Build bigger players is the end result?
Forum > Pee Wee Leagues > S28 Height Analysis
LordEvil
offline
offline
I've built speed Wrs with 3 at 6'1 and 3 at 5'8. The taller guys had less drops but the smaller guys had more looks. I think a mix helps.
awsalick
offline
offline
Originally posted by LordEvil
I've built speed Wrs with 3 at 6'1 and 3 at 5'8. The taller guys had less drops but the smaller guys had more looks. I think a mix helps.
I assumed that was the case as well. But according to the tests during this season, the effect was negligible. Granted, I build terrible WRs, so maybe if someone tells me how to make good ones, I'll test it again? -hint hint-
I've built speed Wrs with 3 at 6'1 and 3 at 5'8. The taller guys had less drops but the smaller guys had more looks. I think a mix helps.
I assumed that was the case as well. But according to the tests during this season, the effect was negligible. Granted, I build terrible WRs, so maybe if someone tells me how to make good ones, I'll test it again? -hint hint-
a49erfan77
offline
offline
Shorter players should have better leverage and therefore pancake and avoid pancakes more easily.
awsalick
offline
offline
Originally posted by a49erfan77
Shorter players should have better leverage and therefore pancake and avoid pancakes more easily.
If you read Bort's QA post (linked in 1st post), Bort says taller players pancake others more and are pancaked more.
Shorter players should have better leverage and therefore pancake and avoid pancakes more easily.
If you read Bort's QA post (linked in 1st post), Bort says taller players pancake others more and are pancaked more.
1kwerdna
offline
offline
Originally posted by awsalick
In case anyone was curious why half my players had 'x' in their names (eg GR WRx Cobb), I conducted an experiment this season to try to find what impact Height has on anything. A lot of the reasoning to do this was here:
http://www.glbwiki.com/qa/viewtopic.php?60
Basically, height/weight has a bigger impact besides than just the initial attributes, and I was curious what effect height specifically had.
Test Description
I created Tallest/Shortest versions of: All OL, WR, TE, CB/SS/FS and STOPs. I'm going to cut out the STOPs right away because there just wasn't enough there to be significant, and it didn't look like a big deal anyway.
All of the positions were built the same way as their dwarf/giant counterpart, with the exception of TEs. My tall TE trained stam (to counter the -4) and my short ones trained vis (again, to counter the -4). For all other positions, the shorter players generally got more snaps because they had +4 stam. They also had +4 agi, -4 jum, -4 vis compared to the taller counterpart (and vice versa.)
Analysis was based off my last 25 games, which is every game after the big OL bug fix on 5/13. This date was also used because builds generally start to mature around that point. This came out to roughly 2200 offensive plays and another 2300 defensive.
Olinemen:
All of the numbers were evaluated as # of occurrences per play. What I found (yeah, the formatting sucks):
Pos.............Height..........Panck...........Rev.............Hryall..........Sackall
C...............-1..............0.25%...........1.15%...........1.15%...........0.00%
C...............1...............1.01%...........0.83%...........2.48%...........0.00%
G...............-1..............1.67%...........1.10%...........1.49%...........0.04%
G...............1...............0.99%...........0.56%...........1.18%...........0.00%
OT..............-1..............2.22%...........1.33%...........1.11%...........0.31%
OT..............1...............2.32%...........0.92%...........1.54%...........0.05%
Total...........-1..............1.58%...........1.20%...........1.27%...........0.14%
Total...........1...............1.51%...........0.76%...........1.59%...........0.02%
Taller centers had 4x more pancakes, fewer revcakes, but 2x the hurries.
Taller guards had 40% fewer pancakes, half the revcakes, and slighty less hurries.
Taller tackles had slightly less revcakes and slightly more hurries, but much fewer sacks. If you combine the hurry/sack numbers, height did not effect the total pressures for tackles.
I expected, based on Bort's thread, that taller OL would have more pancakes and more revcakes.
Taking all OL together, change in pancakes and pressures were negligible, though those numbers varied within each position.
Taller players had 1/3 fewer revcakes which was the opposite of what I'd expect, and that was consistent across all 3 positions.
Originally posted by awsalick
TEs and WRs
WRs were speedsters and built the same regardless of height.
