Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Xars
I asked for data and analysis.

Look through the previous posts.

Who looked at the data and made intelligent analysis and who "thought" they knew everything but really didn't.



Your data was collected using players and plays that are terrible vs good zone defenses. Noodle arm QBs (after changes) and non-overloading plays are not good ideas vs zones.

You are arguing that a defense should not be good vs the run, short, medium and long passes. Well, it will be if you have a noodle arm QB and bad plays.

I could possibly see your complaint that a zone should not be good vs medium and deep passes....and short passes, even if you have a noodle arm QB. Maybe the player to field size is not the correct ratio? Has anybody ever analyzed that ratio? Maybe that is why the players can cover so much ground.

Look at the WR after he gets tackled. He is about 3 yards tall...or about 10 feet.

https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/replay/816123/1632970

Originally posted by Xars
So isn't the question then what a low Pass Power QB can be good at? Or will everyone have to build high Pass Power QBs to complete 6 yard passes?



I guess in theory it’ll add zip but won’t be required. I know what you’re saying though trying to her the pass through the zones you have to be strong armed.

In a sense that’s a real carry over, a slow pass through the zone will probably be picked

Originally posted by Xars
So isn't the question then what a low Pass Power QB can be good at? Or will everyone have to build high Pass Power QBs to complete 6 yard passes?



Low pass power QBs will be good at nothing. That's the natural progression of things now that the passing arc change has been made. And why a lot of QBs from here on out will likely be superstar whether they like it or not.

Originally posted by Xars
I asked for data and analysis.

Look through the previous posts.

Who looked at the data and made intelligent analysis and who "thought" they knew everything but really didn't.



Oh I agree with you 100% on that Xars. Only a select few analyzed anything just wanted to make a critique of your experiment. Which is why my answer to all of them was to allow someone to use my team as what they 'refer' to as a better-qualified team to use as the experiment. Only way for them to truly believe the data is if they feel a team built to win tries that way.
I agree with them that sure your team is not a great example to use but I really do not feel as though my team will produce that much better numbers and my team is designed to win. Thus, my proposal to any of the critique people is to come run the data with my team and prove Xars wrong, otherwise, the data shows the facts.
'

Originally posted by dredgar
Oh I agree with you 100% on that Xars. Only a select few analyzed anything just wanted to make a critique of your experiment. Which is why my answer to all of them was to allow someone to use my team as what they 'refer' to as a better-qualified team to use as the experiment. Only way for them to truly believe the data is if they feel a team built to win tries that way.
I agree with them that sure your team is not a great example to use but I really do not feel as though my team will produce that much better numbers and my team is designed to win. Thus, my proposal to any of the critique people is to come run the data with my team and prove Xars wrong, otherwise, the data shows the facts.
'

im not going to do that but i can look over all your games and compare zone to man?

using games currently played this was quick due to a much lower number of picks

Man ~ 6
Zone ~ 6

6 Man INTS

Non ~ 3
Con ~ 2
Err ~ 1

6 Zone INTS

Non ~ 3
Con ~ 2
Err ~ 1

Well i can say for one thing you don't suffer from a lack quickness on offense in comparison to xars. Defenses had to MAKE PLAYS to get those picks is the biggest difference.

Originally posted by Xars
Note I may not even build that team. Also, I posted all of the info to do it (at least from my vantage point) and I'm still a few seasons away from starting it, if I ever do.

Not exactly brilliant analysis from you.

Be better.


Pompous much?

Your team isn't the best to come to some conclusion about zone and you ran it vs one zone d and one hybrid (which you failed to mention, that info matters). You need a better sample and I stated that we were in the old meta which affects testing. Don't get me wrong though, I do appreciate you got more than 2 games in this time before making a hypothesis. Dredgar did however offer to help you get data if someone would send him flex to do scrims, that should help you be taken serious by more people or at least me.

I'll also add that generally no one wants to read an essay.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Xars


Who looked at the data and made intelligent analysis and who "thought" they knew everything but really didn't.



Or who took you serious and who didn't.

Originally posted by dredgar
Oh I agree with you 100% on that Xars. Only a select few analyzed anything just wanted to make a critique of your experiment. Which is why my answer to all of them was to allow someone to use my team as what they 'refer' to as a better-qualified team to use as the experiment. Only way for them to truly believe the data is if they feel a team built to win tries that way.
I agree with them that sure your team is not a great example to use but I really do not feel as though my team will produce that much better numbers and my team is designed to win. Thus, my proposal to any of the critique people is to come run the data with my team and prove Xars wrong, otherwise, the data shows the facts.
'

There was no need to overly analyze his data when it's obviously flawed and we know where he's going before he even gets there with it. Therefore there's no need to prove him wrong...you even agree his team isn't the one to use to prove his point. So I'll pass on his "facts" and I'll pass on spending my flex. It's his job to prove his point, not ours...But if you really feel that strongly he's correct, you could spend your flex and use your team to prove his theory.... Or he could be a swell guy and send you the flex.

