NBA 2K19
NBA 2K19 Roster Update Details (1-10)
Published on
A new NBA 2K19 roster update is available. Check out the changes below.
- James Harden: 96 OVR (+2)
- Kevin Durant: 96 OVR (-1)
- Stephen Curry: 95 OVR (-1)
- Joel Embiid: 92 OVR (+1)
- Nikola Jokic: 91 OVR (+1)
- Paul George: 91 OVR (+1)
- Russell Westbrook: 91 OVR (-1)
- Damian Lillard: 91 OVR (-1)
- Karl-Anthony Towns: 90 OVR (+1)
- Victor Oladipo: 87 OVR (-1)
- Andre Drummond: 87 OVR (-1)
- Kyle Lowry: 87 OVR (-1)
- Luka Doncic: 86 OVR (+2)
- Al Horford: 86 OVR (+1)
- Clint Capela: 86 OVR (+1)
- LaMarcus Aldridge: 86 OVR (+1)
- C.J. McCollum: 86 OVR (-1)
- Jusuf Nurkic: 85 OVR (+2)
- Zach LaVine: 85 OVR (+1)
- Jayson Tatum: 85 OVR (-1)
- Hassan Whiteside: 85 OVR (-1)
- Draymond Green: 85 OVR (-1)
- Steven Adams: 84 OVR (-1)
- Danilo Gallinari: 83 OVR (+2)
- John Collins: 83 OVR (+1)
- Deandre Ayton: 83 OVR (+1)
- Buddy Hield: 82 OVR (+2)
- Domantas Sabonis: 82 OVR (+2)
- Louis Williams: 82 OVR (+1)
- Jamal Murray: 82 OVR (+1)
- Jarrett Allen: 81 OVR (+1)
- Myles Turner: 81 OVR (+1)
- Lauri Markkanen: 81 OVR (-1)
- J.J. Redick: 80 OVR (+1)
- Gordon Hayward: 80 OVR (-1)
- Derrick Favors: 80 OVR (-1)
- Tim Hardaway Jr.: 80 OVR (-1)
- Aaron Gordon: 80 OVR (-1)
- Emmanuel Mudiay: 79 OVR (+2)
- Kris Dunn: 79 OVR (+1)
- Reggie Jackson: 79 OVR (+1)
- Harrison Barnes: 79 OVR (-1)
- Jordan Clarkson: 78 OVR (+1)
- Justise Winslow: 78 OVR (+1)
- Wendell Carter Jr.: 78 OVR (-1)
- Tony Parker: 78 OVR (-1)
- Dennis Schroder: 78 OVR (-2)
- Marcin Gortat: 77 OVR (+1)
- Willy Hernangomez: 77 OVR (+1)
- Evan Fournier: 77 OVR (+1)
- Joe Harris: 77 OVR (+1)
- DeMarre Carroll: 77 OVR (+1)
- Shabazz Napier: 77 OVR (+1)
- Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 77 OVR (-1)
- Mohamed Bamba: 77 OVR (-1)
- Dennis Smith Jr.: 77 OVR (-1)
- Darren Collison: 77 OVR (-1)
- Kelly Oubre Jr.: 77 OVR (-1)
- Dario Saric: 77 OVR (-1)
- Thomas Bryant: 76 OVR (+3)
- Juan Hernangomez: 76 OVR (+2)
- Marvin Williams: 76 OVR (+1)
- Noah Vonleh: 76 OVR (+1)
- Michael Beasley: 76 OVR (+1)
- Austin Rivers: 76 OVR (+1)
- George Hill: 76 OVR (-1)
- Wesley Matthews: 76 OVR (-1)
- Trevor Ariza: 76 OVR (-1)
- Collin Sexton: 76 OVR (-2)
- Dirk Nowitzki: 76 OVR (-2)
- Derrick White: 75 OVR (+5)
- Derrick Jones Jr.: 75 OVR (+3)
- Bismack Biyombo: 75 OVR (+2)
- Ivica Zubac: 75 OVR (+2)
- Kyle Anderson: 75 OVR (+1)
- Alex Len: 75 OVR (+1)
- Kentavious Caldwell-Pope: 75 OVR (+1)
- Greg Monroe: 75 OVR (+1)
- Gerald Green: 75 OVR (+1)
- Bryn Forbes: 75 OVR (+1)
