|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 3:09:37 GMT
Alright guys I think we all know how many problems have resulted from the new rookie ratings. I propose that we either institute a cap or do a maybe a stepping scale of ratings whoever gets picked will be at. For example first 3 picks are 75 overall automatically. Next three are 74 next three are 73 all the way to pick 30 who ends up at a 65. Then all 2nd rounders are 64. Each player gets some strengths and a lot of weaknesses just like real life.
We then review a month into the season. If a second rounder is doing OK (think KJ Daniels this season) they get a boost up to 70. We mostly review the late rounders and see if any of them are obviously exceeding any of their ratings and boost them up to 70 as well. All the other 1-15 (70 OVR to 75 ovr) judgement is reserved till the all star break when they are either boosted up to a 78-79 or dropped down to a 70 with the overachieving late rounders.
This is will have two effects. Our rookies will be rookies in the way they are in real life. And be seeing the lower ovrs regularly will help give us more range in terms of rating other players. If we all know 70 is the average rookie then we can say hey I don't feel so bad about this role player being ranked 75. Because we have role players who are much better than rookies rated the same.
Just an idea.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 3:17:35 GMT
I don't know about the stepping scale, picks in d5 vs picks in IRL, which one do you go with? I do however, agree with the cap. The top 10 players shouldn't be rated 75+.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 3:22:19 GMT
I don't know about the stepping scale, picks in d5 vs picks in IRL, which one do you go with? I do however, agree with the cap. The top 10 players shouldn't be rated 75+. The whole point of this is everyone knows exactly what's gonna happen with the ratings and when to focus on which players so no one can get pissed. Plus I'd rather have a few underrated rookies than a bunch of overrated ones like we have now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 3:25:07 GMT
Yeah, rating rookies seems to be a crapshoot. I think, when it comes right down to it, and this opens up a can of worms... but overall ratings don't really fucking matter. It's the individual ratings that matter. I think Walt has a pretty good system set up for stats ---> individual ratings. I think we need a system of college production ---> individual ratings. i.e so many blocks per game = a certain blocking ratings.
however, this is beyond discussion among 30 people, but I think it is the only way to go that is consistent. I think walt will find a good balance. I do agree with a 75 overall cap, unless Lebron is in the draft.\
The problem with translating college stats to ratings however, is SOS becomes so much more of a problem than in NBA stats. So you could get really complicated and count Big 12 stats as 1.4x SEC stats or whatever, but that would be impossible. Your system is simpler, but way less accurate. I think a cap, while still paying attention to individual ratings is important. I think that a project athlete taken no 2 overall shouldn't be rated higher than a highly productive player taken number 5 overall... but that is just me.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 3:35:28 GMT
Yeah, rating rookies seems to be a crapshoot. I think, when it comes right down to it, and this opens up a can of worms... but overall ratings don't really fucking matter. It's the individual ratings that matter. I think Walt has a pretty good system set up for stats ---> individual ratings. I think we need a system of college production ---> individual ratings. i.e so many blocks per game = a certain blocking ratings. however, this is beyond discussion among 30 people, but I think it is the only way to go that is consistent. I think walt will find a good balance. I do agree with a 75 overall cap, unless Lebron is in the draft.\ The problem with translating college stats to ratings however, is SOS becomes so much more of a problem than in NBA stats. So you could get really complicated and count Big 12 stats as 1.4x SEC stats or whatever, but that would be impossible. Your system is simpler, but way less accurate. I think a cap, while still paying attention to individual ratings is important. I think that a project athlete taken no 2 overall shouldn't be rated higher than a highly productive player taken number 5 overall... but that is just me. I think that's why having players automatically rated whatever rating based on where they were drafted is the most fair. Getting players in at lower OVR solves a bunch of issues. I think the majority of players spend the first 1-3 years of their career at a sub 70 level because they don't get minutes or whatever than out of nowhere you have a guy like Anderson Varejao or a Milsap out performing much of their draft class. But that happened a few years after each was drafted. They both floated at a low level role player a few years before reaching good starter and all star level production. Plus us with this rating scale you play the odds that most likely that player won't do enough to deserve a change in either direction. Then when they break out the next season or even 2 or 3 seasons later you approach it with a rating change thread and just get them switched over.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 3:37:58 GMT
You know what, I agree with you 100%.
