|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 2, 2016 10:57:53 GMT
I just can't stand this individual rating.
D Aware = 91
I am not really asking for a rating deduction but more of correction. Eye test alone could tell you that Steph doesn't deserve a D Aware of more than 75.
I vote = 95
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 3, 2016 3:31:41 GMT
I just can't stand this individual rating. D Aware = 91 I am not really asking for a rating deduction but more of correction. Eye test alone could tell you that Steph doesn't deserve a D Aware of more than 75. There just aren't that many areas to throw his points, unfortunately. Give some recommendations for those 16 points? |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 3, 2016 4:23:56 GMT
I just can't stand this individual rating. D Aware = 91 I am not really asking for a rating deduction but more of correction. Eye test alone could tell you that Steph doesn't deserve a D Aware of more than 75. There just aren't that many areas to throw his points, unfortunately. Give some recommendations for those 16 points? If you cannot find any other areas, then a deduction is a must sir. We cannot let our Stephen Curry be a Klay Curry here. I vote 95, then. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Dec 3, 2016 4:28:59 GMT
Always thought injury rating should be greater than a 75 to allow improvements in other stats.,seems like the most logical approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 4, 2016 4:36:35 GMT
Always thought injury rating should be greater than a 75 to allow improvements in other stats.,seems like the most logical approach. I'm confused. Maybe I'm just beat / tired. If injury rating goes up, other stats need to go down. Not up (improve). |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Dec 5, 2016 5:31:59 GMT
Always thought injury rating should be greater than a 75 to allow improvements in other stats.,seems like the most logical approach. I'm confused. Maybe I'm just beat / tired. If injury rating goes up, other stats need to go down. Not up (improve). Yeah, you are right. The theory is that it would cause other stats to go down and you wouldn't run into problems of people capping like curry and him getting a way high d rating because it. Injury could be used to balance out some logical categories for people. It was only is thought: |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 5, 2016 6:31:19 GMT
I'm confused. Maybe I'm just beat / tired. If injury rating goes up, other stats need to go down. Not up (improve). Yeah, you are right. The theory is that it would cause other stats to go down and you wouldn't run into problems of people capping like curry and him getting a way high d rating because it. Injury could be used to balance out some logical categories for people. It was only is thought: It would be different if the vast majority of GMs understood how our ratings work. Instead they click the rosters tab, and see numbers to the left of a player's name and become outraged by it. Rather than understanding that a rating can be completely empty. Essentially, increasing/decreasing injury by ~16 would create a faux increase/decrease in to the overall rating of a player and people just don't seem to understand that. More so, in Curry's case, we cannot just have one person with an injury rating of 91 and the rest of the league pegged at 75, it is not fair. Now, if the RC had discretion to use the injury rating as a way to work around things like this, it would be different but no one trusts anyone here and everyone thinks people are cheating, so I doubt that occurs any time soon. Curry's D-Aware rating is what it is, and until there is a reasonable alternative to it being a 91, meaning he is decreased 1 overall, or there's some less strict guidelines for the RC, it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Dec 5, 2016 8:45:36 GMT
Yeah, you are right. The theory is that it would cause other stats to go down and you wouldn't run into problems of people capping like curry and him getting a way high d rating because it. Injury could be used to balance out some logical categories for people. It was only is thought: It would be different if the vast majority of GMs understood how our ratings work. Instead they click the rosters tab, and see numbers to the left of a player's name and become outraged by it. Rather than understanding that a rating can be completely empty. Essentially, increasing/decreasing injury by ~16 would create a faux increase/decrease in to the overall rating of a player and people just don't seem to understand that. More so, in Curry's case, we cannot just have one person with an injury rating of 91 and the rest of the league pegged at 75, it is not fair. Now, if the RC had discretion to use the injury rating as a way to work around things like this, it would be different but no one trusts anyone here and everyone thinks people are cheating, so I doubt that occurs any time soon. Curry's D-Aware rating is what it is, and until there is a reasonable alternative to it being a 91, meaning he is decreased 1 overall, or there's some less strict guidelines for the RC, it is what it is. So, we really need to decrease him by at least one, right? That 91 is really beyond reasons for me.. Knock knock to the others.. 95. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 5, 2016 12:24:50 GMT
