|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Aug 5, 2008 10:17:52 GMT -5
Wow Frye yea...he should be like 73 max...69 wouldn't really be a bad rating either. yeah frye at 79 is probally the worst rating in this game
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Aug 5, 2008 22:36:06 GMT -5
Yea we missed on Frye. I will add him to my "to-do" list.
I will keep this open for some time. If anyone sees any other player that we obviously missed, holler at us and let us know.
|
|
|
Post by Oklahoma City Thunder on Aug 17, 2008 15:10:38 GMT -5
Alright, im leaving Horford and Bynum as is.
I will be changing Chandler and Boozer.
New Ratings: Chandler - 82 Boozer - 88 Frye - 75
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Aug 17, 2008 17:07:34 GMT -5
Alright, im leaving Horford and Bynum as is. I will be changing Chandler and Boozer. New Ratings:Chandler - 82 Boozer - 88 Frye - 75no offense sea but i think it is unfair to den that chandlers rating was dropped because he traded for him thinking he was an 84
|
|
|
Post by Orlando Magic on Aug 17, 2008 17:12:50 GMT -5
altho that is true DET, chandler put up great stats at his previous rating of 78 so i honestly think he will do even better with the new boost...
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Aug 17, 2008 17:18:38 GMT -5
Why lower Chandler he's the man?
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 17, 2008 23:43:20 GMT -5
Why is Bynum still only a 78? "Los Angles Lakes: The path back to The Finals is clear: The return of young center Andrew Bynum will make them championship favorites." www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=446884J. O'Neal (86): 42 games played, avg. 14pts, 7 rebs, 2 blks Camby (84) 78 games played, avg. 9* pts, 13 rebs, 3 blks Curry (80): 58 games played, avg 13 pts, 5 rebs, .5 blks Bynum (78): 35 games played, avg 13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks And it's not like Bynum is injury prone. He played all 82 games the year before...and i'm not trying to say he should be a mid-to-high 80s guy yet. But to say that these guys above, along with Chandler & Horford, are anywhere 1 to 8 pts better than Bynum is unreasonable. I'm pretty sure last time I checked he was holding his own with any big man in the league, even at his young age. To compare, there is 4 pts between (74)Bargnani (10 pts, 4 rebs, .5 blks) and (78) Bynum (13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks), then 4 pts between between (78)Bynum and (82)Chandler (12pts, 11 rebs, 1 blk)...it's not all about the stats, but Chandler wasn't that great either till being the recipient of Paul breaking down defenses and subsequent alley-oops and the emergence of West...I would take bynum any day over bargnani, but no one can say the same thing about taking chandler over bynum...and to hold bynum back because bargnani didn't produce this year and had to be dropped in ratings isn't fair to bynum's rating because he produced vs. the top competition in the West and the only thing that slowed him down was the freakish injury...
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia 76ers on Aug 17, 2008 23:49:41 GMT -5
Camby averaged 9 PPG not 3. Just wanna put that out there
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 17, 2008 23:55:32 GMT -5
Camby averaged 9 PPG not 3. Just wanna put that out there *that's what he avg. in the playoffs. my mistake
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Aug 18, 2008 0:11:05 GMT -5
Why is Bynum still only a 78? "Los Angles Lakes: The path back to The Finals is clear: The return of young center Andrew Bynum will make them championship favorites." www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=446884J. O'Neal (86): 42 games played, avg. 14pts, 7 rebs, 2 blks Camby (84) 78 games played, avg. 9* pts, 13 rebs, 3 blks Curry (80): 58 games played, avg 13 pts, 5 rebs, .5 blks Bynum (78): 35 games played, avg 13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks And it's not like Bynum is injury prone. He played all 82 games the year before...and i'm not trying to say he should be a mid-to-high 80s guy yet. But to say that these guys above, along with Chandler & Horford, are anywhere 1 to 8 pts better than Bynum is unreasonable. I'm pretty sure last time I checked he was holding his own with any big man in the league, even at his young age. To compare, there is 4 pts between (74)Bargnani (10 pts, 4 rebs, .5 blks) and (78) Bynum (13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks), then 4 pts between between (78)Bynum and (82)Chandler (12pts, 11 rebs, 1 blk)...it's not all about the stats, but Chandler wasn't that great either till being the recipient of Paul breaking down defenses and subsequent alley-oops and the emergence of West...I would take bynum any day over bargnani, but no one can say the same thing about taking chandler over bynum...and to hold bynum back because bargnani didn't produce this year and had to be dropped in ratings isn't fair to bynum's rating because he produced vs. the top competition in the West and the only thing that slowed him down was the freakish injury... Curry is a boosted 80, so he is really a 78. Just to let you know.
