Whatifsports.com - Forums: How Much Should Talent, Game Planning & Pure Luck

3/11/2013 9:29 AM

Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 475 (1)

HD - 1 GD - 28

Yes, talent should rule, but there is a reason great coaches are great coaches, and that's usually knowledge of the game, which in GD is game planning. Then there is that little bit of pure luck...the ball bounces the wrong way, that great WR has the ball go just off of his fingertips...and into a DB's hands, we've all seen it a thousand times, and yes, it is frustrating, but it's also part of the game of football!

3/11/2013 10:56 AM

jibe

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 654 (1)

HD - 3 GD - 76 HBD - 34

This is something we have to pay for out of our pockets. Luck should not even be in the equation.

When people bring up how game planning should produce an upset they should keep in mind that the other guy may have planned as well. So with that in mind I'll go 65% talent 20% game planning 15% how you set up your roster. 0% luck and randomness.

Keep in mind the best recruiters in the history of this game have done the best at game planning and setting rosters up.

3/11/2013 11:02 AM

slid64er

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Rookie

Posts: 824 (0)

MLB - 34 GD - 144 HBD - 4

Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.

Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.

3/11/2013 11:14 AM

shonuff504

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 129 (0)

HD - 2 GD - 114

Posted by slid64er on 3/11/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.
Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.

Bingo!!!!!!

3/11/2013 11:16 AM

0bigzeke0

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 180 (0)

GD - 57

Some randomness/luck is going to appear. Things such as field position, injuries, penalties may skew the outcome somewhat, but I think player talent should be 1st and foremost. If it wasn't important, why give some teams better vision over others, just to take it away with random outcomes?

3/11/2013 11:18 AM

jibe

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 654 (1)

HD - 3 GD - 76 HBD - 34

Posted by slid64er on 3/11/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.
Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.

I agree with Reid. When you have a 10-20% talent difference is where the GPing should come into play. The upsets of a lousy 3-8 team taking down an 11-0 NC contender should not be happening and its something I don't want to be playing.

By and large the guys that are coaching those 3-8 teams don't have such great grasps of game planning either.

3/11/2013 11:21 AM

norbert

Site Staff

Posts: 1241 (0)

MLB - 6 NBA - 1 NFL - 15 NHL - 12 HD - 77 GD - 30 HBD - 11 FCD - 11

I think it should be 100% willpower. If you will your team to win hard enough, they will win!

I'm not sure I get the percentage breakdown discussions as much as people like talking about it, but it does give me some insight into what you guys are thinking. I mean, there isn't any way to code the simulator to say a win should be 60% talent, etc., but by you guys discussing the importance, I do see what you guys think the game should be. I also don't really believe there is the game plan dynamic I think some of you think there should be. If a team calls a running play and the defense calls a rush defense, it doesn't mean the defense wins, or if the opposite that the offense wins. It can give a team an advantage in the play, but I don't think there is ever an "I win" play call. For one, plays aren't simulated in a manner where we decide which team *wins* each play.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't know what "40% game plan" means. How are you putting a numerical value on your game planning? If I have a 3-4 versus a Pro-set and the defense calls rush and the offense rushes, what does that mean? How does that match up in your game plan formula? Does somebody "win"?

I think there is some point where talent overrides play calls. Say a team is 20-points higher in all aspects of their opponent, if they rush and the defense tries to stop the run, the offense is still going to be successful running. It doesn't mean they are going to run 80 yards every play, but overall the defense is not going to stop them no matter how much they will themselves to.

3/11/2013 11:33 AM

headpirate

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 227 (0)

HD - 36 GD - 66 HBD - 5

Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/10/2013 11:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fakelouholtz on 3/10/2013 6:42:00 PM (view original):
It depends on what is meant by game planning. If a team is doing something just ridiculous like playing a Heavy Pass defense out of the Dime against their opponent's power running game from the WB or ND Box, or they are conservatively running the ball on 3rd and 8 in a close game, then yes, even if they have a decisive talent advantage, their opponent should be able to overcome that in a lot of ways. That said, if we are talking about a person with a brain in their head, who sets up a reasonable game plan, makes minor adjustments, and doesn't have their players out of position too often, then talent should account for at least 80% of the game result.

