It's possible I didn't make myself clearer in regard to completion percentage. I intended to say that one could look at how many times the ball was thrown at the CB in question, and then you could come away with a success/failure rate for that player.
jprietman
offline
offline
Originally posted by franciscoroark
Still can't understand why you're insisting on punishing a guy for making tackles, and how your reasoning behind it is to emphasize a utopian ideal.
Then don't join. My way gives the cornerback a reward/penalty system for completing his own personal responsibilities efficiently, while not requiring every player to watch every single replay in a game. It's easily tracked, and the CB is also not solely responsible for the QB's completion percentage (after all, that responsibility goes to the entire defense)
Still can't understand why you're insisting on punishing a guy for making tackles, and how your reasoning behind it is to emphasize a utopian ideal.
Then don't join. My way gives the cornerback a reward/penalty system for completing his own personal responsibilities efficiently, while not requiring every player to watch every single replay in a game. It's easily tracked, and the CB is also not solely responsible for the QB's completion percentage (after all, that responsibility goes to the entire defense)
jprietman
offline
offline
Originally posted by franciscoroark
It's possible I didn't make myself clearer in regard to completion percentage. I intended to say that one could look at how many times the ball was thrown at the CB in question, and then you could come away with a success/failure rate for that player.
Once again, that would require each of us to watch every single defensive replay in the game and take notes, because that specific stat isn't recorded in GLB.
From the play-by-play screen, you can't even tell if you were ON THE FIELD during a play unless it says "tackle: Harold Longfellow".
I'm not going to watch every single play to see...
1. whether or not I was on the field.
2. whether or not the ball was thrown at my receiver.
And the last thing I want to do is calculate the QB's completion percentage in plays where the QB targets my receiver.
You're asking quite a lot out of us now.
Face it, my way is more user-friendly, and just as effective.
It's possible I didn't make myself clearer in regard to completion percentage. I intended to say that one could look at how many times the ball was thrown at the CB in question, and then you could come away with a success/failure rate for that player.
Once again, that would require each of us to watch every single defensive replay in the game and take notes, because that specific stat isn't recorded in GLB.
From the play-by-play screen, you can't even tell if you were ON THE FIELD during a play unless it says "tackle: Harold Longfellow".
I'm not going to watch every single play to see...
1. whether or not I was on the field.
2. whether or not the ball was thrown at my receiver.
And the last thing I want to do is calculate the QB's completion percentage in plays where the QB targets my receiver.
You're asking quite a lot out of us now.
Face it, my way is more user-friendly, and just as effective.
franciscoroark
offline
offline
I'm asking for nothing. I'm not suggesting anything that I myself haven't done.
I'm proposing a method that might look beyond the island mentality that cornerbacks seem to possess, and measure their overall defensive ability.
I'm proposing a method that might look beyond the island mentality that cornerbacks seem to possess, and measure their overall defensive ability.
RadiKal
offline
offline
Originally posted by jprietman
Originally posted by franciscoroark
It's possible I didn't make myself clearer in regard to completion percentage. I intended to say that one could look at how many times the ball was thrown at the CB in question, and then you could come away with a success/failure rate for that player.
Once again, that would require each of us to watch every single defensive replay in the game and take notes, because that specific stat isn't recorded in GLB.
Ask Bort to implement it.
Originally posted by
Face it, my way is more user-friendly, and just as effective.
That's true! We will see, how it works and we can change it next season. Not good for my CB, because he doesn't get that much playing time ...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=30211
E-City Mercenaries
Originally posted by franciscoroark
It's possible I didn't make myself clearer in regard to completion percentage. I intended to say that one could look at how many times the ball was thrown at the CB in question, and then you could come away with a success/failure rate for that player.
Once again, that would require each of us to watch every single defensive replay in the game and take notes, because that specific stat isn't recorded in GLB.
Ask Bort to implement it.
Originally posted by
Face it, my way is more user-friendly, and just as effective.
That's true! We will see, how it works and we can change it next season. Not good for my CB, because he doesn't get that much playing time ...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=30211
E-City Mercenaries
franciscoroark
offline
offline
Okay, setting aside the more in depth stuff (percentage and so forth), I still have issues with awarding points for plays and penalizing tackles.