- Marco Belinelli: 75 OVR (+1)
- Meyers Leonard: 75 OVR (+1)
- Terry Rozier III: 75 OVR (-1)
- Avery Bradley: 75 OVR (-1)
- Rodney McGruder: 75 OVR (-1)
- Lance Stephenson: 75 OVR (-1)
- D.J. Augustin: 75 OVR (-1)
- Jonathan Isaac: 75 OVR (-1)
- Zach Collins: 75 OVR (-1)
- Markieff Morris: 75 OVR (-1)
- Malik Monk: 74 OVR (+1)
- Dante Exum: 74 OVR (+1)
- Yogi Ferrell: 74 OVR (+1)
- Jerian Grant: 74 OVR (+1)
- Jahlil Okafor: 74 OVR (+1)
- Norman Powell: 74 OVR (+1)
- Furkan Korkmaz: 74 OVR (-1)
- Pat Connaughton: 74 OVR (-1)
- Shelvin Mack: 74 OVR (-1)
- Iman Shumpert: 74 OVR (-1)
- Trey Lyles: 74 OVR (-1)
- Jamal Crawford: 74 OVR (-1)
- Wilson Chandler: 74 OVR (-2)
- Mike Scott: 74 OVR (-2)
- Justin Holiday: 74 OVR (-2)
- Nenê: 74 OVR (-3)
- Rodions Kurucs: 73 OVR (+4)
- Danuel House: 73 OVR (+4)
- D.J. Wilson: 73 OVR (+3)
- Brad Wanamaker: 73 OVR (+1)
- Anthony Tolliver: 73 OVR (+1)
- Ian Mahinmi: 73 OVR (+1)
- Sam Dekker: 73 OVR (+1)
- Mike Muscala: 73 OVR (-1)
- Alec Burks: 73 OVR (-1)
- Harry Giles: 73 OVR (-1)
- Allonzo Trier: 73 OVR (-1)
- Jonathon Simmons: 73 OVR (-1)
- James Ennis: 73 OVR (-1)
- Brandon Knight: 73 OVR (-1)
- Mikal Bridges: 73 OVR (-1)
- Luke Kornet: 72 OVR (+7)
- Shaquille Harrison: 72 OVR (+2)
- DeAndre Bembry: 72 OVR (+1)
- Dante Cunningham: 72 OVR (+1)
- Tyus Jones: 72 OVR (+1)
- Thon Maker: 72 OVR (-1)
- Robin Lopez: 72 OVR (-1)
- Raul Neto: 72 OVR (-1)
- Dorian Finney-Smith: 72 OVR (-1)
- Cheick Diallo: 72 OVR (-1)
- C.J. Miles: 72 OVR (-1)
- Frank Ntilikina: 72 OVR (-2)
- Chasson Randle: 71 OVR (+2)
- Ryan Broekhoff: 71 OVR (+1)
- Khyri Thomas: 71 OVR (+1)
- Seth Curry: 71 OVR (+1)
- Wayne Selden Jr.: 71 OVR (-1)
- Tim Frazier: 71 OVR (-1)
- Langston Galloway: 71 OVR (-1)
- Joakim Noah: 71 OVR (-2)
- Jonah Bolden: 70 OVR (+1)
- Terrance Ferguson: 70 OVR (+1)
- Jason Smith: 70 OVR (-1)
- Antonio Blakeney: 70 OVR (-1)
- Frank Jackson: 69 OVR (+1)
- Josh Okogie: 69 OVR (-1)
- Chris Boucher: 68 OVR (+2)
- Lance Thomas: 68 OVR (-1)
- Jaron Blossomgame: 67 OVR (+2)
- Isaiah Briscoe: 66 OVR (-1)
- Gary Clark: 66 OVR (-1)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
But finally Justice Winlows getting some love too. Can't wait to what they did too him.
Biggest movers
Rodions Kurucs: 73 OVR (+4)
Danuel House: 73 OVR (+4)
Derrick White: 75 OVR (+5)
Luke Kornet: 72 OVR (+7)
These guys been playing well for a while. Happy to see the boost. Can't wait to see what was boosted.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Operation Sports mobile app
That meets scale.
