NEED help editing players

the ai doesn't just pick the team with highest rating. it also depends on the players in your roster. i have a rating of 99 and i still lose to a team with an 80 something rating. i changed my roster to make it more balanced, lowering my offense and increasing my defense, adjusting my reserves and i started winning when i sim.

when i used the default roster and simmed an entire season, the lakers lost around 15 games...and they have a rating of 97.

The problem is that 90% of the time in Franchise mode the computer selects the team with a higher rating to win a simmed game.

I don't think that this is true because most of the good teams in my dynasty aren't doing that well. For instance, the Lakers are the best rated team in mine and if the season is simulated they seem to always be around the 50-32 mark!

the ai doesn't just pick the team with highest rating. it also depends on the players in your roster. i have a rating of 99 and i still lose to a team with an 80 something rating. i changed my roster to make it more balanced, lowering my offense and increasing my defense, adjusting my reserves and i started winning when i sim.

Yup yup, like an example is if you make a team have an 8 man roster but a 90 rating, then you sim a season with them, they don't win games. Its about the balance in the team also, not just the team rating. But s'all good.

Wow, it must be just a coincidence on my Franchise. Well, I'm only half-way through my first year and the Lakers have only lost to the Mavs (not sure how many times but it only happened against the Mavs). The Mavs are undefeated. I'm glad it's not supposed to be like this. I hope it stops.

Anyway, workin' on any CAPS, fgrep?

Fgrep-

Good call when you said you don't like to create guys who won't prob. be on the roster. Have you seen how many CAPS have been waived in the last two days? I've almost used up my 25 CAPS in the season, too. But, guess there's no telling who will stick. Keep up the good work.

I told y'all, guys like Zendon Hamilton, Linton JJohnson etc, are only there to fill in for injuries, and then are waived after that. Ah well, they can still be used as guys to fill in as free agents.

Isn't Scottie still injured, though? Why was Linton Johnson waived?

Forget Linton Johnson, Ronald Dupree from NBDL contributed solid numbers for the Bulls.

Even though they loss.

So Fgrep watch how he plays then try to create him.

He only has a 10-day contract.

That sucks.

Hopefully he'll stay consistent and have a contract extension.

Yes there will be lots of 10 days right now (refrain from asking for CAPS for 10 day players), so we'll have to wait and see who sticks. Slako Vranes even got signed.

Well Mcleod has been waived from Minnesota, Matt Carroll, Zendon, Mikki Moore, Pargo, Langhi, Amaechi, Bateer, Alton Ford and Kaniel Dickens were waived

But I'll keep an eye on Dupree, he was impressive in his debut.

thanks fgrep. can you please create ben handlogten.

created players feedback:
haslem: 2 games, 25.5m, 6p, 7r, .5s, .5a, .5to
wallace: 2 games, 25.5m, 12p, 3.5r, 1b, 1a, .5to
korver: 1 game, 4m, 3p, 1r, 1s, 1to
johnson: 1game, 17m, 13p, 1r, 6b, 1s, 1a, 3to
overton: 1game, 9m, 1r
mcleod: 1game, 14m, 6p, 2r
elson: 1game, 13m, 2p, 6r

oh, and if i didn't mention it, fgrep, could you please create ben handlogten. thanks.

Handlogten's out for the rest of the season I thought ... why bother.

because i am at the start of my season, and at the start of the season handlogten played.

fgrep?

i'll do him today

Can you update barbosa? He's been playin some good ball lately.

sorry, i just installed Ben's roster patch V1.04 and i see the starting lineup of New York Knicks, PENNY is replaced Houston to starting SG !and i think the overall of these two players are wrong--Penny:67 and Houston:62
can someone post the correct rating of PENNY and Houston ?
P.S. I'm PENNY fans, i hope he can be a starter with Knicks. I think he can beat Houston to be starting SG!!

Can u do Slava Medvedeko?

He is playing pretty well this season.

sorry, i just installed Ben's roster patch V1.04 and i see the starting lineup of New York Knicks, PENNY is replaced Houston to starting SG !and i think the overall of these two players are wrong--Penny:67 and Houston:62
can someone post the correct rating of PENNY and Houston ?
P.S. I'm PENNY fans, i hope he can be a starter with Knicks. I think he can beat Houston to be starting SG!!

I don't think Penny is going to replace Houston in the starting spot, since Van Horn just went down, and he'll probably be starting at the 3 now.

_____________________________________________________________

Ben Handlogten

Bio
November 16, 1973
Grand Rapids (put as GrandRapid), Michigan

Info
6'10
240 lbs
PF/C
right
#44
Western Michigan
Rookie

Ratings
58/0 65/60 57/82 43/70 53/51 15/21 58/85 37/41 60/41 52/56

Looks
face - 4
hair - middle part
facial hair - none
eyes - wide
nose - large
lip - default
body - 4
muscle - 3

Gear
who knows

Well the formula isn't exactly right b/c every rating that is under 50 won't be divided by 2 and have 50 added to them, they would just be 50. So a player right now with a 35 pass won't get a 68 pass rating but a 50 pass rating.

