Posted by headpirate on 2/19/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

If the difference from B+ to A+ isn't as significant as the difference from D+ to C+, it would seem to me that the multi-defense approach (FCP/M2M) would be a lot more popular.

I am in the middle of an offense + defense transition, and my seniors this season had a noticeably worse year than during their junior season.  Since their ratings were the same (even slightly improved) during their senior year, it really showed me the significant difference between a B+ and C+ IQ.

Posted by bro_lunardi on 2/19/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by headpirate on 2/19/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

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.

If the difference from B+ to A+ isn't as significant as the difference from D+ to C+, it would seem to me that the multi-defense approach (FCP/M2M) would be a lot more popular.

I am in the middle of an offense + defense transition, and my seniors this season had a noticeably worse year than during their junior season.  Since their ratings were the same (even slightly improved) during their senior year, it really showed me the significant difference between a B+ and C+ IQ.

I typically play FCP. I see 2 parts to your point.

1. I think player proficiency at FCP occurs at a B+. Above a B+ allows a player to play beyond their attributes (at least in my view; still waiting for affirmation of that view).
2. I put 25 mins into FCP practice. After 29 practices * 25 mins (725 mins practice), my FR reached a B, B, and B-. They will reach a B+ at about the 5th practice of the next season. Assume in a combo defense you put 15 mins FCP and 10 mins M2M. It will take approx 56 practices (or about the end of SO season) to reach the same proficiency in FCP.

Reaching proficiency by the end of a players SO season sounds pretty good to me.  Of course since you'll be running a FCP you will need to rely on younger players to play more minutes, so a team would take a hit on defense.  At least in the beginning of the season.

I understand why you wouldn't want to give out your Player Value Rating equations on the forums, but I'm interested.  I use a spreadsheet to calculate a modified Player Efficiency Rating.  It has to be modified, because the real equation requires info that this game doesn't provide (although maybe it is all calculable?).  I use an equation that is easy enough to program into a spreadsheet which I found in an old forum post.

I would think that comparing your player rating calculation to their PER would be a pretty good test for both equations.

Posted by bro_lunardi on 2/19/2014 8:32:00 PM (view original):
Reaching proficiency by the end of a players SO season sounds pretty good to me.  Of course since you'll be running a FCP you will need to rely on younger players to play more minutes, so a team would take a hit on defense.  At least in the beginning of the season.

I understand why you wouldn't want to give out your Player Value Rating equations on the forums, but I'm interested.  I use a spreadsheet to calculate a modified Player Efficiency Rating.  It has to be modified, because the real equation requires info that this game doesn't provide (although maybe it is all calculable?).  I use an equation that is easy enough to program into a spreadsheet which I found in an old forum post.

I would think that comparing your player rating calculation to their PER would be a pretty good test for both equations.

This is interesting. I am curious though how effective player evaluation by statistics would be in HD. Namely because stats are only as good as the quality of opponent they are achieved against. HD talent and teams are spread so thinly, good stats may be useless. I read a few comments by gillespie who routinely makes the point a High Spd/Per, Low Ath/BH may put up good stats vs bad to mediocre talent, but when facing better to good talent the deficiencies in Ath/BH are revealed. 

Attributes are the constant. However, over a period of time, even good attributes can perform badly. But eventually all statistical probabilities revert to their norm. 

It seems worthwhile to measure my IQ modified attribute player eval against a statistical measure like PER.

Very true in regards to the PER reflecting level of competition.  It wouldn't be effective in determining if Team A could beat Team B.  However, I feel like it is very useful for evaluating players on the same team.  Basically to determine who the best players on your team are, so you can set your depth chart accordingly.  The players with the highest PER are almost always the ones I would pick as my best players, and the same with the worst.  One draw back is the numbers mean nothing before 10 games, and I don't fully trust them until 20.  This means I can't quite use the ratings until halfway through conference play.

I have a PG almost exactly like you described.  I saw a small (but certainly noticeable) difference in his performance throughout the season as I entered a more difficult conference schedule.  I didn't feel like his offensive output suffered too much against the stiffer competition, as his FG% only dropped 2% and 3P% remained the same.  It seems like his offense didn't suffer as much as his defense likely did.