1. You're stating the opposite of your initial argument.
2. Smith shot 31% last season and his 39 makes this season push him to 33% for his career. They are correct to meet in the middle because he likely won't sustain 38%.
1. You're stating the opposite of your initial argument.
2. Smith shot 31% last season and his 39 makes this season push him to 33% for his career. They are correct to meet in the middle because he likely won't sustain 38%.
Klay, Trae Young still have a way too high 3pt rating, though.
Would be great, if 2k would touch also the defensive attributes/badges at least 2-3 times a season.
All in all good job!
Klay, Trae Young still have a way too high 3pt rating, though.
Would be great, if 2k would touch also the defensive attributes/badges at least 2-3 times a season.
All in all good job!
Klay earns HoF Catch and Shoot Badge :y220e:
Are you serious???
For the news or my reaction?
Just looking at the Spurs, there are so many issues.
First of all, There are so many wrong positions all over the roster. Just on the Spurs, DeRozan, Aldridge, and Gay all have moved up a position. Aldridge was the Spurs' starting center like all of last year as well...still listed at PF.
They bumped Derrick White to a 75 from like a 70. Good, right? Until you see that all they really did was bump his 3pt and passing.
Derrick White has become the Spurs' go-to defender for most star guards and even some wings. He's guarded Kyrie, Harden, and Kawhi among others just in the past month. Why is his on-ball defense still a 68? Meanwhile, PAU GASOL has a 72 on-ball D and people basically just jog by him when he has to step out on the perimeter IRL.
Davis Bertans is 3rd in the league at the moment in 3pt% and hits 48% from 3. He still only has Bronze Catch and Shoot. Not to mention his on-ball defense is a 52, the worst rating on the entire team. 52???
I could go on, but before I stop ranting, I'd also like to say I wish 2K tried harder to have more accurate jumpers. Aldridge, Poeltl, Bertans, and ESPECIALLY Forbes, Mills, and Belinelli all have jump shots that look absolutely nothing like their jumpers IRL.
K rant over.
The news...I just thought you was being sarcastic with the clapping, lol.
Don't beat me up for my idea lol
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Operation Sports mobile app
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Operation Sports mobile app
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
It's time for a new roster editor. Damn Curry has a 99 3PT rating while shooting 44% although Bojan Bogdanovic has the same shooting percentage.
It's time for a new roster editor. Damn Curry has a 99 3PT rating while shooting 44% although Bojan Bogdanovic has the same shooting percentage.
Thompson, does not deserve the 94 rating (should be 85-86 going by 2Ks formula) and the badge could also be argued (thus I would leave at least as Gold as he is better than what his %s and numbers say among those with similar production, plus he is the emblematic figure of catch & shoot players). Then again, Bogda deserves the rating (going by 2Ks formula he should be 89-90,as he is), and Curry's rating could be slightly debatable. Going by 2Ks formula, Curry should be a 96-97.
As good as Bogda is, leaving aside grade difficulty of shots, Curry is shooting a similar % on almost 3 times the amount of attempts, so they should not be equal.
Having said this, we need more consistency when applying all ratings formulas (an usual 2K issue), more tendencies edits and to continue to receive playbooks edits to better portrait the teams authenticity on the court.
Thats simply too small a sample size.
Curry is most likely gonna finish this year at 40+% from deep, which will make a whole decade...thats ridiculous.
Hustle Rating in 2k...…… 35
Thats simply too small a sample size.
Curry is most likely gonna finish this year at 40+% from deep, which will make a whole decade...thats ridiculous.
Before anyone chime in, I'm not trying to hear that lame excuse "They're superstars and can't be stopped IRL, so the game should be the same way.".
That's like saying Michael Jordan shouldn't have had any HoF badges when he was an active player.
Curry and Klay are top 5 shooters of all-time and that isn't remotely debatable.
It doesnt matter. The cpu doesnt attempt that many 3s either
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Before anyone chime in, I'm not trying to hear that lame excuse "They're superstars and can't be stopped IRL, so the game should be the same way.".
