When to Implement Ratings Changes

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:14:29 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

It just makes more sense to me to make rating changes at the end of the season. Both increases and decreases.

We should have waited to start the season until all players were properly updated. But since we didn't I believe the rating changes should occur at the end of the season.

I hear you, but look on the bright side.  We will be less than 10 games into the season for most teams by the time the huge rating problems are fixed.  Then we'll be fixing up the "smaller" ones (2-4 point problems).  Then we have even more in store for you guys!  We (the Rating Committee) are just here to make this league play more like real life (but we completely understand that the teams here are build differently than real-life teams, so a player may not perform the same in here as in real life).  But we are going to "fix" ratings over the next few months in a major way to get all the way caught up, and then, we'll see!

Maybe we'll be caught up enough and have a good enough process that we can put in most rating changes during either the offseason or all-star break (for smaller changes).  

You really need to understand that we are making changes that are 2-3 years overdue, or put another way, the result of 2-3 years worth of data.

Once that is finally finished, we'll be using months to one year of data instead, and maybe (I don't know, this is in the future) changes can be made in bulk at set points in the season?  We'll see, but the drastic changes coming (players changing 5 or more points) are probably mainly going to be happening very soon, and will be rare in the future.  We should be able to stay on top of things enough with our new system that players only change 2-3 points most of the time once this "catch-up" phase is done.

[JR Wiles]

Jul 20, 2014 23:16:05 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:06:07 GMT -5 JR Wiles said:

And this is why Walt is who he is.  He is very smart.  I give it to him. He takes time on things.  I dont agree on some things but I do understand what he says at times.  The newer gms that are in this league that are not in the other D5, just have to realize that the ratings will change.  So realize it and base the season from that.  Unless Josh decides to do things differently here.

JR, I am not trying to be a jerk here but I honestly don't know if that was a compliment or a backhanded compliment or an insult or some mix of all 3, but I think for at least part of what you said, I'll say (and I mean it this time) - Thanks

It was a compliment and the truth. Just because I hate the way things go or change, I know who makes the league and takes the time to make the league what it is. I dont agree that it makes you more special or gives you more rights and that said lets just let Josh make the decision on the Rivers things and leave this argument go. What he decides just like Ians decisions I will go by. And I swear I brought the who Rivers thing up because I think its not right...not because its you. It could have been someone else and I would have done the same. Just sayin.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:19:39 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

When to implement rating changes is a cut and dry issue to me.

THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN VOTED ON

NBA players don't wait till the off-season to decline. They don't break out during the off-season. These changes happen in season. You realize a player gets worse when you watch him on TV and go, "Wow, Paul Pierce is a shell of his former self." You realize a player is getting better during the season, on TV, when you go, "Damn, DeMar DeRozan looks like a totally different player; better shot selection, and is really taking over this game."

Yeah, we can change them whenever we want to. But having a player be rated highly, when they aren't performing to that level in real life, gives the team an unfair advantage. Every year, there are going to be players who decline, and players who progress. The NBA teams get the added benefit of that change happening right away. So why shouldn't we in here? Players decline, they get worse, its the inherited risk when acquiring any player. There's also the benefit that they may get better. 

Its plain stupid to think that we should implement rating changes. I have absolutely no idea why someone would want to wait to have rating changes implemented. Unless of course, their team is comprised of players who have inflated ratings. That is the only reason I can think of that would make a GM want to wait for rating changes.

I participate and play in the sim leagues because it is very realistic of being an NBA GM. If you want to play in a sim league that has no realism, go play in one. These two sim leagues, D5 and F5, represent realism in every aspect of the league. From the rules to the draft to the players we have. It makes no sense why we would change these values when it comes to ratings. 

The only fathomable reason one would be against in-season rating changes is because their team would be effected negatively with the ratings changes. Which would then mean that the GM would have an unfair advantage. 