A person who thinks that the talent level of the players that we are all recruiting should only be accounting for 50% of the games results isn't looking to play the same football simulation that I am.
Ok... let's take a look at an entirely different scenario. Suppose an opponent has a more talented team, and always passes out of say, the pro-set formation and always runs out of the I-formation set but overall, he runs 50% of the time and passes 50% of the time. I would argue that I should be able to overcome his talent advantage if I set my defense to play the pass when he runs Pro-Set and play the run when he runs I-formation (for example). What do you think?

Tom Osbourne's Neb teams ran WB EVERY play, and RAN every down, and the BEST teams with GREAT talent could not stop it. It was not surprise when NEB lined up in WB, and then Ran out of the WB.

I recall parts of a story about Michael Jordan and an expected play in the closing seconds of the game. The opposing coach KNEW MJ was going to get the inbounds, then go right, then curl, then shoot. He set his players to defend the inbounds, guard MJ from getting the pass, to keep MJ from going right, to stop the curl, to get in his face to contest the shot. The opposing defense executed every phase like the coach told them would happen and in every position they expected the play to occur. And MJ did all of that, and made the shot.

Sometimes (most times) you just cant gameplan over talent.

3/11/2013 12:55 PM

team_fapn

Game Rating: All Star Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 310 (0)

GD - 34

Here's the way i see it:

Talent should win 100% of the time. Now, at what margin is talent not able to be overcome? If your OL average is 60, and the DL avg is 60, and your RB avg is 60 and the LB avg is 60, THEN it should fall back on gameplanning. So if the opponent is playing heavy pass against always run, then that run should get a pretty good gain. On the flipside, if all things are equal, and its always run vs always run, then what? Its a 0 yard gain? Or a -1 yard run to +2 yard run?

On the other hand, a team that is more than +10 or 15 across the board on their opponent should be able to have their way with them, regardless of the gameplan. How often do we see App State beat Michigan? Even if they gameplan perfectly? Not that often, right? because in the end, the talent will win. You can gameplan until your brain explodes, but if you don't have the personnel to pull it off, then the majority of the time, it won't happen... except that 1 in 50 time that it does...

Examples based on the current build of this beta:

RATINGS -

QB (1)46.0 /34.0-

OL (5)52.4/ 55.4-

RB (2)49.0/48.0-

WR (2)51.0/51.0-

TE (1)45.0/56.0-

DL (4)49.5/51.3-

LB (4)50.5/48.8-

DB (4)45.5/50.5

The first number for each position is my opponent, the 2nd is me. He had a decided advantage at QB, and I had one at TE... other than that, it was pretty even across the board. My OL was 6 points better than his DL. His OL was 1 point better than my DL. I rushed for 226, he for 128. I avg 5.0 ypc, he avg 3.3 ypc. I won 21-3

Now, on the other hand... in this second example, using the gp I used to beat 80% of the test games I ran vs d3 opponents that were similar to me, this is against a d2 school. The smallest differential that he had was +2 (his dbs vs my wrs), the largest was 18 (his OL vs my DL)... He rushed for 320 yards on 48 carries... I rushed for 150 on 37. I did manage to throw for 200, but thats because my gameplan changed to my losing gp, which is heavy on the pass. and my qb was 21/59 passing... he also threw 5 ints and only 1 td. Lost 54-14

I can understand WHY i lost that game. And it doesn't **** me off. If I come up against a team that has me outmanned, I wouldn't expect to win because I am (or am not in my case) a genius gameplanner.

All that being said, here is where I think it should land: 80% talent, 17% gameplanning, 3% luck/upset factor. Talent should be king if this is going to be a true "SIMULATION" of college football. Recruiting/talent should mean more than gameplanning and/or luck. Gameplanning should mean more than luck. Luck should only be talked about 3-5 times a season, OVERALL, not 3-5 times a day. I simulated that game between myself and a d2 team 100 times. I won ONCE. 24-21.

3/11/2013 1:56 PM

elkhour

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 150 (0)

HD - 11 GD - 56

Posted by slid64er on 3/11/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.
Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.

I agree with slid64er, talent should be king, no question. If you have a 10-15 point advantage across the board, you should win. GP matters when the difference between the teams is 2-3 points overall, that will mostly be the case in the playoffs, at least as of 2nd round, and also in other competitive games between human coaches.
Then if you want something VERY realistic, luck should be factored at a very low percentage, say 2%. But then it's luck, it's not game planning. People go about giving examples like Appalachian state defeating Michigan. If you think that was game planning, it would make me laugh. I say that was pure luck + other intangibles and moral stuff that are present in real life but you cannot account for in a game.
You can actually have Appalachian state and Michigan replay that game 100 times, with the same game plan, and I doubt Appalachian state will win more than 2 or 3.... That is what we would call luck.

