Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 13:45:07 GMT
As a Starting C:
13.7 ppg, 11.8rpg (3.7ORPG), 2.5 BPG
Comparisons:
Andre Drummond (82): 13.8 13.5 1.9
Deandre Jordan (83): 11.5 15 2.2
Dwight Howard (89): 15.8 10.5 1.2
All stats are only counted from games started in the 2014-2015 season.
Current Rating: 75
Suggested Rating: 80
He is averaging 9.4 7.5 .9 in the sim oy vey
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 27, 2015 14:55:46 GMT
80
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 27, 2015 15:05:22 GMT
78
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 27, 2015 16:47:07 GMT
75. Those 'As a starter' stats are for 32 games. Why are you in such a hurry with this guy? It's been the same thing all the time with this guy. He has to create a track record for himself. He's fine at 75 until he can repeat his performance next season.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:51:06 GMT
75. Those 'As a starter' stats are for 32 games. Why are you in such a hurry with this guy? It's been the same thing all the time with this guy. He has to create a track record for himself. He's fine at 75 until he can repeat his performance next season. Why? Isn't the whole point to rate guys to how they perform? Why stagger it off by a whole year? The point of rating them lower is because you don't want to have to lower their rating next year. Thats the quoted reason by many people, to get an accurate rating moving forward to minimize further rating changes. Does anyone think he is a 75 next year? Anyone? You should put it in writing. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 27, 2015 17:12:01 GMT
Why? Isn't the whole point to rate guys to how they perform? Why stagger it off by a whole year? The point of rating them lower is because you don't want to have to lower their rating next year. Thats the quoted reason by many people, to get an accurate rating moving forward to minimize further rating changes. Does anyone think he is a 75 next year? Anyone? You should put it in writing. Yes it's about how they perform, but in the overall big picture scale. Players get hot and cold all the time. We'd be changing ratings every day if we based them off short term performances. That's bad not just because of how much work it creates, but also because it's futile and pointless. You'll be chasing a never ending mark of perfectly balancing their rating this week with how they performed. Also what's the point when you'll have an 85 guy raised to 88 after few week then dropped to 81 a few weeks after that, then back up to 85, then down to 79, then up to 92, and so on. Just leave him at the 85 until he establishes a new long term normal. NBA Live doesn't sim with a 100% relationship between ratings and performances. They get hot and cold in the game too. So we don't have to worry about small variances. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 17:13:16 GMT
Why? Isn't the whole point to rate guys to how they perform? Why stagger it off by a whole year? The point of rating them lower is because you don't want to have to lower their rating next year. Thats the quoted reason by many people, to get an accurate rating moving forward to minimize further rating changes. Does anyone think he is a 75 next year? Anyone? You should put it in writing. Yes it's about how they perform, but in the overall big picture scale. Players get hot and cold all the time. We'd be changing ratings every day if we based them off short term performances. That's bad not just because of how much work it creates, but also because it's futile and pointless. You'll be chasing a never ending mark of perfectly balancing their rating this week with how they performed. Also what's the point when you'll have an 85 guy raised to 88 after few week then dropped to 81 a few weeks after that, then back up to 85, then down to 79, then up to 92, and so on. Just leave him at the 85 until he establishes a new long term normal. NBA Live doesn't sim with a 100% relationship between ratings and performances. They get hot and cold in the game too. So we don't have to worry about small variances. This is exactly what I'm saying... And I just want to make sure you think 75 will be his normal next year, and not an 80. Because thats what you're saying with that vote... I mean he played like an 83-84 this year... |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 27, 2015 17:17:47 GMT
This is exactly what I'm saying... And I just want to make sure you think 75 will be his normal next year, and not an 80. Because thats what you're saying with that vote... I mean he played like an 83-84 this year... Yea pretty much, I think 75 is fine for him until like half way through next season when we got more data. The problem with Whiteside specifically, is you half to balance his 80+ performance level over what little time he did play with absolutely nothing because the guy wasn't in the league for a couple years. A normal level of performance doesn't exist for Whiteside because he hardly has any experience. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 17:24:33 GMT
This is exactly what I'm saying... And I just want to make sure you think 75 will be his normal next year, and not an 80. Because thats what you're saying with that vote... I mean he played like an 83-84 this year... Yea pretty much, I think 75 is fine for him until like half way through next season when we got more data. The problem with Whiteside specifically, is you half to balance his 80+ performance level over what little time he did play with absolutely nothing because the guy wasn't in the league for a couple years. A normal level of performance doesn't exist for Whiteside because he hardly has any experience. Im confused, You said the point of rating people conservatively like this is to minimize changing their ratings in the future. You honestly think that we will be less likely to need to change his rating next year if he is a 75 than an 80? The whole point of making someone "prove it" is to minimize future rating changes... |
|
Spike Lee
Former Knicks GM
Sophomore
Posts: 366 
|
Post by Spike Lee on Apr 27, 2015 17:29:30 GMT
81
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 27, 2015 17:36:58 GMT
You honestly think that we will be less likely to need to change his rating next year if he is a 75 than an 80? Yes. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 17:37:54 GMT
You honestly think that we will be less likely to need to change his rating next year if he is a 75 than an 80? Yes. Well then ignore all my bitching. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Apr 27, 2015 19:17:56 GMT
75 - we just gave him a bump. We can't keep creating thread after thread.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 3:17:10 GMT
75 - we just gave him a bump. We can't keep creating thread after thread. Kawhi leonards rating was changed just a few months ago... |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Apr 28, 2015 3:54:31 GMT
Whiteside's change was literally last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 28, 2015 4:05:36 GMT
Well then ignore all my bitching. We have been. Dude 75 is pretty good for a player you found in free agency in the middle of the season. If we are a month or two into next season and Whiteside is doing the same things the he'll be the first one to get a bump. You have to understand that the people who do ratings changes do it in their spare time. If we change his rating to an 80. If you think that Drummond is overrated then make a post about him. I'm closing this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 28, 2015 13:18:01 GMT
...Can you just...can you do that? |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 28, 2015 16:05:17 GMT
...Can you just...can you do that? Not sure. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 16:29:23 GMT
...Can you just...can you do that? Not sure. You can do anything you set your mind to  |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 28, 2015 23:52:54 GMT
I also close this thread. For real though.
