|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 2, 2017 15:37:22 GMT
Isaiah's not just a flash in the pan any more, he's having a sustained length of time as an elite player nowadays, capped by his 52 points the other night against Miami, and the Celtics are 3rd Seed in the East.
27.7ppg
6.1apg
45% FG
36% 3PT
5th in the League in PPG
Celtics 3rd Seed in the East
Current: 81
Proposed: 86
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 2, 2017 16:24:19 GMT
84. I have never been impressed with him when I watch. Just my opinion and others will definitely disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Jan 2, 2017 16:53:08 GMT
Kevin, couldn't disagree more. 86
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jan 2, 2017 17:45:58 GMT
I'm not sure he can keep up this scoring pace, but even if he drops off a bit, this should still be his third season averaging 20 and 6. Mid 80s is about right imo. He is an awful defender though.
85 for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 2, 2017 18:11:36 GMT
Of all the qualified players, Isaiah Thomas has the lowest TOV%, which is impressive given that we commonly associate scoring non-facilitating guards with have high turnover values. This is not the case with Isaiah.
His rebounds are down (-0.5) this season, probably contributing to Bradley's increase in boards. His steals are down (-0.2), his assists are down (-0.1), his turnovers are down (-0.4), and his 3PT % is down (-0.4%) His FT% is up (+3.3%), as is his FG% (+2.2%).
If you want to make a thread for a player 30 games in to the season, the stats that are down need to be incorporated in to the rating.
In all honesty, steals and assists being down, likely warrant no change to the stat, and probably make his true rating in the category accurate, as there was "too few points" to accurately demonstrate his RL statistics last season.
With his increase in points per game (+5.5), along with the increase to the FG% and decrease to his turnovers, I could see him needing 4 OVR points.
When adding in the likely needed decrease to rebounds and 3PT%, you could make an argument for him only needing 3 OVR points.
I'm going to split the difference and go with 3.5.
85.5
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jan 2, 2017 19:55:06 GMT
Kevin, couldn't disagree more. 86 All good. I have always felt he is more of a 6th man player. It will be interesting to see what happens when A big name guy comes to boston and plays with thomas. Again, I don't consider Horford that great of a player either. Once Hayward comes from Utah, I will become a believe then if he continues. Until next year, I stick with the 84. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 3, 2017 0:26:28 GMT
85
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 3, 2017 2:51:32 GMT
84 and I think he's pretty much capped right there just based on his limitations. His assists are never going to go up because Brad Stevens teams are sharing the ball pretty well. That turnover rating is really encouraging.
He's still a liability on defense no matter how much "heart" he has.
He's at a -3.9 DBPM and only .5 DWS.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 16:54:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 0:31:20 GMT
52 point night was impressive, good 3 and D.He's still young and Boston is only so good due to his skills if he were an All-Star Boston would be doing alot better right now but they depend on everybody every game unlike OKC,Houston,Cleveland,Milwaukee etc,etc.If he were put in a different place like Philly I think his stats would go way down because he doesnt carry his team but depends on others for his success unlike Lebron but sort of reminds me of DeRozan.Some people might disagree with my points but Im tired right now lol, I think he should be around 85.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jan 6, 2017 5:40:12 GMT
85 should be fine. His D Aware of 40 is super low for my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 8, 2017 19:29:31 GMT
85 should be fine. His D Aware of 40 is super low for my taste. See, the crappy thing about someone playing bad defense and our attribute system is that there are only three stats that represent defense: block, steal, D-Aware. I wish there was a Man defense rating and a team defense rating. Because some players are awful in Man, but aren't bad in the team defensive scheme. And usually, the team defensive scheme helps them get things like steals and blocks. So IT2 is bad at defense, we have one state that represents that really. Where as steal and block are tied to the stats they put up. Kind of sucks because it means a bad defensive player is only able to be demonstrated in one stat. |
|
Chris Mullin
 Golden State Warriors
Starter
Posts: 1,303
Feb 19, 2024 21:58:28 GMT
|
Post by Chris Mullin on Jan 8, 2017 21:24:46 GMT
85
|
|
|
|
Post by Jared Montini on Jan 16, 2017 23:59:09 GMT
87
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Roy on Jan 17, 2017 8:10:12 GMT
86 a very clutch player..