Rate rookies super shitty. Then if they do well in the first two months, just start a damn thread about the 3-4 rookies that don't blow and rate them higher. It's WAY better than rating all of the rookies super high and then waiting a whole year (walt?) to rate the 40 rookies that sucks/don't have playing time lower like they should be.
Makes perfect sense. You go, Jeremiah.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 3:38:23 GMT
Then we have a clear rating level to approach other players with, IE 65-70 ovr players are projects/end of the bench dudes who don't have a huge role in real life or here. Then you have your 70-74 guys being projects recently upgraded to being ok role players who play 10-15 productive minutes a game or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 3:41:44 GMT
Yep. It makes perfect sense from a utility standpoint too. The people who have super good rookies are looking to tank anyway, they don't want a 77 rated marcus smart... Rate them all shitty, and then if a rookie proves they belong rate them higher. It makes WAY less work and WAY more sense, than to rate them all highly and then try to take 40+ rookies down to the level they should be.
The Plumlee scale, if mason plumlee is a 74, how the fuck can you rate any rookie above that?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 4:06:41 GMT
Yep. It makes perfect sense from a utility standpoint too. The people who have super good rookies are looking to tank anyway, they don't want a 77 rated marcus smart... Rate them all shitty, and then if a rookie proves they belong rate them higher. It makes WAY less work and WAY more sense, than to rate them all highly and then try to take 40+ rookies down to the level they should be. The Plumlee scale, if mason plumlee is a 74, how the fuck can you rate any rookie above that? The Plumlee scale is flawed because there is two of them and I never know which one we are talking about at a given moment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 4:11:49 GMT
the one that isnt worthless. also, there are 3 of them
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 7, 2015 4:46:31 GMT
I would say, this year is a learning experience. However I actually think I/we met the goal we set out with originally, which was to make this class similar to how the normal NBA Live rookie class would have been. At least for a class that hyped.
Anyway, I am pretty confident we can get a better class next year w/o giving such a rigid "first 3 guys are 75, next 3 74, etc etc". It will probably be close to something like that, but I don't think we should be so locked in. Some years you have only 2 great guys. Then there are 8 players everyone thinks are basically the same overall value. Jeremiah's suggestion is just too rigid, but if the league as a whole is so strongly against the old NBA Live scale, we can bring them all down. I would just rate them about how I think, and then go and take 2-4 points off every category, and voila. Your top guys would be well under 80 at that point.
The other route we can take is to actually rate them ALL even lower than a 75. I'm kind of referring back to a conversation Alex was bringing up in one of the rookie threads awhile back. Make them all low and adjust up (or maybe down) as needed. But, I think a strict scale or strict cap is just going to set up disagreements when we do have the exceptions to the "rule".
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 7, 2015 4:56:31 GMT
The Plumlee scale, if mason plumlee is a 74, how the fuck can you rate any rookie above that? Mason Plumlee is way better than a 74.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 6:17:06 GMT
I would say, this year is a learning experience. However I actually think I/we met the goal we set out with originally, which was to make this class similar to how the normal NBA Live rookie class would have been. At least for a class that hyped. Anyway, I am pretty confident we can get a better class next year w/o giving such a rigid "first 3 guys are 75, next 3 74, etc etc". It will probably be close to something like that, but I don't think we should be so locked in. Some years you have only 2 great guys. Then there are 8 players everyone thinks are basically the same overall value. Jeremiah's suggestion is just too rigid, but if the league as a whole is so strongly against the old NBA Live scale, we can bring them all down. I would just rate them about how I think, and then go and take 2-4 points off every category, and voila. Your top guys would be well under 80 at that point.
The other route we can take is to actually rate them ALL even lower than a 75. I'm kind of referring back to a conversation Alex was bringing up in one of the rookie threads awhile back. Make them all low and adjust up (or maybe down) as needed. But, I think a strict scale or strict cap is just going to set up disagreements when we do have the exceptions to the "rule". ----------------- Contrary to popular believe I think you guys did a good job with how the rookies play within the SIM. However the the way we currently have it is just as rigid. IE not changing the ratings till the offseason. I think you can give plenty of strengths and weaknesses within the scope of a 65-75 overall. Everyone gets a few strengths and you leave the rest more or less terrible. The way we have it set up now there isn't anywhere to take the rating if they get better or worse. Like if one of our 70 ovr rookies gets worse we really can't do anything because that's the lowest we are willing to go. If Wiggins gets better than he is we really can't in good conscience give him a boost because he's already the same rating as others doing better than him.
