Posted by all3 on 4/19/2016 9:28:00 AM (view original):
Looking at these D ratings makes me long for the old days when they didn't exist. Having nothing at all is better than having something nonsensical.

I dunno, brother, I'm too much of a purist and optimist to wish for nothing. I just want them to be PERFECT! Or at least to make sense. I think ultimately the WIS staff need to be willing to make some subjective adjustments to the ratings of key seasons of certain players.

Harden's defensive rating should be a 2.

Posted by shine06 on 4/22/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Harden's defensive rating should be a 2.

An accurate D-rating system would be great, but one that considers Harden "Above Average", and even almost Bill Russell-level one season, is a joke and should be done away with. Such gross inaccuracies make me feel no system (like in the "good old days of WIS) is a better option than the one in place.

Posted by all3 on 4/23/2016 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shine06 on 4/22/2016 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Harden's defensive rating should be a 2.

An accurate D-rating system would be great, but one that considers Harden "Above Average", and even almost Bill Russell-level one season, is a joke and should be done away with. Such gross inaccuracies make me feel no system (like in the "good old days of WIS) is a better option than the one in place.

I am not in favor of eliminating the defensive ratings. For seasons 1973-74 to the present, defensive box plus/minus (with rating floors for defensive MVP, 1st team all defense, 2nd team all defense, and players getting all defense votes) would probably work better. For the 15-16 season, Harden would have a rating below 50.

Some people may prefer a (seriously?) flawed system to no system at all. I can respect their choice, but I can't agree with it. To me, things should be (close to) totally correct or not at all.

Posted by all3 on 4/23/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Some people may prefer a (seriously?) flawed system to no system at all. I can respect their choice, but I can't agree with it. To me, things should be (close to) totally correct or not at all.

Would you eliminate blocks, steals and turnovers (since those numbers are estimates in the early days of the nba) from the player stats?

Before the defensive rating was made available, did users judge players based on steals and blocks, reputation, or was defense not factored in at all?

Posted by bkbillups on 4/23/2016 7:53:00 PM (view original):
Before the defensive rating was made available, did users judge players based on steals and blocks, reputation, or was defense not factored in at all?

Blocks and steals were still categories that were used and factored into salaries.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 4/23/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/23/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Some people may prefer a (seriously?) flawed system to no system at all. I can respect their choice, but I can't agree with it. To me, things should be (close to) totally correct or not at all.

Would you eliminate blocks, steals and turnovers (since those numbers are estimates in the early days of the nba) from the player stats?

In my eyes, using stats estimated as accurately as possible for older players so that actual comparable stats for newer players can be used is a far cry from (seemingly) randomly assigning numbers for a Defensive system that is not needed at all. Many people (W - A - Y more than now) played the SIM without any ratings at all for years. I get the attempt, and agree that if done with much more accuracy it would be good to have, just not in the current state.

yeah but some of those numbers are completely fabricated. If Russell & Wilt's blocks were close to accurate, they'd be 90+ def every season.... probably 100.

Posted by ashamael on 4/24/2016 4:11:00 AM (view original):
yeah but some of those numbers are completely fabricated. If Russell & Wilt's blocks were close to accurate, they'd be 90+ def every season.... probably 100.

Pretty much my point. They SHOULD be. They controlled games defensively the way almost nobody else ever has. Seeing some of the players getting ratings close to or higher than their's should be laughable to anyone who ever watched them play (even in old clips).

Let's look at it another way. Until recently, there was no such thing as automatic breaking in cars. In theory it's a great addition and will prevent tons of accidents. However, what if the system installed in cars worked great 70% - 80% of the time but caused the car to speed-up and create a worse collision the other 20% - 30% of the time. Should that system continue being installed in cars? Wouldn't no automatic breaking system be better than one that does exactly opposite the intended so frequently (like the D-ratings)?

But you just said it's a far cry. If they didn't use such bs made up nimbers, the dr of those guys wouldn't be an issue. Harden's still would be, however it would sting less than currently where he's a better defender than Bill ******* Russell.

You're confusing the heell out of me. You seem like you're trying to disagree, yet you keep making points that support me. It really doesn't matter who thinks what, because WIS is never going to change anything, so what we've got is what we need to live with.

Posted by all3 on 4/24/2016 7:26:00 PM (view original):
You're confusing the heell out of me. You seem like you're trying to disagree, yet you keep making points that support me. It really doesn't matter who thinks what, because WIS is never going to change anything, so what we've got is what we need to live with.

It's because you're too focused on being right or wrong instead of reading what's actually been said. I'm explaining part of the reason the problem exists instead of just saying the same thing over & over and making contradictory statements while doing so. Let me break it down for you:

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 4/23/2016 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 4/23/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Some people may prefer a (seriously?) flawed system to no system at all. I can respect their choice, but I can't agree with it. To me, things should be (close to) totally correct or not at all.

Would you eliminate blocks, steals and turnovers (since those numbers are estimates in the early days of the nba) from the player stats?

In my eyes, using stats estimated as accurately as possible for older players so that actual comparable stats for newer players can be used is a far cry from (seemingly) randomly assigning numbers for a Defensive system that is not needed at all. Many people (W - A - Y more than now) played the SIM without any ratings at all for years. I get the attempt, and agree that if done with much more accuracy it would be good to have, just not in the current state.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, inject what I said and see if it makes any more sense to you:

yeah but some of those numbers are completely fabricated. If Russell & Wilt's blocks were close to accurate, they'd be 90+ def every season.... probably 100.

Part of the problem is that the stats they use for their formula for defensive rating aren't available in the old days, so they use the ones they fabricated. FYI, blk% & stl% are two key elements that go into wisnba's d-rating. These numbers are absurdly low in a few instances (namely Blocks for Russell, Wilt & Thurmond at least), and if the numbers they used were more accurate, we wouldn't be crying about Harden having better D than Russell, because he (Russell) would be 100 every season regardless of all-defense teams or anything else (see: Whiteside's 15-16 season, a few Mutombo, Olajuwon, Admiral & Bol seasons). There would still be some problems, like Harden's absurdly high defense, but the problem be less blatantly obvious since Russell would be head & shoulders better instead of near the same or actually behind like he is in a few seasons.

So no, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just know exactly where the problem lies. Their refusal to do anything about it is another one.

I'm disappointed that they made Draymond Green 96% at center. According to Zach Lowe he played 25% of his minutes at center, he came in second in the DPY voting, he guards opposing centers effectively, and the best five man grouping in the NBA is Golden State's Death line-up with Green, Iguodala, Barnes, Thompson and Curry. It's a shame they don't use a little common sense and make him 100%.

And just for grins, I saw Shaun Livingston, the 182 pound string bean point guard standing next to Draymond Green, the stud defensive power forward/center. Even though they are both listed as 6' 7", Livingston appeared to be about an inch taller.