Warrior General Games

Originally posted by TxSteve
Right - its all we have -- that doesn't make it useful. Have you seen how many garbage teams are in Vet?



LOL, yes but when was the last time you watched a lot of Rookie?

The data above isn't to make wholesale arguments that Rushing is OP to Passing or Passing is OP to Rushing. That's not where I'm going.

It's more about Rookie Rushing not being viable.

Hence my question: Should Rookie Rushing be buffed slightly? I don't think it's the wrong question and the answer can certainly be "No", but I think it's a legit question.

I completely, 100% understand your point. I just believe it is inaccurate. You are taking the data from all runs (including gut jobs and situational running teams) -- and applying it as the expectation for a run only team.

If you want to be more accurate - look at several all run teams from rookie last year and average that as the expectation for a run focused or run only team.

Erkner last season:
Overall 5.6 per carry (excluding GL)

Animal Kingdom: 6.5 excluding GL

Arizona State: I can't find this team I don't know what they changed their name to.

Los Santos: 4.8 per carry (excluding GL)

Gliwice: 3.3 ypc (wow - were these guys bad?)


If a balanced team is running for 3.35 yards per carry (your average data above) - to say "ya, but if they run it every single time they won't get a first down as often as a passing team does" doesn't make any sense. They will be running and passing situationally - so you're oversimplifying.

Originally posted by Xars
The (Vet) math is pretty simple:

Rushing: 5.22 avg x 3 = 15.66 yards. First Down by +56.6%.
Passing: 5.80 avg x 3 = 17.4 yards. First down by +74.0%.

Because of distributions, etc. both are viable and probably have more similar First Down conversion %.

Offense scales better than Defense. I think we knew that.

What my previous posts should show is that Rookie Rushing has a First Down conversion % significantly less than Rookie Passing, while at Vet Rushing and Passing are more even in their effectiveness.

This data is too simple, you can't make an argument 1 way or another without totally skewing it. The biggest problem with that is the majority of the user base won't see it like that and will take it at face value. Just by switching it to Yards per completion in rookie I can make a case that passing needs a huge buff and its amazing that anyone is able to score. Of I can turn around and show you that outside rushes get TFL at a rate that its impossible for a rookie rushing team to ever gain a yard. It's a lot more accurate to take the top teams and break down their games. For 1, it's usually owners/coaches that know what they are doing.



EDIT: I see Steve has pretty much said the same thing above.

And so it starts boys and girls. GLB2Scout has been rolled over for Season 10 usage.

Originally posted by TxSteve
Arizona State: I can't find this team I don't know what they changed their name to.
we didn't change our name, just reset to rookie.

Do we have any girls playing this game?

Originally posted by peeti
Do we have any girls playing this game?

I'm sure you're not the only one

Originally posted by Parab00n
This data is too simple, you can't make an argument 1 way or another without totally skewing it. The biggest problem with that is the majority of the user base won't see it like that and will take it at face value. Just by switching it to Yards per completion in rookie I can make a case that passing needs a huge buff and its amazing that anyone is able to score. Of I can turn around and show you that outside rushes get TFL at a rate that its impossible for a rookie rushing team to ever gain a yard. It's a lot more accurate to take the top teams and break down their games. For 1, it's usually owners/coaches that know what they are doing.



EDIT: I see Steve has pretty much said the same thing above.

the fact that you argued... does it make it an argument?

Originally posted by jfbueno
I'm sure you're not the only one

only on the weekend

Stobie, thanks for publishing a study again. Very cool of you.

Is there a reason why we can not scout scrim games?

Tool can't tell private from public and crashes on private

Is this a crash only really client side, so maybe just give a warning not to use on private scrims or it will crash and let us try to scrim our public scrims. I scrimmed a bunch of teams with the new rookie team so have like no data besides that to use to see what is truly effective.

It's pretty much the only thing I want to use this for right now.

Originally posted by TxSteve
crashes on private


Now I'm even more afraid to subscribe! Does it come with a cup?

Originally posted by Blastoh
Is this a crash only really client side, so maybe just give a warning not to use on private scrims or it will crash and let us try to scrim our public scrims. I scrimmed a bunch of teams with the new rookie team so have like no data besides that to use to see what is truly effective.

It's pretty much the only thing I want to use this for right now.

Currently I am filtering out scrims all together due to what TxSteve said, but to your point it fails solely on that its a private scrimmage. I was hoping I would get a solution from WG staff to be able to identify private scrims up front but seems I have to go through the routine manually and escape when its a private scrim. I have accounted for it already in theory, just haven't tested in full.

I have had many requests for this so I will look into it in depth today.