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Feb 7, 2015 13:37:14 GMT
I would say, this year is a learning experience. However I actually think I/we met the goal we set out with originally, which was to make this class similar to how the normal NBA Live rookie class would have been. At least for a class that hyped. Anyway, I am pretty confident we can get a better class next year w/o giving such a rigid "first 3 guys are 75, next 3 74, etc etc". It will probably be close to something like that, but I don't think we should be so locked in. Some years you have only 2 great guys. Then there are 8 players everyone thinks are basically the same overall value. Jeremiah's suggestion is just too rigid, but if the league as a whole is so strongly against the old NBA Live scale, we can bring them all down. I would just rate them about how I think, and then go and take 2-4 points off every category, and voila. Your top guys would be well under 80 at that point. The other route we can take is to actually rate them ALL even lower than a 75. I'm kind of referring back to a conversation Alex was bringing up in one of the rookie threads awhile back. Make them all low and adjust up (or maybe down) as needed. But, I think a strict scale or strict cap is just going to set up disagreements when we do have the exceptions to the "rule". I think that will be too much work for RCs if we go with Alex's route. I will go with simply copying 2Ks rating at the start then adjust as necessary. In that case nobody will need to be holding the burden of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 7, 2015 13:59:16 GMT
I don't like the systems you guys are presenting. A tiered system like Jeremiah is suggesting is too regimented, basing it on stats like Adam Collins is suggesting doesn't count for guys like Zach LaVine last year who sat the bench all season but were clearly NBA material.
Rookie ratings are inherently going to be flawed in absolutely anything, even NBA 2k and NBA Live. I think we overrated them this year, there were far too many over 70, but in general we did a good job. It can be worked on and improved next season. When it comes to player ratings I actually prefer it all to be manually done by us, we're much better judges than some arbitrary system.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 14:35:49 GMT
New idea: The rookies rating shouldn't be higher than the guy they are sitting behind.
Why is TJ Warren rated higher than Marcus Morris if he can't even sniff the court because of Marcus Morris?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 7, 2015 14:48:19 GMT
New idea: The rookies rating shouldn't be higher than the guy they are sitting behind. Why is TJ Warren rated higher than Marcus Morris if he can't even sniff the court because of Marcus Morris? Different strengths and weaknesses? The suns just want a guy who is good at 3's to play there right now, and that is not one of TJ's strengths, which is also reflected in his ratings. Just gave Marcus a new contract? There are a myriad of reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 14:53:23 GMT
New idea: The rookies rating shouldn't be higher than the guy they are sitting behind. Why is TJ Warren rated higher than Marcus Morris if he can't even sniff the court because of Marcus Morris? Different strengths and weaknesses? The suns just want a guy who is good at 3's to play there right now, and that is not one of TJ's strengths, which is also reflected in his ratings. Just gave Marcus a new contract? There are a myriad of reasons. And all of these point to one being much better than the other, imo. What position do you think TJ warren would be playing? His best chance to ever see the floor is as a slasher at the 3 off the bench. ... but apparently the Suns like MM better for their bench slot. that has to do with his skillset, clearly, but it also speaks of TJ Warrens skills. NBA teams put their best players on the floor, the ones that give them the best chance to win. MM is a better SF than TJ Warren at this point, as evidenced by the FO of Phoenix, the rotation of phoenix, and the fact that TJ Warren doesn't even play during blowouts. And even if everything I said is wrong, and everything you said is right... it still doesn't justify him being rated higher than MM. It just justifies his rating being different.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 7, 2015 15:15:00 GMT
