|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 3, 2009 12:49:05 GMT
Player Rating Changes - Work in Progress If you wish to discuss these ratings further, please do so in separate threads in the Stock Watch Discussion.
Increase
76 - 79 Lamarcus Aldridge OKC
80 - 86 Danny Granger ATL
72 - 78 Rajon Rondo MIA
68 - 73 Anderson Varejao BOS
70 - 76 Nate Robinson LAC
69 - 73 Rodney Stuckey NYK
62 - 69 Matt Bonner DEN
63 - 75 Rudy Fernandez CHI 86 - 92 Chris Paul CHI
83 - 85 Chauncey Billups CHA 77 - 81 Devin Harris OKC
72 - 77 Paul Millsap IND
58 - 74 Marc Gasol TOR 69 - 77 Brook Lopez GSW 64 - 69 Anthony Morrow N/A
66 - 69 Marreese Speights POR 64 - 69 Luc Mbah a Moute PHI
65 - 69 DeAndre Jordan TOR
78 - 81 Rudy Gay LAL 72 - 76 Andris Biedrins POR 61 - 69 Ramon Sessions PHI
82 - 83 Marcus Camby GSW 65 - 69 Steve Blake GSW 69 - 72 Linas Kleiza MIN
76 - 78 Jameer Nelson IND
83 - 86 Kevin Durant NJN 75 - 76 Andrea Bargnani NJN 69 - 71 Thaddeus Young GSW
71 - 79 John Salmons IND 70 - 73 Kelenna Azubuike GSW
67 - 75 Chris Andersen GSW 56 - 67 Amir Johnson DEN
78 - 82 Rajon Rondo LAL 78 - 81 Jameer Nelson NJN 76 - 80 Jose Calderon ATL 70 - 74 Spencer Hawes IND
72 - 77 Nene NJN
64 - 74 Aaron Brooks 89 - 91 Carmelo Anthony
Decrease
85 - 80 Jermaine O'Neal CHA 72 - 67 Steve Francis MIA
74 - 66 Smush Parker LAC
79 - 75 Larry Hughes LAC
79 - 72 Eddy Curry TOR 80 - 76 Kirk Hinrich NOH 91 - 85 Gilbert Arenas WAS
91 - 87 Tracy McGrady DAL
90 - 85 Shawn Marion OKC 80 - 78 Chris Kaman MIL
88 - 85 Josh Howard MIL
88 - 83 Jason Kidd NJN 83 - 80 Kenyon Martin NJN
79 - 74 Ben Wallace NJN 87 - 81 Rasheed Wallace DET 74 - 69 Ricky Davis LAC
88 - 84 Steve Nash MIN 77 - 75 Brad Miller LAC 73 - 69 Brandon Rush LAL 82 - 77 Greg Oden MIL
89 - 82 Allen Iverson LAC 90 - 84 Elton Brand
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 6, 2009 15:42:20 GMT
updated
Now we need to start discussing exactly *where* these players have decreases. By that I mean, in which categories are they performing better/worse?
I'm unlocking this topic for that discussion.
Please keep all overall rating change opinions to individual threads outside of this one. I will edit this thread on the basis of those other discussions, not ones within this thread.
