|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 4, 2015 0:36:41 GMT
Current Rating: 75
3 GAMES PLAYED!
Suggestion: 68
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Feb 4, 2015 2:02:06 GMT
70
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 2:13:01 GMT
69
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 4, 2015 12:28:39 GMT
69
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 4, 2015 13:58:38 GMT
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 7, 2015 6:25:08 GMT
I think this is stupid as fuck, and my vote is to keep him the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 8, 2015 0:33:12 GMT
He probably has some wiggle room but the ratings above are extreme for a guy who hasn't had a chance to prove anything.
72 or 73
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 8, 2015 14:14:16 GMT
Walt, I understand where you are coming from, but this is the exact argument in the rookie thread. By lowering most rookies to 72 and below, most won't see time which will replicate real-life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 8, 2015 14:21:53 GMT
Walt, I understand where you are coming from, but this is the exact argument in the rookie thread. By lowering most rookies to 72 and below, most won't see time which will replicate real-life. Kevin. It really depends what team they are on and who is on front of them. I've had a 76 rookie riding the bench, while other teams have had 68 and 73 rookies going beaat mode. Same as what would happen in real life. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 8, 2015 14:50:03 GMT
Walt, I understand where you are coming from, but this is the exact argument in the rookie thread. By lowering most rookies to 72 and below, most won't see time which will replicate real-life. Kevin. It really depends what team they are on and who is on front of them. I've had a 76 rookie riding the bench, while other teams have had 68 and 73 rookies going beaat mode. Same as what would happen in real life. THIS ISNT A REAL EXCUSE. It's the biggest arguement used in rating threads AGAINST giving a player a higher rating. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 8, 2015 14:54:12 GMT
If you use that excuse there is a real chance that a player who ends up riding the bench his rookie contract and the leaving the NBA can hang out at a 75+ ovr for 5 years.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 8, 2015 16:34:42 GMT
Walt, I understand where you are coming from, but this is the exact argument in the rookie thread. By lowering most rookies to 72 and below, most won't see time which will replicate real-life. Kevin. It really depends what team they are on and who is on front of them. I've had a 76 rookie riding the bench, while other teams have had 68 and 73 rookies going beaat mode. Same as what would happen in real life. I agree with Jhill, this is not a real excuse at all. There is nothing to go off of, so why should he help in the sim when we have no idea what he is capable of? Does that make any sense at all? I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. If he was that fucking good, he would play regardless of what the situation is. Obviously, he is not. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 8, 2015 16:36:03 GMT
If your whole team is 75 and below, no one is going to complain. But if you are a good team and have a rookie playing over solid veterans because of their inflated rating, then there is a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 22:58:29 GMT
If your whole team is 75 and below, no one is going to complain. But if you are a good team and have a rookie playing over solid veterans because of their inflated rating, then there is a problem. qft |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 8, 2015 23:12:14 GMT
If your whole team is 75 and below, no one is going to complain. But if you are a good team and have a rookie playing over solid veterans because of their inflated rating, then there is a problem. If you look at the rosters, I don't see a team doing this in their startin 5. But I get the point you're making. However, lowering their rating won't necessarily lower their capability to do what they do. It will, however, deter teams from playing them, which I guess is the whole point. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2015 23:26:49 GMT
You keep making posts like this CB and youre going to pass Barber for most liked posts!
