[Crispy's Critter]

I think the biggest problem in the overall ratings is that the individual ratings are equal. By that I mean that if you have 2 players with basically the same ratings numbers, but one has huge numbers on the defensive side but low numbers on the offensive side, whereas the other player is the opposite, with high offensive numbers and low defensive ones, in the end their overall ratings will be the same. They seem to be making the difference in playmaking/scoring abilities between lower and higher offensive numbers to have a higher gap between them than before, but not sure if it's quite enough. If they could somehow make it so the offensive numbers were worth more in the overall rating you might see more of a difference in players. Sort of like how sometimes when you took an exam in school, and one question might be worth 10% of the overall score, with the rest combined worth the other 90%. (just as an example)

Also I think the rating system is different now. In the old games it seemed that a player rated around 40 or so would be a bubble player, with the stars in the high 90's, now it seems the bubble players are the guys rated 70-75, with the stars still in the 90's, so the gap between lower and higher end players is lessened. Not sure if I'm explaining this right, but it's almost like in the old days they said 'ok, Gretzky is the standard, everyone else is rated on how they compare to him', whereas now they just use individual ratings, which can be somewhat subjective. (think I got my idea across with that, not sure)