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Why we would wait is irrational. The league represents realism to the highest possible degree. And the biggest representation we have of such realism is that players in here represent how they play in real life. But yeah, I mean, lets have Ben Gordon drop 37 and 42 points in consecutive nights, because this is 2005. Or lets have Pierce be one of the leagues top 10 players because this is 2010. 

If we aren't going to represent player production as best as possible with ratings, we might as well change our team names to whatever we want. We might as well not draft the incoming players and instead have different guys, we might as well change the current players names to SF #4 or C#5. 

Your players are what they are. They get worse during the season. They get better during the season. If you make it to the playoffs with a player way overrated and then he gets nerfed, you shouldn't be upset. You should be fucking happy you got their in the first place. 

Charles, I think I agree with every single letter of every word of every sentence in this thing.  

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:21:41 GMT -5 JR Wiles said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:16:05 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

JR, I am not trying to be a jerk here but I honestly don't know if that was a compliment or a backhanded compliment or an insult or some mix of all 3, but I think for at least part of what you said, I'll say (and I mean it this time) - Thanks

It was a compliment and the truth. Just because I hate the way things go or change, I know who makes the league and takes the time to make the league what it is. I dont agree that it makes you more special or gives you more rights and that said lets just let Josh make the decision on the Rivers things and leave this argument go. What he decides just like Ians decisions I will go by. And I swear I brought the who Rivers thing up because I think its not right...not because its you. It could have been someone else and I would have done the same. Just sayin.

I'm fine letting Josh decide, it's what I've said the whole time.  It hurts Vlade more than me tbh, and as I said I felt bad for acting so quickly by dropping Rivers w/o even checking with Vlade to give him one last chance.  

I never said I was special or should have more rights than anyone else in this league.  The fact you think I did shows how skewed you are against me.  I said it sucks to put in a ton of time and get called a cheater for trying to make the league better.  

[Brian Scalabrine]

I think rating changes should be done during the season as well its a simulation league not just a video game

[Charles Barkley]

Jul 20, 2014 22:27:49 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

I decided to go ahead and make a thread here because the SAC - MIN trade thread got off track with this discussion. 

I think it simplifies things if we discuss the rating changes during the season and then implement them in the offseason. Once the season starts the ratings are locked in place in the game. This makes it easier to target players, discuss trades, and work on the current season's goals for your team. It also makes it more fair for everyone in the league. We don't have to constantly worry about, or wait for, rating changes to potentially be implemented. Right now it's a guessing game as to when they will occur. If a team is trying to tank but has a young stud that sees a big boost, it could affect that team. Or if a team is competing with a player they specifically targeted due to their rating in the game and he sees a decrease, it could hurt that team for that season. 

A player can be due for a certain rating, but to rid of the guessing game and to make it fair, I propose that those changes will not occur until the season is over. 

D5 can do what they want. But I believe the easiest and most fair answer as to when to implement ratings changes is at the conclusion of the season, during the off-season. 

It doesn't make it more fair for everyone in the league. In a specific case of Paul Pierce, it gives you an unfair advantage to every other team in the league who doesn't have a player impending a 7 point decrease. 

We don't worry or fear or wait for the changes, we know they will happen.

If a team is tanking, and a stud see's a boost, it isn't a big deal. The team will still suck except one player. His tank won't be ruined. I had a team of high 70's low 80's, traded for Derrick Rose, which put me with a 93 at the PG spot. I STILL finished where I was at before I acquired Rose. One player doesn't have a huge effect. It's a team game. The best team still wins, which is why earlier I said 3 90's and a bunch of 70's isnt as good as a team of 85-78's. Case in point was the D5 finals. 

If a GM targets a player because of his rating, and he see's a decrease, its the GM's fault. To think that ratings are concrete is insane. Target a player because of their real-life production. Not their in game ratings.

I didn't trade Kevin Love because for 3 guys in the 70's and have it be fair, because rating wise, and 89 for 3 guys 75-79 seems insane. But when you figure their RL production, its more than fair.

