by driveshaft on Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:51 am
Seems like I created quite a debate about Bird vs. Houston. I never ment to compare the players, I was a bit tired and believe me I think Larry Bird would get a pretty high rating in NBA LIVE. However my beef is that the overall rating doesn't translate into a player's worth. To me Larry Bird is the greatest of all time, and he should have a 100 overall rating. In most likeliness he would have a mid 80's rating.
There are ratings like dunking that from 100 - 0 drop your rating by 8 pts, when I think dunking doesn't mean much, at least it should be a couple of points. Then you have FG which from 0 - 100 is only a 8 pt difference and to me this is probably the greatest stat of all. It doesn't matter if you run like a gazelle, you defy gravity, you are a wrestling champion and can take down any nba player by flapping your hands thus creating such a forcible wind with your strong arms that you knock down SHAQ. If you can't shoot you are worth NOTHING! ZIP ZERO. Thus I don't believe things like DUNKING, STRENGTH, HARDINESS, PRIMACY should play a role in your rating.
Dunking does not win games. Strength... although important should be weighed less, HARDINESS changes all the time... just because you have had 2-3 great injury free seasons doesn't mean you won't start breaking down. Primacy is something that changes based on whatever team you play. Look at Lamond Murray on the Clippers his primacy would have been 95... for the Raptors 0. These things are not constant enough to be placed in a players overall rating.
FG/3PT should be weighed heavily. Peja to me is a well rounded player who is probably the best shooter in the NBA. his rating should be higher than Iverson as he doesn't convert a high percentage of shots. Peja 81, Iverson 85.
In conclusion I think the new rating system compared to the old one doesn't do a good job with trades. I find I can easily load my team up with great players by trading for crappy players, because the different fields aren't weighed properly and somethings just shouldn't be weighed into it at all or have minimal effect.
ALSO a perfect solution would probably be to have a TRADE VALUE rating that would be based on SUPPLY/DEMAND so that if there aren't too many great centers you have to give up a good player to get an everage center. Or if there aren't too many shot blockers then the trade value is upped. A PG who isn't a great shooter, isn't really athletic but can really distribute the ball should be worth more, because that's hard to find.
Last edited by
driveshaft on Fri Sep 24, 2004 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
