hard! Oh, the time I would waste. |
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Feb 8, 2015 21:49:44 GMT
Fuck you. Everything I said has made sense and is perfectly reasonable. I may be a bit brash, but I'm not a troll. Haha calm down, only teasing. Plus I was extremely drunk when I made that post  |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 8, 2015 22:41:02 GMT
Fuck you. Everything I said has made sense and is perfectly reasonable. I may be a bit brash, but I'm not a troll. Haha calm down, only teasing. Plus I was extremely drunk when I made that post Bruh |
|
|
|
Post by Clyde Drexler on Feb 8, 2015 22:41:29 GMT
Haha calm down, only teasing. Plus I was extremely drunk when I made that post Bruh Bruh |
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
New Orleans Pelicans
Minnesota Timberwolves
Brooklyn Nets
Denver Nuggets
Charlotte Hornets
Washington Wizards
