Drizzt_13 wrote:Don't worry about what the total numbers come to now, you can always multiply the output of the evaluation formula by a constant so that it has the appropriate value compared to draft picks. All we should be worried about now is ratio of values not the actual values. If a 99QB is only 1.5 times as valuable as an 85 QB then we have a problem no matter what the actual values are. But if a 99 QB is worth 3 or 4 times as much than it's okay even if we only value them and 100 and 25 points respectively, we can just multiply them both by 6 or something to fit with the draft value chart.
Sounds reasonable. Keep in mind I'm also supplementing this formula with other factors which can get subtracted off, reasons why the player isn't a good fit for a particular team. The objective of that part is that a really low or negative number means the team will look to trade the player.
A quick comment about draft studies, one thing you have to consider is that teams picking towards the top tend to be at the top because they are bad at finding and developing talent, while consistently good teams tend to pick towards the bottom. Think of what the value of a quarterback like Sanchez would be if he was on a team with a line like the bears rather then a team with one of the best o-lines and a solid defense. Also one thing that has changed recently is that top picks are no longer paid ridiculous sums of money, which changes a lot of old studies which found that mid round picks were better than early ones because if you made a mistake at the top you lost a lot of cap space for the next 5-6 years.
I agree that the 3000 chart is completely irrational but I feel we should keep something close to that because a lot of teams still really overvalue top picks. Look at how much griffin went for, look at the fact that no ones willing to give up a first round pick for Mike Wallace, even though he's a young proven player and most draft prospects probably won't be that good. I think we should overvalue draftpicks because a lot of teams clearly value them more than they're worth, it's an issue of being closer to NFL reality than game balance.
With regard to worth, so far I'm using two different concepts of it when it comes to the player valuation. First, the value a team comes up with for a player, and then, the common value which is the average of what all 32 teams come up with. Couldn't something similar be true when it comes to draft picks?
Example: maybe the #1 overall pick is worth 496 like in that formula I led off with here. But, my team is in dire need of a franchise QB and a good RB, and the GM's philosophy favors an influx of fresh, young players over veterans. And, maybe, the GM's attribute for negotiation just isn't that strong. So, my team ends up valuing that pick at 800. This means my team would give up 800 points worth of other draft picks, players or combinations thereof. (I think.)
I just realized based on your name you're probably running an alternate league in which this isn't the case so you might not want to do that, in which case I don't know what I'm talking about.
Yeah, but my league is intended to model professional football....I prefer the alternate universe thing because it allows for a little more creativity, and I would get obsessive-compulsive if I were playing with the actual NFL rosters and things started to stray from the reality.
Thus, the input and feedback of others will be instrumental in getting this right! My players aren't real, so if some running back in the opposite conference drives over a bunch of mailboxes and gets a DUI, I would think nothing of it. If it happened with real NFL rosters, and Matt Forte showed up in the news with such an incident, most people would immediately say "wait, something isn't realistic."
torontogrudlies wrote:
Here's another thing I thought of very early on (months ago) but didn't really think of again till just now.
We not only need to consider these ratings and setting them to value, we also need to simulate how much of this information is "known." A scout for any team can likely dig up a list of everyone's 40 time, or how much a particular lineman bench presses, but what about the third-year QB who only took snaps in three games? Not everybody is going to know that he's got a 94 throwing accuracy. His own team is going to know significantly more, and teams with excellent scouting will have some information but there will be question marks. In fact, this was one of the reasons I designed a GM rating for "Risk"...
Another guideline I wanted to use: I want to avoid using random number generation/chance. When we do use it, it should be done with a seed, so that the same series of "random" numbers will result. Otherwise, the trade which Team A balked at in week 2, they're jumping at in week 3, although nothing has really changed.
I don't know if this is feasible but could we have GM's do their won evaluation of each players OVR, which could be modified by a combination random factor, a number based off of the number of games the player has started/played in (madden tracks these) and the coaches and coordinators skill at the relevant position. I don't know how to make it consistent from week to week, I'm also worried that if we try to combine this with a different OVR formula for each GM, then each GM effectively generates a separate roster in which all the players have a slightly different "perceived" rating. I don't know enough to know if this is doable without limiting which players each GM evaluates.
Yes, I think I hear what you're saying.
Code: Select all
tempovr = (CInt(temppt * tempsco / 100) + .POVR) + CInt(tempvariance * Rnd(-1 * .PGID) + (tempvariance / 2))
This, for example, is a formula which a GM uses to get a modified OVR on a player. It combines the present OVR and the potential (max the player can reach, as the database is presently laid out) and the better the GM is at scouting, the more accurately he will see the max potential. Then again, if it's a GM with no patience who just cares about "win now!" then by design he'll see more of the "now" OVR anyway. (I believe you have a suggestion on the table to create several potential max ratings, rather than just an OVR.... similar to the FPS FBPRO model, which I like. This would make this specific formula obsolete, but my main point in posting this was to point out the Rnd part of the formula.
The " Rnd(-1 * .PGID)" will generate a random number which will be the same every time, because it uses a negative seed based upon this player ID. (This is how randomization is designed in VB) Therefore although it's a unique number, it will still be used if we re-run the same script the following week on the same player.
Maybe we should try to take part of this back to the drawing board. Like, ok, we have a quarterback.
Here are his attributes.
Which of these attributes are common sense to every GM?
Which attributes can be picked up on by someone with good scouting, even without seeing the player in significant playing time?
Which ones can't be seen very well unless he's played in some games? If he's played in 10 games, we probably know he's got a 94 throwing power, but if only in 3 games, most GMs might get only a sketchy idea of his THP attribute. How to represent this in a formula? Keeping in mind that some GMs will factor risk, and we can use "unrandom" numbers as described above.
Which attributes will that player's own team have more insight on? They see him every day at practice. However, if they're a team which isn't good at developing a QB *coughTHEBEARScough* they might not have much more of a handle on this than the next team.