LOL...you're generally pretty even-keeled but that literally makes no sense. LIKE NONE. That data shows trends and is a great separator when you consider any kind of rating system with depth. By your rationale Barkley would have been rated higher than MJ in 1993 because of a really good year.
Why not take it a step further and rerate guys every day? The most accurate data is longitudinal, we should embrace that. Not rate Landy Shamet based on the smallest sample size where he hit 8 threes the other night. Ratings should reflect what a player does MOST often--not least. I could see if Klay/Steph were guys past their primes averaging 12ppg two years removed from their best production--but both guys are smack dab in the middle of their primes....there's no argument for comparing either guy to Bogdonavic or for ignoring years of data because its convenient for a player on my team's rating.....c'mon man.
Generally its a good idea to have someone impartial to rate players because fans do a horrible job and too often inflate a guys positives while ignoring his negatives. This is a perfect example of that. History didn't start yesterday...and it certainly doesn't restart every year. Your point about current players having HOF badges is a good one tho--and actually worth debating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhm, yes? If Barkley did better Things in that specific year, than He should be Rated higher in a historic 1993 roster. i mean imagine simulating one season of myleague with a historic 1993 roster. you want players to Play like their real life counterpart. that means you want Barkley to perform better than MJ in that specific year, so He needs better ratings.
The season isn't over yet. Season data is incomplete. Which means it's acceptable for last season's production to still merge in and smooth things out and prevent ridiculous outliers.
For example
Kyle Anderson (2019)
Inside: 80-119 (67%)
Close: 37-78 (47%)
Mid: 13-26 (50%)
3pt: 9-34 (27%)
Kyle Anderson (2018)
Inside: 125-179 (70%)
Close: 80-171 (47%)
Mid: 19-47 (40%)
3pt: 19-61 (31%)
Or how about this one
Omri Casspi (2019)
Inside: 41-51 (80%)
Close: 6-25 (24%)
Mid: 0-0
3pt: 10-29 (35%)
Omri Casspi (2018)
Inside: 74-105 (71%)
Close: 36-79 (46%)
Mid: 0-1 (0%)
3pt: 10-22 (46%)
The league is littered with these and it's not just shooting. Any counting stat has similar fluctuation. Bogdanovic for example has yet to block a shot this season (he blocked 8 last year). Is it time to give him a lower rating than J.J. Barea, who has blocked 1 shot this season? Or does Bogdanovic get the benefit of the doubt that he will actually record a few in the next 40 games?
Is that attribute as important as his 3pt shooting? No, of course not, but each of these attributes is a judgement call that a roster editor has to make, as sticking with pure stats for a small sample size is simply not an effective measurement tool.
(If someone DID apply all purely 2019 statistics to a roster, the results would be scoffed at. Nobody is interested in a roster where Donovan Mitchell has the same rating as Tim Hardaway Jr, Gary Harris, and Kent Bazemore).
I'm just gonna say this isn't factually correct since tendencies and teammates obviously affect player production. Besides that point, Jordan lead the league in PER and Win Shares that year, which was his 7th straight season of doing so (a feat only otherwise accomplished by Wilt Chamberlain). Numbers don't care who the media voted for that season.
That's just....wow. That's ridiculous on its face and you should be embarrassed to have typed that. You've got access to all this data that says player B had an outstanding year--Player A has met or exceeded that production 7yrs in a row and you wanna go with the thing that happens LEAST often? Thats hilarious man. This is exhibit A re: why very few people can rate players.
Here's how silly that is: Barry Sanders was a guaranteed 1500yds and 10TDs every year for a decade--his entire NFL career. Eric Pegram had one season of 1000+ yds (1185 in 1993). You're arguing he should have had better stats in Madden 94 than Sanders because he outgained him that year? Even though that was Barry's 5th straight season of 1100+? You're for real serious?
You're literally rewarding the thing that happens the least: James Harden's last ten games he's shot almost 41% from deep. Landy Shamet had a good night on the 8th where he hit 8 threes and shot 53%. He's a rookie but has a higher % than Harden on the season. You're making the argument his 3pt rating should be higher....with a straight face?
Sample size matters. And the larger period we can look at the better.
Curry and Klay are top 5 shooters of all-time and that isn't remotely debatable.
