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 / Rookie Area / All stats by position Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
Gambler75
|
posted: 2016-04-20 16:24:33 (ID: 100074577) Report Abuse |
|
jhartshorn wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys. Much appreciated. I'll take a look at that spreadsheet later. Yes I understand he's not great do only 2* but seemed strange why the other positrons had him as 2.5* That is something a lot of folks seem to get confused on - the star ratings really can't be depended upon to see what position a player is good at - even though at first glance, that appears to be EXACTLY what they seem to be for. The only way they function properly is comparing against someone else at the SAME position, ie. versus someone else on your team rated 1.5* FB ... you can feel fairly safe, he's the better player. I was baffled when I first started the game, that nearly everyone on my team wanted to play CB ... but Pete never intended the formulas it uses for the star ratings to be balanced position by position, more for comparing player vs player within the same position. Hope that helps!  Last edited on 2016-04-20 16:27:35 by Gambler75 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
jhartshorn
|
posted: 2016-04-20 21:11:48 (ID: 100074605) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
jhartshorn wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys. Much appreciated. I'll take a look at that spreadsheet later. Yes I understand he's not great do only 2* but seemed strange why the other positrons had him as 2.5* That is something a lot of folks seem to get confused on - the star ratings really can't be depended upon to see what position a player is good at - even though at first glance, that appears to be EXACTLY what they seem to be for. The only way they function properly is comparing against someone else at the SAME position, ie. versus someone else on your team rated 1.5* FB ... you can feel fairly safe, he's the better player. I was baffled when I first started the game, that nearly everyone on my team wanted to play CB ... but Pete never intended the formulas it uses for the star ratings to be balanced position by position, more for comparing player vs player within the same position. Hope that helps! Yeah that kind of makes sense! Although I now need to think about changing the position of my 56 CB's!! :O  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2016-04-22 06:01:07 (ID: 100074716) Report Abuse |
|
Gambler75 wrote:
The only way they function properly is comparing against someone else at the SAME position, ie. versus someone else on your team rated 1.5* FB ... you can feel fairly safe, he's the better player.( Wait. What? So let's say I have a spreadsheet with a formula that gives me my DC for my team per position group and I look at the ratings and I see player A with 2* on no.1 and player B with 3* at no.3 (in the same position group) then I safely assume my formulas are wrong!? 
Leading on from this, if all my OL are 2.5* but one has 3* that player should really always be no.1 on my DC? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2016-04-22 06:24:08 (ID: 100074717) Report Abuse | |
|
In principle, yes.
But there is a hook. As given example all Players wanted to be CB, hence their stars were the best on that Position, fine. But not every Player was trained AS CB. So if he would have switched all to CB and then would have looked for the best CB, it might have happend that the best trained CB also get the most stars, but that's also not a must! The stars are a unknown Formular per Position which do calculate his skills and other values like EXP into a single value and do present them as stars. That in mind it's clear that you can only get useable compares if the Players which are compared are skilled almost the same way, so really trained as CB. I hope that makes sense. To Project that on your OL example, if for what ever reason you have a QB in your OL roster (for strength Training for example) it could happen that he gets a better OL Rating than a "real" OL prospect or even starter. So you have to exclude that Player. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Captain Jack
|
posted: 2016-04-22 12:38:33 (ID: 100074729) Report Abuse |
|
jack6 wrote:
In principle, yes. But there is a hook. As given example all Players wanted to be CB, hence their stars were the best on that Position, fine. But not every Player was trained AS CB. So if he would have switched all to CB and then would have looked for the best CB, it might have happend that the best trained CB also get the most stars, but that's also not a must! The stars are a unknown Formular per Position which do calculate his skills and other values like EXP into a single value and do present them as stars. That in mind it's clear that you can only get useable compares if the Players which are compared are skilled almost the same way, so really trained as CB. I hope that makes sense. To Project that on your OL example, if for what ever reason you have a QB in your OL roster (for strength Training for example) it could happen that he gets a better OL Rating than a "real" OL prospect or even starter. So you have to exclude that Player. So these are really 'Microsoft' stars? The information is completely true, but totally useless.  |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
jhartshorn
|
posted: 2016-04-22 18:26:50 (ID: 100074741) Report Abuse |
|
Crikey - I'm really lost!
I might need to re-visit this thread once I get another season under my belt!! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
novalsi
|
posted: 2016-04-22 19:56:32 (ID: 100074751) Report Abuse |
|
jhartshorn wrote:
Crikey - I'm really lost! I might need to re-visit this thread once I get another season under my belt!! What he means is, there are stats that make up the stars, and then there are also other stats that make a player good at a position. For instance, I have a 3* QB who projects as a 3.5* CB because he's very fast and has good Vision. Despite this, his tackling rating is 9.2, so even though I have some players who are "only" 3* CBs, it would still be FAR better for me to play them at CB over him, because he couldn't tackle a drunk toddler. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Cheesehead
|
posted: 2016-04-22 21:01:29 (ID: 100074754) Report Abuse |
|
That last post really explained it for me. Thank you!
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
anderton46
|
posted: 2016-04-22 21:02:04 (ID: 100074755) Report Abuse |
|
From what I've read the best advice would seem to be, just ignore it?
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
novalsi
|
posted: 2016-04-23 18:48:04 (ID: 100074825) Report Abuse |
|
anderton46 wrote:
From what I've read the best advice would seem to be, just ignore it? Definitely not — just when you're using it, make sure you "reality-check" it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Main / Rookie Area / All stats by position | |