I'm confused. Maybe I'm just beat / tired. If injury rating goes up, other stats need to go down. Not up (improve). Yeah, you are right. The theory is that it would cause other stats to go down and you wouldn't run into problems of people capping like curry and him getting a way high d rating because it. Injury could be used to balance out some logical categories for people. It was only is thought: Ah, now I got it. Thanks. Agreed with Charles though. And, we've probably come close at this point to having most of the players at a 70. It was a process (only updating injury rating when players got threads), so we could try to make a league-wide push to up everyone's rating to 75 or even 80, but I'm also doubting we can screw with just one player's rating there. Not fair to the owner of that player, etc. |
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Dec 5, 2016 12:26:54 GMT
Yeah, you are right. The theory is that it would cause other stats to go down and you wouldn't run into problems of people capping like curry and him getting a way high d rating because it. Injury could be used to balance out some logical categories for people. It was only is thought: It would be different if the vast majority of GMs understood how our ratings work. Instead they click the rosters tab, and see numbers to the left of a player's name and become outraged by it. Rather than understanding that a rating can be completely empty. Essentially, increasing/decreasing injury by ~16 would create a faux increase/decrease in to the overall rating of a player and people just don't seem to understand that. More so, in Curry's case, we cannot just have one person with an injury rating of 91 and the rest of the league pegged at 75, it is not fair. Now, if the RC had discretion to use the injury rating as a way to work around things like this, it would be different but no one trusts anyone here and everyone thinks people are cheating, so I doubt that occurs any time soon. Curry's D-Aware rating is what it is, and until there is a reasonable alternative to it being a 91, meaning he is decreased 1 overall, or there's some less strict guidelines for the RC, it is what it is. [ Understood; however, not everyone's rating is a 75 anyways. There are plenty of players whose injury rating Is higher than the static 75. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Dec 5, 2016 13:43:04 GMT
It would be different if the vast majority of GMs understood how our ratings work. Instead they click the rosters tab, and see numbers to the left of a player's name and become outraged by it. Rather than understanding that a rating can be completely empty. Essentially, increasing/decreasing injury by ~16 would create a faux increase/decrease in to the overall rating of a player and people just don't seem to understand that. More so, in Curry's case, we cannot just have one person with an injury rating of 91 and the rest of the league pegged at 75, it is not fair. Now, if the RC had discretion to use the injury rating as a way to work around things like this, it would be different but no one trusts anyone here and everyone thinks people are cheating, so I doubt that occurs any time soon. Curry's D-Aware rating is what it is, and until there is a reasonable alternative to it being a 91, meaning he is decreased 1 overall, or there's some less strict guidelines for the RC, it is what it is. [ Understood; however, not everyone's rating is a 75 anyways. There are plenty of players whose injury rating Is higher than the static 75. Simply for clarity's sake, the goal static rating is 70, not 75. Those over a 70 haven't had a rating change in 2 years (ish). |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Dec 6, 2016 2:57:17 GMT
[ Understood; however, not everyone's rating is a 75 anyways. There are plenty of players whose injury rating Is higher than the static 75. Simply for clarity's sake, the goal static rating is 70, not 75. Those over a 70 haven't had a rating change in 2 years (ish). In any case, the RC is not authorized to intrude into player ratings for which there has been no vote on said player's rating. By all means, put those players up and have people vote on them, as if they have not been updated in 2 years, I imagine they are due. It would be nice if the RC could just go in and adjust them, but even when a player receives no rating change on a thread, people take issue with the RC adjusting that player's ratings. I'm all for it, but it isn't up to just me |
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
Minnesota Timberwolves
