Warrior General Games

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.

15 games is a pretty small sample size but its not an insignificant number of pass plays. 500 is a decent amount and the full study was over 1000 including church.

but the fact remains that during that isolated test Xars team performed better when BSB was playing zone than when BSB was playing man. We're still going to be debating team build vs team build until a couple people build a 50 flat all stats team and run hundreds of scrims. Team Beta has the highest recorded number of INT per game among any team of the last 5 seasons. I've been playing a zone team for 10+ seasons and its been fun playing zone but if i were going for competitive i wouldn't pick zone. Man is almost 10% less completions and perhaps if built for intercepting could approach zone numbers.


@william a follow up to your more recent post if QB's could throw the ball away it would really reduce INTS.

Originally posted by william78
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.


One of the main reasons that there is no catch and run is the "field to player" size ratio, as I stated in an earlier post. If the player was smaller (currently he is about 10 feet tall), he would have more room to create separation and catch in the open field...and run.

Originally posted by dredgar
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.

The problem is his evaluation is flawed and as much you think I'm slanted so is he. I've yet to see his comparisons to Man's efficiency vs Zone, just generally make arguments like Zone shouldn't be able to cover multiple receivers or whatnot. Regardless we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on small or bad samples.

I do agree there should be a balance in the game and I think the recent pass fix was fantastic, but it was an indirect zone nerf even CD admitted too. We know that Man is essentially the strongest defense style in this game...No it does not get Ints like Zone does (your team withstanding), but we know for a fact it is better about stopping pass completions, ie. what I've been saying this whole time. If we really wanted a balance, then zone should get a pass deflect SA similar to Man to bring it more in align. It doesn't have to be as good as Man's deflect SAs but similar, something of the sort. However, the SA's for each set the tone for how they are intended to play, Man prevents completions with deflections, Zone forgoes that to get Ints or KL (which Zone Shark is just terrible in comparison to using MH so really zone has just one worthwhile SA.)

Originally posted by Xars
So isn't the question then what a low Pass Power QB can be good at?

No, the question is what should a low pass power QB be good at?

Why should it be beneficial to completely ignore a skill?

Originally posted by Cybertron
One of the main reasons that there is no catch and run is the "field to player" size ratio, as I stated in an earlier post. If the player was smaller (currently he is about 10 feet tall), he would have more room to create separation and catch in the open field...and run.

I mean, that's not true.

The sim dictates the replay, the replay doesn't dictate the sim.

Originally posted by Corndog
No, the question is what should a low pass power QB be good at?

Why should it be beneficial to completely ignore a skill?

Which is why I said “running”

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar

I do agree there should be a balance in the game and I think the recent pass fix was fantastic, but it was an indirect zone nerf even CD admitted too. We know that Man is essentially the strongest defense style in this game...No it does not get Ints like Zone does (your team withstanding), but we know for a fact it is better about stopping pass completions, ie. what I've been saying this whole time. If we really wanted a balance, then zone should get a pass deflect SA similar to Man to bring it more in align. It doesn't have to be as good as Man's deflect SAs but similar, something of the sort. However, the SA's for each set the tone for how they are intended to play, Man prevents completions with deflections, Zone forgoes that to get Ints or KL (which Zone Shark is just terrible in comparison to using MH so really zone has just one worthwhile SA.)

Zone causes more TOs though, and allows more pressure on the QB. It's also superior against the run. If Zone had the same comp% as Man, there would be zero reason to ever run Man defenses

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Zone causes more TOs though, and allows more pressure on the QB. It's also superior against the run. If Zone had the same comp% as Man, there would be zero reason to ever run Man defenses

I said it was generally better at getting Ints, but you have Man teams like Southside that get pretty close. I don't see how Zone gets more sacks, unless you are counting for the fact the majority of the zone teams run TV (3-4 Tiger Blitz is a great crutch at lower tiers but isn't so OP at the endgame). Superior against the run? Eh. What you fail to see here since you never ran Zone is that Zone is nowhere as consistent as Man is all around, especially in completion %. We have a small sample size (which needs to tested further) but it gives a good idea that Man far exceeds Zone in completion % while its Int rate isn't that far off in relation. Man is OP, but I don't want to see it nerfed, I would rather Zone CBs get something like Swat Down or change EotP SA to only require zone help and drop the underneath part, something like that.

Originally posted by BoDiddley
Zone causes more TOs though, and allows more pressure on the QB. It's also superior against the run. If Zone had the same comp% as Man, there would be zero reason to ever run Man defenses

run kills zone when done right easy... https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/815184 says it all against a top tier zone D
averages 4.8 yards per rush, different team: https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/823508
logzilla https://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/game/820217

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
The problem is his evaluation is flawed and as much you think I'm slanted so is he. I've yet to see his comparisons to Man's efficiency vs Zone, just generally make arguments like Zone shouldn't be able to cover multiple receivers or whatnot. Regardless we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on small or bad samples.


Of course it's flawed. I didn't build any WRs or TEs to excel at short passes. It's why I literally asked other people to do a similar test. I ran scrims using Short passing plays that I hadn't used in all of my previous seasons.

I asked for data and tried to steer the discussion away from commentary.

And of course, you respond with commentary and not data.

Everyone is looking at the ABSOLUTE numbers.

My point was the RELATIVE numbers.

You're all focused on what's good/bad about the build rather than appropriate results.

So again, I'll try to recap:

Short Passing plays where having a much higher INT% than Long Passing plays for a low Pass Power QB. That "tilt" seems wrong.

That's it. That's the only contention.