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 8, 2015 23:36:09 GMT
You keep making posts like this CB and youre going to pass Barber for most liked posts! I am only learning from the King. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 9, 2015 5:03:31 GMT
Kevin. It really depends what team they are on and who is on front of them. I've had a 76 rookie riding the bench, while other teams have had 68 and 73 rookies going beaat mode. Same as what would happen in real life. I agree with Jhill, this is not a real excuse at all. There is nothing to go off of, so why should he help in the sim when we have no idea what he is capable of? Does that make any sense at all? I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. If he was that fucking good, he would play regardless of what the situation is. Obviously, he is not. Haha "that fucking good" for a guy rated in the mid 70's. You guys are really going extreme lately. I am making no excuse. I am responding to a line of thought that says these players are even producing. Some aren't in the sim at all. Some mid-70's guys are riding the pine and some high 60's guys are starting sometime. It's no excuse, you guys are reading way too much into my comment. Honestly, I was hardly contributing anything to the conversation apparently, but I was not arguing whatever you guys think I was arguing. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 9, 2015 5:04:59 GMT
If you use that excuse there is a real chance that a player who ends up riding the bench his rookie contract and the leaving the NBA can hang out at a 75+ ovr for 5 years. Completely false Jeremiah. I've been adamant only about ROOKIES. Since when is a 5th year guy a rookie? come on bro, you're stretching like crazy here. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 9, 2015 17:28:47 GMT
If you use that excuse there is a real chance that a player who ends up riding the bench his rookie contract and the leaving the NBA can hang out at a 75+ ovr for 5 years. Completely false Jeremiah. I've been adamant only about ROOKIES. Since when is a 5th year guy a rookie? come on bro, you're stretching like crazy here. Am I though? Because the rookie rides the bench his entire contract we never have you and Barkley's definition of "evidence" thus in our new paradox world. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 10, 2015 0:54:47 GMT
Completely false Jeremiah. I've been adamant only about ROOKIES. Since when is a 5th year guy a rookie? come on bro, you're stretching like crazy here. Am I though? Because the rookie rides the bench his entire contract we never have you and Barkley's definition of "evidence" thus in our new paradox world. I really still think you're stretching brohiem. The only thing I've been arguing is that Rookies need time to see who they are. IMO, that "time" is a full season more or less. We are definitely getting closer to being able to make our first real opinions on some of these guys, others we probably already can, but no, if someone never plays for 4 seasons I'm not going to be here telling you we need to wait b/c he's a Rookie. I don't see how you could think that I would unless you are stretching like crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 10, 2015 17:19:22 GMT
Regardless this entire arguement becomes moot if half the rookies were 70 or below right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 17:25:07 GMT
Regardless this entire arguement becomes moot if half the rookies were 70 or below right now. I think they've all said that they ended up rating the rookies too highly, and that they will make them lower on average this time. It was their first time making rookies from scratch, right? I think they'll do it better this time. I think Okafur should be higher than a 75, though. That guy should come into the league around an 80. The next rookie shouldn't be higher than 75 though, and I think they won't make the mistake of ratings low lottery picks above 75 anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 10, 2015 17:47:19 GMT
Regardless this entire arguement becomes moot if half the rookies were 70 or below right now. I think they've all said that they ended up rating the rookies too highly, and that they will make them lower on average this time. It was their first time making rookies from scratch, right? I think they'll do it better this time. I think Okafur should be higher than a 75, though. That guy should come into the league around an 80. The next rookie shouldn't be higher than 75 though, and I think they won't make the mistake of ratings low lottery picks above 75 anymore. We have Adam, but also please realize we did it because of their hype coming in, not because we thought all draft classes had to follow a specific set of ratings. If the draft class is a clear "one stud, a few role players, and a bunch of random, maybe good guys who need a lot of time to develop" then that is what you would have seen in the ratings - an 80-ish guy, a few 74-76 guys, and a bunch of 68-73 guys depending on who they are. This class was supposed to be jammed full of stars and/or good starters so that is how they were rated. Along with all of that, I think we'll go safer and maybe trim off a point or two from what we would have done if another class like this last one cones through. We learn from our mistakes, we just don't think the effect on the game is as big as some of you do, and we think overall we built the rookies very well. Especially as we do other changes of guys who are in their 2-4th seasons and are getting their first increase... Whew, some of them were built terribly! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 20:01:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 10, 2015 20:52:36 GMT