I was watching ESPN (in Spanish for some reason) and thought about this post while watching them talk about Carlos Arroyo (don't ask why). The formula does always work.

35/2=17.5 + 50=67.5 or 68

The ratings in NBA Live 2003 don't go below 50. Therefore, we're working on a system where every point for Live 2003 counts as two points in Live 2004 (kind of but not really). Since the numbers for 2003 start at 50 rather than 0, 50 must be added to every number you get from dividing the rating in Live 2004 by 2 and vice versa.

Let me put it this way, there's a basketball game. One team gets two points for every bucket. The other team is going by ones but is spotted 50 points. After playing for a while both teams get 20 shots. Team one has 40 points and team 2 has 70. But both teams scored 20 shots. Divide team one's score by 2 and add 50 to it. It is now equivalent to team two's score. Both teams performed equally well. Both teams scored the same amount of baskets. Once converted using the formula the game is a tie rather than having team 2 with more points. The same applies for both NBA Live games.

If a players shooting rating is 40 in Live 2004 it should be 70 in Live 2003. Another way to prove this is to convert the 49 points given in 2003 to the 99 given in 2004. For this example, the 49 will be 50 and the 99 will be 100. Just to simplify the math. To make 50 into 100 you must multiply 50 by 2. Now, the ratings on Live 2003 are out of 100. However, since you multiplied the 50 by 2, you must also multiply every point added to the players rating (starting at 50) by two. So if a players rating is 80 then 30 must have been added to the rating. Remember, it starts at 50 so anything below 50 is given to everyone in the game. In essence, once the amount possible became 100 instead of 50, the given 50 became zero. No one starts with 50. The scale is now 100 and everyone starts with zero. So, the player was given 30. Multiply that 30 by 2 (as we did the 50) and you get 60. The players rating in Live 2004 would be 60.

Contrary to what you said, this even works if the rating is below 50. For example, if someone's blocking rating was 2 in Live 2004 it would have to be divided by 2, giving us 1, and 50 would be added to it. The rating in Live 2003 would be 51. The only exception is a rating of zero. Zero cannot be divided by anything and therefore would not fit into the formula. However, a rating of 50 in Live 2003 is the equivalent of a rating of zero in Live 2004. This can be seen simply enough by multiplying 50 by 2 giving us 100. Now, for any rating we must find the number of points added. Since a rating of 50 means no points were added, zero must be multiplied by 2. This still gives us zero and that is the Live 2004 rating.

Difficulties arise with numbers that end in .5 because we don't know whether to round up or down. I would suggest using your own discretion. If you think the player really deserves that extra point, give it to him. If not, don't.

Yes, I actually thought of this while watching ESPN.

I was watching ESPN (in Spanish for some reason) and thought about this post while watching them talk about Carlos Arroyo (don't ask why).

Isn't that because Arroyo is Spanish.

Well, the thing is that when you give a player a rating like 2 in 2004, you are basically saying he cannot perform that thing, so it should be equated to the minimum.

Eg: If in 2004 Drew Gooden is giving a 3pt rating of 43, with the formula his rating in 2003 would be 72. But should Drew Gooden have a 72 3pt rating?

The conversion makes sense mathimatically, but is not always correct if you look at the player and the skill it is for.

In 2003, 50 as the starting point meant that every player had a basic skill in the rating. In 2004 being under 50 means they have less than a basic skill in the rating, so they are very limited in that aspect of their game.


If Greg Ostertag has a 49 shootinh rating in 2004, should he have a 75 shooting rating in 2003?
Even for some players with higher shooting ratings, should Ray Allen's 3pt go from 89 to 95 because of the conversion

There as some things that you have to judge yourself though, such as rebounding. This year the players jump rating affects how good a rebounder they are and in 2003 it didn't affect it as much. So rebound ratings under 50 won't become 50 when converting from 2004 to 2003.

Also you don't need to convert ratings that are already over 50.

Um, hey, how 'bout those Kings? lol

They are doing pretty sick, I want to update Marbury and Penny but I'm waiting to see their roles on the team, can't judge off so few games.

Huge props, Fgrep. Ever think of getting a little website going, doing all these edits? I know some guy used to do one for NBA 2K3.

They are doing pretty sick, I want to update Marbury and Penny but I'm waiting to see their roles on the team, can't judge off so few games.

They were bananas today against Dallas.

Ok, I hate to keep taking the topic to the rating situation but I was thinking that since a player in 2004 gets icons such as the little 3 or the little lock next to their name when their rating is in the mid-70s and a player in 2003 must have a higher rating to get the icon then the conversion must work. The fact that the rating required for an icon is greater in 2003 proves that the ratings convert as a mid-70 rating would become a mid-80 rating. This means the requirements for the individual things (such as hitting a three while getting d'ed up) must also increase. This means that, yes, the players you used as examples would have to be increased to be equal to what they were in 2004. I think. In any case, you probably have an equally good counterpoint to which I'll have another counterpoint... so... How 'bout that Kobe playing with his left arm?!?!?

Oh, and as for Arroyo, I meant "don't ask why I thought of it while watching Arroyo," not, "don't ask why they were interviewing Arroyo."