hughesjr
Game Rating: Hall of Famer
Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 2018 (1)

HD - 260
GD - 143
HBD - 6
FCD - 2

OK ... using the min() function (to select either your calculation [if it is < 100) or the number 100 [if your calculation is > 100]) ... here are what I am using to rate players:

PG:

min((A+A_P),100)*0.11+min((SPD+SPD_P),100)*0.14+min((REB+REB_P),100)*0+min((DE+DE_P),100)*0.10+min((BLK+BLK_P),100)*0+min((LP+LP_P),100)*0.01+min((PE+PE_P),100)*0.12+min((BH+BH_P),100)*0.18+min((P+P_P),100)*0.27+WE*0.03+min((ST+ST_P),100)*0.03+min((DU+DU_P),100)*0.01

SG:

min((A+A_P),100)*0.11+min((SPD+SPD_P),100)*0.14+min((REB+REB_P),100)*0+min((DE+DE_P),100)*0.10+min((BLK+BLK_P),100)*0+min((LP+LP_P),100)*0.03+min((PE+PE_P),100)*0.24+min((BH+BH_P),100)*0.13+min((P+P_P),100)*0.18+WE*0.03+min((ST+ST_P),100)*0.03+min((DU+DU_P),100)*0.01

SF:

min((A+A_P),100)*0.14+min((SPD+SPD_P),100)*0.10+min((REB+REB_P),100)*0.07+min((DE+DE_P),100)*0.10+min((BLK+BLK_P),100)*0.06+min((LP+LP_P),100)*0.12+min((PE+PE_P),100)*0.12+min((BH+BH_P),100)*0.08+min((P+P_P),100)*0.14+WE*0.03+min((ST+ST_P),100)*0.03+min((DU+DU_P),100)*0.01

PF:

min((A+A_P),100)*0.19+min((SPD+SPD_P),100)*0.08+min((REB+REB_P),100)*0.12+min((DE+DE_P),100)*0.10+min((BLK+BLK_P),100)*0.08+min((LP+LP_P),100)*0.14+min((PE+PE_P),100)*0.09+min((BH+BH_P),100)*0.05+min((P+P_P),100)*0.08+WE*0.03+min((ST+ST_P),100)*0.03+min((DU+DU_P),100)*0.01

C:

min((A+A_P),100)*0.18+min((SPD+SPD_P),100)*0.03+min((REB+REB_P),100)*0.20+min((DE+DE_P),100)*0.10+min((BLK+BLK_P),100)*0.15+min((LP+LP_P),100)*0.22+min((PE+PE_P),100)*0.01+min((BH+BH_P),100)*0.00+min((P+P_P),100)*0.04+WE*0.03+min((ST+ST_P),100)*0.03+min((DU+DU_P),100)*0.01

As others have pointed out ... I take 1 (or 100%) and split it up for what I consider to be important for each position ... so, at SF I think that **A** (athleticism) is worth 0.14 (or 14%), while I value **LP** (low post) and **PE** (perimeter) at 0.12 (or 12%), etc.

So, looking specifically at Athleticism for SF, that part of the formula is **min((A+A_P),100)*0.14** . This means if a guy has 50 for **A** and a high potential (I use 25 for high), then (50+25)*0.14 is 10.5 and that is used for the **A** component. If the guy had 79 for A and high potential, then 79+25=104 ... but min(104,100) would pick 100 instead of 104, and 100*0.14 is 14 which would be used as the **A** component for the SF position.

The advantage of splitting up 1 (or 100%) is that the overall rating for a player will be 1-100 (just like each attribute is 1-100).

If you value things differently, maybe you like 16% for A, 14% for LP, and 8% PE for at the SF position instead of what I had (14%, 12%, 12%) ... then you would change the **min((A+A_P),100)*0.14** to **min((A+A_P),100)*0.16** (and also the other factors). As long as all the factors add up to 1.00 for all the attributes, then your overall score is a weighted average with a value of 1-100.

I use 0 for low, 10 for average, and 25 for high for potential and I use 0 for unscouted.