3/11/2013 2:08 PM

bjaygee

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 148 (0)

HD - 2 GD - 101 HBD - 1

Posted by norbert on 3/11/2013 11:21:00 AM (view original):
I think it should be 100% willpower. If you will your team to win hard enough, they will win!

I'm not sure I get the percentage breakdown discussions as much as people like talking about it, but it does give me some insight into what you guys are thinking. I mean, there isn't any way to code the simulator to say a win should be 60% talent, etc., but by you guys discussing the importance, I do see what you guys think the game should be. I also don't really believe there is the game plan dynamic I think some of you think there should be. If a team calls a running play and the defense calls a rush defense, it doesn't mean the defense wins, or if the opposite that the offense wins. It can give a team an advantage in the play, but I don't think there is ever an "I win" play call. For one, plays aren't simulated in a manner where we decide which team *wins* each play.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't know what "40% game plan" means. How are you putting a numerical value on your game planning? If I have a 3-4 versus a Pro-set and the defense calls rush and the offense rushes, what does that mean? How does that match up in your game plan formula? Does somebody "win"?

I think there is some point where talent overrides play calls. Say a team is 20-points higher in all aspects of their opponent, if they rush and the defense tries to stop the run, the offense is still going to be successful running. It doesn't mean they are going to run 80 yards every play, but overall the defense is not going to stop them no matter how much they will themselves to.

"I think there is some point where talent overrides play calls. Say a team is 20-points higher in all aspects of their opponent, if they rush and the defense tries to stop the run, the offense is still going to be successful running. It doesn't mean they are going to run 80 yards every play, but overall the defense is not going to stop them no matter how much they will themselves."

Norbert, that's spot on and perfect. Better talent and better coaching generate better outcomes. While penalties and injuries can and should be factored in as part of the engine, it's not a game of luck but skill. You're making me a believer.

3/11/2013 2:55 PM (edited)

bhazlewood

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Pro

Posts: 1410 (1)

MLB - 1 GD - 149 HBD - 10

Posted by jibe on 3/11/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):
This is something we have to pay for out of our pockets. Luck should not even be in the equation.

When people bring up how game planning should produce an upset they should keep in mind that the other guy may have planned as well. So with that in mind I'll go 65% talent 20% game planning 15% how you set up your roster. 0% luck and randomness.

Keep in mind the best recruiters in the history of this game have done the best at game planning and setting rosters up.

0% luck and randomness.

Then take out penalties, turnovers, and injuries - after all, it's a % chance that one of these will occur. That's randomness. That's a little bit of luck.

While we're at it, let's make my 90/78/82 RB with a 76/77/79 OL running a WB on 1st and 10 with 12:10 left on the clock against a 5-2 using a 72/89/68 DL with 77/62/90 LB's always gain 2.7 yards. Oh wait, you expect a variety of results for each play? That's RANDOMNESS.

Every time I hear someone rant that they want ZERO RANDOMNESS in a game tells me they don't understand how randomness should - in fact HAS TO - figure in to a game engine.

The 2.0 engine is flawed, badly, but without understanding the code, it's hard to say whether it's because the randomness of results is skewed, the decision making algorithms are poorly executed, the results code itself is fundamentally flawed, or a combination of the above.

3/11/2013 2:52 PM

bhazlewood

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Pro

Posts: 1410 (1)

MLB - 1 GD - 149 HBD - 10

Posted by elkhour on 3/11/2013 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 3/11/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.
Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.
I agree with slid64er, talent should be king, no question. If you have a 10-15 point advantage across the board, you should win. GP matters when the difference between the teams is 2-3 points overall, that will mostly be the case in the playoffs, at least as of 2nd round, and also in other competitive games between human coaches.
Then if you want something VERY realistic, luck should be factored at a very low percentage, say 2%. But then it's luck, it's not game planning. People go about giving examples like Appalachian state defeating Michigan. If you think that was game planning, it would make me laugh. I say that was pure luck + other intangibles and moral stuff that are present in real life but you cannot account for in a game.
You can actually have Appalachian state and Michigan replay that game 100 times, with the same game plan, and I doubt Appalachian state will win more than 2 or 3.... That is what we would call luck.