Different strengths and weaknesses? The suns just want a guy who is good at 3's to play there right now, and that is not one of TJ's strengths, which is also reflected in his ratings. Just gave Marcus a new contract? There are a myriad of reasons. And all of these point to one being much better than the other, imo. What position do you think TJ warren would be playing? His best chance to ever see the floor is as a slasher at the 3 off the bench. ... but apparently the Suns like MM better for their bench slot. that has to do with his skillset, clearly, but it also speaks of TJ Warrens skills. NBA teams put their best players on the floor, the ones that give them the best chance to win. MM is a better SF than TJ Warren at this point, as evidenced by the FO of Phoenix, the rotation of phoenix, and the fact that TJ Warren doesn't even play during blowouts. And even if everything I said is wrong, and everything you said is right... it still doesn't justify him being rated higher than MM. It just justifies his rating being different. My point is more like, as a crazy example - The Hawks somehow magically have Chandler Parsons on their team now. Accept that and move on. Do you think they stop playing Korver at the 3? I think Parsons would be a bench guy for them even though everyone thinks Parsons is better. Hell I bet Kyle Korver thinks Parsons is a better overall player than Kyle Korver! But, the Hawks want that 3 point shooter and Kyle is the best at that so there you go. Overall ratings actually do not always mean the player with the higher rating is a better player. They could have more points on athleticism. Maybe one guy has a pass and handle rating of 15 and 20, and the other has ratings of 29 and 34. Both are not good there, but the 2nd guy is now 2 full ovr rating points better than the first.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 15:23:46 GMT
And all of these point to one being much better than the other, imo. What position do you think TJ warren would be playing? His best chance to ever see the floor is as a slasher at the 3 off the bench. ... but apparently the Suns like MM better for their bench slot. that has to do with his skillset, clearly, but it also speaks of TJ Warrens skills. NBA teams put their best players on the floor, the ones that give them the best chance to win. MM is a better SF than TJ Warren at this point, as evidenced by the FO of Phoenix, the rotation of phoenix, and the fact that TJ Warren doesn't even play during blowouts. And even if everything I said is wrong, and everything you said is right... it still doesn't justify him being rated higher than MM. It just justifies his rating being different. My point is more like, as a crazy example - The Hawks somehow magically have Chandler Parsons on their team now. Accept that and move on. Do you think they stop playing Korver at the 3? I think Parsons would be a bench guy for them even though everyone thinks Parsons is better. Hell I bet Kyle Korver thinks Parsons is a better overall player than Kyle Korver! But, the Hawks want that 3 point shooter and Kyle is the best at that so there you go. Overall ratings actually do not always mean the player with the higher rating is a better player. They could have more points on athleticism. Maybe one guy has a pass and handle rating of 15 and 20, and the other has ratings of 29 and 34. Both are not good there, but the 2nd guy is now 2 full ovr rating points better than the first. Thats all well, and good. And I respect that idea. But without that information, the only thing I have to go on is overall ratings... and the overall rating says that TJ warren is better than MM, even though he doesn't find a minute on the floor at any position, in almost any situation.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 16:29:47 GMT
And all of these point to one being much better than the other, imo. What position do you think TJ warren would be playing? His best chance to ever see the floor is as a slasher at the 3 off the bench. ... but apparently the Suns like MM better for their bench slot. that has to do with his skillset, clearly, but it also speaks of TJ Warrens skills. NBA teams put their best players on the floor, the ones that give them the best chance to win. MM is a better SF than TJ Warren at this point, as evidenced by the FO of Phoenix, the rotation of phoenix, and the fact that TJ Warren doesn't even play during blowouts. And even if everything I said is wrong, and everything you said is right... it still doesn't justify him being rated higher than MM. It just justifies his rating being different. My point is more like, as a crazy example - The Hawks somehow magically have Chandler Parsons on their team now. Accept that and move on. Do you think they stop playing Korver at the 3? I think Parsons would be a bench guy for them even though everyone thinks Parsons is better. Hell I bet Kyle Korver thinks Parsons is a better overall player than Kyle Korver! But, the Hawks want that 3 point shooter and Kyle is the best at that so there you go. Overall ratings actually do not always mean the player with the higher rating is a better player. They could have more points on athleticism. Maybe one guy has a pass