I don't see where you're coming from on any of your points, except for the fact that you're upset Pierce is going to be lowered in the season. It isn't fair to us for him to be that high when he isn't the player in RL he was at an 89.  

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 20, 2014 23:19:39 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

When to implement rating changes is a cut and dry issue to me.

THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN VOTED ON

NBA players don't wait till the off-season to decline. They don't break out during the off-season. These changes happen in season. You realize a player gets worse when you watch him on TV and go, "Wow, Paul Pierce is a shell of his former self." You realize a player is getting better during the season, on TV, when you go, "Damn, DeMar DeRozan looks like a totally different player; better shot selection, and is really taking over this game."

Yeah, we can change them whenever we want to. But having a player be rated highly, when they aren't performing to that level in real life, gives the team an unfair advantage. Every year, there are going to be players who decline, and players who progress. The NBA teams get the added benefit of that change happening right away. So why shouldn't we in here? Players decline, they get worse, its the inherited risk when acquiring any player. There's also the benefit that they may get better. 

Its plain stupid to think that we should implement rating changes. I have absolutely no idea why someone would want to wait to have rating changes implemented. Unless of course, their team is comprised of players who have inflated ratings. That is the only reason I can think of that would make a GM want to wait for rating changes.

I participate and play in the sim leagues because it is very realistic of being an NBA GM. If you want to play in a sim league that has no realism, go play in one. These two sim leagues, D5 and F5, represent realism in every aspect of the league. From the rules to the draft to the players we have. It makes no sense why we would change these values when it comes to ratings. 

The only fathomable reason one would be against in-season rating changes is because their team would be effected negatively with the ratings changes. Which would then mean that the GM would have an unfair advantage. 

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Why we would wait is irrational. The league represents realism to the highest possible degree. And the biggest representation we have of such realism is that players in here represent how they play in real life. But yeah, I mean, lets have Ben Gordon drop 37 and 42 points in consecutive nights, because this is 2005. Or lets have Pierce be one of the leagues top 10 players because this is 2010. 

If we aren't going to represent player production as best as possible with ratings, we might as well change our team names to whatever we want. We might as well not draft the incoming players and instead have different guys, we might as well change the current players names to SF #4 or C#5. 

Your players are what they are. They get worse during the season. They get better during the season. If you make it to the playoffs with a player way overrated and then he gets nerfed, you shouldn't be upset. You should be fucking happy you got their in the first place. 

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

[Pinoy Sakuragi]

lets do it by the show of hands please.. or a poll.. much simple.. post your arguments.. we will read it then decide...

[JR Wiles]

I never called you a cheater. I said that that move was unfair. If I did I am sorry. Divac got involved so I might have said it somehow. But setting rules and going by them make the league better as well. And letting newer gms know how our rating system will work makes the league better and thats what I was doing as well. But again good nite and lets just all be lucky we are part of the 2 best sim leagues out there.

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:11 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Jul 20, 2014 22:27:49 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

I decided to go ahead and make a thread here because the SAC - MIN trade thread got off track with this discussion. 

I think it simplifies things if we discuss the rating changes during the season and then implement them in the offseason. Once the season starts the ratings are locked in place in the game. This makes it easier to target players, discuss trades, and work on the current season's goals for your team. It also makes it more fair for everyone in the league. We don't have to constantly worry about, or wait for, rating changes to potentially be implemented. Right now it's a guessing game as to when they will occur. If a team is trying to tank but has a young stud that sees a big boost, it could affect that team. Or if a team is competing with a player they specifically targeted due to their rating in the game and he sees a decrease, it could hurt that team for that season. 

A player can be due for a certain rating, but to rid of the guessing game and to make it fair, I propose that those changes will not occur until the season is over. 

D5 can do what they want. But I believe the easiest and most fair answer as to when to implement ratings changes is at the conclusion of the season, during the off-season. 

It doesn't make it more fair for everyone in the league. In a specific case of Paul Pierce, it gives you an unfair advantage to every other team in the league who doesn't have a player impending a 7 point decrease. 

