BuzzerBeater Forums

"This rating is based on a combination of your player's stats and Note that this has nothing to do with the player's overall skill; if your worst player overall is the best on the court, he'll have the highest rating!"

The bold line is actually the reason why Im asking.. In my own opinion, if you use that sentence, then the answer to my question is YES. Unless someone can explain to me whats the meaning of " Note that this has nothing to do with the player's overall skill "

I understand your question, but that's just not how it works, you can tell from experience.

SF S. Horák 10 - 21 0 - 1 1 - 2 +24 2 9 6 2 1 0 4 21
PF M. Tadic 6 - 11 0 - 0 0 - 0 +20 3 15 6 1 0 1 0 12

Pretty similar performance, except for the higher rebounds for the PF and the higher scoring for the SF. Only the 4 fouls are blemish, but they don't have too much of an impact on ratings. You'd think they'd have about equal rating, since they performed about equal. The SF got a 9.5 and the PF 13.0. That's because the SF played more minutes and has lower skills.

SG J. Dézsy 39 10 - 21 1 - 4 3 - 4 +17 0 1 4 2 2 0 1 24
SF S. Horák 42 8 - 16 0 - 0 7 - 8 +13 3 9 3 1 2 0 6 23

Same thing, now with equal minutes. Only the fouls again, but offset by more free throws and rebounds. SF 9.0, SG 13.0.

Other times you see guards with very bad stats in 30+ minutes, but still with high rating. That's usually caused by the fact that they don't have any good inside shot but the team is running Look inside. If that guard gets the same stat but in an outside offense, he'd get 1 or 2 points higher rating. Not because of the better stats, but because his skills are better in an outside offense.

A game of a friend of mine:
SG A. Voorhoeve 48 13 - 22 2 - 3 5 - 7 +50 3 7 9 1 0 0 0 33 8.0
PG A. Sela 21 3 - 8 2 - 5 1 - 2 +24 2 3 3 1 0 2 1 9 10.0

33-9-7 with just 1 TO in 48 minutes, 59% FG% and 2-3 threes and no fouls? How does this guy get just 8.0 and the PG a 10? Minutes played, skills (9k vs 30k salary), and the PG is actually an SG so he would have gotten a higher rating if he played his natural position. Performance doesn't influence rating.

I think defense plays a factor as well. The box score is only part of the rating. I would guess that in the cases of your similar box scores the D was very different for the two players. They could have different D ratings or be playing against a very different levels of skill for opposing players.

But sir, its already stated on the definition of Match rating that " this has nothing to do with the player's overall skill". Maybe if you could compare their defensive and skills.. maybe thats the difference during the game.

I know it is stated there, and if you want to believe it go ahead. I'm just telling you what my experience is, and I find it a lot easier to understand if you just assume it's based on skill level and modified by other factors. That way you won't ask yourself why your player has such a high rating when he has a bad game or vice versa.

I think the important word is "overall" skill. I think the ratings are based on certain skills that are weighted as would be expected of the position that player is playing (in the tactics selected). So if a $100k big man is playing PG in a motion offense, he probably won't get a very high rating even if he has a lot of skills overall.