Give them high ratings and gold badges and let their career decide they earned a HOF badge in NBA 2K30. As a side note, I don't believe players should shouldn't have a 99 rating on anything.
Why not take it a step further and rerate guys every day? The most accurate data is longitudinal, we should embrace that. Not rate Landy Shamet based on the smallest sample size where he hit 8 threes the other night. Ratings should reflect what a player does MOST often--not least. I could see if Klay/Steph were guys past their primes averaging 12ppg two years removed from their best production--but both guys are smack dab in the middle of their primes....there's no argument for comparing either guy to Bogdonavic or for ignoring years of data because its convenient for a player on my team's rating.....c'mon man.
Generally its a good idea to have someone impartial to rate players because fans do a horrible job and too often inflate a guys positives while ignoring his negatives. This is a perfect example of that. History didn't start yesterday...and it certainly doesn't restart every year. Your point about current players having HOF badges is a good one tho--and actually worth debating.
Without reviewing the stats, if Barkley was statistically a better player than Michael Jordan that particular year, then he should be rated higher than Michael Jordan for that season. I'll give Jordan "bonus ratings" to reflect his historical/career production, but fans should have the right to play with the best player for that season.
Rashidi made the statement that this season's sample size is still relatively too small which could be up to debate. Personally, I think there are enough games played to determine if a player's rating is too high or low.
I'm just not a fan of rating players on reputation over actual production.
For example
Kyle Anderson (2019)
Inside: 80-119 (67%)
Close: 37-78 (47%)
Mid: 13-26 (50%)
3pt: 9-34 (27%)
Kyle Anderson (2018)
Inside: 125-179 (70%)
Close: 80-171 (47%)
Mid: 19-47 (40%)
3pt: 19-61 (31%)
Or how about this one
Omri Casspi (2019)
Inside: 41-51 (80%)
Close: 6-25 (24%)
Mid: 0-0
3pt: 10-29 (35%)
Omri Casspi (2018)
Inside: 74-105 (71%)
Close: 36-79 (46%)
Mid: 0-1 (0%)
3pt: 10-22 (46%)
The league is littered with these and it's not just shooting. Any counting stat has similar fluctuation. Bogdanovic for example has yet to block a shot this season (he blocked 8 last year). Is it time to give him a lower rating than J.J. Barea, who has blocked 1 shot this season? Or does Bogdanovic get the benefit of the doubt that he will actually record a few in the next 40 games?
Is that attribute as important as his 3pt shooting? No, of course not, but each of these attributes is a judgement call that a roster editor has to make, as sticking with pure stats for a small sample size is simply not an effective measurement tool.
(If someone DID apply all purely 2019 statistics to a roster, the results would be scoffed at. Nobody is interested in a roster where Donovan Mitchell has the same rating as Tim Hardaway Jr, Gary Harris, and Kent Bazemore).
I'm just gonna say this isn't factually correct since tendencies and teammates obviously affect player production. Besides that point, Jordan lead the league in PER and Win Shares that year, which was his 7th straight season of doing so (a feat only otherwise accomplished by Wilt Chamberlain). Numbers don't care who the media voted for that season.
Barkley 52% FG, 25.6ppg, 30% 3pt, 76% FT,12.2rpg, 5ast
Jordan 49% FG, 32.6ppg, 35%3pt, 83% FT, 6.7rpg, 5.5apg
Me either. You'll probably notice I haven't added one thing about reputation, i've referenced production exclusively.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Barkley 52% FG, 25.6ppg, 30% 3pt, 76% FT,12.2rpg, 5ast
Jordan 49% FG, 32.6ppg, 35%3pt, 83% FT, 6.7rpg, 5.5apg
Me either. You'll probably notice I haven't added one thing about reputation, i've referenced production exclusively.
Hmmmm....I would have to see the advance stats. The traditional stats would make them "close" in my book. My gut instinct says they would be the highest rated players at their respective positions, then would be 1-2 points of each other. Granted, I don't care about overalls. I just want their ratings to be close to their real life production.