I didn't ask for the ABSOLUTE numbers of my low Pass Power QB to become magically better.

I postulated that the INT% on Short Passes being higher than Long Passes feels wrong.

In my view, if the Short Pass target isn't open, the QB should move his read to someone who is OR take a Sack. But he wouldn't be throwing more INTs (%-wise) than if he was launching bombs downfield.

And yet, that's what was happening.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
Man far exceeds Zone in completion % while its Int rate isn't that far off in relation.

Commentary.

Use Math.

Here's the math: Every 1% change in INT rate is equal to .45 yards of YPA (yards per attempt).

So a 3% INT rate differential, which isn't "that far off in relation", is a 1.35 YPA difference.

On pass plays that have a 6yard average catch, that's a 22.5% difference in Completion%. Newsflash: Go on GLB2Scout and look at Completion rate of Man versus Zone. The difference on Short passes isn't typically that much.

The problem is that you speak imprecisely using words that can have a range of meanings rather than speaking in specific math terms in a debate against people speaking in specific terms.

And again, if you re-read my original post, my point was that if Zone has a higher Short Passing INT rate than Long Passes, then when the S* high Pass Power QBs and S* WRs that are burners show up at Vet, Zone will get destroyed over the top.

Which is exactly what you DON'T want and I would guess no one who runs Zone D does. So you might need a code change now to prevent a problem down the road.

I was literally trying to protect Zone D for eventual builds and game plans.

But because you think you're a mind reader, you assume I'm trying to nerf Zone.

Zone D doesn't need a Short Passing YPA of 1.5 yards if Long Passing is killing it at 15 YPA. You'd rather that get fixed, right?

And if the trade-off is higher Short Passing YPA, like 3.5-4, so that Long Passing comes down to 7-9, you'd probably want that, right?

Originally posted by Corndog
No, the question is what should a low pass power QB be good at?

Why should it be beneficial to completely ignore a skill?

There's a thing called a Play Book. It has lots of plays in it.

Are you really saying that there are literally no plays that a low Pass Power QB should even be decent at?

So a low Pass Power QB should be horrible at 2 yard passes? Because Pass Power matters that much?

There's a difference in saying that a low Pass Power can't be effective with 80% of a Play Book versus saying he can't be effective with 100% of a Play Book.

But hey, it's your game so if that really is the case, fine.

Originally posted by Xars
There's a thing called a Play Book. It has lots of plays in it.

Are you really saying that there are literally no plays that a low Pass Power QB should even be decent at?

So a low Pass Power QB should be horrible at 2 yard passes? Because Pass Power matters that much?

There's a difference in saying that a low Pass Power can't be effective with 80% of a Play Book versus saying he can't be effective with 100% of a Play Book.

But hey, it's your game so if that really is the case, fine.


I mean if you're getting intercepted on 2 yard passes then there's a lot more things breaking down than your pass power.

Originally posted by Myrik_Justiciar
I said it was generally better at getting Ints, but you have Man teams like Southside that get pretty close.
Ints this season
Church - 3.34 per game
BSB - 3.0 per game
Soutside - 0.83 per game

How is Southside "pretty close"? That's three times less than the other top defenses


Originally posted by
I don't see how Zone gets more sacks, unless you are counting for the fact the majority of the zone teams run TV (3-4 Tiger Blitz is a great crutch at lower tiers but isn't so OP at the endgame).
Zone defense don't have to match up man for man. They can apply more pressure to the QB on blitzes.

Originally posted by
Superior against the run? Eh.
Everyone knows Zone is better against the run in general.

Originally posted by
What you fail to see here since you never ran Zone is that Zone is nowhere as consistent as Man is all around, especially in completion %. We have a small sample size (which needs to tested further) but it gives a good idea that Man far exceeds Zone in completion % while its Int rate isn't that far off in relation. Man is OP, but I don't want to see it nerfed, I would rather Zone CBs get something like Swat Down or change EotP SA to only require zone help and drop the underneath part, something like that.
I've ran zone. In fact I'm the one who told you that Cover Expert fires with zone players when you didn't know. Both Church and BSB have the same passing comp% as the Rebels, and three times the Ints. Tell me again why Zone players need a Swat Down like SA on top of that. They already have the best SA in the game with EotP. They also get to use Cover Expert. Zone defenses aren't supposed to deflect passes like Man defense where DBs are sticking to receivers.

Originally posted by Xars

So again, I'll try to recap:

Short Passing plays where having a much higher INT% than Long Passing plays for a low Pass Power QB. That "tilt" seems wrong.

That's it. That's the only contention.

I didn't ask for the ABSOLUTE numbers of my low Pass Power QB to become magically better.

I postulated that the INT% on Short Passes being higher than Long Passes feels wrong.

In my view, if the Short Pass target isn't open, the QB should move his read to someone who is OR take a Sack. But he wouldn't be throwing more INTs (%-wise) than if he was launching bombs downfield.

And yet, that's what was happening.


Your data in the first post is skewed to the strengths and weaknesses of Logzilla. It speaks more to how your team should have been throwing the pass long everytime and avoid short passing. With the Goolies, I threw long most of the time when Freddy was 18 pass power noodle armed, it's more effective since arc is still higher and allows high Cit receivers to grab it.

If we take Church's stats this entire season against a wide variety of opponents and 1288 passes, this is what we see...

Short passes - 43% 2.5 YPA, 8.3% Int

Medium passes - 44% 3.8 YPA, 8.4% Int

Long passes - 40% 4.8 YPA, 8.5% Int

^
I don't see any deviation between pass length and the Int rate. So what exactly do we need to balance?