no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / Adjust FB Blocking success probability for different formations Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
anderton46
|
posted: 2016-05-26 15:20:25 (ID: 100077645) Report Abuse |
|
hollyhh2000 wrote:
anderton46 wrote:
Do the formations that yield a high amount of sacks balance out by gaining more yards or % completions than the SG formations? 500-1200 plays is a little small quantity to really analyze yards per play as some statistical anomaly on very long TDs would have quite an impact, so use with a grain of salt. Also there are different Defense Formations and if broken down to one defense the number of plays come down co in my analyzed plays: vs all Defense Formation: SG4: 1261 plays: 7076 yards = 5.61 yards per pass I-Formation: 681 plays: 3475 yards = 5.10 yards per pass SG2: 585 plays: 2892 yards = 4.95 yards per pass just vs 3-4-4 SG4: 664 plays: 3694 yards = 5.56 yards per pass (3.6 sack /pass vs 3-4-4) I-Formation: 365 plays: 1819 yards = 4.98 yards per pass (9.3 sack /pass vs 3-4-4) SG2: 367 plays: 1871 yards = 5.10 yards per pass (2.5 sack /pass vs 3-4-4) # You are like a walking/talking database 
I guess, through relatively limited data there is no real counter argument then. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-28 23:11:52 (ID: 100077845) Report Abuse |
|
Sorry to derail the thread a bit Holly but what was the exact blocking stats of all the FB's you used for this analysis (No player or team names needed).
Is there a set parameter you are using i.e. all FB's with high blocking, +40/45 etc. or is it a mix range of low blocking and high. FB's with low blocking should not be used in analysis in relation to the changing of formations. 
Edit: Ideally I'd love to see data using a team/teams with 45+ FB blocking. Last edited on 2016-05-28 23:43:01 by Doc |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2016-05-29 13:23:58 (ID: 100077893) Report Abuse |
|
I see where you are coming from, Doc. However, it is each and every FB that has 100% Success LB/SF Blitz Pickup in SG and Zero % in all other Formations.
45+ Blocking seems bit high, but I there is also a very good team with a 40 Blocking FB in the equation. As we don't have too many teams in Elite who do not predominantly rely on Shotgun Formation, yes I have included data from at least 2 Teams with questionable Blocking at FB. However, also those two FBs have the same perfect blocking quote in the SG One team has a converted HB with 25-30 blocking (probably 20 blocking at the start of this season) All he did was 50 LB/SF Pickups in 50 LB/SF Blitzes from SG2/or SG4 (No DE penetration) the other team is even worse. No FB, No FB coach they use A RB below 20 blocking at FB In the SG2 or SG4 this RB did easily pickup 35 blitzing SF/LB in 35 occasions (when no DE penetrated) what I now think is even worse, is that this RB picks up all 119 Elite DE who did beat their OT. Most of those DE should eat him alive. Apparently, for picking up penetrating DE's or blitzing LB/SF in the Gun, and therefor sack prevention, blocking is not important. I still think, that those teams shot themselves in the foot, as Gambler once made a post that the number of overthrows (which could be hurries) greatly increase when he had in a lesser FB I will crunch some more data next week and scout all FBs involved, so that we are sure to have unbiased data. @Pete: if you read that I need to make a disclaimer as the community has just pointed at the weak spots of the sim the last couple of days. I do not want to just be negative about your sim. Football is an awful complex sport to simultate. The sim is great in so many other parts and allows the manager a ton of possibilities to adjust, which makes is tougher for you to code. I just want to identify an area, where I think an improvement could be made especially if the target is to balance formations |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-29 13:55:21 (ID: 100077896) Report Abuse |
|
I don't think 45 is high at all when you are suggesting formation/engine changes. I would rather see parameters used that creates the least variables to get more defined results.
There are also comparable scenarios you will not see in your data that I am more than willing to help get a small sample size. You will have very little analysis of SG4 verses defensive formations such as 5-3-3, 4-4-3 etc. that other formations come up against (where more line men are tied up etc.) I've no problem running a few scrimmages and pass on any results to you if you think it will be of any use. Sometimes the answer is that managers need to balance their teams before we look into balancing formations. Quick question, what % have you been sacked, in the League this season, from Big-I, I-Form, actually any formation other than SG2 and SG4  Last edited on 2016-05-29 14:10:38 by Doc |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
hollyhh2000
|
posted: 2016-05-29 14:36:54 (ID: 100077897) Report Abuse |
|
Doc wrote:
I don't think 45 is high at all when you are suggesting formation/engine changes. I would rather see parameters used that creates the least variables to get more defined results. There are also comparable scenarios you will not see in your data that I am more than willing to help get a small sample size. You will have very little analysis of SG4 verses defensive formations such as 5-3-3, 4-4-3 etc. that other formations come up against (where more line men are tied up etc.) I've no problem running a few scrimmages and pass on any results to you if you think it will be of any use. Sometimes the answer is that managers need to balance their teams before we look into balancing formations. Quick question, what % have you been sacked, in the League this season, from Big-I, I-Form, actually any formation other than SG2 and SG4 But I don't get your point, I don't want to adjust specifically according to my data. I just say 0% blitz pick up from one Formation with a FB and 100% blitz pick up from another FB Formation and not even a difference involving a high blocking or a low blocking I don't talk about a 10% advantage from one formation I agree that opponent formation, personnel and also if the defense is thinking run or pass is a huge difference, but this does not explain not a single successful block in 230 tries while these same FBs are perfect out of Shotgung in 200 tries I have data that suggest this is a definite trend. I don't want to set the adjusting factor based on that limited data, therefore I would need far more data. Just show me one snap from season 21 where a FB blocked a blitzing LB or SF |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-29 15:08:14 (ID: 100077898) Report Abuse |
|
I don't think you two are talking about the same thing here.
