|
Post by Justin Timberlake on Dec 1, 2015 18:59:19 GMT -5
Current rating: 72
Should be decreased. You can check my Rudy Gay post for a comparison of the two. As Allan Houston said, a 70+ should be a top 24 player in the league, which he is not.
Sorry Seattle, hate to be that guy but he is over valued and a change in his rating should properly reflect his skills.
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 1, 2015 21:38:50 GMT -5
Not sure if you want to be that guy that starts posting threads to lower other people's players...it could come back to bite you. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Brown Cobb IV on Dec 1, 2015 21:50:50 GMT -5
Not sure if you want to be that guy that starts posting threads to lower other people's players...it could come back to bite you. Just saying. suns is the Donald Sterling of d720.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Timberlake on Dec 1, 2015 22:15:08 GMT -5
Not sure if you want to be that guy that starts posting threads to lower other people's players...it could come back to bite you. Just saying. Had no intention of lowering DeMar when I initially put Rudy up for increase. I thought that if DeMar was a 72, Rudy should be in that ball park as well. That's all. And it seemed like a pretty unanimous opinion that DeMar was overrated once I put Rudy up. This only increases the realism of the sim, which a leader of the league such as yourself should be trying to uphold.
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 1, 2015 22:43:36 GMT -5
Not sure if you want to be that guy that starts posting threads to lower other people's players...it could come back to bite you. Just saying. Had no intention of lowering DeMar when I initially put Rudy up for increase. I thought that if DeMar was a 72, Rudy should be in that ball park as well. That's all. And it seemed like a pretty unanimous opinion that DeMar was overrated once I put Rudy up. This only increases the realism of the sim, which a leader of the league such as yourself should be trying to uphold. As a 'leader' such as myself, I just think it's a little douchey
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Dec 1, 2015 22:46:34 GMT -5
I encourage threads like this, and discourage people from taking it personally. It's bad if players can only increase in value. That inflation could really hurt the league, and I think we should be vigilant in decreasing players who deserve to be decreased.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 1, 2015 22:55:10 GMT -5
I encourage threads like this, and discourage people from taking it personally. It's bad if players can only increase in value. That inflation could really hurt the league, and I think we should be vigilant in decreasing players who deserve to be decreased. I agree, but this thread is way too reactionary to feel like it's 100% about the realism of the league. His entire argument is based off of an assessment of Rudy Gay that puts him on par with DeRozan, and I think a lot of us here consider DeRozan a better overall player. If DeRozan was ever going to need a decrease, it should have come last year when he was coming off of his worst season in years because of injury. The fact that we increased him after his worst season in years, and then we're going to try to decrease him in the middle of getting back to his previous high-end shooting guard form, is just highly inconsistent. I firmly believe that we need to strive for more "consistency" rather than more "realism," at least in regards to player ratings. Realism is subjective here, consistency is not.
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 1, 2015 23:02:29 GMT -5
It's not out of the realm that Demar could have a marginally better season than Rudy, (higher PER, more points, better defense this season), and this basically erases any chance of reflecting that in sim until next calendar year because Phoenix didn't get the boost he thought Rudy Gay deserves. We have a whole season to play and we just get one rating change per player per season. Why are we doing this now when we still have two weeks to go until 720 starts and we could be watching how the season unfolds to get a better idea where to more accurately sim these players?
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Dec 1, 2015 23:12:35 GMT -5
I don't think it matters that this is posted in reaction to the Rudy Gay thread, since I think Justin is the only one who may vote untruthfully in spite. I don't think anyone else was influenced and will vote truthfully, and the function which gathers the votes should spit out the "true" rating. And I don't see why we should value consistency over realism. If a value is wrong it's wrong and should be fixed. We shouldn't keep wrong values just because we made a mistake in the past.
That said, I do think it could be an issue that opposing GMs can prevent a player from being voted on again, and hence can take advantage of any downswings. Maybe it should be that there can only be 1 post per player per season per GM?
