OperationSports has screenshots of Team Ratings and Sliders

A. Houston has only 65, how come? He averages 20+ PPG and his shooting skills are really good.

That's the one thing I hated with the new rating system, the overall rating does not affect a players true worth. Guys like A. Houston and T. Prince get bad overall ratings, but they're still great players. I don't things like dunking and primacy or hardiness should be used in your overall rating, but they are and it's those little things that drag down a player's rating. Also FG/3PT should be weighed really heavily and it's not, otherwise Houston would be up there.

Larry Bird was never a dunker, he was really slow, does that mean he should get a low rating between 60-70... he is one of the best of the best. You don't need to be a uber-freak running 100 mp/h throwing it down with authority to be a great nba player, you need fundementals, team work, brains, and a little athletism doesn't hurt. These are the things that need to be considered more. How about bringing back CLUTCH rating, and introducing INTELLIGENCE rating to better reflect what it takes to be a champ!

what does Hardiness even do?

what does Hardiness even do?

I believe it determines how injury prone a player is... and although I see this as an issue with a player rating (ie Babock having difficulty trading Carter) however the JUMPING rating should not have an effect on the rating, because although it helps propel a player higher in the air to get a rebound, it also may cause injuries because of the repetitive abuse the knees and joints take. Thus it would play into the whole hardiness thing.

How about if they just screwed the overall ratings and put a rating for general offense and defense. (A la Winning Eleven.) The rest of the ratings would have no real effect on the offense and defense ratings, so basically those ratings would merely serve as guidelines.

I also think that the defense rating should have more effect. Defensive Awareness doesn't matter too much...

Kandi a 60? I'll lower him toa 55

I don't see Ervin Johnson or Trenton Hassell on the screen and for some odd reason Kendall Gill is on the Wolves roster??

I think because they were free agents. Swift isn't on the Grizzlies roster so I guess they haven't put some of the free agents on the team rosters yet.

http://www.operationsports.com/images/b ... xbox64.jpg

Carmelo has a double chin

he was a 66. Will him and Jay williams even be in the new game? They aren't on a roster and didn't play last year so...

thanks. I let my cousen borrow live 2004 and i am liveless untill 2005 come out next month.

The ratings are pretty good for the most part. You can really see the differentiation between the levels of players:

6 players are 89 and up (superstar)
about 18 are 80-88 (stars)
about 42 are 70-79 (good players)
the rest are either average/role players/undeveloped big talents (55-69)
or fringe players/very raw players (55 and lower)

There are a few players with some questionable ratings, but there are only a handful (Artest 72? Arenas 73?) of really off-base ones.

ervin wasn't a free agent and kendall wasn't on your team last year

A. Houston has only 65, how come? He averages 20+ PPG and his shooting skills are really good.

That's the one thing I hated with the new rating system, the overall rating does not affect a players true worth. Guys like A. Houston and T. Prince get bad overall ratings, but they're still great players. I don't things like dunking and primacy or hardiness should be used in your overall rating, but they are and it's those little things that drag down a player's rating. Also FG/3PT should be weighed really heavily and it's not, otherwise Houston would be up there.

Larry Bird was never a dunker, he was really slow, does that mean he should get a low rating between 60-70... he is one of the best of the best. You don't need to be a uber-freak running 100 mp/h throwing it down with authority to be a great nba player, you need fundementals, team work, brains, and a little athletism doesn't hurt. These are the things that need to be considered more. How about bringing back CLUTCH rating, and introducing INTELLIGENCE rating to better reflect what it takes to be a champ!

.....but Houston is the most on dimensional shooting guard in the league. He has decent handles, can shoot, and yea. He's not a good defender, can't rebound, can't block shots, doesn't get steals, isn't anything special in passing, and all he has is shooting, how good do you expect him to be?


Also, Larry Bird was also a pretty good defender, averaged like 9 rebound, and 5+ assists a game, Allan Houston isn't even close, common man

The Bulls did Jay Will a favor and bought him out and making him a free agent. He got paid and now if he returns healthy he can become a free agent and sign with anyone. I hope he comes back strong and I commend the BULLS for doing what they weren't obligated to do.

A. Houston has only 65, how come? He averages 20+ PPG and his shooting skills are really good.

That's the one thing I hated with the new rating system, the overall rating does not affect a players true worth. Guys like A. Houston and T. Prince get bad overall ratings, but they're still great players. I don't things like dunking and primacy or hardiness should be used in your overall rating, but they are and it's those little things that drag down a player's rating. Also FG/3PT should be weighed really heavily and it's not, otherwise Houston would be up there.

Houston isn't a great player. He's a great shooter, but merely a good player. He's nothing special on defense, doesn't rebound, and can't create for teammates. He isn't clutch like Reggie, and he gets injured a lot.

Larry Bird was never a dunker, he was really slow, does that mean he should get a low rating between 60-70... he is one of the best of the best. You don't need to be a uber-freak running 100 mp/h throwing it down with authority to be a great nba player, you need fundementals, team work, brains, and a little athletism doesn't hurt. These are the things that need to be considered more. How about bringing back CLUTCH rating, and introducing INTELLIGENCE rating to better reflect what it takes to be a champ!

Allan Houston isnt a particularly intelligent or clutch player either. That wouldn't really help him. And LOL on comparing Larry Bird and Houston. Larry was a COMPLETE player. He made All-NBA defensive teams, he was a top rebounder at the forward position, and probably the best passer in the league behind Magic in the mid-80s. And he was all that despite not being very athletic. The thing with Allan Houston is that he IS fairly athletic, but he doesn't exploit those physicaly abilities to get rebounds or penetrate or create for teammates like Bird did. Houston deserves somewhere between 65 and 72 rating, and that's all.

hey where is al jefferson listed on the celts page?

http://www.operationsports.com/GameScre ... ction=next

i dont see him on there at all. dont tell me they rated him so low he aint even in the top 9 players on the team? didnt he sign with the celts before the cut off date? i am hopeing he was injured in a game before this pic was taken so they got him on the bottom of the list cause if he is rated worse than 9th on the celts team they screwed up big time on him.

Livingston isn't on the clippers roster either.

....................................

Last edited by hmm on Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why is Live so mean on ratings, I was just checking them on IGN, and man, their are some specific ratings they kill, like jump, quicknes, dunk, speed, and dunk. Primacy's are so LOOWWW

Who put Mike Tyson in the game?

LOL

Al Jefferson is a 55

http://sports.ign.com/articles/550/550307p1.html

this link belongs on the main page. but oh yeah back to the real reason i posted.

jefferson got the shaft lol.

Wasn't he the best rookie in summer league? I have a feeling he'll do much better.

Wasn't he the best rookie in summer league? I have a feeling he'll do much better.

Summea league means ish, really, don't take anything out of summer league stat wise, all you can take is how the player plays andtheir tendencies etc...

i never ever ever edit ratings in any live but i am so damn tempted to this year. i cant believe he has a 38? for fg. i most likly wont edit as i never do but man i was hopeing for him to help me alot in my dynasty.

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.

i never ever ever edit ratings in any live but i am so damn tempted to this year. i cant believe he has a 38? for fg. i most likly wont edit as i never do but man i was hopeing for him to help me alot in my dynasty.

Really? Last year I just couldn't handle a slow Hinrich, or Pietrus not being able to shoot at all, not being athletic, and being slow, also he wasn't even a good defender, their's no way me in my right mind could leave that, it'll kill me inside.

i am strongly considering altering a few things this year.