ATH basically takes everything done in sports and makes it easier.  It essentially modifies every attribute.  Even an athletic punter/kicker is better than a non athletic one. A kickers athletic ability can determine alot; like the speed in which the kick is delivered. IE...getting blocked.

An athletic QB could have an incredibly quick release within his throwing motion. Not to mention everything associated with eluding the rush.

OL- the better the athlete the better the ability to do a multitude of things like getting to the defender, having the abilty to engage, ability to not get shrugged off, to keep up with the defenders motion and then all this is directly tied into SPD, GI, STR, Tech, BLK which means that the higher the ATH; the more efficient all these attributes should be.

Most positions' attributes should be modified by "ATH". ATH directly controls the body so that all the other attributes can be possible in the first place. 

Thats my two cents. 

Oh, and I think the question is how much does "ATH" modify each position, each attribute, for each situation.  Thats why you get the big bucks! :)

I posted along the same lines in katzphang's thread.

My only problem with this is if it modifies everything then everything else can't stand on it's own.  A STR of 80 doesn't equal a STR of 80 when comparing two players trying to push each other around, or SPD when comparing whether or not a player can catch another player.  If ATH becomes a "how well can you use every other rating" rating, then in my opinion it devalues all the other ratings.

But, not to be confusing, I mostly agree with what you are saying.  ATH should represent the player's ability to move their body.  Can it be a component in actions without being a modifier to these other ratings?  Currently one of the problems I think we have in the 2.0 engine is that we throw too many ratings into the mix, usually 4 or 5, so when looking at results there's no way to tell if a player won a match up based on speed or strength or what.

As an example of how this can fit in, let's look at a punt.  How far a punter can kick a ball can be determined by STR (in this case leg strength), and how consistently he can kick it could be based on TECH, and avoiding a blocked punt could be based on GI and ATH (representing his ability to recognize the defender and his ability to get the kick off while avoiding the block, respectively).  In this way, yes, ATH is part of the punt, but it's not a modifier for all parts of it other than being combined with GI to avoid the block.

I think the trifecta of ratings that are going to affect many actions will be TECH, GI, and ATH.  But I don't want them to be straight modifiers like they are now, but rather affect the play in their own right.  There will be times where we might compare a player's ATH against one of the ratings of another player, and there may be times where we use it in combination with another rating.  My only problem with it tend to be when I am also considering ELU.  If you end up always combining ELU and ATH when checking if a player can avoid another player, then what actually is ELU and what would it mean if someone had a high ELU and a low ATH? It would be like they are really elusive, but not really.

Take another example in SPD and ATH.  If we had to modify how fast a player can run compared to another player using ATH, then that means SPD doesn't mean how fast a player can run.  Hey, that guy could run really fast if he didn't run all wobbly-legged, or something like that.

Let's look at passing.  If a QB is sitting perfectly still in the pocket, does he really need ATH to throw the ball?  I think TECH is more necessary for throwing consistently.  But let's say he is getting pressured and has to avoid a sack, he would need to be ATH to avoid the sack and also to throw on the run, which in that case ATH does come into play.  Since we aren't globbing a bunch of ratings together to get one result of whether a QB makes a pass or not, it gives us room to play around with the different ratings within different situations.  This is a good example to look at the ELU vs ATH question.  Maybe it makes sense to use ELU to avoid the sack and ATH to throw the ball.

That's a good point. Perhaps it really could be used as a tiebreaker of sorts?

For example, a DB and a WR basically cancel each other out with their ratings (SPD is same, TECH is same, etc) but the WR has an edge in ATH. That could allow him to get open/catch balls a bit more often than if he was equal or inferior to the DB in ATH.

I'm not advocating it being the all important rating, but if you line up Calvin Johnson against Darrelle Revis, you are going to have quite a matchup. Both are the best players at their respective positions, so who do you think comes out on top? Wouldn't many who say Calvin Johnson cite his superior athleticism? Just food for thought.

I'm hoping in this case we might be able to tell something to the effect that two players are battling for the ball, which in that case, I think ATH heavily plays into the outcome.  I'm a little tentative of saying how much I can break down a play, because I also have to consider performance, but I'm hoping that any point of the play that has significance to the result would be broken out into it's own action.  The hopes in doing this is that we can make every action a little more deterministic without having every play end up with the same result.  The other cool thing would be that I have all the data in the breakdown of the play that hopefully I can find some way to convert that into PBP.

To me, the bigger bigger issue is Game Instinct and how it has become a very important core for all positions since the last update by JConte. Will GI continue to be an important (main) core for all positions, or will this be adjusted in the update?

Norbert, I believe your line of thinking is on the right track.  Perhaps ATH comes into play only when you have TWO attributes that have to work together?

Example:  I can run pretty fast...I also have good lateral movement.  (So I have good SPD and ELU).

Now, I have poor athleticism so I cannot also use my hands to shuck a blocker, while I'm also moving laterally.  

Basically, how good am I at utilizing my physical attributes TOGETHER.

anything that the body requires forceful exertion is considered athleticism. This is pretty much everything on the football field.

Ah heck, all I care about is that we cannot recruit OL and RB for strength and have it impossible to be stopped for less then 3 yards per carry like in the 1.0.

Posted by tigerpark135 on 8/14/2012 9:33:00 PM (view original):
anything that the body requires forceful exertion is considered athleticism. This is pretty much everything on the football field.

Ah heck, all I care about is that we cannot recruit OL and RB for strength and have it impossible to be stopped for less then 3 yards per carry like in the 1.0.

It wasn't impossible.