and handle rating of 15 and 20, and the other has ratings of 29 and 34. Both are not good there, but the 2nd guy is now 2 full ovr rating points better than the first. ------------------------------ This example is flawed because A. We all know about both Korver and Parsons and a changed situation is much easier to analyze and figure out because they are established in the league. To be fair Korver is a 3pt specialist and Everyman at most everything else. Parsons has slightly better passing and is a bit taller but in reality isn't THAT much better than Korver. And it's arguable. However in Collins example we have a player who doesn't play at all being rated better than a player that actually has a role on an NBA team. So far the only arguement for that is basically well we don't really know if TJ is worse than MM. Well that's not an arguement. Ratings are meant to reflect what's going on in the real NBA and in the real NBA TJ Warren doesn't play a lick and should be down by about 7-8 points with the other players in this league who don't play in the NBA. The way ratings are set up now there is no room for upward mobility in terms of the ratings for rookies. If Wiggins comes back next season and does better than this season. Guess what you can't raise him up because he's already rated the same or higher than other players who are already outperforming and contributing more than he is. I know the ratings shouldn't be used as a pure ranking system between players but it really is at least a little bit. Now in my system literally none of this is an issue. You have the majority of guys start off low 70's high 60's and you pull them up when they actually start to contribute to a real team. This has several positive effects. People get very obviously rewarded for making good draft choices who come out and succeed right away. If you draft a project who is gonna need a year or two then you are gonna have to hold onto a bad player a few years not just get a free role player who can play minutes on a good team. It lowers the OVR throughout the league gradually increasing the viability of players rated in the 70-78 range. And why is the 3 player tiers so restrictive. You can have several strengths at a 75 and the three players can have very different strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Feb 7, 2015 16:31:04 GMT
I have maintained that you guys did a great job rating and ranking the rookies I feel the misstep was how those ratings fit within the current ratings landscape in the league.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 7, 2015 16:38:48 GMT
The whole point behind this idea is that it brings real-life circumstances to the sim. Why should any rookie help a team out in the sim who doesn't even play in real-life? To me, it just doesn't make sense. If they were that good, they would be playing in real-life regardless of the situation. By having rookies rated 77 etc, it makes them able to contribute in the sim where they wouldn't in real-life.
For example, Ty Warren put up 26 points in his last sim game. To me, this makes no sense at all. I understand the whole "it's a sim and it's random sometimes", but if he wasn't a 76, that would never happen. The ratings for rookies really almost have to be structured in a different way where playing time is taken into consideration. Everyone here understands basketball to a degree and we all can see potential in most rookies, but there is a point where rating based on potential is making the sim unrealistic. To me, someone like Shroeder should be rated higher than all of these other rookies who don't even play.
This would make it more realistic if that is the point and degree to which the sim is trying to hit on. If not, we will have rookies with "potential" putting up 20 points a game in the sim, when in fact they might be a dud in real life. I think a lot of people retain the idea as "you don't have any sample to lower his rating". However, if you look on the other side of the things, you also don't know he is going to be any good, so why should he help a team out in the sim? It is almost the same situation as someone like Emeka Okafor is in with the league.
I stand 100% behind a system where rookies are rated lower based on real life usage.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 16:47:37 GMT
Jeremiah and Kevin are 100% right.
Rookies that have never contributed in the NBA shouldn't contribute in the sim.
Ian, your example about Zach Lavine is good, but whats wrong with just starting a thread and rating Lavine higher because he contributes in the NBA?
When it comes down to it, it is easier to rate 60 rookies around 70, and then increase the 7-8 that don't suck, then it is to rate most of them 70+ and decrease the ones that don't play.
I don't see how this isn't common sense...