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 1, 2015 23:13:18 GMT -5
It's not out of the realm that Demar could have a marginally better season than Rudy, (higher PER, more points, better defense this season), and this basically erases any chance of reflecting that in sim until next calendar year because Phoenix didn't get the boost he thought Rudy Gay deserves. We have a whole season to play and we just get one rating change per player per season. Why are we doing this now when we still have two weeks to go until 720 starts and we could be watching how the season unfolds to get a better idea where to more accurately sim these players? I've had several chats with Billy about ways to eliminate the possibility of this literal exact situation happening, and we haven't come up with any good solutions yet. The best you can do is try to make a good enough argument for why he shouldn't be downgraded/why he should be upgraded from 72 that the people who vote don't fall into the trap that says if Gay gets a decrease so should DeRozan. For the record, I don't think Gay deserves a decrease and I think it'd be wildly inappropriate to try to give DeRozan a decrease here as well. He's playing well too well amongst coming back from all the injuries of last year to say that his rating should fall now when we gave him an increase after the season was over last year despite how bad he played compared to his peak form.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 1, 2015 23:23:19 GMT -5
I don't think it matters that this is posted in reaction to the Rudy Gay thread, since I think Justin is the only one who may vote untruthfully in spite. I don't think anyone else was influenced and will vote truthfully, and the function which gathers the votes should spit out the "true" rating. And I don't see why we should value consistency over realism. If a value is wrong it's wrong and should be fixed. We shouldn't keep wrong values just because we made a mistake in the past. That said, I do think it could be an issue that opposing GMs can prevent a player from being voted on again, and hence can take advantage of any downswings. Maybe it should be that there can only be 1 post per player per season per GM? I don't like the idea of potentially having to deal with 30 stock watches for any/all players in a year. Maybe something more along the lines of - 1 general stockwatch (any GM can make it) to account for GMs who have players that need to be increased or decreased and haven't posted a thread - 1 stock watch reserved for the current owner of the player, which cannot be acquired by trade if the trader/previous owner has already made a thread for the player. This thread can either be used normally, for any general instance of your player needing to be increased of decreased, or saved as insurance against reactionary/hasty decisions about increases/decreases. If the current owner is the first to make a stock watch thread, and the agreed-upon change doesn't remain justifiable throughout the season, that player isn't necessarily locked into the faulty rating change that was initially agreed upon because one other GM (containing valid and reasonable evidence for, or against, the player) still has the right to propose a new change. In addition, if another GM is the first to make a thread and manages to convince other GMs that the player needs a decrease, the current owner still maintains the ability (assuming they can bring valid and reasonable evidence for, or against, their player) to increase/decrease again to their liking.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Dec 1, 2015 23:25:58 GMT -5
I dig it.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 1, 2015 23:30:26 GMT -5
I don't think it matters that this is posted in reaction to the Rudy Gay thread, since I think Justin is the only one who may vote untruthfully in spite. I don't think anyone else was influenced and will vote truthfully, and the function which gathers the votes should spit out the "true" rating. And I don't see why we should value consistency over realism. If a value is wrong it's wrong and should be fixed. We shouldn't keep wrong values just because we made a mistake in the past. That said, I do think it could be an issue that opposing GMs can prevent a player from being voted on again, and hence can take advantage of any downswings. Maybe it should be that there can only be 1 post per player per season per GM? I don't like the idea of potentially having to deal with 30 stock watches for any/all players in a year. Maybe something more along the lines of - 1 general stockwatch (any GM can make it) to account for GMs who have players that need to be increased or decreased and haven't posted a thread - 1 stock watch reserved for the current owner of the player, which cannot be acquired by trade if the trader/previous owner has already made a thread for the player. This thread can either be used normally, for any general instance of your player needing to be increased of decreased, or saved as insurance against reactionary/hasty decisions about increases/decreases. If the current owner is the first to make a stock watch thread, and the agreed-upon change doesn't remain justifiable throughout the season, that player isn't necessarily locked into the faulty rating change that was initially agreed upon because one other GM (containing valid and reasonable evidence for, or against, the player) still has the right to propose a new change. In addition, if another GM is the first to make a thread and manages to convince other GMs that the player needs a decrease, the current owner still maintains the ability (assuming they can bring valid and reasonable evidence for, or against, their player) to increase/decrease again to their liking. This is now law. *waves commish wand*
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Dec 7, 2015 18:47:43 GMT -5
24 hours left to vote!
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 16, 2015 16:49:53 GMT -5
Physical Height: 69 Strength: 37 Speed: 90 Jumping: 82 Endurance: 88
Shooting Inside: 81 Dunks/Layups: 80 Free Throws: 84 Two Pointers: 95 Three Pointers: 50
Skill Blocks: 30 Steals: 62 Dribbling: 84 Passing: 50 Rebounding: 20
Drop ft to 74, steals to 55, strength to 30 and 3p to 40 gives us 70.
(he's never shot >30% from 3 his entire career)
|
|