Awarding points for plays:
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
Awarding points for plays:
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
jprietman
offline
offline
Awarding points for plays:
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
This is only the case if CB1 shuts down his WR. If he allows his WR to catch the ball, then his points will be zero as you described next...
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
This is intended so that CB1 can't earn more points than CB3 unless he does a really good job shutting down his man.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
Which is 5 points, assuming they shut down their receiver. If they didn't, it would be less points. I see nothing wrong here.
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
At the same time, that CB gets 1 point for those 10 plays, but he is also screwed out of opportunities to earn pass deflections, interceptions, etc. He is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB. The point is, the status quo gives CBs a chance to score points no matter what the offensive strategy is.
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
While this is indeed a flaw in my system, it's also a flaw I knew about before I created it, and decided that this scenario would be rare enough to overlook. The margin of error isn't going to be anywhere near what you suggested. At most, you'll probably within 2 points of your deserved score. The fact of the matter is, you are most likely going to make the tackle, or miss the tackle.
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
What if you were CB4 and you rode the bench for the entire series, until finally coming in to play while the opponent was in the red zone? Well, the game screwed you. Or what if you were CB1 and you shut down your receiver for 60 plays (and therefore earned 6 points). Would it be fair to erase that entire performance just because of one touchdown given up?
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
Nice try anyway, CB. Good job getting the hand on the ball, but he still caught it. No penalty, no reward.
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
This is only the case if CB1 shuts down his WR. If he allows his WR to catch the ball, then his points will be zero as you described next...
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
This is intended so that CB1 can't earn more points than CB3 unless he does a really good job shutting down his man.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
Which is 5 points, assuming they shut down their receiver. If they didn't, it would be less points. I see nothing wrong here.
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
At the same time, that CB gets 1 point for those 10 plays, but he is also screwed out of opportunities to earn pass deflections, interceptions, etc. He is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB. The point is, the status quo gives CBs a chance to score points no matter what the offensive strategy is.
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
While this is indeed a flaw in my system, it's also a flaw I knew about before I created it, and decided that this scenario would be rare enough to overlook. The margin of error isn't going to be anywhere near what you suggested. At most, you'll probably within 2 points of your deserved score. The fact of the matter is, you are most likely going to make the tackle, or miss the tackle.
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
What if you were CB4 and you rode the bench for the entire series, until finally coming in to play while the opponent was in the red zone? Well, the game screwed you. Or what if you were CB1 and you shut down your receiver for 60 plays (and therefore earned 6 points). Would it be fair to erase that entire performance just because of one touchdown given up?
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
Nice try anyway, CB. Good job getting the hand on the ball, but he still caught it. No penalty, no reward.
ironman4579
offline
offline
I'll throw in my CB who just moved over(up actually IMO) from Oceania Pro
Leman Russ
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=36356
Leman Russ
http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=36356
MonsteroftheMidway
offline
offline
Puffpuff Pass http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=46103
Bubba Rock http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=78137
- Woodridge Lumberjacks
Bubba Rock http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=78137
- Woodridge Lumberjacks
franciscoroark
offline
offline
Not a rebuttal, but another thought... Maybe an end of game bonus (+1) for not allowing a touchdown?
Originally posted by jprietman
Awarding points for plays:
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
This is only the case if CB1 shuts down his WR. If he allows his WR to catch the ball, then his points will be zero as you described next...
This is in every case. CB1 (playing approximately 50 plays) will essentially earn 5 points before being asked to make a play. Pay someone $5, then pay someone else $3, then tell them both that the work they do will be judged on the same scale. If they perform equally, then what did the first guy do to earn that extra $2?
Originally posted by jprietman
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
This is intended so that CB1 can't earn more points than CB3 unless he does a really good job shutting down his man.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
Which is 5 points, assuming they shut down their receiver. If they didn't, it would be less points. I see nothing wrong here.
