When evaluating WR's - is it safe to assume they should have a similar "completion %" as qbs - I.E. - 60% ish being ok - under being bad and over being good?

any thoughts

I'm not even sure what you are referring to?

The stats now track balls thrown to a wr vs catches

Great is anything over 65% for a WR, Good is over 60%.

Ranger, your question isnt as easy as you think. You're going down the wrong path. Many factors effect if a WR can catch a thrown ball. Just to name a few; DB coverage, pass depth, wr attributes, pressure on your QB, etc...

If you want to understand how good your WAs, and thus if you should throw to him, look at his WR attributes relative to other DIII WRs. For example, if you perform this analysis on your RBs, TEs and WRs you will see which is your best option when throwing a pass.

After that, try working on pass depths amongst your pass options versus the opposing teams defense and see if adjusting these allows your WR, TE or RB to become "more open".

I don't think it is as simple as looking at completion %. Other factors have to be factored in some of which I'm not sure "we" the user can determine.

e.g. - distance where wr is targeted, # of eligible receivers on that play, qb GI, db ratings

**plus who knows exactly how ratings are applied to each play, is it individual, group, how enhanced are ratings in dbl coverage i.e. - GI, ELU, TEC

Good question, but I don't see it as being a simple conclusion.

I realize its not an absolute way to measure - im just looking for a way to judge performance - I had this guy as a possession receiver getting thrown medium and long nothing deep.  under 50% "completition" given that context seems horrificly bad  to me.

I just came back to the game after abandoning it after the version 2 upgrade and am trying to get a grasp of reasonable expectations.  I realize were still figuring out version 3 so i really have no idea what good/bad performances are.

thanks for the opinions - more are welcome and appreciated

The issue may be that throwing medium and deep to even a good WR won't yield anything higher than 50%ish. So you are saying you wont throw to this guy because he doesnt catch enough of the passes thrown to him, but the answer may be you just need to adjust your pass depth. According to the developers, passes "dropped" are the receivers fault, all other incompletions are either poor passes or defended by a defensive player.

What im saying is that the low percentage of passes caught vs passes thown may have little to do with your WR.

Don't forget your statistics 101 course, correlation does not imply causation.

and correlation means even less with a small sample size. Statistics<Ratings

But just for S&G's I'll do it for my team.

Francis Slater 59 Pos 62 Deep 67.1% Comp% 127/189
Vincent Martin 60 Pos 59 Deep 66.5% Comp% 167/251
Robert Boyer  55 Pos 57 Deep 58.9% Comp% 10/17
Charles Baxter 57 Pos 55 Deep 74.1% Comp% 23/31

So, in my Wide Receiver  the correlation holds true overall, but the bottom two did not get enough looks to say that it was a statistically significant sample. and really, at 190 and 250 looks its only just starting to be statistically relevant. Being that they are both seniors, it hardly had any relevance at all. It does show me that my wide receiver values theoretically are correct for what they should be.

Lee Garcia 58 Pos 70.1% Comp%  89/127
Alvin McIntyre 58 Pos 72.6% Comp% 77/106
Kevin Hopkins 55 Pos 90% Comp% 9/10

Mcintyre is a senior while Garcia is a junior...so that could explain the difference, or it could be that the same size has not been met yet. The ratings say these two are roughly even and likely the completion percentages are within the margin of error.

Daniel Lambert 50 Pos 55.4% Comp% 66/119

My other TE was not targeted a single time (because he's a blocker only).

If anyone sees anything from that it would be news to me.

Noah,

In your analysis; Francis Slater 59 Pos 62 Deep 67.1% Comp % 127/189

Is the 59 his GUESS score? Is the 62 his WIS possession score? Does this mean that you threw to this deep 189 times and he caught 127 of these 189 deep passes?

EDIT
noah, i just checked a handful of your bridgewater games. Most throws to Slater i saw were Medium and some were Long. I think i answered my own question as far as passing distance. So i think you examples mirror what we were telling Ranger, specifically, his completion percentage is likely driven by his passing depth. If he brings him closer (ala Slater) he will likely see an increase in completion percentage. In other words, Rangers WR is not bad, he only looks bad because of the passing distance.

Posted by chalvorson on 1/3/2014 6:43:00 AM (view original):
Noah,

In your analysis; Francis Slater 59 Pos 62 Deep 67.1% Comp % 127/189

Is the 59 his GUESS score? Is the 62 his WIS possession score? Does this mean that you threw to this deep 189 times and he caught 127 of these 189 deep passes?

EDIT
noah, i just checked a handful of your bridgewater games. Most throws to Slater i saw were Medium and some were Long. I think i answered my own question as far as passing distance. So i think you examples mirror what we were telling Ranger, specifically, his completion percentage is likely driven by his passing depth. If he brings him closer (ala Slater) he will likely see an increase in completion percentage. In other words, Rangers WR is not bad, he only looks bad because of the passing distance.

If you can glean anything, this would be it.