IQ or higher player ratings? Topic

rednation58
Posts: 630 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Rookie

When setting up your depth chart, would you choose to start the player with the A+ IQ or the player with the superior ratings?

Example:

PG 1 - ATH: 60  Spd: 85  BH: 75  Pa: 75  Def: 60   IQ: A+

PG 2 - ATH: 80  Spd: 85  BH: 90  Pa: 60  Def: 90   IQ: C+


PF 1- ATH: 70  Spd: 50  RB: 90  LP: 70 Def: 80   IQ: A

PF 2 -ATH: 85  Spd: 40  RB: 80  LP: 85 Def: 85   IQ: C

With specific regard to the PG position - would you start the player who would be a defensive liability but may run the team better over the more physically gifted player who may make his share of mistakes?

Would the PF1 be the better defender because of the higher IQ or would PF2 be the better defender because of the staggering advantage in ATH ability and a slightly higher def rating? Any help is appreciated.

 

2/18/2014 1:06 PM
headpirate
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 86 12
Rookie
A combination of both. I have created a Value Scale Multiplier for IQ, and have a Player Value Rating. I multiply the numbers. This works, if my IQ value assumption is correct, and if I have properly Rated the player.

For each, the higher IQ player rated higher. Without the IQ modifier, both Player 2's rated higher.

I use a spreadsheet. Never have trusted my eyeball to value a player.

I gave an answer, just because I am curious to see the responses.

2/18/2014 4:11 PM (edited)
jaymc2007
Posts: 428 (0)
Hall of Famer
93 5
Prospect
What was your formula headpirate?  If I may ask :)
2/18/2014 4:17 PM
rednation58
Posts: 630 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Rookie
Thanks for responding - there probably are other threads about this - maybe that's the reason for the lack of responses but I've wondered about this for a while. I'm sure the coaches who are at the top of the big 6 conferences have an idea dealing with EE's so consistently.

After some lineup changes I noticed my team ran a bit more efficiently when I moved my FR pg (C+ IQ at the time) to the 2 spot and started a less talented JR (A IQ at the time) at the 1. The move weakened me defensely and once opposing coaches caught on they actively sought to exploit my lineup. Sometimes it worked out for them other times not - but I'm still not entirely sure if I was better off with the switch and if the switch was more effective because it was at the pg spot.

It would be great to see an example of your formula - I do tend to eyeball my team though lol - I think I can get away with it though because it's my only team right now.
2/19/2014 9:03 AM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
eyeballing them, I would probably give the starts to the high IQ guys. 
2/19/2014 9:07 AM
headpirate
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 86 12
Rookie
Posted by jaymc2007 on 2/18/2014 4:17:00 PM (view original):
What was your formula headpirate?  If I may ask :)
I doubt I have cracked a code or discovered the secret of HD, but not sure I want to share my formula publicly (then again, I am curious if it really does contribute to evaluating players).

Generally my thoughts are this:

1. Taking into account the "window dressing" posts, I think there is distinction in the Offenses and Defenses (it seems regarding the Defenses this is accepted; which leads me to believe there has to be some difference in the Offenses).
2. Generally, FB and FCP are regarded as the most difficult; Flex and Man as least difficult; the others in some spectrum between the ends.
3. The question then becomes: with improving IQ, does the player perform to his attributes? Or at some increasing IQ point, can a player outperform his attributes? I tend to think there is an IQ Point where the Player performs efficiently according to his ratings, and as IQ improves past that point the player is able to outperform his attributes. For me, that point seems to be a C+ for Flex and B+ for FCP. Whatever "value" that represents is up to you, so long as you apply it consistently.

With regard to "distinction in Offenses and Defenses," I think those distinctions can be realized in the construction of a roster as much as by a focus on attributes. Basically I mean, if you load a roster with 7 "bigs" and try run a Flex/FCP I do not think you will be very successful with that roster construction. Similarly, I dont think you can put together a roster of 8 "guards" and try to run Triangle/Zone.

But I am open to feedback on this.
2/19/2014 9:55 AM
guyo26
Posts: 401 (0)
Hall of Famer
454 1
Rookie
I'm curious about this given the experiment last year where a coach practiced no sets at all and was (if I remember correctly) pretty successful.  Not a final four type of successful, but enough to make a long thread with some raised eyebrows.