I would personally like to see ATH be equvilant to Quickness (or similar). For example a RB with 90 Spd and 50 ATH (Quick) may be more prone to breaking runs through open holes but may not be able to adjust to hitting holes while a RB with 75 SPD and say 85 ATH(Quick) could navigate the holes of the line of scrimmage better but be more prone to being caught from behind by "faster players". In the same sense it may effect a WR in such a way that a more "ATH" WR , say 75 SPD and 90 ATH may have the ability to make space from a DB during a play through his route running and get caught more from behind and fast faster (SPD) WR  say 90 SPD and 70 ATH can generate that space more easily with a vertical pass, possible post,corner, "go" routes. but be less effective in generating space with routes requiring more quickness such as slants, outs, curls, etc. Elusivness then would represent more of a players ability to break/avoid tackles when in possesion of the ball or conversely a defensive players ability to avoid blockers in making a play. SPD and ATH would represent much the same to a defensive player as well with SPD being the players ability to "run straight lines" and ATH (quick) represent his ablity to adjust/act/jump on an offensive players movements. I have some other ideas too but i think this in particular would be a more palatable format for users and add a little more sense in player personel and gameplanning.

Posted by flexmagnum on 8/14/2012 11:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tigerpark135 on 8/14/2012 9:33:00 PM (view original):
anything that the body requires forceful exertion is considered athleticism. This is pretty much everything on the football field.

Ah heck, all I care about is that we cannot recruit OL and RB for strength and have it impossible to be stopped for less then 3 yards per carry like in the 1.0.

It wasn't impossible.

Excuse me; "Improbable".

Posted by matt58vt on 8/15/2012 12:20:00 AM (view original):
I would personally like to see ATH be equvilant to Quickness (or similar). For example a RB with 90 Spd and 50 ATH (Quick) may be more prone to breaking runs through open holes but may not be able to adjust to hitting holes while a RB with 75 SPD and say 85 ATH(Quick) could navigate the holes of the line of scrimmage better but be more prone to being caught from behind by "faster players". In the same sense it may effect a WR in such a way that a more "ATH" WR , say 75 SPD and 90 ATH may have the ability to make space from a DB during a play through his route running and get caught more from behind and fast faster (SPD) WR  say 90 SPD and 70 ATH can generate that space more easily with a vertical pass, possible post,corner, "go" routes. but be less effective in generating space with routes requiring more quickness such as slants, outs, curls, etc. Elusivness then would represent more of a players ability to break/avoid tackles when in possesion of the ball or conversely a defensive players ability to avoid blockers in making a play. SPD and ATH would represent much the same to a defensive player as well with SPD being the players ability to "run straight lines" and ATH (quick) represent his ablity to adjust/act/jump on an offensive players movements. I have some other ideas too but i think this in particular would be a more palatable format for users and add a little more sense in player personel and gameplanning.

This is pretty much how I am looking at it.  The problem with having it mean how athletic a person is in the sense of it affecting everything they do on the field is that it then muddles every other ratings.  Those ratings should tell us how well they do in those particular areas.  If a high STR player also has to have a high ATH to be strong, or a high SPD player also has to have a high ATH to be fast, then STR and SPD do not tell us anything on their own.  I think it might be better to think of ATH as Agility, which is not really shown by any other rating other than possibly ELU.  Perhaps ATH could be defined as agility in performing a task and ELU as agility in reacting to an event.  Yes, ATH still affects many actions on the field, but it's not just a modifier to every rating.  It stands on its own.

As one example, in the 2.0 engine, the chance for a player to break through the line factors in the rusher's ATH, SPD, ELU, and STR, as well as the defender's ATH, SPD, GI, TKL, and TECH, to get one factor that gets added to another factor for the team ratings that then comes up with a 0.0 to 1.0 number that represents the chance of the player getting tackled.  It doesn't take much to tell that this really muddles the entire action of a player breaking through the line.  The current engine treats every action like a soup where it throws in a dash of this and a pinch of that, and you end up with something where there are no distinct personalities on the field.

One of the goals I have with the 3.0 engine is that you can really tell the difference between a high STR back and a high ATH or SPD back just by looking at the results.  I want to be able to provide more information on how each play breaks down.  I won't be tracking every individual player's movement on the field, that's above my pay grade, but I should be able to tell more about what's happening at the line and how that affects the rest of the play.  For instance, when running inside, how well did the OL create holes and how well did the RB run through them.  A giant gaping hole?  Okay, pretty much anyone can run through that.  Slightly successful? Maybe the back will have to rely on his GI and ATH to get through.  The defense created a wall? Well now the back's STR comes into play.  So instead of mushing a bunch of ratings together to get a 12% chance of getting tackled at the line with no idea of why or how it happened, we hopefully will have a better idea of not only what happened but also take advantage of more specific match ups between the players, so there is a difference between an elusive back hitting the line and a power back hitting it.

Maybe ATH should be discarded as a factor since it is TOO generic, and replaced by other stats in the 3.5 engine.

Posted by bhazlewood on 8/15/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Maybe ATH should be discarded as a factor since it is TOO generic, and replaced by other stats in the 3.5 engine.

+ 1,  Id alos like to see realistic ratings across the board.  essentially a 90 str OL = 90 str WR,  if the number says 90 then let it mean what it is instead of 90 str WR really is an 80 str RB or a 60 str OL.  same with spd, elus, ath, hands, blk, tkl, etc.....

   there are 2 catergories that should be determined on there own merit. TECH and GI,  those should be reflective on their own position.  to me strength is strength no matter where you play.  but to know the technigue and game instinct of a certain position is definilty singled out per postion.