holly's point is better highlighted with these stats I feel: SG4: 427 passes with no DE breaking through but a blitzer -> 427 FB blocks, no sack. SG2: 171 passes with no DE breaking through but a blitzer -> 171 FB blocks, no sack. i-Formation: 158 passes with no DE breaking through but a blitzer -> 0 FB blocks, 34 sacks. Flex/Wish/BigI/Goalline: 71 passes with no DE breaking through but a blitzer -> 0 FB blocks, 17 sacks. So on one hand we have 598 blitzes being picked up at 100% by the FB and on the other hand we have FB picking up 0% of blitzes and allowing 51 sacks in 229 passes. When the same group of FBs has a 100% success rate in certain formations but a 0% success rate in other formations I think we can agree that there is more to it than the skills of the FBs. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-29 15:19:56 (ID: 100077899) Report Abuse |
|
Could it be a simple text issue. We can see in any scrimmages we have a much more detailed breakdown of the plays, for example :-
This was in season 18, a scrimmage 4:53 1 and 10 to go on own 35, Alan O'Connor (OC) snaps the ball to Reece Quinn (QB), Reece Quinn (QB) selected Marcel Cousin (WR/L) as target, DLine has 0 members in shape after blocking, Spira Jelic (MLB) goes for the blitz, the possible chance for an interception was destroyed by the passers skills, the receiver of this outer left pass catches the ball, Djadi Shaheen (FS/R) made the tackle, forward progress: 8 yards (Wishbone vs. 3-4-4) more This was in last night game against Saker 0:27 2 and 12 to go on own 48, Darnell Heyward (OC) snaps the ball to Abraham Boone (QB), Abraham Boone (QB) selected Leon Park (TE/L) as target, Hashim Kalu (MLB) goes for the blitz, the pass goes outer screen left to the receiver, who catches the ball, Leon Park (TE/L) tackled by Yahya Bancilhon (OLB/R), forward progress: 3 yards (Big I formation vs. 3-4-4) more You will notice in the bottom play Hashim Kalu blitzed, he didn't get a sack and was blocked by no one. Without the full scrimmage text we do not know what happened with regards to the O-Line. Is the Full back picking up the blitz and is not being recorded in the text? Or do you think its a case of a guy blitzes untouched and the QB just still gets the pass off? Last edited on 2016-05-29 15:32:39 by Doc |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-29 15:25:34 (ID: 100077900) Report Abuse |
|
Doc wrote:
Could it be a simple text issue. We can see in any scrimmages we have a much more detailed breakdown of the plays, for example :- I doubt it because in one case there are 0 sacks in 600 blitzes while in the other there are 50+ sacks in 230 passes. So it appears to impact the outcome of the play, not just the way the play is described. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Doc
|
posted: 2016-05-29 15:29:03 (ID: 100077902) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
Doc wrote:
Could it be a simple text issue. We can see in any scrimmages we have a much more detailed breakdown of the plays, for example :- I doubt it because in one case there are 0 sacks in 600 blitzes while in the other there are 50+ sacks in 230 passes. So it appears to impact the outcome of the play, not just the way the play is described. Are there any instances in SG4 where a LB blitzes and no one picks him up and he doesn't get a sack, as per text? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2016-05-29 16:05:47 (ID: 100077903) Report Abuse |
|
Doc wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
Doc wrote:
Could it be a simple text issue. We can see in any scrimmages we have a much more detailed breakdown of the plays, for example :- I doubt it because in one case there are 0 sacks in 600 blitzes while in the other there are 50+ sacks in 230 passes. So it appears to impact the outcome of the play, not just the way the play is described. Are there any instances in SG4 where a LB blitzes and no one picks him up and he doesn't get a sack, as per text? Not according to holly's stats, the FB picks up the blitzing LB in 100% of the cases. 427 blocks over 427 attempts and 0 sack allowed. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / Adjust FB Blocking success probability for different formations | |
