|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Dec 21, 2015 19:25:26 GMT
He's right there with Knight and Bledsoe. Mid 80s is fair for now.
85
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 21, 2015 20:03:04 GMT
Love Isaiah he is so dynamic and has been a huge reason for the Celtics being competitive so quick. However he may be the worst defender in the NBA due to his size and he has some tendencies to ball hog. I think he's a step below Knight and Bledsoe. 82
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Dec 21, 2015 20:30:50 GMT
He is good, but not great. I do not think he is even close to Knight or Bledsoe in terms of skill. My vote is an 81.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Dec 21, 2015 20:53:39 GMT
83
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Colangelo on Dec 21, 2015 21:02:27 GMT
82
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 20:57:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2015 21:22:58 GMT
We can make him an offensive player as good as Knight or Bledsoe with an 80 rating, where would be put the rest of the points  |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 22, 2015 0:32:46 GMT
82
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane Battier on Dec 22, 2015 2:55:30 GMT
81
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Dec 22, 2015 3:47:54 GMT
He's real good on offense, his assists and turnovers are better than Bledsoe, Knight, and Walker(has slightly better turnover %). He can score like no man that small that we've seen in a long time. He's just THAT bad at defense.
It will be a challenge for Walt to create a player thats very good on offense that is just a near 0 on defense.
I'm going to say 80. But if he ends up a few points higher or lower based on how we have to design him you won't hear me crying.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 20, 2016 18:34:22 GMT
Again, if this vote is still open, I'm saying 84 now. 13th in scoring is impressive even on 42% shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Jan 20, 2016 19:33:41 GMT
MVP for his playoff bound team
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 20, 2016 22:58:00 GMT
81. Other than scoring and playmaking, where will the other skill points go??
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Jan 20, 2016 23:40:08 GMT
80. Other than scoring and playmaking, where will the other skill points go?? Hmmm I'm sure between Offensive Awareness Field Goals 3 Pointers Free Throws Passing Ball Handling Inside Scoring Speed Quickness we can find soome areas to improve upon |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 20, 2016 23:48:08 GMT
80. Other than scoring and playmaking, where will the other skill points go?? Hmmm I'm sure between Offensive Awareness Field Goals 3 Pointers Free Throws Passing Ball Handling Inside Scoring Speed Quickness we can find soome areas to improve upon I changed my vote, I think 1 skill points should be enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 21, 2016 0:27:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Jan 29, 2016 6:00:30 GMT
All Star Reserve.
Congrats IT2:)
|
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Feb 9, 2016 17:51:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Roy on Feb 12, 2016 7:22:39 GMT
85.. he deserves it
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Feb 13, 2016 19:03:59 GMT
85
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 13, 2016 20:13:11 GMT
In other words, first of all he's an 81 based on this thread. Someone needs to put up a new one. Also, look at the link in this post. Where do you want to put 60 points for those of you rating him an 85? |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 14, 2016 4:07:26 GMT
In other words, first of all he's an 81 based on this thread. Someone needs to put up a new one. Also, look at the link in this post. Where do you want to put 60 points for those of you rating him an 85? A. this thread should have been closed. B. if we are to add 60 points to him, they would end up going in areas that he isnt good in, like rebounding, and end up overrating him in those areas, and it just becomes dumb. He's rated appropriately. The only arguement someone could make is increasing his rebounding, but that would only be by a small margin. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Feb 14, 2016 4:24:36 GMT
In other words, first of all he's an 81 based on this thread. Someone needs to put up a new one. Also, look at the link in this post. Where do you want to put 60 points for those of you rating him an 85? A. this thread should have been closed. B. if we are to add 60 points to him, they would end up going in areas that he isnt good in, like rebounding, and end up overrating him in those areas, and it just becomes dumb. He's rated appropriately. The only arguement someone could make is increasing his rebounding, but that would only be by a small margin. I could see a 1 point increase, and 2 points (an 83 rating) would be super maxed out for him IMO. Too much so. But, 4 more points? Honestly ridiculous! Just have a face the facts of our rating system people. I'd love for everyone to get a better understanding of the individual categories and what real-life stats equate (roughly) to what in-game ratings. IT2 just really doesn't have many other areas to put points on. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 14, 2016 5:33:40 GMT
What a lot of people fail to understand is that the number next to their name does not mean a lot.
Like I said in the Middleton thread, to be above an 85, IMO, you need to do 3-4 things very very well. And that's because that is where the points have to go.
Say a guy scores 30 a game, has no assists, no boards, plays terrible defense, shoots 90 from the FT line, 50 from the field, and 40 from three.
