Warrior General Games

Updated to include all stats as of the morning of Gameday 12


http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pC42ofCsspZ2nRExzo1l6Tw

(This time it only took me 25mins to do the whole thing)

I MIGHT get around to doing Zeta, or find a voulunteer or pester Corey into updating it...

If Tote DaRock's total is 104 and Joseph Ngo's toatal is 139.75, why is Tote listed second in Alpha RB challenge? Just want to make sure my boy gets recognized for what he has done for our team.

BTW, thanks for doing this Mike, you are a legend in this league and I appreciate your effort and time.

Originally posted by beaverrick
If Tote DaRock's total is 104 and Joseph Ngo's toatal is 139.75, why is Tote listed second in Alpha RB challenge?

Coz 139.75 is a bigger number than 104 ?



And Thanks.

Mike, would it be better to rate the kickers based on their completion percentage then on number of FGs kicked? Your current route i feel is going to always award the kicker that kicks the most FG the top spot, not because hes the best, but because he is the most used. Just some food for thought

Originally posted by beaverrick
If Tote DaRock's total is 104 and Joseph Ngo's toatal is 139.75, why is Tote listed second in Alpha RB challenge? Just want to make sure my boy gets recognized for what he has done for our team.


Thanks beaverrick...Stats are nice, and I'm glad Tote has been able to contribute this year.
But I will gladly trade in all the gaudy stats and awards for a Championship!

Originally posted by Ewiv
Mike, would it be better to rate the kickers based on their completion percentage then on number of FGs kicked? Your current route i feel is going to always award the kicker that kicks the most FG the top spot, not because hes the best, but because he is the most used. Just some food for thought


This was original set up to help out in the All Star voting and it was felt more important to measure the impact of a player rather than awarding someone who is 4/4 the same points as someone who is 40/40.

Completion % is factored in already, but bonus points awarded for longer distances, and FGs made.

If you want to measure the true value of a kicker then FGs scored as a % of total points scored in a game is a nice stat, but I went with whats easily countable, and I dont think you can argue that the names at the top would not be deserving of an All Star vote?

And there is always the problem of if a missed 60 yard FG should be as bad as a missed 20 yarder?

Originally posted by Mike Rogers


And there is always the problem of if a missed 60 yard FG should be as bad as a missed 20 yarder?



Yes, that's a huge difference. I think it's hard to measure a good kicker by stats, but this formula's as good as any. It'd be interesting to have a "choke" category, in which a game is lost in which the kicker misses a key FG. I'd be at the bottom of that list

i was thinking instead of using the number of fgs per range as you did a percentage of completion for each range. Obviously the higher percentage completion at longer distance are worth more then shorter range. And this will factor in the kickers accuracy into the equation vs how many times they are on the field.

I just think with your current method the kicker that kicks the most is always going to be #1. Even if the #5 guy has a much better completion but only saw his team get into range to put him out half as often. Do you see what i am trying to point out?

I'm not huge into statistics here so i will be the first to say i don't have an optimal equation to pick the best kicker for our league. Just kicking around ideas to try and be a bit more fair to kicker on the weaker teams where the offense simply cant get the ball down the field all that often so their kicker rarely sees the field(thus cant rack up all the kick points of those on the better teams).

For instance, look at Billy the Kick. His team only managed to get him in field goal kicking range one time. And in that one time he did his job. I'm not saying his build is better then Jose Gonzales, but hes got no shot with your equation at any fame because his team is not performing well enough to get him some kicks and Jose's team is. I don't mean we should go Billy has 100% accuracy, so hes clearly our MVP, but say instead of a point per kick in x range we say x many points for 95-100% accuracy in that range, x many for 90-94% etc etc. This rates the kickers on accuracy, not how many times their team made it into field goal range.

I'm almost certain there is no absolute perfect equation for this problem, but maybe we can all kick around some ideas and see if there is a better equation then just rating on how many kicks the player made?

The hardest thing about doing an All-Star vote for a CB is that the most effective corners, and in my opinion the ones that have the biggest impact are the corners who shut down their entire side in such a way that QB's rarely pass their way, and when they do, it's only because there are a few extra receivers over there. Looking at stats, if a CB has seven tackles in a game, who's to say that the reason for that is that he allowed seven catches for sixty five yards or more? Whereas a guy with fifteen tackles on the season, maybe 15 PD's and 5-10 ints, might only have been thrown to 25 times all season because his man was never open.

Originally posted by raznokk
The hardest thing about doing an All-Star vote for a CB is that the most effective corners, and in my opinion the ones that have the biggest impact are the corners who shut down their entire side in such a way that QB's rarely pass their way, and when they do, it's only because there are a few extra receivers over there. Looking at stats, if a CB has seven tackles in a game, who's to say that the reason for that is that he allowed seven catches for sixty five yards or more? Whereas a guy with fifteen tackles on the season, maybe 15 PD's and 5-10 ints, might only have been thrown to 25 times all season because his man was never open.

There was a huuuuuge argument about this last season. I agree with you too, but how do you rate that in a game like this?

@ Ewiv

I'm with you 100% here, points based on % and weighted by distance sounds about right to me.

Its just going to take a bit longer to work out, remeber that I'm doing the QBs, WRs, RBs, OLine, Def & Kickers by Hand each time.

If I knew how to get one of those scripts to pull the data for me, I could go a lot more into detail.

I also think a 5 of total points scored would be nice to track.

When I started I was tracking QBs comebacks, where the QB lead a drive to win the game when behind in the last 2 mins.

But its just too labour intensive for one person to do, especially when I am already doing so much else in GLB already

I am.

I smiled.

Originally posted by raznokk
The hardest thing about doing an All-Star vote for a CB is that the most effective corners, and in my opinion the ones that have the biggest impact are the corners who shut down their entire side in such a way that QB's rarely pass their way, and when they do, it's only because there are a few extra receivers over there. Looking at stats, if a CB has seven tackles in a game, who's to say that the reason for that is that he allowed seven catches for sixty five yards or more? Whereas a guy with fifteen tackles on the season, maybe 15 PD's and 5-10 ints, might only have been thrown to 25 times all season because his man was never open.

Exactly. Also, lots of CB tackles are on RB runs to the outside.