Tuesday Morning app

[ColtsFan]

Something you could include in the app but has nothing to do with what we're currently talking about but I wanted to bring it up so I don't forget it.

You could make it so that when players are traded they can get they're contracts restructured. That's always been one of the worst parts about madden in my opinion. How it deals with trades/contracts the whole 9 yards is awful.

Just putting that out there cause I thought of it

Yes! I always hated that part of trades! I never am happy with the players contract and always wish I could restructure it!

[torontogrudlies]

Something you could include in the app but has nothing to do with what we're currently talking about but I wanted to bring it up so I don't forget it.

You could make it so that when players are traded they can get they're contracts restructured. That's always been one of the worst parts about madden in my opinion. How it deals with trades/contracts the whole 9 yards is awful.

Just putting that out there cause I thought of it

Yes! I always hated that part of trades! I never am happy with the players contract and always wish I could restructure it!

Definitely worthy of consideration!

I should mention that there are several areas in which my knowledge is just average, or less than.... both in the structure of the Madden data tables and in real-life football. One example is the salary cap... I have very little knowledge of how that's supposed to work, or what I might need to take into consideration when I start programming things which would affect it. When others begin testing pieces of this app, I'm sure I will have lots of adjustments to make.

For requests like restructuring contracts, it would be good to have some sort of chart or example for how such a transaction might work, and we can then work on setting it to programming.

[torontogrudlies]

Code: Select all

  temprate = 7 * runpct_ * (1.22 ^ (.POVR - 70) / ratingsum1) *  (OffenseCoaching / 100) + (1.15 ^ (.PCTH - 70)) * passpct_ / 100


Here's my draft of the valuation for HBs. Similar to what was used for the QBs, with a few adjustments. The multiplier at the beginning is 7 (was 8 for the QBs)... this is because the quarterbacks are just going to value higher than a running back, in my opinion. I also added the "1.15 ^ .PCTH..." at the end. This gives a slight value boost to HBs who can also catch, especially on teams with a stronger passing philosophy. At max, this can add 57 value points, and this only with a 99 catching attribute and 100 pass/0 run coaching philosophy.

[torontogrudlies]

Yet more regarding my formulas for player valuation...

So far I have the following, for the first four positions (qb, hb, fb, wr). This assumes a player at the top echelon of the game, on a team with an even run/pass philosophy, with a decent coaching emphasis on their unit (in this case, offense.) This is a raw number, before other adjustments are made such as whether the player is too young/old, over/underpaid, has good/bad character.

Code: Select all

QB:  303
HB:  283
FB:  195
WR:  264


Feedback I'm seeking on this: first, I'm wondering if these seem reasonable so far, or if there are some which should be higher or lower. Second, need some input on what the other positions might look like in relation to this. O-line, D-line, LBs, DBs, etc. And finally, I'll eventually want to figure how these values compare to values which might be assigned to draft choices. (If the #1 pick is valued at 500 points, does it make sense that the top QBs are 300 or so)

[Sleeper66]

Feedback I'm seeking on this: first, I'm wondering if these seem reasonable so far, or if there are some which should be higher or lower.

If NFL realism is the objective, I'd suggest a larger gap between QBs and HBs/WRs, the rationale being that elite QBs often flourish without an effective ground attack (Stafford in 2011, for example), and elite HBs typically can't elevate their teams (AP, MJD) without solid QB play.

The even run/pass philosophy complicates this, because very few teams reflect a 50/50 ratio. Given this, I'd also reduce the FB value, as many teams are phasing out the position entirely in favor of H-backs.

Second, need some input on what the other positions might look like in relation to this. O-line, D-line, LBs, DBs, etc.

If QB is the gold standard, LTs should probably be "close" (75-80%?) in value, while the rest of the line would be significantly lower.

D-linemen are tricky in that DEs are typically much more valuable than DTs, but NTs in a 3-4 are an exception to that.

LBs present a similar problem, with 3-4 rush OLBs being much more valuable than 4-3 OLBs. And MLBs seem to be declining in value across the board.

CBs should probably be valued similar to LTs and DEs, while Ss would be significantly lower.

Overall, I'd be much more confident commenting on position values once you've established rough numeric estimates, as you've done for the positions listed above.

And finally, I'll eventually want to figure how these values compare to values which might be assigned to draft choices. (If the #1 pick is valued at 500 points, does it make sense that the top QBs are 300 or so)

If the first overall pick is 500 points, in my view elite QBs should be valued at 600+, simply because I can't imagine Rodgers, Brees, Brady and a handful of other QBs being traded straight-up for that pick, not in a "realistic" situation.

As a Lions fan, I honestly believe Stafford would be unattainable at that price, even if the prospect in question is a "can't miss," in part because in the real NFL teams build their offenses around "franchise" QBs, which impacts their choices in the draft, free agency and trades. Once they're all in on a QB, it takes a haul to acquire him, given the resources devoted to his development.

Your project is really fascinating, and I hope something above is helpful.

[torontogrudlies]

Feedback I'm seeking on this: first, I'm wondering if these seem reasonable so far, or if there are some which should be higher or lower.

If NFL realism is the objective, I'd suggest a larger gap between QBs and HBs/WRs, the rationale being that elite QBs often flourish without an effective ground attack (Stafford in 2011, for example), and elite HBs typically can't elevate their teams (AP, MJD) without solid QB play.

The even run/pass philosophy complicates this, because very few teams reflect a 50/50 ratio. Given this, I'd also reduce the FB value, as many teams are phasing out the position entirely in favor of H-backs.

Yeah I just did the 50/50 as a base. In my own franchise, I set a lot of the teams to 65% run because I prefer not to have a pass-heavy league (but mine is a fictional league.)

