Does anyone have any solid proof of a developer stating that this theory about a team playing above it's ability for 1 game a year, and below it's ability 1 game a season?

Posted by VOLPRIDE on 11/11/2016 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Does anyone have any solid proof of a developer stating that this theory about a team playing above it's ability for 1 game a year, and below it's ability 1 game a season?

I remember thinking who ever said that was crazy but the more I play the more it seems to be true.

I would totally believe this

I believe it. I'm pretty sure there was no bonafide proof for it, and was rather a theory based on observation by users. However, I could very well be wrong.

Absolutely believe it to be true.

If it isn't true, then why does it happen every season?

I think my season at USF in Wilkinson is a good example. Look at my only loss and then the conference title game.

https://www.whatifsports.com/gd/TeamProfile/PlayerRatings.aspx?tid=51183

Posted by awags on 11/11/2016 3:23:00 PM (view original):
I think my season at USF in Wilkinson is a good example. Look at my only loss and then the conference title game.

https://www.whatifsports.com/gd/TeamProfile/PlayerRatings.aspx?tid=51183

Yep. That discrepancy is ridiculous.

Obviously one time is just anecdotal evidence, but this is part of a trend. I think most, if not all, coaches can point specifically to a head scratching game every season kind of like these.

That came from me. I sent in a ticket two years ago and received a response from the staff that every team has two bad games and two good games per season. If I get time, I'll go through my closed tickets and find the actual wording. However, what I have seen is that it's not necessarily programmed into the game that you'll have two good and two bad games...it's more just that you will average that over a long period of time.

The way I think about it is this:

Imagine you're playing a dice game where the objective is to roll the highest number. Because of your game plan, talent, formational advantage (Trips vs 5/2 etc), you get to throw with five dice and your opponent only gets to throw with two. Odds are, you'll likely roll a higher number. But every once in a while, your opponent will roll two 6's and you will roll three 2's and two 1's. So, even though you have more dice or an advantage, your opponent wins that play. Because there will be thousands of plays over the course of a season, your bound to have the above scenario transpire slightly more to your advantage twice in a season, and slightly more to your opponent's advantage twice in a season. That may not be the best explanation but that was my conclusion after that ticket.

Posted by cjsweat on 11/11/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):
That came from me. I sent in a ticket two years ago and received a response from the staff that every team has two bad games and two good games per season. If I get time, I'll go through my closed tickets and find the actual wording. However, what I have seen is that it's not necessarily programmed into the game that you'll have two good and two bad games...it's more just that you will average that over a long period of time.

The way I think about it is this:

Imagine you're playing a dice game where the objective is to roll the highest number. Because of your game plan, talent, formational advantage (Trips vs 5/2 etc), you get to throw with five dice and your opponent only gets to throw with two. Odds are, you'll likely roll a higher number. But every once in a while, your opponent will roll two 6's and you will roll three 2's and two 1's. So, even though you have more dice or an advantage, your opponent wins that play. Because there will be thousands of plays over the course of a season, your bound to have the above scenario transpire slightly more to your advantage twice in a season, and slightly more to your opponent's advantage twice in a season. That may not be the best explanation but that was my conclusion after that ticket.

I look forward to the actual wording. Them saying two games a year totally contradicts any kind of random chance scenario. It does support the theory that it actually is programmed in somehow.

Can't really makes heads or tails of the second paragraph.

Can any of you math whizzes solve this one? After failing to cinch the game at the end, and in the 1st OT, I lost a brutal Div II playoff game in the 2nd OT against a team that ran in the WB every play. In his 7 plays my D was set to play the run 92%, 87%, 85%, 92%, 92%, 85%and 87% my D played pass 6 of the 7 plays and let him waltz in for the winning TD. I'm guessing that this defensive proportion was about 500-1 against. Am I close? My posted #s were a little off; the actual Run def % should have read 92, 87, 85, 92, 88, 85, 89.

Posted by TBill7 on 11/11/2016 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Can any of you math whizzes solve this one? After failing to cinch the game at the end, and in the 1st OT, I lost a brutal Div II game in the 2nd OT against a team that ran in the WB every play. In his 7 plays my D was set to play the run 92%, 87%, 85%, 92%, 92%, 85%and 87% my D played pass 6 of the 7 plays and let him waltz in for the winning TD. I'm guessing that this defensive proportion was about 500-1 against. Am I close?

Not even close. It depends on which of those percentages were the one where it "correctly" defended run, but worst-case scenario:

906,427-1

Best case:

446,625-1

Are you certain that was the actual percentages for that 7-play sequence? Is there any way other branches of your GP could've been taken that you didn't account for? The chances of your D "picking" to defend 6 out of 7 plays for pass are so highly unlikely that it calls into question the RNG for the engine, if true.

Yes, it was game: 6086467 The % were: 1st and 10 92% R/def Pass, 2nd and 5 87% R/def Pass, 3rd and 2 85%R/def Pass, 1st and 10 92%R/def Run 2nd and 8 88% R/def Pass, 3rd and 2 85% R/def Pass, 1st and 2 89%R/def Pass. I checked and I had the same def for overtime as I did in the game. It sure made me wonder as well.

So my theory is that every half the game simulates there is a chance that your team will play Above Average, As Expected, Below Average.

Essentially, the way I have theory-crafted it to work is this, of course this is only in games that are between 2 teams equal talent level to hit that Equal Tier, where the game plan/FIQ start to matter. At this point I think before it simulates it does a weighted dice roll, with As expected (80%), below(10%), above(10%), now these are hypothetical numbers because I have no clue exactly the weights they give, but I will say this.

I have noticed this.

Let's say I play against a half review the PBP's load up yatzr's analyzer and nerd rage on outcomes and try to factor in the concept of Randomness and the factor of bad dice rolls, I try to identify situations that are working vs situations that are not working and create a strategy for half time adjustments. Well what I've noticed a good bit of the time, is the actual times I've changed nothing, and what looks like my opponent has changed nothing has significant different outcomes in the 2nd half.

For instance, 1&10 run inside vs run def, in 1st half i'll have 2.5 ypc or something, and 8/20 rushes stuffed...without changing a thing, play the 2nd half and get 5ypc, and 2/20 rushes stuffed facing the exact same defense with the exact same offense. I have even direct messaged coaches after the game and asked him if he changed his strategy and most of the time they always say no, because they say you were only getting 2.5 ypc so I didn't want to change it.

Anyhow, this is why I"m in the process of creating my own simulation engine, this game is way too full of mysteries and a community of players that demand more. If your interested in being involved and having a part in the discussions on how to design it message me.

Thanks for you guys feedback, I'll continue to chip away with my team, just lost another heart breaker with 1 of the highest rated teams I've seen yet for D2.

https://www.whatifsports.com/gd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6086605


Btw, before any one bashes me, I've applied for GD and talked to them, and they don't do remote workers, or I would already be working on GD fixing it. Heck I would even do the work for FREE when I had the time to help them, but they aren't interested.

VOLPRIDE, that's great. I'll be glad to help if possible.