I think they've all said that they ended up rating the rookies too highly, and that they will make them lower on average this time. It was their first time making rookies from scratch, right? I think they'll do it better this time. I think Okafur should be higher than a 75, though. That guy should come into the league around an 80. The next rookie shouldn't be higher than 75 though, and I think they won't make the mistake of ratings low lottery picks above 75 anymore. We have Adam, but also please realize we did it because of their hype coming in, not because we thought all draft classes had to follow a specific set of ratings. If the draft class is a clear "one stud, a few role players, and a bunch of random, maybe good guys who need a lot of time to develop" then that is what you would have seen in the ratings - an 80-ish guy, a few 74-76 guys, and a bunch of 68-73 guys depending on who they are. This class was supposed to be jammed full of stars and/or good starters so that is how they were rated. Along with all of that, I think we'll go safer and maybe trim off a point or two from what we would have done if another class like this last one cones through. We learn from our mistakes, we just don't think the effect on the game is as big as some of you do, and we think overall we built the rookies very well. Especially as we do other changes of guys who are in their 2-4th seasons and are getting their first increase... Whew, some of them were built terribly! I agree with Walt on most of his points here. We may have overexaggerated the ratings for the rookies. But doing some sort of scale for them in the future is just as bad. This class was hyped as hell and only a few are seeing quality minutes. I strongly believe that if all the rookies were seeing 20 mpg, we wouldn't be having these discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 11, 2015 0:19:20 GMT
I think they've all said that they ended up rating the rookies too highly, and that they will make them lower on average this time. It was their first time making rookies from scratch, right? I think they'll do it better this time. I think Okafur should be higher than a 75, though. That guy should come into the league around an 80. The next rookie shouldn't be higher than 75 though, and I think they won't make the mistake of ratings low lottery picks above 75 anymore. We have Adam, but also please realize we did it because of their hype coming in, not because we thought all draft classes had to follow a specific set of ratings. If the draft class is a clear "one stud, a few role players, and a bunch of random, maybe good guys who need a lot of time to develop" then that is what you would have seen in the ratings - an 80-ish guy, a few 74-76 guys, and a bunch of 68-73 guys depending on who they are. This class was supposed to be jammed full of stars and/or good starters so that is how they were rated.
Along with all of that, I think we'll go safer and maybe trim off a point or two from what we would have done if another class like this last one cones through. We learn from our mistakes, we just don't think the effect on the game is as big as some of you do, and we think overall we built the rookies very well. Especially as we do other changes of guys who are in their 2-4th seasons and are getting their first increase... Whew, some of them were built terribly! I guess this class will still live up to the hype because if they dont, I think they will be the first Draft Class Bust!. haha |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 11, 2015 0:31:00 GMT
My issue is that it was considered the deepest draft which has panned out. But there wasn't a LBJ level guy in it to denote starting a rookie off as a great starter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 11, 2015 1:53:36 GMT
My issue is that it was considered the deepest draft which has panned out. But there wasn't a LBJ level guy in it to denote starting a rookie off as a great starter. That is once again stretching it J. Who did we start off as a great starter? The highest ratings are what, 80 or 81? And those two guys look more or less deserving of them now IMO. I get Parker is hurt but he was coming around before then. Maybe it is just disagreeing on terminology but "great starters" are like 83-86 guys. We started off the two best guys who MANY had thought were star level players as solid, mid level starters. IMO we got those two right more or less, it just took both some time to prove it, which is what I've been preaching on some of these guys - they need time! |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 11, 2015 17:30:19 GMT
My issue is that it was considered the deepest draft which has panned out. But there wasn't a LBJ level guy in it to denote starting a rookie off as a great starter. That is once again stretching it J. Who did we start off as a great starter? The highest ratings are what, 80 or 81? And those two guys look more or less deserving of them now IMO. I get Parker is hurt but he was coming around before then. Maybe it is just disagreeing on terminology but "great starters" are like 83-86 guys. We started off the two best guys who MANY had thought were star level players as solid, mid level starters. IMO we got those two right more or less, it just took both some time to prove it, which is what I've been preaching on some of these guys - they need time! You know the only reason my idea doesn't have more support is because there are a bunch of playoff teams in the league who are using over inflated rooks on thier rosters. |
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
New Orleans Pelicans
Minnesota Timberwolves
