The release of NBA 2K27’s full Top 100 player ratings has triggered a familiar wave of online outrage, but this year the criticism cuts deeper: fans aren’t just arguing over individual placements, they’re questioning whether the entire 90+ tier still means anything. With Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Victor Wembanyama, and Nikola Jokić sharing the top spot at 97 overall and a crowded cluster of stars from 96 down to 90, many supporters feel the scale has become so inflated that elite status no longer feels elite.
At the peak, 2K’s 90+ club used to be reserved for clear MVP candidates and perennial All-NBA locks. In 2K27, that group has swelled to include not only established superstars but also younger players coming off breakout seasons, creating a ratings landscape where 13 players sit at 90 or above in the top 20 alone. Anthony Edwards at 95, Cade Cunningham at 94, and a six-way tie at 93 featuring Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, and Karl-Anthony Towns has left fans wondering what exactly separates a 93 from a 97 in practical terms.
The most heated debates center on specific placements that seem to defy both recent performance and career legacy. Cade Cunningham’s 94 overall, one point higher than Curry’s 93, has become a lightning rod for criticism, with many arguing that a 25-year-old coming off his first All-NBA season should not be rated above a two-time MVP who remains a top-five shooter and offensive engine. Similarly, Jokić’s 97 rating is drawing fire from a different angle: if 2K is evaluating based on the most recent season, where he was phenomenal but not at his 2022–23 MVP peak, some fans believe he should be below Wemby and SGA rather than tied with them.
Social media reactions have been blunt. Content creators and long-time players have labeled the official Top 100 “biased,” “inconsistent,” and in some cases “the worst list ever,” arguing that large portions of the rankings “just do not add up.” The joke circulating online is simple: if 90+ is the new normal for any starter on a good team, then the rating system has lost its power to distinguish true hierarchy.
There is a logic to 2K’s approach. The company has stated it tries to balance current-season performance, projected role, and overall skill set when setting ratings, which explains boosts for players like Cunningham after entering the MVP conversation. Yet for fans who view ratings as a reflection of proven impact rather than potential, the result feels like grade inflation: everyone gets a slightly higher number, but the meaning of those numbers gets diluted.
The irony is that 2K27’s top tier is undeniably star-studded. Having SGA, Wemby, Jokić, Luka Dončić, Jalen Brunson, and Giannis Antetokounmpo all at 96–97 makes sense on paper given their recent seasons and two-way influence. But when that same tier sits just a few points above Curry, Durant, Tatum, and Leonard, the gap between “best player in the league” and “very good star” starts to blur.
For a franchise that relies on ratings to drive conversation, engagement, and Ultimate Team economies, some controversy is part of the plan. But when the backlash shifts from “they underrated my guy” to “the whole scale feels broken,” it suggests a deeper credibility problem. Until 2K can convince fans that a 97 truly stands above a 93 in a meaningful way, the joke will keep spreading: in 2K27, 90+ doesn’t mean elite anymore, it just means you made the cut.