Where I was going with 2 and 3 was, the idea of assigning point values to actions is to create a scale where it's easy to tell if player A is doing better than player B. If players A and B can earn the same number of points in so many ways, then how does that tell me one is better than the other? Or, in other words: CB A plays 50 plays and makes 2 interceptions; CB B plays 53 plays and makes 1 interception. They each earn +5 for playing time, CB A gets +6 for the interceptions, CB B gets +3 for his. It's 11-8. What's the difference between that and 6-3 (if no points are assigned to plays)?
Originally posted by jprietman
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
At the same time, that CB gets 1 point for those 10 plays, but he is also screwed out of opportunities to earn pass deflections, interceptions, etc. He is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB. The point is, the status quo gives CBs a chance to score points no matter what the offensive strategy is.
Red team CB: "Aww, c'mon, please throw the ball."
Blue team QB: "Why? we're getting 4 yards a carry."
The game isn't *screwing* a CB for following another coach's game plan. The Jacksonville Jaguars have Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones Drew, they don't have Tom Brady/Randy Moss/Wes Welker. A cornerback isn't earning anything by playing a team that doesn't throw often. As you say, he "is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB." So why pay him just for showing up?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, I believe that being on the field more should be rewarded solely by having the opportunity to make more plays. Indeed, the expectation is that the coach puts you on the field more often to make those plays. No coach is going to slap his best CB on the butt at the end of the game and say, "Way to go, you were in all but five plays on defense--we're going to give you a bonus." He's more apt to say, "You picked off a pass, knocked down 4 others, made 2 tackles, and didn't give up a touchdown--that's why you're out there." In professional sports, durability is the rule--an owner/GM generally doesn't include incentive bonuses based on playing time in a contract; it's "rush for 1000 yards," "make 70 catches," "intercept 10 passes."
It just doesn't make sense in my mind to give points for plays. Reward a guy for what he does the 10 times a game that he has a chance to make a play, not the 40 times that he doesn't.
Originally posted by jprietman
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
While this is indeed a flaw in my system, it's also a flaw I knew about before I created it, and decided that this scenario would be rare enough to overlook. The margin of error isn't going to be anywhere near what you suggested. At most, you'll probably within 2 points of your deserved score. The fact of the matter is, you are most likely going to make the tackle, or miss the tackle.
I admit that I was exaggerating with the ten plays/ten tackles. Used purely for illustration purposes. Just like piloting a plane or ship: being a degree or two off course on a short trip isn't that serious, but over the long haul it can take you to the wrong destination.
Originally posted by jprietman
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
What if you were CB4 and you rode the bench for the entire series, until finally coming in to play while the opponent was in the red zone? Well, the game screwed you. Or what if you were CB1 and you shut down your receiver for 60 plays (and therefore earned 6 points). Would it be fair to erase that entire performance just because of one touchdown given up?
I don't understand the CB4 example. But if CB1 shuts down a receiver for 45 plays, but gives up 5 catches (5 tackles), then his performance is negated anyway. It just doesn't make sense to me that tackles are a negative thing. Yes, a cornerback's primary function is to prevent a receiver from catching the ball. But 55-60% of the time, he will catch it (rather, the quarterback will complete it). The corner is still a defender, and a big part of defense is making tackles.
Originally posted by jprietman
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
Nice try anyway, CB. Good job getting the hand on the ball, but he still caught it. No penalty, no reward.
He made two positive defensive plays, but because the receiver made a good play on his own, the CB is SOL. Doesn't seem quite kosher.
Outside of interceptions and swatted balls, there's no obvious stat to measure how well the CB prevented passes from being caught. I feel that rewarding a *pass* defender for being on the field when no passes are thrown and punishing a pass *defender* for playing defense is an ineffective way to make up for that.
I'm not saying your rubric is wrong. I just don't necessarily believe it'll really pinpoint who the best cornerbacks are. I've got my guy in, and we'll see where it goes. If it goes well, super; if it needs refining, c'est la vie.
I'm also going to look at my player according to what I suggested, and if anyone is interested, I'm willing to follow another player or two using the same scale to see how that plays out.