We've got some seriously interesting discussion here.

Good on ya for starting the conversation Xars, I know it's never easy to be 'that guy' when everyone is busy having fun.

I know you could have just quietly assimilated all this into the next gameplan and are doing it out of a sense of protection for the game we all love, and I appreciate it.

I actually broke down BSB isolated and M2M is the primary coverage not zone.

Man went 108/279 for 38.7% Comp rate with 16 INT at a 5.7% rate.

Zone went 104/221 for a 47% Comp rate with 14 INT at a 6.3% rate
Zone let 8.3% more completions but got 0.6% more INT

this is for Logzilla vs BSB 15 games

My Recommendation for BSB would be to play even less Zone the team is more effective in M2M.

if anything this kinda proves M2M is a bit too strong at a high level and should be toned down a bit. Maybe an increase in the effectiveness of Route Elusiveness or small flat buff to increase separation. Could also increase the effectiveness of CIT giving the WR more of an advantage. I would avoid buffing TE CIT as it can feel at bit over powered.

Though lowering the non contested catches wouldn't be a terrible nerf. one pretty effective way to lower zone's INT rate without hampering it too badly would be to increase the knocked loose chances on defensive players.

Originally posted by ThePh33P
I actually broke down BSB isolated and M2M is the primary coverage not zone.

Man went 108/279 for 38.7% Comp rate with 16 INT at a 5.7% rate.

Zone went 104/221 for a 47% Comp rate with 14 INT at a 6.3% rate
Zone let 8.3% more completions but got 0.6% more INT

this is for Logzilla vs BSB 15 games

My Recommendation for BSB would be to play even less Zone the team is more effective in M2M.

That's too small of a sample size and too speciifc to the team builds to be determinate of whether zone vs. Man is over powered or underpowered.

Not to mention some of the skills that make you effective playing zone in the secondary are not the same skills you need to play man coverage or at least not a 1 to 1 translation, plus the SA's are different and you can't have both equally.

Originally posted by william78
That's too small of a sample size and too speciifc to the team builds to be determinate of whether zone vs. Man is over powered or underpowered.

Not to mention some of the skills that make you effective playing zone in the secondary are not the same skills you need to play man coverage or at least not a 1 to 1 translation, plus the SA's are different and you can't have both equally.

I agree; a better evaluation would be a good offensive team running roughly 30 games against a top zone team and the same team running 30 games against a top man defense then comparing. It would be specific to that team but I feel it would give a better sample to see how the balance of the game is.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
There was no need to overly analyze his data when it's obviously flawed and we know where he's going before he even gets there with it. Therefore there's no need to prove him wrong...you even agree his team isn't the one to use to prove his point. So I'll pass on his "facts" and I'll pass on spending my flex. It's his job to prove his point, not ours...But if you really feel that strongly he's correct, you could spend your flex and use your team to prove his theory.... Or he could be a swell guy and send you the flex.

Honestly I just don't have the time to do it these days. I really wish I did. I am a big numbers guy and I haven't seen much better evaluation than what Xars just gave.

Yes, Xars numbers can be flawed but Myrik you are stuck on the thought they might affect your zone coverage negatively versus Xars point was he would like to see a nice balance in the game. You literally were screaming about there should be a balance in the game between zone and man defense making them both equally viable. Xars is saying they should both be viable, thus his point of saying short passing improvement might improve the offenses without directly negatively attacking zone coding.

Originally posted by dredgar
I agree; a better evaluation would be a good offensive team running roughly 30 games against a top zone team and the same team running 30 games against a top man defense then comparing. It would be specific to that team but I feel it would give a better sample to see how the balance of the game is.

I think you need "more teams" to really be definative.

I mean look at Sun League granted that's not Vet but I'd say 70% of that league given the skill of the ownership and players is about matchups. Some teams just matchup better against others and some don't match up well at all even if they take other good teams back behind the woodshed.

I think a bit more of an elegant solution to some of the issues presented isn't really a zone vs. Man type situation but rather a few quirks in the coding change that would help all and create a bit more balance/diversity without having to "hack" or "nerf":

1. Increase the Balance roll probability on WR catches outside the numbers and short - usually there is more room for the feet out there anyway than opposed to over the middle. Outside and short there should be a great probability of catch and run and the longer the pass the less chance of that because generally they are running to catch up with it. Not nerf or bonus just make it a little more likely that short routes the balance check is passed regardless of how the SA fires.

2. The Shed Sack was a great option for power passers , an SA for sidestep to allow the QB to react to an unblocked blitzer and either step up in the pocket or side step and instantly pivot would be fine. Reward the defense by not taking away the accuracy penatly but avoids the sack by getting rid of the ball. Make it combo on pocket awareness/footwork similar to Spin or another combined effect.