I'm not going to count the ratings for it so that basically closes it. It's too damn soon.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 0:19:52 GMT
Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 0:24:13 GMT
just make sure when making rookie ratings this offseason that you don't rate anyone over a 75. How stupid is it to give a rookie a rating higher than someone that put up elite stats for half a NBA season in the NBA. If tj warren and shit like that wasn't rated >75 I wouldn't be so annoyed at whitesides rating
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 0:34:46 GMT
If "prove it" is the moniker be consistent. That's all I ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 29, 2015 1:12:05 GMT
just make sure when making rookie ratings this offseason that you don't rate anyone over a 75. How stupid is it to give a rookie a rating higher than someone that put up elite stats for half a NBA season in the NBA. If tj warren and shit like that wasn't rated >75 I wouldn't be so annoyed at whitesides rating This is the only part of your argument I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 29, 2015 1:22:40 GMT
We're already talking about taking a different look at the rookies, but thank you for your commands, my lord of Collins.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 1:46:10 GMT
just make sure when making rookie ratings this offseason that you don't rate anyone over a 75. How stupid is it to give a rookie a rating higher than someone that put up elite stats for half a NBA season in the NBA. If tj warren and shit like that wasn't rated >75 I wouldn't be so annoyed at whitesides rating This is the only part of your argument I agree with. i only argue whitesides ratings relative to his peers, i don't care if he is rated a 50 as long as someone who has proven it 50 games less than he has is not rated higher. And thanks, walt. I don't mean to be a dick, well I kinda mean to be a dick, but only in a jest type way. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Apr 29, 2015 1:58:18 GMT
We're already talking about taking a different look at the rookies, but thank you for your commands, my lord of Collins. To be fair the players who did actually get minutes actually are performing similar in D5 even if I think their OVRs are too high their stats (FG% and stuff like that not so much points). |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Apr 29, 2015 4:09:49 GMT
Basically, here's the summary on the Rookies this season.
Were they a little high? Yea maybe in some cases, though in others, tbh, no.
Most importantly, we created them correctly. Old classes have guys like Olynyk whose distribution of points makes him look like he's a 6'4" combo guard. There is absolutely NONE of that in our created class this season.
This entire draft class fooled EVERYONE, not just the Secret Council of the Elders of D5. We created them based on what they were supposed to be, and for the most part, we were spot on...they just either didn't live up to it OR in MOST cases, didn't get the PT to prove they were the player we rated them as in the beginning.
Back to that most important point, even if we do lower them all 3 points, they are made really well, and we would probably take points away from areas that are already weak and keep their strengths pretty damn close to where they are. In most cases anyway.
So, don't get TOO caught up in the OVR. That's #1
#2 is that we will be a little more conservative with next year's class but next year's class doesn't have the hype that this year's class had so that just makes sense anyway.
Point C would be that the players are created well so you are all welcome :-p
But again, we really might try to look further into players who are "raw" having lower #'s, and I'm personally thinking of it with more of a "let them prove it" mindset. I don't mind rating them all very low and as soon as they prove it (well, after a month or two maybe) we can bump them up pretty quickly. Theoretically anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 7:11:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 4:21:14 GMT
But again, we really might try to look further into players who are "raw" having lower #'s, and I'm personally thinking of it with more of a "let them prove it" mindset. I don't mind rating them all very low and as soon as they prove it (well, after a month or two maybe) we can bump them up pretty quickly. Theoretically anyway. Love this idea, Walt. It just make 10000x more sense to make all the rookies low and upgrade the 6-7 that actually get playing time and "prove it". Instead of making all the rookies high and then having people complain that they are rated too high and having their owners bitching that if they got playing time they'd be rated higher. It's just less work for everyone. How many rookies "proved" their rating this season? Very very few. Giannis, Jabari (before injury), Nerlens, Elfrid Payton, Wiggins... thats about it. So in the future rate them all low and increase 6 guys, instead of rating 30 guys high and lowering 23 guys (or not lowering to the chagrin of people who have players that post elite stats in the NBA for months).  |
|
|
|
Post by Sam Bowie on Apr 29, 2015 4:22:54 GMT
 Why are you attaching that image, LOL?  |
|
Charlotte Hornets
New Orleans Pelicans
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