Tall TEs trained stam instead of vision. (Tall TEs had 27 stam, 16 vis. Short TEs has 20 stam, 27 vis)
The WRs and TEs were _not_ built the same way, so I'm not combining the two together.
They were evaluated by Targets/Play (ability to get open), receptions/target (ability to catch), receptions/play, yards/reception, drops/target, YAC/reception:
Pos.............Height..........Tar/P...........Rec/T...........Rec/P...........Yards/R.........Drops/T.........YAC/R
TE..............-1..............10.4%...........32.3%...........3.4%............11.13...........15.6%...........1.68
TE..............1...............12.8%...........28.2%...........3.6%............11.82...........9.2%............3.91
WR..............-1..............11.0%...........37.0%...........4.1%............12.02...........6.6%............4.27
WR..............1...............10.6%...........34.3%...........3.6%............12.84...........6.5%............2.52
And... honestly, none of this really jumps out at me. Taller TEs has 20% more targets, but for WRs it was negligible. Shorter players actually caught the ball slightly more per target, but not a lot. The only significant thing that I notice is that short TEs had a 70% higher drop rate but also caught the ball 15% more often, when they were targeted. So therefore, taller TEs had many more passes deflected (or bad passes, which I didn't measure since hopefully they'd be even.)
For WRs, pretty much all the numbers were the same. Which kind of bothers me. You'd think that +4 agi/stam vs +4 jum/vis and the 'height' catching advantage would have some sort of bigger effect. They were targeted about the same. They caught and dropped roughly the same. Kind of crap, to be honest.
Furthermore, I'd expect the TEs to behave the same as the WRs, which they do except for the big drop rate difference. That makes me wonder if the drop rate difference is due to the vision difference, and not the height. However, the shorter TE had the higher drop rate, and they also had the higher vision. So either vision has a negative effect on catch rate (unlikely) or .... the season 28 sim is fucked up. (which, of course, we knew already.)
Originally posted by awsalick
And the best for last...
CB/FS/SS
All positions were built the same way. However, all positions would stop once they reached the soft cap, so agility ended up being about the same on everyone. Then those extra points saved went into vision, so that was about the same as well.
I'd expect taller player to have more deflections, due to height and jumping.
Most of the stats were evaluated per play. Exceptions are Receptions allowed, knocked loose, pass deflections and interceptions, which were evaluated per target.
Pos.............Height..........Tack/P..........MisTak/P........Sack/P..........Hry/P...........TFL/P...........Target/P........RecAllow/T......KL/T............PD/T............Int/T...........Panc/P..........RevCak/P
CB..............-1..............5.61%...........3.17%...........0.33%...........0.27%...........0.71%...........10.97%..........34.69%..........0.41%...........43.00%..........0.20%...........0.02%...........3.25%
CB..............1...............6.19%...........2.54%...........0.09%...........0.19%...........0.31%...........11.13%..........39.55%..........0.28%...........39.55%..........0.28%...........0.03%...........2.61%
FS..............-1..............4.88%...........3.39%...........0.25%...........0.08%...........1.08%...........6.37%...........44.16%..........0.00%...........33.77%..........1.30%...........0.00%...........2.32%
FS..............1...............5.01%...........6.90%...........0.00%...........0.43%...........0.95%...........5.87%...........48.53%..........0.00%...........23.53%..........1.47%...........0.09%...........1.04%
SS..............-1..............5.89%...........1.47%...........0.43%...........0.09%...........0.78%...........7.19%...........43.37%..........0.00%...........30.12%..........0.00%...........0.00%...........0.95%
SS..............1...............6.00%...........0.00%...........0.09%...........0.00%...........1.50%...........6.61%...........53.33%..........0.00%...........30.67%..........0.00%...........0.18%...........0.44%
Total...........-1..............5.53%...........2.90%...........0.34%...........0.20%...........0.79%...........9.52%...........36.91%..........0.31%...........40.28%..........0.31%...........0.01%...........2.70%
Total...........1...............5.90%...........2.79%...........0.07%...........0.20%...........0.69%...........9.08%...........42.86%..........0.20%...........36.02%..........0.40%...........0.07%...........1.83%
Taller players had slightly more tackles and slightly fewer missed tackles.