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
Dec 16, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Feb 7, 2015 17:09:30 GMT
I don't like the systems you guys are presenting. A tiered system like Jeremiah is suggesting is too regimented, basing it on stats like Adam Collins is suggesting doesn't count for guys like Zach LaVine last year who sat the bench all season but were clearly NBA material. Rookie ratings are inherently going to be flawed in absolutely anything, even NBA 2k and NBA Live. I think we overrated them this year, there were far too many over 70, but in general we did a good job. It can be worked on and improved next season. When it comes to player ratings I actually prefer it all to be manually done by us, we're much better judges than some arbitrary system. If this is how we are to approach the ratings, based on what we feel they should be before we see them play, then I think it is only fair to be able to adjust their rating mid season rather than at the end of the season. I think this is fair from both sides of the argument if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 7, 2015 21:17:31 GMT
I don't like the systems you guys are presenting. A tiered system like Jeremiah is suggesting is too regimented, basing it on stats like Adam Collins is suggesting doesn't count for guys like Zach LaVine last year who sat the bench all season but were clearly NBA material. Rookie ratings are inherently going to be flawed in absolutely anything, even NBA 2k and NBA Live. I think we overrated them this year, there were far too many over 70, but in general we did a good job. It can be worked on and improved next season. When it comes to player ratings I actually prefer it all to be manually done by us, we're much better judges than some arbitrary system. If this is how we are to approach the ratings, based on what we feel they should be before we see them play, then I think it is only fair to be able to adjust their rating mid season rather than at the end of the season. I think this is fair from both sides of the argument if you ask me. That would be better, but I'm leaving that call up to Walt Frazier, it's a hell of a job (although I suppose the job would at least only be restricted to the rookies we wanted to change halfway through...). What do you think Walt?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:56:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 21:34:29 GMT
If this is how we are to approach the ratings, based on what we feel they should be before we see them play, then I think it is only fair to be able to adjust their rating mid season rather than at the end of the season. I think this is fair from both sides of the argument if you ask me. That would be better, but I'm leaving that call up to Walt Frazier, it's a hell of a job (although I suppose the job would at least only be restricted to the rookies we wanted to change halfway through...). What do you think Walt? Walt, it's less work to just rate the vast majority of rookies lower and just raise the good ones... then rating a bunch of rookies high when each year only a few are actually any good and deserve their ratings. TJ Warren putting up 26 points in the sim this year is a BIG problem.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 7, 2015 22:52:43 GMT
I think the best course of action for next year is to take a look at NBA 2k's OVR ratings, and create our templates based off of their OVR's.
Jahill Okafor is going to have a high post presence and inside ability in our game, no matter how we slice up these rankings. The creation of the templates aren't going to change, the only thing that will change is how many points we have to work with.
I get that a player rated a 76 will play more than a player rated a 71, but what is most important is the fact that we create the proper template, regardless of the OVR points that are allotted to us.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 8, 2015 0:22:05 GMT
I may not have the time or words to adequately express the entirety of my thoughts here, but here goes at least some of it. I've been thinking about all of this a fair amount lately, some of my thoughts have changed somewhat, some have not, and on some things I am just willing to make compromise. I'll try to be as succinct as possible.
#1 - My opinion on the ratings is not an end-all be-all. I am the one doing most of the work but for the change threads, i like to think of myself just like any of you guys. I am just giving my opinion like everyone else. I suppose I could choose to not process them but that's not really how I work.
#2 - Next season I think the ratings should start out lower for the most part. We went a bit high, though I believe everyone had this class overrated, so we just went with that general idea. The most important part is that they are built well, and I think we nailed that. I could go through and just take every single individual rating down about 2 points and it would drop everyone 3-4 points probably. But I think we are past that.
#3 - I really do believe we should go easy on Rookie changes. Especially if they start lower, there will be less need for everyone to freak out. It needs to be pretty clear that they deserve a boost or a decrease. No posting threads after one month, which should probably go for all players actually. I actually have more ideas about all of that I won't go into right now. Maybe another thread....
Anyway, back on track - don't start thread too soon. And don't bash a player for playing 5 mpg and "only" averaging 3 points and 1.6 rebounds. Those stats mean nothing for a Rookie especially.
#4 - I'm going to sudden l soften my personal stance on Rookies who I believe have actually played enough to form an opinion on them. Stauskas is not a 77, let's bring him down.
I'm still not sure that the guys who have been in DLeague half the time or just riding bench behind more established players should really be touched though. Maybe let me adjust to one new thought process at a time haha.
I'll post more thoughts as I get them but I want to start a different thread now actually.
Also if I didn't really answer a question that was asked, ask it again and I'll get back to you guys.
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Feb 8, 2015 0:31:38 GMT
#2 - Next season I think the ratings should start out lower for the most part. We went a bit high, though I believe everyone had this class overrated, so we just went with that general idea. This is pretty much it imo. This might have been the most hyped class since 2003. Almost nobody has live up to expectations though, but I don't think we need to make any new rules about it. We just need to keep it in mind next year.
|
|