1993 Finals: (4-2 Chicago)
Jordan 41ppg, 8.5rpg, 6.3 ast, 50% FG, 40% 3pt, 69% FT
Barkley 27ppg, 13rpg, 5.5 ast, 47% FG, 25% 3pt, 75% FT
Close? not so much....keep in mind i'm a Philly fan so I loved seeing Barkley on the biggest stage after we wasted him for the last 5yrs he was on the Sixers. But production never lies if you know where to look. MJ was head and shoulders above whoever was second best. No one was within 5 pts of him lol. My advice? Leave the rating to the professionals.
1993 Finals: (4-2 Chicago)
Jordan 41ppg, 8.5rpg, 6.3 ast, 50% FG, 40% 3pt, 69% FT
Barkley 27ppg, 13rpg, 5.5 ast, 47% FG, 25% 3pt, 75% FT
Close? not so much....keep in mind i'm a Philly fan so I loved seeing Barkley on the biggest stage after we wasted him for the last 5yrs he was on the Sixers. But production never lies if you know where to look. MJ was head and shoulders above whoever was second best. No one was within 5 pts of him lol. My advice? Leave the rating to the professionals.
Those are Final stats, so now we're comparing apples to oranges. Clearly, MJ clearly had the superior performance in the head to head team matchup. You posted the season stats earlier which painted a different picture, hence my comment about advanced stats. Based on the traditional stats, neither player seemed that overwhelming better than the other.
Rashidi will eventually put this argument to a rest.
Actually nope, among people who pay attention to this short of thing, playoff performance is actually held in higher esteem. Players who "raise their games" are actually looked at more favorably because of the difficulty of the opponents--its one of the many reasons MJ is considered the GOAT....but sure lol.
What you're talking about is basically reputation. MJ is regarded the GOAT, so his ratings and overall should reflect that despite his statistical performance relative to his peers. I simply don't believe in that when in comes to current NBA rosters. I'm more flexible when it comes to the All-Time and Classic teams.
However, Curry and Thompson (to name a few players, but I'm pretty confident that there are more examples) are rated based on reputation. In past 2K games, there were always players who were clearly past their prime IRL, but were still badged up and rated like prime players. For me, I'm always about the current season. I only care about the past season ratings when it comes to a "starter" roster to begin the season. After that...
The problem is, thats a flawed POV full of holes and inconsistency--like many have already shown here. History doesn't start over every year and to even suggest thats a good way to rate is hilarious. A HOF rating scale is important because its consistent and establishes a good baseline. It also prevents one-hit wonders from being rated higher than guys with consistent elite production.
Now should some stuff be updated more regularly? SURE. You'll notice 2K is updating FT rating during the season--which actually makes sense.
But what you're doing is basing your argument on the idea Bogdonovic should be rated higher than shooters with production that dwarfs his--then you're looking for facts to support that. I work in data for a living--FACT: you're doing it backwards. You find the facts first and THEN form your argument.
And for the 3rd time, I haven't mentioned anything about reputation once. I've referenced production in every instance in showing you why Curry (10 straight yrs of elite 3pt shooting with a LOW year of 41%) and Klay (7 straight yrs of elite shooting with a LOW year of 40%) have the ratings they do and why Barry Sanders and MJ did as well. You insist on digging this hole deeper tho lol.
Rashidi will eventually put this argument to a rest.
Michael Jordan (1993)
29.7 PER (lead league)
56 TS% (50-35-84)
35 USG% (lead league)
25 AST% (2.06 ATR)
5 ORB%
15 DRB%
3.7 STL% (3rd in NBA)
1.3 BLK%
17.2 Win Shares (lead league)
Charles Barkley (1993)
25.9 PER
60 TS% (52/31/77)
27 USG%
21 AST% (1.65 ATR)
10 ORB%
26 DRB% (7th in NBA)
2.0 STL%
1.6 BLK%
14.4 Win Shares (4th in NBA - trailing Jordan, Hakeem, Malone)
Jordan's efficiency at such a high volume is what made him great. Barkley was marginally more efficient but the gap in volume is really pronounced - Jordan was simply on another level, especially compared to the other guards of his era.
Barkley was 11th in Usage that season, trailing such legends as Eddie Johnson (6th), Walt Williams (7th), Danny Manning (8th), and Clifford Robinson (10th), and just ahead of John Starks (12th). Notably, Jordan/Nique/Ewing/Hakeem/Malone made up the top 5 (rookie Shaq came in 9th).