Shorter players had way more sacks (5 times!) There were only 27 sacks total, so it's not a huge sample, but that's such a significant difference. Shorter players were pancaked much (1/7th!) less, which is consistent with Bort's statement. However, they also had more pancakes, which contradicts what he said before.
I am doubtful that the sack differential can be accounted for by fewer pancakes alone, since, even counting pancakes as 'missed sacks', the taller players still come up short by over half.
Shorter players were targeted slightly more (6%) but also gave up 14% fewer receptions per target and had 10% more pass deflections per target. That goes completely opposite to common sense.
nice work.
In case anyone was curious why half my players had 'x' in their names (eg GR WRx Cobb), I conducted an experiment this season to try to find what impact Height has on anything. A lot of the reasoning to do this was here:
http://www.glbwiki.com/qa/viewtopic.php?60
Basically, height/weight has a bigger impact besides than just the initial attributes, and I was curious what effect height specifically had.
Test Description
I created Tallest/Shortest versions of: All OL, WR, TE, CB/SS/FS and STOPs. I'm going to cut out the STOPs right away because there just wasn't enough there to be significant, and it didn't look like a big deal anyway.
All of the positions were built the same way as their dwarf/giant counterpart, with the exception of TEs. My tall TE trained stam (to counter the -4) and my short ones trained vis (again, to counter the -4). For all other positions, the shorter players generally got more snaps because they had +4 stam. They also had +4 agi, -4 jum, -4 vis compared to the taller counterpart (and vice versa.)
Analysis was based off my last 25 games, which is every game after the big OL bug fix on 5/13. This date was also used because builds generally start to mature around that point. This came out to roughly 2200 offensive plays and another 2300 defensive.
Olinemen:
All of the numbers were evaluated as # of occurrences per play. What I found (yeah, the formatting sucks):
Pos.............Height..........Panck...........Rev.............Hryall..........Sackall
C...............-1..............0.25%...........1.15%...........1.15%...........0.00%
C...............1...............1.01%...........0.83%...........2.48%...........0.00%
G...............-1..............1.67%...........1.10%...........1.49%...........0.04%
G...............1...............0.99%...........0.56%...........1.18%...........0.00%
OT..............-1..............2.22%...........1.33%...........1.11%...........0.31%
OT..............1...............2.32%...........0.92%...........1.54%...........0.05%
Total...........-1..............1.58%...........1.20%...........1.27%...........0.14%
Total...........1...............1.51%...........0.76%...........1.59%...........0.02%
Taller centers had 4x more pancakes, fewer revcakes, but 2x the hurries.
Taller guards had 40% fewer pancakes, half the revcakes, and slighty less hurries.
Taller tackles had slightly less revcakes and slightly more hurries, but much fewer sacks. If you combine the hurry/sack numbers, height did not effect the total pressures for tackles.
I expected, based on Bort's thread, that taller OL would have more pancakes and more revcakes.
Taking all OL together, change in pancakes and pressures were negligible, though those numbers varied within each position.
Taller players had 1/3 fewer revcakes which was the opposite of what I'd expect, and that was consistent across all 3 positions.
Originally posted by awsalick
TEs and WRs
WRs were speedsters and built the same regardless of height.
Tall TEs trained stam instead of vision. (Tall TEs had 27 stam, 16 vis. Short TEs has 20 stam, 27 vis)
The WRs and TEs were _not_ built the same way, so I'm not combining the two together.
They were evaluated by Targets/Play (ability to get open), receptions/target (ability to catch), receptions/play, yards/reception, drops/target, YAC/reception:
Pos.............Height..........Tar/P...........Rec/T...........Rec/P...........Yards/R.........Drops/T.........YAC/R
TE..............-1..............10.4%...........32.3%...........3.4%............11.13...........15.6%...........1.68
TE..............1...............12.8%...........28.2%...........3.6%............11.82...........9.2%............3.91
WR..............-1..............11.0%...........37.0%...........4.1%............12.02...........6.6%............4.27
WR..............1...............10.6%...........34.3%...........3.6%............12.84...........6.5%............2.52
And... honestly, none of this really jumps out at me. Taller TEs has 20% more targets, but for WRs it was negligible. Shorter players actually caught the ball slightly more per target, but not a lot. The only significant thing that I notice is that short TEs had a 70% higher drop rate but also caught the ball 15% more often, when they were targeted. So therefore, taller TEs had many more passes deflected (or bad passes, which I didn't measure since hopefully they'd be even.)