Second, need some input on what the other positions might look like in relation to this. O-line, D-line, LBs, DBs, etc.

If QB is the gold standard, LTs should probably be "close" (75-80%?) in value, while the rest of the line would be significantly lower.

And I guess if the franchise QB is left-handed, we flip it and look at the RTs?

D-linemen are tricky in that DEs are typically much more valuable than DTs, but NTs in a 3-4 are an exception to that.

LBs present a similar problem, with 3-4 rush OLBs being much more valuable than 4-3 OLBs. And MLBs seem to be declining in value across the board.

CBs should probably be valued similar to LTs and DEs, while Ss would be significantly lower.

Overall, I'd be much more confident commenting on position values once you've established rough numeric estimates, as you've done for the positions listed above.

And finally, I'll eventually want to figure how these values compare to values which might be assigned to draft choices. (If the #1 pick is valued at 500 points, does it make sense that the top QBs are 300 or so)

If the first overall pick is 500 points, in my view elite QBs should be valued at 600+, simply because I can't imagine Rodgers, Brees, Brady and a handful of other QBs being traded straight-up for that pick, not in a "realistic" situation.

Another factor is that there will be different valuations. Your GM might rate Stafford a 500, but a collective rating by all 32 GMs might only come out to 350.

As a Lions fan, I honestly believe Stafford would be unattainable at that price, even if the prospect in question is a "can't miss," in part because in the real NFL teams build their offenses around "franchise" QBs, which impacts their choices in the draft, free agency and trades. Once they're all in on a QB, it takes a haul to acquire him, given the resources devoted to his development.

Your project is really fascinating, and I hope something above is helpful.

Definitely! I will keep posting as I continue...

[ColtsFan]

I was just going to mention that about the blind side of the O-line being worth a lot... and my computer crashed! lol but right on @Sleeper66!

And yes, teams aren't going to trade their "Franchise QB" for any first round pick. Take Aaron Rodgers. Imagine the Colts trying to trade their first pick for him! While it might sound tempting to a Madden owner, no NFL owner would do that when they "know what they have" versus a chance at a once in 10 year QB. Not to mention, Madden doesn't do a good job at all with having that special player every couple years in the draft.

About the O-line, while I agree the "blind tackle" should be highest priority, try imagining Peyton Manning behind a (Madden rated) 70 Center. I don't think so. I think I would put the priority LT, C, RT, LG, RG. And reverse it for a team with a lefty "Franchise QB". I think if a team has a lefty QB starting, but they don't think he's really their guy, they should be looking for the line in the order for a righty. If that makes sense, and if it's even possible.

[torontogrudlies]

I was just going to mention that about the blind side of the O-line being worth a lot... and my computer crashed! lol but right on @Sleeper66!

And yes, teams aren't going to trade their "Franchise QB" for any first round pick. Take Aaron Rodgers. Imagine the Colts trying to trade their first pick for him! While it might sound tempting to a Madden owner, no NFL owner would do that when they "know what they have" versus a chance at a once in 10 year QB. Not to mention, Madden doesn't do a good job at all with having that special player every couple years in the draft.

One idea which came to mind was to create a draft class, or at least the elite players of it, at the beginning of the season. Follow them via news blurbs throughout the season, but we'd only know brief info about them like "this guy is exceptionally fast" or "he's mobile with an extremely accurate arm." In the offseason, after the real draft class is created, these elite players could be plugged in... some of them could end up being busts just like in real life.

[Drizzt_13]

This is good, I like it a lot. The one problem is that it overvalues players because the other RB's on the team do not have the CTH*Pass% bonus the back the formula is evaluating is getting.Teams do not take into account the pass catching skills of the back they already have when calculating ovr/ratingsum1 so the formula will often overvalue pass catching backs.

Rather than having pass catching be part of the trade value formula why not make it part of the way GM's calculate player OVR at that position. This would really simplify developing the trade value formulas as we would just have

value=constant*(1.22^(ovr-70))/ratingssum1)*(Run/pass pct)*(relevant coaching value/100).

This would let us focus in on the central part of this formula which is the 1.22^(ovr-70). I think using exponential growth is a really good way of handling this, we just have to realize what it means is that the difference between a 98 and a 99 is much larger than the difference between an 89 and an 88. This is probably a proper model for some positions like the QB positions where the gap between good and elite is bigger (or of greater trade value) than the gap between bad and average. But I don't think this is true for all positions.

For some positions you may so diminishing returns on your investments the more elite a player you get. I think teams place less value on going from a passable fullback to an elite fullback than they do form going to a passable fullback form a fullback who is a liability. Same may be true of some line positions, it may be more important to a passing team that they go from liability to average than it is they go from average to elite. Maybe for certain positions instead of using a function which produces a concave curve we should use one which produces a convex curve.

I'm really tired right now but if you give me a little while I think i could come up with a formula that keeps similar mins and maxes to the previous ones but has a more appropriate concavity.

[torontogrudlies]

I think some of what you're saying is that, when I did the add-on for catching ability, it's no longer "a piece of the pie" so to speak?

Here's a thought... although it's debated whether the OVR is a true measure of a player, the formula for creating an OVR is known. Maybe just for the purpose of this segment of the code, we recompute it and add in more factors? According to the spreadsheet, catching ability does factor in for HB and FB already. Perhaps we alter this equation... a HB with 99 catch rating is valued more on a team with heavier pass philosophy than on a team with less. And his pass blocking would be bigger too, stuff like that. Then we spit out a "temp OVR" which then is ok for a formula similar to what the QB gets?