These are the NBA Live variables which will eventually be modified, center your discussion around these:
Skills Attributes: FGPBASE: Field Goal/Jump Shooting Rating THREEPTBAS: Three Point Shooting Rating FTPBASE: Free Throw Rating DNKABILITY: Dunking Rating - controls how often a player can make difficult dunks STLABILITY: Stealing Rating BLKABILITY: Blocking Rating OREABILITY: Offensive rebounding rating DREABILITY: Defensive rebounding rating BALABILITY: Ball handling (passing) ability OFFABILITY: Offensive Awareness DEFABILITY: Defensive Awareness DRIBBLE: Dribbling rating INSIDESC: Inside Scoring Rating
Physical Attributes: SPEED: Speed rating QUICK: Quickness rating JUMP: Jumping rating DSTRENGTH: Strength rating FATIGUE: Fatigue (Endurance) Rating
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 6, 2009 15:58:20 GMT
To start us off, I think I'll analyse Rajon Rondo (72 - 78) www.nba.com/playerfile/rajon_rondo/career_stats.html-5= extreme decrease -3= moderate decrease -1= very small decrease 1= very small increase 3= moderate increase 5= extreme increase ^^those numbers do not correspond to the amount of variable change in numerical amount, they are just indicators.Skills Attributes: FGPBASE: Field Goal/Jump Shooting Rating 1 THREEPTBAS: Three Point Shooting Rating FTPBASE: Free Throw Rating 1 DNKABILITY: Dunking Rating 2 STLABILITY: Stealing Rating 3 BLKABILITY: Blocking Rating OREABILITY: Offensive rebounding rating DREABILITY: Defensive rebounding rating 1 BALABILITY: Ball handling (passing) ability OFFABILITY: Offensive Awareness 3 DEFABILITY: Defensive Awareness 4 DRIBBLE: Dribbling rating 3 INSIDESC: Inside Scoring Rating Physical Attributes: SPEED: Speed rating 5 QUICK: Quickness rating 4 JUMP: Jumping rating 2 DSTRENGTH: Strength rating FATIGUE: Fatigue (Endurance) Rating 2 So what I've done is just assess which areas Rajon should see an improvement in his ratings, the total of which will eventually add up to an average of 78.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Feb 6, 2009 17:40:58 GMT
I agree with them for now...but what about Linas Kleiza ? he is a 69...thats ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 6, 2009 17:46:07 GMT
I agree with them for now...but what about Linas Kleiza ? he is a 69...thats ridiculous Please keep all overall rating change opinions to individual threads outside of this one. I will edit this thread on the basis of those other discussions, not ones within this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Timberwolves on Feb 6, 2009 17:48:41 GMT
Lol alright....sorry
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 13, 2009 15:13:25 GMT
I'll try and get the ratings done soon, but I've suddenly been saddled with a dissertation proposal and shitloads of reading for classes. Could start crossing them off this weekend though.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 13, 2009 17:14:50 GMT
updated
I'll cross names off when I've edited them.
|
|
|
Post by San Antonio Spurs on Feb 13, 2009 17:24:47 GMT
Tough luck for Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Portland Assistant on Feb 14, 2009 6:04:39 GMT
when will we no wen our players get boosted
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 14, 2009 10:46:03 GMT
when will we no wen our players get boosted I'll cross them off the list above, and the player's rating will be changed on your team's roster thread. You gotta just check back here every now and again I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Feb 14, 2009 14:42:22 GMT
you are seriously putting jason kidd to an 83?
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 14, 2009 15:02:19 GMT
you are seriously putting jason kidd to an 83? We had this discussion in the *decreases* thread. An 84 then?
|
|
|
Post by bringit - CHA on Feb 14, 2009 16:53:42 GMT
so what did u take away from JO?
