the ratings for the centers is off. amare stoudemire last year is not worthy of a 95 rating. He's more 92. And I don't get how Dwight Howard is rated 1 point lower than Yao already. Don't get me wrong, Dwight will get a lot better soon but offensively, Dwight is so unproven. He's a decent player but his sheer athleticism doesn't mean he's worthy of a rating equal to Yao. Though I wonder how many points Dwight would get if he had nash with him ...
Dwight Howard would be dubbed the manifestation of god on earth if he was in Amare's place. Makes one wonder if Karl Malone would get so much run for the title of "greatest power forward ever" without Stockton. I'm thinking Malone was good, but Stockton made him the same way Nash makes Amare.
now that is just a diss to karl malone. i don't think u ever saw malone play. he actually had a fallaway that was unstoppable. he also had that midrange game that no PF today outside of dirk has. he also was strong going to the hole. amare is not even in the stratosphere of karl malone right now or possibly ever. the reason amare is ranked so high b/c the center position is weak, even w/ yao at the top. and w/ the suns winning, he gets overrated.
Never saw Malone play? You must be joking. Yeah, Malone was great. He had uncommon passing ability, strength (duh), and he had a great jumpshot by the end of his career. But the thing is, he added range to the thing every single year. For the first half of his career, it just wasn't a weapon for him like it was when the Jazz were making Finals appearances. I'm not discounting that Malone was a great player, but I don't think quite as many people would consider him a shoe-in as the greatest 4 of all time without Stockton. Stockton in his prime made Nash look like V-Span. He pushed Malone from being considered "great" to "greatest."
say what? u have got to be kidding me. malone was NEVER considered great until he ADDED those things u said. and those things he added were by him, not stockton. malone was also great pretty good late in his career when stockton was declining. he is considered the greatest PF until duncan b/c of his longevity and the stats he put up. simply put, his stats are ridiculous. i thought barkely, in his short great prime, is better than any PF pound for pound. but longevity counts for a lot. the same can be said for hakeem. if his prime was a little bit longer, no doubt in my mind he would be on EVERYBODY'S top 5 overall.
Yes, exactly. And he would not have put up the type of numbers he put up early on before he developed those things without Stockton. What would Barkley's career stats have looked like if he played with Stockton his whole career? And a "declining" Stockton is still far, far, far superior to most other point guards in their prime. Again, Malone is one of the best PFs ever... I just don't know that it would be such a forgone conclusion that he's THE best without Stockton.
Yeah I knew Lucas and Spanoulis were on there. Looks like they dropped their ratings though when it looked like they would not be on the team. Spanoulis went from a 69 to a 66, and Lucas went from a 67 to a 62, which again makes me wonder about how the game makers come up with these player ratings.
Probably wanted to make the Rockets "overall" better, and a 62 would certainly weigh us down (thus the slight stat decrease when they are off the team). That's the only thing I can think of.
I have always got NBA Live becuase I am a fan of EA sports and I know the bottons well. Every year I buy Live and I think about getting the 2K series, but I dont get it because I am not familar with the controls or the game. Every year people say the 2K game is better then Live. I only have enough money to buy one. Can someone please explain to me why I should get the 2K 08 instead of Live considering that I am familar with Live and I have never played 2K and will be very bad at it at first. Is the online play of 2K on XBOX 360 as good as lives online play?
live has better graphics. 2k has better gameplay. i think gameplay should tip u towards 2k. for me, when i play live, it's TOO easy. i usually shoot a ridiculous 60% fg w/o trying. w/ 2k, u actually have to go to work.
Yes Live is too easy. I always shot with 60-70% from the field, that's not realistic. Especially for PC it sucks. Every players have the same attempt, PG (in Live 07) plays alone, he can score 60 points or more easily. NBA Live has a lot of mistakes.... I don't have NBA 2k but friend told me that it's more realistic, tougher. If you wanna score 100 points a game you have to play 12 minute quaters...Gameplay is a lot better. Every player shots the ball in different way and thare are a lot of things there are better...
Does anybody in Houston have 2K8 yet? I have contacted a few stores and they will be selling them today (Oct. 1st)
I just picked up my copy @ Gamecrazy. I got the only PS3 copy though. They have 4 other copies of the 360 version. My PSN id is: darkgable34