The question always is, what is the point where talent should over come, no matter what. It's easy to point out "across the board" mismatches but what happens if my LB are better than your RB, but your OL is better than my DL? You have a good QB and WR, but while I have great DB's I can't get pressure on the QB? My OL is strong but has bad technique, where your DL might be weaker but smarter?

I don't have those answers, but I just wanted to point out it's very seldom as black and white as people make it out to be.

3/11/2013 3:33 PM

elkhour

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 150 (0)

HD - 11 GD - 56

Posted by bhazlewood on 3/11/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by elkhour on 3/11/2013 1:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 3/11/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Posted by justinlee_24 on 3/11/2013 12:07:00 AM (view original):
@ slid64er then that's kind of stupid. Why bother have gameplanning? Might as well call the game recruiting wars then... that's not to say talent shouldn't matter... because it should immensely, but if someone wholly outgameplans their opponent, they should be able to close the gap.
Why do you think that's stupid? If you can't recruit yourself one exploitable talent advantage, why do you think you should be competitive with the other team?

Gameplanning should matter when talent is about equal, not when it's an Alabama v Idaho mismatch.
I agree with slid64er, talent should be king, no question. If you have a 10-15 point advantage across the board, you should win. GP matters when the difference between the teams is 2-3 points overall, that will mostly be the case in the playoffs, at least as of 2nd round, and also in other competitive games between human coaches.
Then if you want something VERY realistic, luck should be factored at a very low percentage, say 2%. But then it's luck, it's not game planning. People go about giving examples like Appalachian state defeating Michigan. If you think that was game planning, it would make me laugh. I say that was pure luck + other intangibles and moral stuff that are present in real life but you cannot account for in a game.
You can actually have Appalachian state and Michigan replay that game 100 times, with the same game plan, and I doubt Appalachian state will win more than 2 or 3.... That is what we would call luck.
The question always is, what is the point where talent should over come, no matter what. It's easy to point out "across the board" mismatches but what happens if my LB are better than your RB, but your OL is better than my DL? You have a good QB and WR, but while I have great DB's I can't get pressure on the QB? My OL is strong but has bad technique, where your DL might be weaker but smarter?

I don't have those answers, but I just wanted to point out it's very seldom as black and white as people make it out to be.

But that's where I think game planning should matter. In cases like these, on a general state it's more like Michigan vs. Michigan State than an Appalahian State vs. Michigan. If my OL is better than your DL but your LB are good, you should game plan to make the most out of your LB, so that they help your D-line overcome the mismatch against my OL for example.
I'm not having time to try beta, and I'm not a veteran in 2.0 coz I've been only playing for a year now. But I had many instances that don't make sense at all, and these should be avoided in 3.0, at least I would like to stop seeing them... Examples:
A DL with 12 speed picking up a fumble at his own 3 yard line and returning it home for a TD...
My 64/62 DIII QB going 0TD/4INT at HT then my backup QB 50/49 tearing that same defense apart in the second half...
If my OL has 8-10 points on average above the DL of my opponent, I can understand being tackled for losses and unable to run the ball, if his LB are good and speedy and are making TFL. But to see his DL tackle me for a loss 6-7 times during the game, then I don't know what to say...
There are many examples and the point is, while the overall score might look realistic 80% of the time in 2.0 (in a sense of who wins), you can still pick up 5-6 WTF cases from the PBP in every single game! If the engine is worked out to limit these, then the eventual outcome of the game will be more and more realistic. Just my 2 cents

3/11/2013 4:12 PM

katzphang88

Game Rating: Hall of Famer Forum Rating: Prospect

Posts: 748 (0)

HD - 10 GD - 141 HBD - 2 FCD - 3

These points are what I have been ranting on for the last month (read the pbp thread at the top). The game will be able to impart variable results (not random) due to the impact of fatigue,substutions, technique, play calls, form IQ, events (field position, penalties, injuries) so that a contrived distribution of possible results will not be needed. The values in our current de-bug PBP should read if offensive player is higher - an offensive result happens - just the degree of outcome changes based on the margin of difference. Now (I know Norbert is woking on it) the numbers are off. Perhaps when he gets it finished it will change to be more defined, but when I tested them, the outcomes are so overlapped player talent was marginalized. Without definite parameters as to potential abilities, we will not be able to gameplan to take advantages of differences. Also, the offense/defense numbers (00,00) listed in the pbp should be the final comparison and have no further calculations preformed on them so we can compare when and by how much the offense or defense wins by.