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Feb 14, 2009 17:28:02 GMT
you are seriously putting jason kidd to an 83? We had this discussion in the *decreases* thread. An 84 then? i dont see how you are justified in putting him down at all honestly... i kinda feel like you are trying to make your team the best in the east by screwing everyone else over
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Feb 14, 2009 17:52:45 GMT
We had this discussion in the *decreases* thread. An 84 then? i dont see how you are justified in putting him down at all honestly... i kinda feel like you are trying to make your team the best in the east by screwing everyone else over I don't really see how you can say that especially when he only has one player getting a ratings boost. Plus you said your a Jason Kidd fan so I would say your opinion is obviously biased because I don't see how a player averaging 8.8PPG, 6.30RPG, and 8.4APG on a team that is in 7th place in the west and only 2.5 games a head of Phoenix who is in 9th should be above an 85.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Feb 14, 2009 18:06:36 GMT
i dont see how you are justified in putting him down at all honestly... i kinda feel like you are trying to make your team the best in the east by screwing everyone else over I don't really see how you can say that especially when he only has one player getting a ratings boost. Plus you said your a Jason Kidd fan so I would say your opinion is obviously biased because I don't see how a player averaging 8.8PPG, 6.30RPG, and 8.4APG on a team that is in 7th place in the west and only 2.5 games a head of Phoenix who is in 9th should be above an 85. you can throw out all your fancy little "2.5 games ahead of 9th" garbage because they are 1 game out of 4th and have a 31-21 record.. it works both ways and since you mentioned the suns, we may as well take a look at the reason boston is decreasing nash... OH WAIT THERE IS NO REASONING BEHIND THESE DECREASES kidd and nash both are game changers and are the top 2 point guards in the league.. it's kinda funny that you are decreasing them because they set up other players to score and dont do it themselves if you want to keep using that logic about the numbers boston, then go ahead and decrease Garnett, Allen, and Pierce all to an 85 because they are not putting up great numbers anymore and since you obviously dont understand that players who are not playing because of injuries are not going to score (arenas, jermaine), we should put your boy carlos boozer down to an 80 because he hasnt scored in like 40 games... he is obviously trash BUT WAIT! lets not forget about the increases! Heres the qualifications: 1. You must be under 25 2. You must not be very good, but you will probably be good in the next 5 years, so we are gonna base these ratings on potential and not stats, completely flawing our logic for decreases 3. If you are on a good team in this league, we will not increase you very much since that team would be even better 4. If you are on a mainstream team in real life, we are gonna go ahead and give you a +5 for that since you get more attention 5. You must not actually contribute to games, but merely get some attention so the retards who do not watch basketball doing the rating changes will think you are good
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Feb 14, 2009 18:17:53 GMT
I don't really see how you can say that especially when he only has one player getting a ratings boost. Plus you said your a Jason Kidd fan so I would say your opinion is obviously biased because I don't see how a player averaging 8.8PPG, 6.30RPG, and 8.4APG on a team that is in 7th place in the west and only 2.5 games a head of Phoenix who is in 9th should be above an 85. you can throw out all your fancy little "2.5 games ahead of 9th" garbage because they are 1 game out of 4th and have a 31-21 record.. it works both ways and since you mentioned the suns, we may as well take a look at the reason boston is decreasing nash... OH WAIT THERE IS NO REASONING BEHIND THESE DECREASES kidd and nash both are game changers and are the top 2 point guards in the league.. it's kinda funny that you are decreasing them because they set up other players to score and dont do it themselves if you want to keep using that logic about the numbers boston, then go ahead and decrease Garnett, Allen, and Pierce all to an 85 because they are not putting up great numbers anymore and since you obviously dont understand that players who are not playing because of injuries are not going to score (arenas, jermaine), we should put your boy carlos boozer down to an 80 because he hasnt scored in like 40 games... he is obviously trash BUT WAIT! lets not forget about the increases! Heres the qualifications: 1. You must be under 25 2. You must not be very good, but you will probably be good in the next 5 years, so we are gonna base these ratings on potential and not stats, completely flawing our logic for decreases 3. If you are on a good team in this league, we will not increase you very much since that team would be even better 4. If you are on a mainstream team in real life, we are gonna go ahead and give you a +5 for that since you get more attention 5. You must not actually contribute to games, but merely get some attention so the retards who do not watch basketball doing the rating changes will think you are good OK so if we're going by stats Rondo and Nelson should be rated close to what Kidd is rated.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Feb 14, 2009 18:27:28 GMT
thats exactly what im argueing against.. because they ARE rating rondo and nelson close to kidd
|
|
|
Post by Golden State Warriors on Feb 14, 2009 18:29:59 GMT
My bad then I should have said as high if not higher (for Rondo) considering these are Rondos numbers 11.2PPG, 5.4 RPG, and 8.5APG
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 14, 2009 19:34:15 GMT
thats exactly what im argueing against.. because they ARE rating rondo and nelson close to kidd No we're not. Rondo and Nelson are staying at 78 each because they don't have the history of Kidd or Nash. And Kidd or Nash are not the top 2 point guards in the league. It's Chris Paul no.1 and then the rest is debatable. The rest of your argument is so obviously flawed, at every single point you make, that pointing out each one seems futile.