We don't worry or fear or wait for the changes, we know they will happen.

If a team is tanking, and a stud see's a boost, it isn't a big deal. The team will still suck except one player. His tank won't be ruined. I had a team of high 70's low 80's, traded for Derrick Rose, which put me with a 93 at the PG spot. I STILL finished where I was at before I acquired Rose. One player doesn't have a huge effect. It's a team game. The best team still wins, which is why earlier I said 3 90's and a bunch of 70's isnt as good as a team of 85-78's. Case in point was the D5 finals. 

If a GM targets a player because of his rating, and he see's a decrease, its the GM's fault. To think that ratings are concrete is insane. Target a player because of their real-life production. Not their in game ratings.

I didn't trade Kevin Love because for 3 guys in the 70's and have it be fair, because rating wise, and 89 for 3 guys 75-79 seems insane. But when you figure their RL production, its more than fair.

I don't see where you're coming from on any of your points, except for the fact that you're upset Pierce is going to be lowered in the season. It isn't fair to us for him to be that high when he isn't the player in RL he was at an 89.  

I wish I didn't have Paul Pierce right now because the fact people are focusing on him is frustrating me. I would love for him to stay an 89, but even at an 82 he's going to be an effective player. I want to have a standard time for rating changes to simplify the process and potentially help eliminate discussions created by the SAC - MIN trade (83 v 85). In fact, I've been looking to trade Pierce anyway.

My issue is the *timing* of changes. It's the overall picture. I came into the league under the impression that rating changes would happen eventually, at some point. That didn't sit well with me then and I got to thinking that instead of just willy-nilly whenever someone gets to it, why not implement all changes at the end of the season? A standardized time of when a season-long discussion of rating changes can take place. It just makes so much more sense to me.

We simulate real life. We are not real life.

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:22 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:19:39 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

When to implement rating changes is a cut and dry issue to me.

THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN VOTED ON

NBA players don't wait till the off-season to decline. They don't break out during the off-season. These changes happen in season. You realize a player gets worse when you watch him on TV and go, "Wow, Paul Pierce is a shell of his former self." You realize a player is getting better during the season, on TV, when you go, "Damn, DeMar DeRozan looks like a totally different player; better shot selection, and is really taking over this game."

Yeah, we can change them whenever we want to. But having a player be rated highly, when they aren't performing to that level in real life, gives the team an unfair advantage. Every year, there are going to be players who decline, and players who progress. The NBA teams get the added benefit of that change happening right away. So why shouldn't we in here? Players decline, they get worse, its the inherited risk when acquiring any player. There's also the benefit that they may get better. 

Its plain stupid to think that we should implement rating changes. I have absolutely no idea why someone would want to wait to have rating changes implemented. Unless of course, their team is comprised of players who have inflated ratings. That is the only reason I can think of that would make a GM want to wait for rating changes.

I participate and play in the sim leagues because it is very realistic of being an NBA GM. If you want to play in a sim league that has no realism, go play in one. These two sim leagues, D5 and F5, represent realism in every aspect of the league. From the rules to the draft to the players we have. It makes no sense why we would change these values when it comes to ratings. 

The only fathomable reason one would be against in-season rating changes is because their team would be effected negatively with the ratings changes. Which would then mean that the GM would have an unfair advantage. 

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Why we would wait is irrational. The league represents realism to the highest possible degree. And the biggest representation we have of such realism is that players in here represent how they play in real life. But yeah, I mean, lets have Ben Gordon drop 37 and 42 points in consecutive nights, because this is 2005. Or lets have Pierce be one of the leagues top 10 players because this is 2010. 

If we aren't going to represent player production as best as possible with ratings, we might as well change our team names to whatever we want. We might as well not draft the incoming players and instead have different guys, we might as well change the current players names to SF #4 or C#5. 

Your players are what they are. They get worse during the season. They get better during the season. If you make it to the playoffs with a player way overrated and then he gets nerfed, you shouldn't be upset. You should be fucking happy you got their in the first place. 