The guy is only going to get 3 things above a 90: FG Shoot, 3PT, and FT. The next thing we would increase would be O-Aware, and it would be hard to validate a large number in that area without any assists, great off-the-ball movement, and a demonstration of BBall IQ.
When we first change a guy, the first thing we make sure is correct is the physical attributes, and then if we don't have enough points to make the strengths correct, we lower the weaknesses or other sub par areas.
If anything, we could take IT2's physical attributes down a tad to even up the rebounding.
He doesn't do enough beyond score and facilitate at an All-Star caliber level to warrant other areas being above an 85 in his attributes, and that is where the points would need to go because his FG/3PT/Pass/Dribble/O-Aware are all on the right levels.
|
|
Larry Bird
 Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on Feb 14, 2016 14:31:10 GMT
So, you're saying our scale for the players is skewed and should be about 3-4 points lower across the board?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 30, 2024 20:57:43 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 14:51:56 GMT
I'm now going to start rating players based on height.
59
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Feb 15, 2016 0:14:45 GMT
So, you're saying our scale for the players is skewed and should be about 3-4 points lower across the board? No. I am saying that whatever the player is rated from the stock watch, that's how many points they get. And that the voters should be aware of how the RC works. 15 Attribute points = 1 OVR point. So a guy goes up 4 OVR, he gets 60 attribute points. Everyone can go look at the completed changes right? Well, if a player from that list, which is a lot of players, comes up on the Stock Watch, look at his completed changes and see where the points should go. In IT2's case, he doesn't have a lot of room for more points. "But Charles, he's an All-Star, and he's really good!!!" Yeah, I know he is good. But what areas is he good in? If it isn't multiple layers, like scoring AND rebounding. Or Scoring AND off-the ball movement, BBall IQ, then there isn't going to be a lot of areas needed for points. That is why scoring guards, who are just straight up, pure scorers that aren't great on defense, don't get many assists, that just straight up score, are only going to be a max of like 82, even if he scores 40 a game. And that is why wing players, our 7 category, "multi-talented wing" needs more points than one would think. Because when we go to put the points in for guys that score at a good percentage, rebound, play good defense, have a good IQ, get some assists, that's legit 8-10 areas we need to put the points in. And it leaves PGs, like CP or Wall, and bigs, like Drummond or Whiteside/DeAndre, appropriately rated. Because those guys are good scorers at a good percentage for the position they play and rebound or pass well as well as get decent steal/block numbers. One might argue that the PGs also need high O-Aware and Dribbiling/Passing, well, the bigs get decent steal numbers and have a high dunk as well as more strength. In like any democratic system where the people vote, the voter needs to be educated for the system to work properly. Looking at stats and deciding on a number isn't where this NEEDS to end for the voter. The voter should also consider about where the points need to go. It isn't so much a problem in a 1 or 2 point increase, but it becomes a problem when we throw 4-7 points on a guy who is already an 82 and doesn't do a lot of things great. |
|
|
|
Post by JR Wiles on Mar 4, 2016 20:18:18 GMT
More news:
The Boston Celtics aren’t slowing down, and Isaiah Thomas is the man who sets their pace. The 5’9″ point guard has consistently stepped up in the face of adversity, leading Boston in the clutch and providing a steady impact as both a scorer and a facilitator.
A first-time All-Star in 2015-16, Boston’s success and Thomas’ leadership are making it very hard to justify a potential omission from the All-NBA teams.
Thomas is No. 13 in the NBA in scoring and No. 9 in assists per game. He accounts for 35.3 percent of the Celtics’ total offense, and that doesn’t account for the vast number of possessions during which he serves as a decoy and forces the defense to collapse.
Thomas is also No. 12 in the Association in Win Shares, which is an accurate reflection of what he’s provided Boston with.
A team that’s generally regarded as deep with no star, Boston is riding Thomas’ influence to the postseason. The 37-25 Celtics are just 6.5 games back of the No. 1 seed and are in somewhat firm control of the No. 3 seed in the Eastern Conference.
Anything is possible from hereon out, but a team that’s 12 games above .500 is as close to legitimate as they come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Mar 4, 2016 22:24:47 GMT
Can we just close this thread? he's already been changed.
If you want to increase him again, please make a new thread, JR
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Mar 6, 2016 0:24:18 GMT
Agreed with Charles, and, take a look at his current ratings and tell me where he REALLY needs the points to more accurately represent who he is IRL?
I've been an IT2 fan for a loooong time, since the 2nd half of the first season that he got some run in Sacramento. I just think some players have limitations or a focused game that is wonderful, but may not manifest itself in a super high rating.
|
|
New Orleans Pelicans
Charlotte Hornets
Toronto Raptors
Minnesota Timberwolves
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston Celtics