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 14, 2009 20:02:32 GMT
and since you mentioned the suns, we may as well take a look at the reason boston is decreasing nash... OH WAIT THERE IS NO REASONING BEHIND THESE DECREASES Stats don't count for everything, but since D'Antoni and his system have left Phoenix can you really defend these changes? 16.9 - 13.8ppg 11.1 - 9.8apg 50.4 - 46.8FG% 47.0 - 41.83PT% 0.671 - 0.549PCT for Phoenix kidd and nash both are game changers and are the top 2 point guards in the league.. it's kinda funny that you are decreasing them because they set up other players to score and dont do it themselves Chris Paul is the best point guard in the league. Jason Kidd has entered Dallas and, whilst changing their offensive makeup, has not led to more wins, infact the opposite is true, if only a little bit. We compared before, in a different thread, that Kidd is putting up roughly the same numbers as Rondo on a team rated far worse. And I would allow for their histories to separate them even by 5 points (Rondo 78 - 83 Kidd) even after those facts. if you want to keep using that logic about the numbers boston, then go ahead and decrease Garnett, Allen, and Pierce all to an 85 because they are not putting up great numbers anymore Would you decrease prime Scottie Pippen because his scoring fell playing beside Jordan? Or his rebounding fell playing beside Rodman? and since you obviously dont understand that players who are not playing because of injuries are not going to score (arenas, jermaine), we should put your boy carlos boozer down to an 80 because he hasnt scored in like 40 games... he is obviously trash Arenas and O'Neal have been continuously injured for most of the past 3 years. Boozer, like you said, has missed 40 games. There comes a point when injuries have to take their toll on a player's worth, Boozer hasn't reached that point yet. And if Arenas and O'Neal recapture their form in Washington or Miami respectiely, they'll go straight back up again. BUT WAIT! lets not forget about the increases! Heres the qualifications: 1. You must be under 25 2. You must not be very good, but you will probably be good in the next 5 years, so we are gonna base these ratings on potential and not stats, completely flawing our logic for decreases 3. If you are on a good team in this league, we will not increase you very much since that team would be even better 4. If you are on a mainstream team in real life, we are gonna go ahead and give you a +5 for that since you get more attention 5. You must not actually contribute to games, but merely get some attention so the retards who do not watch basketball doing the rating changes will think you are good Just take a look through the list above to disprove these.
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Nets on Feb 14, 2009 20:18:14 GMT
well at this point you obviously think all of my logic is flawed and you are not going to change your mind
so, that being said, im done argueing... do whatever you want, but i beg of you to at least think things through before you go around fucking with peoples teams
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Feb 14, 2009 21:11:06 GMT
Man this committee sucks. Who are these guys?
LMAO at this thread
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Mavericks on Feb 14, 2009 21:17:50 GMT
Man this committee sucks. Who are these guys? LMAO at this thread and you tell me I am a hater and biased LAC.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Feb 14, 2009 21:19:58 GMT
Man this committee sucks. Who are these guys? LMAO at this thread and you tell me I am a hater and biased LAC. Im not understanding your post here....Do you think i'm bias? If so, please explain
|
|
|
Post by Utah Jazz on Feb 15, 2009 8:12:46 GMT
Damn looks like I missed quite a conversation. I really hope some of you don't honestly think there is some type of conspiracy involving committee members and their teams. There is no cheating of any kind going on in this league.
|
|
|
Post by Portland Assistant on Feb 15, 2009 9:23:02 GMT
Biedrins should be rated 80+ if players like camby are come on
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Feb 24, 2009 8:59:41 GMT
Increased Nate Robinson's ratings boost from 72 to 76.
|
|
|
Post by ragas2134 - LAC on Feb 24, 2009 9:20:56 GMT
Increased Nate Robinson's ratings boost from 72 to 76. Thats fair
|
|