Revamped Overall Formula for NBA 2K15 Player Ratings Explained

[Real2KInsider]

Beyond stretch bigs, the other position that usually comes up short in 2K are defensive SGs who don't create their own shot, like Thabo Sefolosha, Keith Bogans, etc. Due to their low handle ratings, they rate exclusively better at SF where Handle isn't weighted as highly.

However this also means many combo guards could be going up in rating. Just about every single PG rates higher at SG simply based on how highly 2K values Handle & Pass rating at SG proportionate to it's ACTUAL value at the position. 0This was done to ensure players like Kobe & Wade would consistently have 90-95 overall ratings.

However now that those players have declined and the archetype has changed IRL, it only serves to overvalue players like Kent Bazemore who handle the ball and not much else. Whereas a non-shot creating 3pt specialist like Kyle Korver or Klay Thompson has immensely more value at the position both IRL and video game.

[stillfeelme]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz

No, it's for people to evaluate players. The game can use whatever it deems necessary. Overalls are there primarily for the user. Dork's overall is crap because as a PF in a traditional role, he is crap. Beyond that, scoring prowess is conceptually only part of the overall. So that has been reflected in his overall. It shouldn't be high because he lacks in too many other areas. But he needs to be boosted artificially so that his overall doesn't suck. Frankly, I don't think you can ever fix that.

I think you and Rashidi are right to an degree.

Overalls are for the user to know and yes it does get a lot of debates started. It is an easy way for the user to determine what players are good vs. what players are bad but they are or have been in the past used in how the CPU determines value in trades rotation lineups, etc. So that makes them vital to user and the CPU. Now if injury history plays a factor to overall that is a whole different dynamic to include.

Bedswardroy was talking how the new ratings give "value" so I see it as value to a MyLeage, Myplayer and value for a user as the same thing. I actually like this new system. It basically makes role players more valuable to teams as long as the logic is connected to Myleague etc in terms of rotations and free agency I have no problem with this.

All they did was come up with new formulas that didn't give value for certain players who are very good at their roles.

Examples:

Korver SG/SF (3pt shooter, mid range shooter). They most likely have a shooter formula that doesn't penalize him as much for not being a great dunker or euro layup rating, vertical etc.

Patrick Beverly PG (Lock down defender). They probably have a perimeter defender formula so he doesn't get penalized for not being the best at passing which should be normally for weighted high for pg's

[threattonature]

I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.

IMO from what has been said is the computer is instead of just having a certain set of attributes used to calculate all PFs, now they will have something like a defensive 4 which uses rebound, post D, blocks, steals at a higher weight when calculating the overall. If it's a stretch 4 then 3 point shooting, medium range and other factors into the overall rating they give to the player. So basically each position will have different player types that can exist for the position all with his own attributes it weighs for each type and whichever kicks out the highest overall will be their ovr rating and the player type they are listed in.

It will be interesting if player's types will change as ratings rise/fall.

[Da_Czar]

Quote: Originally Posted by threattonature

I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings. IMO from what has been said is the computer is instead of just having a certain set of attributes used to calculate all PFs, now they will have something like a defensive 4 which uses rebound, post D, blocks, steals at a higher weight when calculating the overall. If it's a stretch 4 then 3 point shooting, medium range and other factors into the overall rating they give to the player. So basically each position will have different player types that can exist for the position all with his own attributes it weighs for each type and whichever kicks out the highest overall will be their ovr rating and the player type they are listed in. It will be interesting if player's types will change as ratings rise/fall.

Interesting but my question is what data would drive a players value per system when all players have not performed under each system.

wouldn't that be mostly up for interpretation or is there existing data that shows a players effectiveness in a particular system?

We don't necessarily know how a player will fare in a given stystem until we see him in it do we ?

What are the definitive markers you would use to clearly define each system especially when some guys either have no discernable "system" or run a mixture of both.

To me it just initially I think that would cause as many issues as it solves especially since it could be mostly user opinion that would drive it.

So not saying it couldn't work just asking how would it work and if that would really be better ? Another thread maybe ? IDK LOL.

ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.

[stillfeelme]

Quote: Originally Posted by threattonature

I wish the ratings were tied to the type of system each team was running. I think I understood what is being done with the ratings.

I was thinking that too but when you look at it, does the player skills that they are actually good at suffer depending on what type of system you run? IMO the answer is no, the coaches are just running plays that don't use the talent they have best. It is more the coaches are not adjusting to their personnel. The same thing can happen assigning play types to players that shouldn't have them like postup plays to a majority of point guards.

Best example I have at the moment:

Pau/Lakers: D'antoni ran a system that doesn't use post ups hardly at all, or use his passing ability. Can Pau score on the post yes can he pass yes. His skills didn't drop his coach was just using him wrong or valued other things.

[NDAlum]

This is a serious, not trolling question:

Why even have overalls? Can't you just put their ratings for each specific category and leave it at that?

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaBoyBk

I totally agree with this its as if Boris Diaw was traded to the Clippers his overall should drop immediately depending the offense and defense ran there, run and gun and etc. in comparison to the ball movement and screening on the Spurs. That would be great as players are valued different in different roles and teams. Tim Thomas did good in Milwaukee as 6th man and run n gun offense. But he didn't do well in NY or CHI but then in 6th man run n gun in PHX he did well again but then when he left fell off in different system again. It should be like a team chemistry rating type of thing. The problem would only be problem if players do good/bad during the season and before/after trades and 2k doesn't adjust them promptly for us to play with those athletes appropriately.

Too inorganic. If you get everything around it right it will happen naturally.

[Kaanyr Vhok]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boilerbuzz

No, it's for people to evaluate players. The game can use whatever it deems necessary. Overalls are there primarily for the user.

Brother have you not seen some of the bad trade AI? According to NBA 2k14 Mo Williams is more valuable than Robin Lopez both in overall and trade AI.

Quote: Originally Posted by Da_Czar

I ps apologies for typo's I am using a phone on a treadmill.