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

That's actually a huge issue.  Nash is kind of a funny one to pick b/c if he is somehow injury free this season, I bet he could average that, but he's not injury free and he's not the same guy b/c of those injuries...but his skill is still probably among the best PG's in the league.

But, Paul Pierce IRL is not anything close to an 89 rating, so he shouldn't be in here, plain and simple.  It is honestly terrible for the league to have Paul Pierce rated an 89, and just looking the other way for an entire season (which is months long in real-time) is a very poor decision for a league based on real life.  We have the ability to make the change, so we should do it when it is needed.

Again (yes, even I'm getting tired of typing the same thing so I'm sorry to everyone for reading the same thing over and over again), we shouldn't have problems like this once we get caught up.  Changes will happen in little chunks of 2-3 points and players (ideally) won't be slipping through the cracks for literally years.  I honestly never want to see a rating increase/decrease of more than 5 points ever again once we get caught up, but that's my ideal scenario.  It might happen here or there if someone has an incredible breakout or incredible decline, but the thing you are worried about (big changes made in-season) will ideally not happen once we are caught up.

IMO you are arguing a dead-horse b/c this issue (big changes made in-season) is being resolved as we speak.  Guys like Pierce who are not changed yet are the remnants from the past era of Rating Changes.  The new Era is being ushered in, and things will be much more smooth and timely once we are caught up!

[JR Wiles]

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:22 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:19:39 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

When to implement rating changes is a cut and dry issue to me.

THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN VOTED ON

NBA players don't wait till the off-season to decline. They don't break out during the off-season. These changes happen in season. You realize a player gets worse when you watch him on TV and go, "Wow, Paul Pierce is a shell of his former self." You realize a player is getting better during the season, on TV, when you go, "Damn, DeMar DeRozan looks like a totally different player; better shot selection, and is really taking over this game."

Yeah, we can change them whenever we want to. But having a player be rated highly, when they aren't performing to that level in real life, gives the team an unfair advantage. Every year, there are going to be players who decline, and players who progress. The NBA teams get the added benefit of that change happening right away. So why shouldn't we in here? Players decline, they get worse, its the inherited risk when acquiring any player. There's also the benefit that they may get better. 

Its plain stupid to think that we should implement rating changes. I have absolutely no idea why someone would want to wait to have rating changes implemented. Unless of course, their team is comprised of players who have inflated ratings. That is the only reason I can think of that would make a GM want to wait for rating changes.

I participate and play in the sim leagues because it is very realistic of being an NBA GM. If you want to play in a sim league that has no realism, go play in one. These two sim leagues, D5 and F5, represent realism in every aspect of the league. From the rules to the draft to the players we have. It makes no sense why we would change these values when it comes to ratings. 

The only fathomable reason one would be against in-season rating changes is because their team would be effected negatively with the ratings changes. Which would then mean that the GM would have an unfair advantage. 

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Why we would wait is irrational. The league represents realism to the highest possible degree. And the biggest representation we have of such realism is that players in here represent how they play in real life. But yeah, I mean, lets have Ben Gordon drop 37 and 42 points in consecutive nights, because this is 2005. Or lets have Pierce be one of the leagues top 10 players because this is 2010. 

If we aren't going to represent player production as best as possible with ratings, we might as well change our team names to whatever we want. We might as well not draft the incoming players and instead have different guys, we might as well change the current players names to SF #4 or C#5. 

Your players are what they are. They get worse during the season. They get better during the season. If you make it to the playoffs with a player way overrated and then he gets nerfed, you shouldn't be upset. You should be fucking happy you got their in the first place. 