(On a side note, running off that list, LOL at the people who really think the league was better in the 80s/90s)
There was also a significant defensive gap between the two that this only scratches the surface of (which I don't think this area needs a ton of discussion).
It's difficult to make an argument for Barkley as the top player in 1993 when it's not even clear he was top 3. I would have taken Hakeem/Malone over him that season, and those two certainly accomplished more in the years to come.
To my defense: I did not check any stats, I just added on the argument that one of the other posters before me made. Instead of Barkley and Jordan you could throw in any name you want. In this, I am on the side of my fellow pacers mate here:
If player A in a specific season is performing better than player B, I don't care if the player B has a high reputation, player A should be rated higher. Yes, I also think, you should factor in the past of a player. If a player shot 40+% for 10 straight seasons and then has a downyear, give a little bit more, than he deserves based solely on his production.
Of course, tendencies have a high impact on simulated stats, but still. If you give Bogdanovic mid 80 ratings, he won't produce his percentage that he does this year in a simulated season. Same with Klay Thompson. With 90+ ratings he won't end up with only 36% from deep.
Maybe we need some kind of "consistency over seasons" rating or whatever, which will produce more extreme values (in both directions) for players like Bogdanovic and more consistent elite shooting seasons for someone like Thompson.
29.7 PER (lead league)
56 TS% (50-35-84)
35 USG% (lead league)
25 AST% (2.06 ATR)
5 ORB%
15 DRB%
3.7 STL% (3rd in NBA)
1.3 BLK%
17.2 Win Shares (lead league)
Charles Barkley (1993)
25.9 PER
60 TS% (52/31/77)
27 USG%
21 AST% (1.65 ATR)
10 ORB%
26 DRB% (7th in NBA)
2.0 STL%
1.6 BLK%
14.4 Win Shares (4th in NBA - trailing Jordan, Hakeem, Malone)
Jordan's efficiency at such a high volume is what made him great. Barkley was marginally more efficient but the gap in volume is really pronounced - Jordan was simply on another level, especially compared to the other guards of his era.
Barkley was 11th in Usage that season, trailing such legends as Eddie Johnson (6th), Walt Williams (7th), Danny Manning (8th), and Clifford Robinson (10th), and just ahead of John Starks (12th). Notably, Jordan/Nique/Ewing/Hakeem/Malone made up the top 5 (rookie Shaq came in 9th).
(On a side note, running off that list, LOL at the people who really think the league was better in the 80s/90s)
There was also a significant defensive gap between the two that this only scratches the surface of (which I don't think this area needs a ton of discussion).
It's difficult to make an argument for Barkley as the top player in 1993 when it's not even clear he was top 3. I would have taken Hakeem/Malone over him that season, and those two certainly accomplished more in the years to come.
Thanks and appreciate it. This was the additional information and analysis that I was looking for. When you going to apply for roster editor at 2K Sport? Seems like it's been a long time coming for you.
Good idea. I like this.
He def deserves to get a rating boost and Young needs a 3 point rating lowered a lot
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I believe that's more for simulated games and seasons, however I don't believe it's a RNG behind the scenes in PNO matches.
I interpreted his statement as the rating being more of a bonus modifier to reflect past seasons success. The crazy part the first examples that popped in my mind was JR Smith vs someone like Tim Duncan who was the perfect model of being consistent year after year. In my mind, you rate the players according to the current season stats and to "scale", and this rating would give an additional boost to whatever ratings respectively based on the players "archetype".
players like Tim duncan, Kevin Durant, lebron would have a high rating, guys like jr Smith, young trevor ariza, would have a low rating.
players like Tim duncan, Kevin Durant, lebron would have a high rating, guys like jr Smith, young trevor ariza, would have a low rating.
Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Operation Sports mobile app
Mo Williams
2004-2008 (Pre-LeBron): 283-788 (36%)
2009-2010 (With LeBron): 342-791 (43%)
2011-2016: (Post-LeBron): 469-1312 (36%)
At the end of the day 2K is still going to cater to the crowd that believes Klay Thompson should be an elite shooter no matter what his 3pt% is. There are plenty of other battles to fight with them before this one.