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane Battier on Jan 24, 2017 11:54:01 GMT
86
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 24, 2017 21:32:08 GMT
IT is 2nd in the league in scoring on one of the best squads in the East.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 24, 2017 21:45:25 GMT
IT is 2nd in the league in scoring on one of the best squads in the East. You really should sticky the "imminent rating changes" thread, considering this has been closed for 10 days and this is continually happening, even with yourself Mr. Noble |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 24, 2017 21:49:31 GMT
IT is 2nd in the league in scoring on one of the best squads in the East. You really should sticky the "imminent rating changes" thread, considering this has been closed for 10 days and this is continually happening, even with yourself Mr. Noble  |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 25, 2017 3:29:02 GMT
You really should sticky the "imminent rating changes" thread, considering this has been closed for 10 days and this is continually happening, even with yourself Mr. Noble Charles is going hard after this closing thing, and sometimes I was thinking to myself "man, this is really different to close this fast"...BUT I think it makes a lot of sense to not leave threads open for too long. Things change throughout the season. It's why we have a sort of unwritten rule to allow two rating changes a season if the player seems to justify it. But, things can really change even in 2 weeks or a month. So, if you want to get your player a boost or a decrease, be picky about when you post it. You're only going to get 2-3 weeks to capture the rating at that time, and then it's closed. I like it. I know for a fact I've processed changes where some votes are literally 2 months apart. Not many, granted, but it has happened. That's silly. But, I just kind of go with it b/c I've got more important things to worry about at the time! Anyway, I like the closing of threads. A month is probably too long but should be the absolute longest we allow threads to remain open. I'd say aiming for 2 weeks or so should be plenty with the activity we have right now. tldr - I support "closing" threads after about 2 weeks of being open. |
|
|
|
Post by Julius Erving on Jan 25, 2017 10:34:21 GMT
88
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jan 25, 2017 10:52:39 GMT
Charles is going hard after this closing thing, and sometimes I was thinking to myself "man, this is really different to close this fast"...BUT I think it makes a lot of sense to not leave threads open for too long. Things change throughout the season. It's why we have a sort of unwritten rule to allow two rating changes a season if the player seems to justify it. But, things can really change even in 2 weeks or a month. So, if you want to get your player a boost or a decrease, be picky about when you post it. You're only going to get 2-3 weeks to capture the rating at that time, and then it's closed. I like it. I know for a fact I've processed changes where some votes are literally 2 months apart. Not many, granted, but it has happened. That's silly. But, I just kind of go with it b/c I've got more important things to worry about at the time! Anyway, I like the closing of threads. A month is probably too long but should be the absolute longest we allow threads to remain open. I'd say aiming for 2 weeks or so should be plenty with the activity we have right now. tldr - I support "closing" threads after about 2 weeks of being open. So long as you're happy to keep churning them out mate, go for it! It's great for everyone really. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 25, 2017 13:13:58 GMT
Charles is going hard after this closing thing, and sometimes I was thinking to myself "man, this is really different to close this fast"...BUT I think it makes a lot of sense to not leave threads open for too long. Things change throughout the season. It's why we have a sort of unwritten rule to allow two rating changes a season if the player seems to justify it. But, things can really change even in 2 weeks or a month. So, if you want to get your player a boost or a decrease, be picky about when you post it. You're only going to get 2-3 weeks to capture the rating at that time, and then it's closed. I like it. I know for a fact I've processed changes where some votes are literally 2 months apart. Not many, granted, but it has happened. That's silly. But, I just kind of go with it b/c I've got more important things to worry about at the time! Anyway, I like the closing of threads. A month is probably too long but should be the absolute longest we allow threads to remain open. I'd say aiming for 2 weeks or so should be plenty with the activity we have right now. tldr - I support "closing" threads after about 2 weeks of being open. So long as you're happy to keep churning them out mate, go for it! It's great for everyone really. It's preferred for me (and everyone, really), just depends how much time I get for it! I am also hoping it creates a little bit of strategy in opening threads. You only get 2 max a season, so be sure your player has proven he needs the increase/decrease or you might blow one of your chances! |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 26, 2017 5:34:35 GMT
So long as you're happy to keep churning them out mate, go for it! It's great for everyone really. It's preferred for me (and everyone, really), just depends how much time I get for it! I am also hoping it creates a little bit of strategy in opening threads. You only get 2 max a season, so be sure your player has proven he needs the increase/decrease or you might blow one of your chances! Are you proposing each GM can only propose two changes a year or limit it to per player two changes a year? Cause in reality the most anyone can really expect would be 1 1/2 rating changes per player per year on average. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jan 26, 2017 13:53:23 GMT
It's preferred for me (and everyone, really), just depends how much time I get for it! I am also hoping it creates a little bit of strategy in opening threads. You only get 2 max a season, so be sure your player has proven he needs the increase/decrease or you might blow one of your chances! Are you proposing each GM can only propose two changes a year or limit it to per player two changes a year? Cause in reality the most anyone can really expect would be 1 1/2 rating changes per player per year on average. Talking about each player gets a max of two a year |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Krzyzewski on Jan 26, 2017 14:07:22 GMT
84
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah Hill on Jan 26, 2017 19:22:03 GMT
Are you proposing each GM can only propose two changes a year or limit it to per player two changes a year? Cause in reality the most anyone can really expect would be 1 1/2 rating changes per player per year on average. Talking about each player gets a max of two a year Ah, yeah if its more than that it could get knitpicky. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Barkley on Jan 28, 2017 4:07:44 GMT
|
|
Boston Celtics
New Orleans Pelicans
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
Cleveland Cavaliers
Utah Jazz
Chicago Bulls
LA Clippers