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

The Nash Example is funny.  I agree we should have updated the ratings in the other league for a long time.  I hate change.  When change happened I was not happy.  But I agree with it now and I see whats going on.  Its going to happen no matter how we go about it because the ratings need changed.  At some point we will get caught up.  Then a system will be in place, so it can be done sooner/faster.  The reason the Nash ex was funny was because I felt his rating needed changed in the other league the whole season.  We changed many ratings but his stayed just below 90, all the way into the playoffs and until the Heat were knocked out.  Thats a sign that we need to get things current sooner than later, because that cant happen again.  Please Walt!!!  I am pretty sure the ratings will go by what Walt is saying and him, Ian and Josh have the two leagues organized and its planned out.  I just want you guys to let the new guys know whats up before they keep making trades and they get pissed off later on.  I hate change...And I know they would not like to waste a whole season if not years because of change.  That being said(to the new guys)-- you are now part of the best sim league ever assembled.  You need to join our other league as well if you want to be a part of that.  And although Gms like Walt and I do fight at times..I respect him.  Him and most of the others.  There are a few I cant stand, but that goes both ways..lol

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:38:32 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:11 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

It doesn't make it more fair for everyone in the league. In a specific case of Paul Pierce, it gives you an unfair advantage to every other team in the league who doesn't have a player impending a 7 point decrease. 

We don't worry or fear or wait for the changes, we know they will happen.

If a team is tanking, and a stud see's a boost, it isn't a big deal. The team will still suck except one player. His tank won't be ruined. I had a team of high 70's low 80's, traded for Derrick Rose, which put me with a 93 at the PG spot. I STILL finished where I was at before I acquired Rose. One player doesn't have a huge effect. It's a team game. The best team still wins, which is why earlier I said 3 90's and a bunch of 70's isnt as good as a team of 85-78's. Case in point was the D5 finals. 

If a GM targets a player because of his rating, and he see's a decrease, its the GM's fault. To think that ratings are concrete is insane. Target a player because of their real-life production. Not their in game ratings.

I didn't trade Kevin Love because for 3 guys in the 70's and have it be fair, because rating wise, and 89 for 3 guys 75-79 seems insane. But when you figure their RL production, its more than fair.

I don't see where you're coming from on any of your points, except for the fact that you're upset Pierce is going to be lowered in the season. It isn't fair to us for him to be that high when he isn't the player in RL he was at an 89.  

I wish I didn't have Paul Pierce right now because the fact people are focusing on him is frustrating me. I would love for him to stay an 89, but even at an 82 he's going to be an effective player. I want to have a standard time for rating changes to simplify the process and potentially help eliminate discussions created by the SAC - MIN trade (83 v 85). In fact, I've been looking to trade Pierce anyway.

My issue is the *timing* of changes. It's the overall picture. I came into the league under the impression that rating changes would happen eventually, at some point. That didn't sit well with me then and I got to thinking that instead of just willy-nilly whenever someone gets to it, why not implement all changes at the end of the season? A standardized time of when a season-long discussion of rating changes can take place. It just makes so much more sense to me.

We simulate real life. We are not real life.

How are we going to simulate real life if our ratings are all fucked up?  Lol.  That's the part of your whole argument I don't get at all Tommy boy.  We NEED to fix the ratings ASAP or else we are NOT simulating real life.  At least not the real-life that exists now.  

[Charles Barkley]

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:22 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:19:39 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

When to implement rating changes is a cut and dry issue to me.

THEY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEY'VE BEEN VOTED ON

NBA players don't wait till the off-season to decline. They don't break out during the off-season. These changes happen in season. You realize a player gets worse when you watch him on TV and go, "Wow, Paul Pierce is a shell of his former self." You realize a player is getting better during the season, on TV, when you go, "Damn, DeMar DeRozan looks like a totally different player; better shot selection, and is really taking over this game."

Yeah, we can change them whenever we want to. But having a player be rated highly, when they aren't performing to that level in real life, gives the team an unfair advantage. Every year, there are going to be players who decline, and players who progress. The NBA teams get the added benefit of that change happening right away. So why shouldn't we in here? Players decline, they get worse, its the inherited risk when acquiring any player. There's also the benefit that they may get better. 