For WRs, pretty much all the numbers were the same. Which kind of bothers me. You'd think that +4 agi/stam vs +4 jum/vis and the 'height' catching advantage would have some sort of bigger effect. They were targeted about the same. They caught and dropped roughly the same. Kind of crap, to be honest.
Furthermore, I'd expect the TEs to behave the same as the WRs, which they do except for the big drop rate difference. That makes me wonder if the drop rate difference is due to the vision difference, and not the height. However, the shorter TE had the higher drop rate, and they also had the higher vision. So either vision has a negative effect on catch rate (unlikely) or .... the season 28 sim is fucked up. (which, of course, we knew already.)
Originally posted by awsalick
And the best for last...
CB/FS/SS
All positions were built the same way. However, all positions would stop once they reached the soft cap, so agility ended up being about the same on everyone. Then those extra points saved went into vision, so that was about the same as well.
I'd expect taller player to have more deflections, due to height and jumping.
Most of the stats were evaluated per play. Exceptions are Receptions allowed, knocked loose, pass deflections and interceptions, which were evaluated per target.
Pos.............Height..........Tack/P..........MisTak/P........Sack/P..........Hry/P...........TFL/P...........Target/P........RecAllow/T......KL/T............PD/T............Int/T...........Panc/P..........RevCak/P
CB..............-1..............5.61%...........3.17%...........0.33%...........0.27%...........0.71%...........10.97%..........34.69%..........0.41%...........43.00%..........0.20%...........0.02%...........3.25%
CB..............1...............6.19%...........2.54%...........0.09%...........0.19%...........0.31%...........11.13%..........39.55%..........0.28%...........39.55%..........0.28%...........0.03%...........2.61%
FS..............-1..............4.88%...........3.39%...........0.25%...........0.08%...........1.08%...........6.37%...........44.16%..........0.00%...........33.77%..........1.30%...........0.00%...........2.32%
FS..............1...............5.01%...........6.90%...........0.00%...........0.43%...........0.95%...........5.87%...........48.53%..........0.00%...........23.53%..........1.47%...........0.09%...........1.04%
SS..............-1..............5.89%...........1.47%...........0.43%...........0.09%...........0.78%...........7.19%...........43.37%..........0.00%...........30.12%..........0.00%...........0.00%...........0.95%
SS..............1...............6.00%...........0.00%...........0.09%...........0.00%...........1.50%...........6.61%...........53.33%..........0.00%...........30.67%..........0.00%...........0.18%...........0.44%
Total...........-1..............5.53%...........2.90%...........0.34%...........0.20%...........0.79%...........9.52%...........36.91%..........0.31%...........40.28%..........0.31%...........0.01%...........2.70%
Total...........1...............5.90%...........2.79%...........0.07%...........0.20%...........0.69%...........9.08%...........42.86%..........0.20%...........36.02%..........0.40%...........0.07%...........1.83%
Taller players had slightly more tackles and slightly fewer missed tackles.
Shorter players had way more sacks (5 times!) There were only 27 sacks total, so it's not a huge sample, but that's such a significant difference. Shorter players were pancaked much (1/7th!) less, which is consistent with Bort's statement. However, they also had more pancakes, which contradicts what he said before.
I am doubtful that the sack differential can be accounted for by fewer pancakes alone, since, even counting pancakes as 'missed sacks', the taller players still come up short by over half.Shorter players were targeted slightly more (6%) but also gave up 14% fewer receptions per target and had 10% more pass deflections per target. That goes completely opposite to common sense.
nice work.
Robbnva
offline
offline
Originally posted by Honey Badger
All my co-workers just might decide to play GLB next season and put all their players on my team.
I may even ask Bertha at the front desk if she wants to help me make a run at a gold championship.
Where the fuck u work? A shipping company?
All my co-workers just might decide to play GLB next season and put all their players on my team.
I may even ask Bertha at the front desk if she wants to help me make a run at a gold championship.
Where the fuck u work? A shipping company?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