Originally posted by jprietman
Awarding points for plays:
1) basically rewards someone for being higher on the depth chart. CB #1 will be given the most points, #2 the next most, #3 the next most, etc.
This is only the case if CB1 shuts down his WR. If he allows his WR to catch the ball, then his points will be zero as you described next...
This is in every case. CB1 (playing approximately 50 plays) will essentially earn 5 points before being asked to make a play. Pay someone $5, then pay someone else $3, then tell them both that the work they do will be judged on the same scale. If they perform equally, then what did the first guy do to earn that extra $2?
Originally posted by jprietman
2) comes to the same base value (0 points) if a player makes the same number of tackles as the points he earned for playing. 10 plays, 1 tackle = 0; 20 plays, 2 tackles = 0, and so forth.
This is intended so that CB1 can't earn more points than CB3 unless he does a really good job shutting down his man.
3) doesn't separate players. The top cornerbacks last season (by interceptions) averaged about 55 plays/game. So all of the top CBs that are participating will get the same number of points.
Which is 5 points, assuming they shut down their receiver. If they didn't, it would be less points. I see nothing wrong here.
Where I was going with 2 and 3 was, the idea of assigning point values to actions is to create a scale where it's easy to tell if player A is doing better than player B. If players A and B can earn the same number of points in so many ways, then how does that tell me one is better than the other? Or, in other words: CB A plays 50 plays and makes 2 interceptions; CB B plays 53 plays and makes 1 interception. They each earn +5 for playing time, CB A gets +6 for the interceptions, CB B gets +3 for his. It's 11-8. What's the difference between that and 6-3 (if no points are assigned to plays)?
Originally posted by jprietman
4) rewards players for not being involved in the plays. If the other team rushes 10 times in a game, that's a point for a CB who did nothing.
At the same time, that CB gets 1 point for those 10 plays, but he is also screwed out of opportunities to earn pass deflections, interceptions, etc. He is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB. The point is, the status quo gives CBs a chance to score points no matter what the offensive strategy is.
Red team CB: "Aww, c'mon, please throw the ball."
Blue team QB: "Why? we're getting 4 yards a carry."
The game isn't *screwing* a CB for following another coach's game plan. The Jacksonville Jaguars have Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones Drew, they don't have Tom Brady/Randy Moss/Wes Welker. A cornerback isn't earning anything by playing a team that doesn't throw often. As you say, he "is benefitted by more opportunities to tackle the RB." So why pay him just for showing up?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, I believe that being on the field more should be rewarded solely by having the opportunity to make more plays. Indeed, the expectation is that the coach puts you on the field more often to make those plays. No coach is going to slap his best CB on the butt at the end of the game and say, "Way to go, you were in all but five plays on defense--we're going to give you a bonus." He's more apt to say, "You picked off a pass, knocked down 4 others, made 2 tackles, and didn't give up a touchdown--that's why you're out there." In professional sports, durability is the rule--an owner/GM generally doesn't include incentive bonuses based on playing time in a contract; it's "rush for 1000 yards," "make 70 catches," "intercept 10 passes."
It just doesn't make sense in my mind to give points for plays. Reward a guy for what he does the 10 times a game that he has a chance to make a play, not the 40 times that he doesn't.
Originally posted by jprietman
Penalizing tackles means that:
1) if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and my teammates make all the tackles, I get 1 point; if I play ten plays, give up ten catches, and make all my own tackles, I get -9 points.
While this is indeed a flaw in my system, it's also a flaw I knew about before I created it, and decided that this scenario would be rare enough to overlook. The margin of error isn't going to be anywhere near what you suggested. At most, you'll probably within 2 points of your deserved score. The fact of the matter is, you are most likely going to make the tackle, or miss the tackle.
I admit that I was exaggerating with the ten plays/ten tackles. Used purely for illustration purposes. Just like piloting a plane or ship: being a degree or two off course on a short trip isn't that serious, but over the long haul it can take you to the wrong destination.