Klay's 28 years old and will pass Peja Stojakovic and Steve Nash on the career 3PM list before the end of the season.
He'll have hit 2,000 threes before he turns 30.
He'll pass Reggie Miller by the time he's 32.
Could also argue that badges are what should be a staying point for these players and not ratings. Klay should keep his HOF catch and shoot and 3pt deadeye and all that but his actual rating could be lowered due to his relief production this year. Those badges easily can make up for a reduced rating with the boosts that they give
Could also argue that badges are what should be a staying point for these players and not ratings. Klay should keep his HOF catch and shoot and 3pt deadeye and all that but his actual rating could be lowered due to his relief production this year. Those badges easily can make up for a reduced rating with the boosts that they give
Ratings are hard. Your never going to make everyone happy. Especially with a group so big. Rashdi has been doing this for years. We bump heads all the time lol.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Ratings are hard. Your never going to make everyone happy. Especially with a group so big. Rashdi has been doing this for years. We bump heads all the time lol.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Just need a large enough sample size (idk what that actual number is though). Half a season should be more than enough. People don't just slump for over 40 games. Klay is at 36% right now, he shouldn't be at a 90 in 3 (idk what it actually is though)
Ratings are hard. Your never going to make everyone happy. Especially with a group so big. Rashdi has been doing this for years. We bump heads all the time lol.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Greedy Rashidi.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
His shooting badges should make him capable of hitting those shots in the game. Doesn't need to be 90 in 3pt to hit those
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Great example
Not many bigs covering that.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BszERiIHyTf/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1w9n3cp153t1q
Blake Griffin ratings for a shot like that....
Dribble rating... 75
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I guess you're late to the party, because it's already been mentioned.
He deserves these badges in my opinion. There is no stat that can represent these plays more than badges. Yes their rating should go up and down. I think some should keep their badges no matter what.
No. Prior to and currently, Klay deserves that badge.
The debate is comical, trivial and asinine. So many other roster oversights that warrant an actual discussion.
Nope that isn't true. Please see this link: https://www.operationsports.com/?s=2k+roster+update
Towards the end of the season it was once a month for two months, but prior it was around every two weeks.
Towards the end of the season it was once a month for two months, but prior it was around every two weeks.
jk31 is right we haven't had a every other week update in 2 years.
It's been a while.
They been updating rotations on a close to daily. I've seen some new player addition like Creek on the Nets. Who is that guy? lol
They also been doing injuries very quickly. Like day of lol. I was playing with the Nets and got off guard by Spencer Dinwiddle being injured. And I was like they just announce the thumb injury lol
It's been a while.
They been updating rotations on a close to daily. I've seen some new player addition like Creek on the Nets. Who is that guy? lol
They also been doing injuries very quickly. Like day of lol. I was playing with the Nets and got off guard by Spencer Dinwiddle being injured. And I was like they just announce the thumb injury lol
Guys lets make our own Roster news feed please? I Edit my own roster and play offline Myleague so with this community Stuff we could make editing roster easy.
PS: Someone else on this Forum typed/created this sheet. Sorry i cant remember ATM.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
It's been a while.
They been updating rotations on a close to daily. I've seen some new player addition like Creek on the Nets. Who is that guy? lol
They also been doing injuries very quickly. Like day of lol. I was playing with the Nets and got off guard by Spencer Dinwiddle being injured. And I was like they just announce the thumb injury lol
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Dinwiddie had surgery and is out 3-6 weeks....
Knicks are atrocious and SHOULD NOT be getting ratings increases. I just don't understand the logic.
If a guy plays his rating improves? Not if he helps his team win, but just if he literally gets minutes...
Luke Kornet should not be anywhere near Rodions Kurucs overall rating-wise
Luke Kornet (349 mins)
17.7 PER
60 TS% on 18 USG% (43-43-83)
14 AST% on 2.38 ATR
4 ORB% / 14 DRB%
1.8 STL% / 2.9 BLK%
Rodions Kurucs (730 mins)
12.6 PER
58 TS% on 19 USG% (48-30-91)
5 AST% on 0.58 ATR
5 ORB% / 14 DRB%
1.5 STL% / 1.0 BLK%
Uhhh.......
I mean you're probably right but not in the way you thought.