Its plain stupid to think that we should implement rating changes. I have absolutely no idea why someone would want to wait to have rating changes implemented. Unless of course, their team is comprised of players who have inflated ratings. That is the only reason I can think of that would make a GM want to wait for rating changes.

I participate and play in the sim leagues because it is very realistic of being an NBA GM. If you want to play in a sim league that has no realism, go play in one. These two sim leagues, D5 and F5, represent realism in every aspect of the league. From the rules to the draft to the players we have. It makes no sense why we would change these values when it comes to ratings. 

The only fathomable reason one would be against in-season rating changes is because their team would be effected negatively with the ratings changes. Which would then mean that the GM would have an unfair advantage. 

Why this is even a discussion is beyond me. Why we would wait is irrational. The league represents realism to the highest possible degree. And the biggest representation we have of such realism is that players in here represent how they play in real life. But yeah, I mean, lets have Ben Gordon drop 37 and 42 points in consecutive nights, because this is 2005. Or lets have Pierce be one of the leagues top 10 players because this is 2010. 

If we aren't going to represent player production as best as possible with ratings, we might as well change our team names to whatever we want. We might as well not draft the incoming players and instead have different guys, we might as well change the current players names to SF #4 or C#5. 

Your players are what they are. They get worse during the season. They get better during the season. If you make it to the playoffs with a player way overrated and then he gets nerfed, you shouldn't be upset. You should be fucking happy you got their in the first place. 

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

It is a big deal if Steve Nash averagaes 20 and 9 because this is 2014. Steve Nash averaged 7/6/2 and those are rounding up. Steve Nash has never in his career averaged 20 points. And if he does so in here it would be a failure on us. This is about realism. 

A player's RL performances already don't immediately impact his game rating. Say a guy has a year deserving of a rating of an 80, but say its Dwight, mostly everyone will say he should be an 80, he gets the benefit of the doubt he will turn it around, and he will be lowered a tad, but not down to an 80. (Although I feel otherwise, but that's not the point).

You're the GM of the fucking Wizards in D5, you didn't look at the Stock Watch thread? It seems like this is more about you being upset about not doing your due diligence when acquiring a player than anything else. You learned your lesson. Because I highly doubt that the Secret Council of Elders will change their policy on this. Of anything, when looking at the rosters, you should have though, Paul Pierce being an 89 probably isn't right.

TRADE FOR THE PLAYER IN REAL LIFE, NOT IN THE GAME

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 20, 2014 23:21:07 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:14:29 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

It just makes more sense to me to make rating changes at the end of the season. Both increases and decreases.

We should have waited to start the season until all players were properly updated. But since we didn't I believe the rating changes should occur at the end of the season.

I hear you, but look on the bright side.  We will be less than 10 games into the season for most teams by the time the huge rating problems are fixed.  Then we'll be fixing up the "smaller" ones (2-4 point problems).  Then we have even more in store for you guys!  We (the Rating Committee) are just here to make this league play more like real life (but we completely understand that the teams here are build differently than real-life teams, so a player may not perform the same in here as in real life).  But we are going to "fix" ratings over the next few months in a major way to get all the way caught up, and then, we'll see!

Maybe we'll be caught up enough and have a good enough process that we can put in most rating changes during either the offseason or all-star break (for smaller changes).  

You really need to understand that we are making changes that are 2-3 years overdue, or put another way, the result of 2-3 years worth of data.

Once that is finally finished, we'll be using months to one year of data instead, and maybe (I don't know, this is in the future) changes can be made in bulk at set points in the season?  We'll see, but the drastic changes coming (players changing 5 or more points) are probably mainly going to be happening very soon, and will be rare in the future.  We should be able to stay on top of things enough with our new system that players only change 2-3 points most of the time once this "catch-up" phase is done.

I guess I feel the overdue changes should have happened before this season started, if we're about to make changes in the middle of the season. I've invested too much personally, and I don't know if others have or not.

Whatever happens after the "caught up" period, I believe rating changes should still occur at the end of the season. It's just cleaner to me.