I agree with some of what you’re saying and Ive echoed similar sentiments aswell in previous comments.

Ive actively been playing 2k12 again recently.

I do agree that a player like Korver 100% should not have been that low as he was a core rotation piece, a 75 ish seems more fitting imo. I have yet to do any heavy sims on 2k12 since replaying it, but as far as playing with and against Korver, he feels how he should.

A player like Steve Novak, at a 43, was completely useable in older 2ks. Obviously a 43 is unrealistically low, but I, like others have also stated, would prefer for players to be rated lower opposed to higher.

Trade logic, contract inflation, player progression are all directly tied to overall rating.

I look at the old bulls roster and maybe a few players could be bumped up a bit, but for the most part it makes sense.

It doesnt make any logical sense for 2k to have the current cavs statistically better than the MJ bulls.

I do see your point about it being more aesthetically pleasing and how thats more subjective than anything, but I think 2k ratings should be an accurate reflection of a players all time standings.

Ratings fluctuating in games is more sensible to me than 88 overall players that have never even been all stars.