Originally posted by jprietman
2) making three tackles is worse than giving up one touchdown (-3 to -2)
What if you were CB4 and you rode the bench for the entire series, until finally coming in to play while the opponent was in the red zone? Well, the game screwed you. Or what if you were CB1 and you shut down your receiver for 60 plays (and therefore earned 6 points). Would it be fair to erase that entire performance just because of one touchdown given up?
I don't understand the CB4 example. But if CB1 shuts down a receiver for 45 plays, but gives up 5 catches (5 tackles), then his performance is negated anyway. It just doesn't make sense to me that tackles are a negative thing. Yes, a cornerback's primary function is to prevent a receiver from catching the ball. But 55-60% of the time, he will catch it (rather, the quarterback will complete it). The corner is still a defender, and a big part of defense is making tackles.
Originally posted by jprietman
3) the pass you deflected but was caught anyway, and you made the tackle, nets you zero points.
Nice try anyway, CB. Good job getting the hand on the ball, but he still caught it. No penalty, no reward.
He made two positive defensive plays, but because the receiver made a good play on his own, the CB is SOL. Doesn't seem quite kosher.
Outside of interceptions and swatted balls, there's no obvious stat to measure how well the CB prevented passes from being caught. I feel that rewarding a *pass* defender for being on the field when no passes are thrown and punishing a pass *defender* for playing defense is an ineffective way to make up for that.
I'm not saying your rubric is wrong. I just don't necessarily believe it'll really pinpoint who the best cornerbacks are. I've got my guy in, and we'll see where it goes. If it goes well, super; if it needs refining, c'est la vie.
I'm also going to look at my player according to what I suggested, and if anyone is interested, I'm willing to follow another player or two using the same scale to see how that plays out.
Last edited Jul 30, 2008 07:59:55
jprietman
offline
offline
All I'm saying is, your way makes it very hard to track a shut down CB who never gets thrown at. You literally have to go in and watch every play and find out when he's targeted, and calculate his percentages of success. Nobody here is going to want to do that. My way of awarding for plays and penalizing for tackles may not be perfect, but it definitely helps out the shutdown CB without us having to do a whole lot of work.
franciscoroark
offline
offline
Originally posted by jprietman
All I'm saying is, your way makes it very hard to track a shut down CB who never gets thrown at. You literally have to go in and watch every play and find out when he's targeted, and calculate his percentages of success. Nobody here is going to want to do that. My way of awarding for plays and penalizing for tackles may not be perfect, but it definitely helps out the shutdown CB without us having to do a whole lot of work.
I get that, I honestly do. We might be disagreeing on what we think a shutdown CB is. In the NFL, a team can go up against the Denver Broncos and the coach can say "Avoid Champ Bailey." Bailey (and others of his caliber) shuts down the opposition in the game planning phase. We can't do that with our game plan in GLB, and I don't think it's in the code for the QB AI.
All I'm saying is, your way makes it very hard to track a shut down CB who never gets thrown at. You literally have to go in and watch every play and find out when he's targeted, and calculate his percentages of success. Nobody here is going to want to do that. My way of awarding for plays and penalizing for tackles may not be perfect, but it definitely helps out the shutdown CB without us having to do a whole lot of work.
I get that, I honestly do. We might be disagreeing on what we think a shutdown CB is. In the NFL, a team can go up against the Denver Broncos and the coach can say "Avoid Champ Bailey." Bailey (and others of his caliber) shuts down the opposition in the game planning phase. We can't do that with our game plan in GLB, and I don't think it's in the code for the QB AI.
greatkender
offline
offline
Question:
My CB played 59 plays today. Completely shutdown his man, so had straight goose-eggs for the game. Would he have scored 5 pts or 6 pts (59/10, rnd up)?
Our Defense shutout the other team. Is there a bonus for the shutout?
My CB played 59 plays today. Completely shutdown his man, so had straight goose-eggs for the game. Would he have scored 5 pts or 6 pts (59/10, rnd up)?
Our Defense shutout the other team. Is there a bonus for the shutout?
franciscoroark
offline
offline
The way I read it is 5 points. Have to get the full 60 to get 6, and no points for shutting out the other team.
Concur, jprie?
Concur, jprie?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