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 18, 2008 8:06:52 GMT -5
*Bynum was boosted from 73 to 75, then ratings upped 3 points to 78
|
|
|
Post by supremegm - MIA on Aug 18, 2008 10:26:47 GMT -5
Why is Bynum still only a 78? "Los Angles Lakes: The path back to The Finals is clear: The return of young center Andrew Bynum will make them championship favorites." www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=446884J. O'Neal (86): 42 games played, avg. 14pts, 7 rebs, 2 blks Camby (84) 78 games played, avg. 9* pts, 13 rebs, 3 blks Curry (80): 58 games played, avg 13 pts, 5 rebs, .5 blks Bynum (78): 35 games played, avg 13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks And it's not like Bynum is injury prone. He played all 82 games the year before...and i'm not trying to say he should be a mid-to-high 80s guy yet. But to say that these guys above, along with Chandler & Horford, are anywhere 1 to 8 pts better than Bynum is unreasonable. I'm pretty sure last time I checked he was holding his own with any big man in the league, even at his young age. To compare, there is 4 pts between (74)Bargnani (10 pts, 4 rebs, .5 blks) and (78) Bynum (13 pts, 10 rebs, 2 blks), then 4 pts between between (78)Bynum and (82)Chandler (12pts, 11 rebs, 1 blk)...it's not all about the stats, but Chandler wasn't that great either till being the recipient of Paul breaking down defenses and subsequent alley-oops and the emergence of West...I would take bynum any day over bargnani, but no one can say the same thing about taking chandler over bynum...and to hold bynum back because bargnani didn't produce this year and had to be dropped in ratings isn't fair to bynum's rating because he produced vs. the top competition in the West and the only thing that slowed him down was the freakish injury... All the guys you mentioned (besides Chandler and Horford) are proven NBA players, and that is why they are rated higher than 1 season wonders
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 18, 2008 14:59:00 GMT -5
jose calderon got a 5 pt. jump (74 to 79) for going from 9 pts & 5 assts to 11 pts & 8 assts in his 3rd year...bynum got a 3 pt. jump (75 to 78) for going from 8 pts & 6 rebs to 13pts, 10 rebs, & 2 blks in his 3rd year...so i guess calderon would be considered a one-year wonder too?
and i don't get why horford (81) is still rated higher than (78) bynum. horford's 10 pts (50% FG), 10 rebs, & 1 blk is still less than bynum's 13pts (64% FG), 10 rebs, 2 blks per game. Horford is also a year older than Bynum. And wouldn't a rookie year be considered a one-year wonder too? Just something to ponder...
I have a hard time seeing Bynum ranked below the likes of Chandler, Calderon, Horford, Dunleavy, Hinrich, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Boston Celtics on Aug 18, 2008 15:07:05 GMT -5
I think a 78 for Bynum is more than fair. The guy played a good 35 games last year. He needs to put a full season together before he goes any higher. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Cavaliers on Aug 18, 2008 15:39:42 GMT -5
jose calderon got a 5 pt. jump (74 to 79) for going from 9 pts & 5 assts to 11 pts & 8 assts in his 3rd year...bynum got a 3 pt. jump (75 to 78) for going from 8 pts & 6 rebs to 13pts, 10 rebs, & 2 blks in his 3rd year...so i guess calderon would be considered a one-year wonder too? and i don't get why horford (81) is still rated higher than (78) bynum. horford's 10 pts (50% FG), 10 rebs, & 1 blk is still less than bynum's 13pts (64% FG), 10 rebs, 2 blks per game. Horford is also a year older than Bynum. And wouldn't a rookie year be considered a one-year wonder too? Just something to ponder... I have a hard time seeing Bynum ranked below the likes of Chandler, Calderon, Horford, Dunleavy, Hinrich, etc... You do make some good points. I agree with you that Bynum should be at least an 80, so that would make him an 82 with the boost correct?
|
|
|
Post by Orlando Magic on Aug 18, 2008 15:52:19 GMT -5
To address the majority of points being raised here, ratings changes may come...but that is a STRONG maybe. Because you were all given the opportunity ALREADY to make the case for your players to be raised and to what level they should be raised. Not pointing out anyone in particular but the people who provided the kind of evidence you are raising right now...stats, etc. got their wishes while the people who just tossed out names didn't.
And if someone is raised here, then someone else will be complaining about their player being too low/high/w.e. It will be an endless cycle. I think as a whole, these ratings are pretty fair and to be honest, raising someone's rating a point/two will only affect their production by a few fractions anyway. Calderon played the year and improved by a lot, Bynum played half the year and STILL got a 3 point raise for his stat increase. I'd say that's pretty substantial considering the amount of time played.
This is simply a lengthy warning for those who are scrutinizing the ratings points that you may not get ur wish regardless of the arguments you raise because you were given the opportunity to do this already.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte Bobcats on Aug 18, 2008 17:33:02 GMT -5
Bynum is way overrated imo, let's see how he does next year because he shouldn't ever touch the ball on offense with Pau on the team.
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 18, 2008 20:26:40 GMT -5
When I was told to send in 3 players for comparison, I was told that Bynum would get a ratings increase, so I didn't include him. If I would have known it was only 3 points to a 78 (included boost), I would have included Bynum 3 times on that list. And 2 to 3 pts difference is a 2 to 3 pts difference no matter how you slice it. I'm pretty sure if Bynum was way overrated, respectable sports magazines (ESPN, Sporting News,etc.) wouldn't say he is the difference between the Lakers being a contending team and the team to beat in the West.
And speaking of overrated, Pau is as soft as Charmin. That's why he never led the Grizzlies to a playoff win (& road the coattails of Kobe this year).
And yes, Bynum only played in 35 games this year. But he produced in 35 games this year after playing the full 82 the year before. Holding him back because of being a "one-year wonder" or his injury is unreasonable. I'd be more concerned about somebody who played a full season and had the opportunities to produce as much as Bynum did, but failed to do so
If one told an NBA expert that they rated Chandler a 82, Horford a 81, & Bynum a 78, they'd laugh
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Pistons on Aug 18, 2008 21:36:36 GMT -5
If one told an NBA expert that they rated Chandler a 82, Horford a 81, & Bynum a 78, they'd laugh It all would depend if you asked Steven A. Smith he would say "Give me a cheese doodle"
|
|
yifor3 - NYK
Rookie GM
Don't Knocket 'til You Try It!
Posts: 86
|
Post by yifor3 - NYK on Aug 18, 2008 22:39:10 GMT -5
I'm just glad he's rated higher than Rasho Nesterovic!
|
|