I eyeball, I don't have a spreadsheet for it, but I absolutely see better performance once my players are a solid B or higher.  I don't know how much of that is the IQ and how much of it is what I hope is a roster that works well together.

Which leads to the question:  why don't more coaches super class?  I suppose at any level, but if you had 0-0-6-6, in the good years you should have BOTH - high IQ's as well as high ratings.  


2/19/2014 10:08 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11772 (1)
Hall of Famer
419 657 54 1
Hall of Famer
If PG 2 didn't have the lower passing rating I would choose him in a heart beat.

I would also choose PF2.

IQ is worth alot but it isn't worth 65 points in cores.
2/19/2014 10:15 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11772 (1)
Hall of Famer
419 657 54 1
Hall of Famer
Posted by guyo26 on 2/19/2014 10:08:00 AM (view original):
I'm curious about this given the experiment last year where a coach practiced no sets at all and was (if I remember correctly) pretty successful.  Not a final four type of successful, but enough to make a long thread with some raised eyebrows.

I eyeball, I don't have a spreadsheet for it, but I absolutely see better performance once my players are a solid B or higher.  I don't know how much of that is the IQ and how much of it is what I hope is a roster that works well together.

Which leads to the question:  why don't more coaches super class?  I suppose at any level, but if you had 0-0-6-6, in the good years you should have BOTH - high IQ's as well as high ratings.  


The coach was robotdevil.   It's a good read but the players he had were through the roof good, I don't think mere mortals could duplicate that.   .
The team was good but wasn't really a title contender.   It was maybe a top 25 team.  It think he got to the 2nd round of the tournament that season.

I don't know why more coaches don't superclass but I can tell you why I don't:

1. You can't really RS.
2. Two seasons of not recruiting isn't fun.
3. I don't need to, my teams are good every season.
4. There is less room for error.
5. You can't take a walkon.
6. You are totally dependent on their being good recruits when and where you need them.
2/19/2014 10:20 AM
guyo26
Posts: 401 (0)
Hall of Famer
454 1
Rookie
All excellent points.  Honestly recruiting is one of the highlights for me, I've only had one season where I had zero openings and it was hard to just do ... nothing during that recruiting cycle.

#6 is important.  It always seems like when I have one glaring need there's nobody that I can find locally that fits just right, but there's a stud at a position I "don't need".

I would be curious how many coaches look at a freshman already having experience in their chosen sets as anything but a very nominal tie breaker.  Over time I've started to add some importance to that, although still nowhere near as high as cores and growth potential.  Obviously depending on what I need right away.
2/19/2014 10:27 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11772 (1)
Hall of Famer
419 657 54 1
Hall of Famer
I don't really look at FR. IQ.   In fact, I often sign guys without knowing it.

I do look at JUCO and Transfer player IQ's though.  It will remove some from my list  if they are F's and only have a year or two in my system.
2/19/2014 10:52 AM
llamanunts
Posts: 1498 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 95
Hall of Famer
Agreed - I'd never use it as anything more than a tiebreaker.  Generally, I don't care what off/def the recruits ran in high school.

I'll use it sometimes as a tiebreaker when deciding whom to redshirt.
2/19/2014 11:01 AM
headpirate
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 86 12
Rookie
FR IQ is a bonus to me, otherwise I dont give it any consideration. In Transfer/JUCO, it would be a big deal.
2/19/2014 11:46 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11772 (1)
Hall of Famer
419 657 54 1
Hall of Famer
Using your system Mr. Pirate, roughly how much is a full letter grade worth in comparison to a core stat?  10 points?  15?
2/19/2014 11:54 AM
headpirate
Posts: 397 (0)
Hall of Famer
55 86 12
Rookie
Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/19/2014 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Using your system Mr. Pirate, roughly how much is a full letter grade worth in comparison to a core stat?  10 points?  15?
It is not a linear improvement, so the diff from A+ to B+ is less than from C+ to D+ -- on high end, can be as little as 5 pts; at low end as much as 15+ pts

I offer this not as an expert, but as trying to contribute to the discussion, and also learning how far off (or close) I might be.
2/19/2014 12:07 PM
12 Next ▸
IQ or higher player ratings? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.