torontogrudlies wrote:The coaches also have ratings for each position, we could perhaps figure that in?
The coaches have a rating for each position but that doesn't tell us what qualities they are looking for at each position, unless you're talking about adding additional values as part of Tuesday Morning. We could make the Coach and GM values be averaged and have the weighting change based on how much approval rating they have. That way a lame duck coach has less control over what happens to the team while Bill Belicheck has near total control.
I was looking at the OVR formulas and unless we want to mess with the PRDH and PRDL values and change the starting values we can't change the "total weight" as listed in the spreadsheet. So if we want to make PBK and CAT weighted higher we have to decrease something accordingly, so when we design this we have to come up with traits which are valued as mutually exclusive. So the more pass happy a coach is the more CAT and PBK factor into it and the less STR and BTK do.
We should decide if we want this to be based only on pass run percentage or some other created stat that is more specific to each position. Pass Run percentage is the easiest and works pretty well for most things. But it isn't as nuanced as individual position ratings could be. You should decide soon if you think run/pass is good enough or if we want to try to make something more complex.
My latest idea would be to use both run/pass and offensive and defensive aggression as factors. But I was thinking, good teams often pair say a really aggressive penetrating D line with Linebackers who know are good at getting off of blocks. If you're going to run a blitz happy group of linebackers who either give up big gains or get stops for a loss you might want to pair that with a safety who's a sure tackler. So I was thinking what if for each GM at each position (or position group) we have two ratings, one that corresponds to pass versus run and one that corresponds to consistency and balance vs. big play ability and specialization. Mike Martz is all about the big play offense but he prefers blocking TE's so he would have a high aggressiveness for his receivers but a low aggressiveness for the TE position.
Here's a quick outline of how this would work at various positions, this is completely open to discussions.
QB: Modifying this for run/pass doesn't really make sense except for running quarterbacks and for all but a few QB's their scrambling ability is irrelevant so weighing it higher in a trade value formula wouldn't make sense. Coaches with high Aggressiveness would weigh THP higher than it is now, and THA a little less, more conservative coaches would be the opposite.
HB: pass happy teams would favor CAT and PBK at the expense of, say CAR and STR. Big play teams would favor SPD over BTK.
FB: Pass would value CAT and PBK over STR and RBK, Big play would value SPD and ACC over BTK and CAR
TE: Pass Would value PBK over RBK. Big play would value SPD and CAT over STR and BTK.
WR: Pass wouldn't have an effect because the current OVR formula doesn't factor in RBK at all. Big Play would value speed and ACC over CAT and AGI (possession receivers vs big play).
OL: Pass would value PBK over RBK, I don't know what makes a more aggresive lineman, maybe higher SPD and ACC for pulling plays and zone blocking over a lower STR for in line blocking, I don't know line is tricky.
DL: Pass defense oriented teams would favor ACC over STR, big play teams would favor SPD over TKL as they would be less worried about consistent tackling and more into backfield penetration. (Note: for some reason TKL is Weighted higher for DT's then it is for OLB's in the madden OVR setting which seems weird)
LB's: Pass would value SPD+AGI over STR and TKL, Aggressive would Value ACC over AWR (I'm thinking aggressive teams tend to want their LB's to blitz rather than hang back in coverage or diagnose plays)
DB's Pass would want SPD+ ACC over TKL+STR, aggressive would want CAT over AWR
I'm not gonna mess with Kickers at all.
The current OVR is based off a sum of the weighted scores added to a starting score (usually something around -60), the actual amount the scores are weighted by is a (x for a specific rating*(99/(PRDH-PRDL)))/sum of x for all ratings at that position. Our formula would have x+(Pass pct -50)*constant)) and this constant would be negative for a rating favored by running teams.
I did a little testing, it seems to work much better the more ratings are factored into the position. if the number is relatively few, like the QB position then the (agressivness-50)*constant would have to remain relatively low so that THP doesn't have 3 or 4 times the importance of throw accuracy. It worked better on positions like a HB where it tended to produce a 3 or 4 point swing using reasonable values. This is good I don't want a huge swing especially when the formula for evaluation is exponential.
I'll wait for a little more feedback on this before I test it any more or try to find any constants I want to stick with.
The attached file is a spreadsheet which factors the changes I suggested above, you can set the Pass balance and the aggression for each position and the constant by which those are multiplied. If anyone wants to take a shot at this see if it messes things up in any weird situations.
