Roster/Ratings Suggestion

[itsmb8]

One thing ive always disliked is how players are 1) rated based on position, and 2) allocated minutes based on "primary position."

The suggestions I have is that players should not have primary or secondary positions, but just positions they are able to play. For example, guys like Giannis and LeBron can play 1-5, KD and Kawhi can play 1-4, big men can usually play a 4 or 5. Instead of saying Giannis' primary position is PF and secondary is SF, say Giannis can play PG, SG, SF, PF, or even C. That would make rotations a lot more dynamic which they should when you have players that can play all 5 positions.

The second suggestion is that players should be rated as a basketball player, not as a certain position player, which would be needed if the first suggestion were to happen. Regardless, some players are underrated in the game because they have a play-style that isnt typical for that position. For example, lets take Giannis again. Lets say the Bucks were deep with big men but thin at guard. Giannis would play a guard position so Milwaukee can have their best players on the floor and get everyone they need to PT, but Giannis would be underrated at guard (probably around an 89 or 90) even though he's still the same 96 ovr player he would be at PF. His skills didnt change, only his position did. And theres no way execs would value Giannis any lower if he was a guard instead of a forward.

[Mikelopedia]

I'm interested to see if 2k's overall rating formula has been redone or improved at all for 2k20 seeing as they have removed some ratings. I can't determine that for sure just by looking at overalls because we all know 2k manipulates them to be whatever they want.

[antdoggydogg]

I noticed this issue during the player ratings reveal. Particularly with Giannis having a significantly higher rating than Anthony Davis. Both players are the same size, play roughly the same position. AD is a 4/5 and Giannis plays as a 3/4 and a 5 in small-ball lineups. Both are good defensively, you can even say great. The real difference between the 2 is on offense where AD is a much more skilled player, better shooter from everywhere outside the paint. I would think that side of the ball alone would give AD an edge with his overall rating. But those shooting skills don't seem to be valued highly enough at his Power Forward position. Shooting skills should be valued at both Big positions.

[Mikelopedia]

Quote: Originally Posted by antdoggydogg

I noticed this issue during the player ratings reveal. Particularly with Giannis having a significantly higher rating than Anthony Davis. Both players are the same size, play roughly the same position. AD is a 4/5 and Giannis plays as a 3/4 and a 5 in small-ball lineups. Both are good defensively, you can even say great. The real difference between the 2 is on offense where AD is a much more skilled player, better shooter from everywhere outside the paint. I would think that side of the ball alone would give AD an edge with his overall rating. But those shooting skills don't seem to be valued highly enough at his Power Forward position. Shooting skills should be valued at both Big positions.

PF's have been exhibit A on why the overall formula is arcaic and flat out trash. This is why LeBron and Giannis arent listed PF's in 2k because when you change their position, the overall rating takes a nose dive of 4 to 5 points.

[ronyell]

The system should be:

ball-handler
wing
big

[ztennen11]

They've already shown that the rating system was revamped and simplified. I forgot where I saw it but it looked improved for sure.

[J_Posse]

Quote: Originally Posted by ztennen11

They've already shown that the rating system was revamped and simplified. I forgot where I saw it but it looked improved for sure.

Until we have it in our hands and see (with our own eyes) that they were consistent, "fair" and used scaling (for non-sim stat attributes) then we can't definitively say it is "improved."

If anything they've complicated accurately rating/defining inside scoring by removing the 'Standing Layup' rating. How do you account for points in the paint - that don't end in a dunk, driving layup, hook shot, fadeaway or tip - in - without a rating to dictate efficiency?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[Real2KInsider]

Quote: Originally Posted by J_Posse

Until we have it in our hands and see (with our own eyes) that they were consistent, "fair" and used scaling (for non-sim stat attributes) then we can't definitively say it is "improved." If anything they've complicated accurately rating/defining inside scoring by removing the 'Standing Layup' rating. How do you account for points in the paint - that don't end in a dunk, driving layup, hook shot, fadeaway or tip - in - without a rating to dictate efficiency?

Not really. Uncontested those shots don't require a rating because they're automatic. Contested, they added all those badges for a reason.

They are also probably using the Close shot or Driving Layup rating, as an educated guess.