Stat errors still a scourge

[Bonegavel]

http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/kirkapology.gif

===== original post ======
In every version since I can remember this has been happening to player stats:

This is annoying.

[link to original if you must see the image I had: Original Image posted (http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/badstats.gif) ]

[BucDawg40]

What's wrong with that? The player switched teams. It shows his stats for the entire season, and then by each team he was with.

[jetpunk2000]

If anything, that's a great addition. I don't remember seeing this in prior versions

[cartman]

hmmm, look a little closer. If he didn't throw a pass while with Oakland, how come his pass rating is 39.5? It shows he played in 4 games, so maybe he handed off every play?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cartman
hmmm, look a little closer. If he didn't throw a pass while with Oakland, how come his pass rating is 39.5? It shows he played in 4 games, so maybe he handed off every play? If you don't throw a single pass, that is your rating, is it not?

Also, he could have been the holder in four games...

[cartman]

Here's a link on the NFL website explaining the QB rating. According to it, if you have 0's across the board, then 0 should be your rating.

http://www.nfl.com/news/981202qbrate.html

[cartman]

Dola,

Here's another artice on the black art of computing the QB rating.

http://www.bluedonut.com/qbrating.htm

[sabotai]

If you throw 1 incomplete pass, your rating is 39.5 but if he didn't throw a single pass, it's 0.

But as far as seperating the stats between teams for the season, why is it annoying? (He might have not thrown a pass, but he does have 4 games played. If it didn't seperate, you'd have no idea where those 4 games came from.)

[ice4277]

When you look at the total stats for the year though, they didn't factor in the 39.5 to the cumulative stats, so, maybe the number just shows up by default, but isn't computed.

[Ben E Lou]

That's funny how we accept what we see. It has been 39.5 in every version of FOF I can remember, so I just assumed it was correct, since no one complained about it to my knowledge.

[QuikSand]

We're really complaining about whether a guy who throws zero passes is assigned a purely inconsequential rating of 0.0 or a purely inconsequential rating of 39.5? That's really the problem here?

[Easy Mac]

I think technically 1 attempt is 39.583333333336

[FloridaFringe]

Originally posted by QuikSand
We're really complaining about whether a guy who throws zero passes is assigned a purely inconsequential rating of 0.0 or a purely inconsequential rating of 39.5? That's really the problem here?

But if it is supposed to be a 0.0 and this is supposed to be the most accurate of stat sims ever then why accept a 39.5? As a matter of fact, if it can display a 39.5 then how hard is it to display 0.0?

It may be a minor thing but to complain that someone has offered up information about something that could be corrected just doesn't seem right. If the goal is to improve the simulation by any regards necessary than it shouldn't be a bad thing to report such errors.

I really haven't seen any complaining or nitpicking here but rather someone simply reporting something that they think should be fixed. If it really doesn't need to be fixed then so be it, otherwise, fix it and move on already.

Watch, after all of this discussion on the subject it’s probably not what he was even talking about in the first place. :)

[QuikSand]

I didn't see anything in either of the linked articles that says that the correct result for a player with no attempts is zero. The only people who are saying that are in this thread. So, let's not declare that issue settled quite yet.

The fact of the matter is that the QB rating is undfefined when the player has zero attempts. To calculate QB rating, you need a completion percentage. This means that you have to divide zero by zero in this case. What is the result of 0/0? It's not zero. It is undefined - there is no answer. You cannot calculate it.

So, what do you use? An asterisk would be fine, or a dash -- either one clearly indicates that the result is a null of some sort. Jim chose to assign the fairly familiar 39.5... I really don't have a problem with this, and I see it as no more or less objectionable than using a zero.

So, again. My point: this = non-issue.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by FloridaFringe
Watch, after all of this discussion on the subject it’s probably not what he was even talking about in the first place.

I share this suspicion, by the way.

[FloridaFringe]

QS,

Now why didn't you just say all that right from the start? :)

With an explanation like that there is nothing else to say except point well taken.

[SnowMan]

Originally posted by QuikSand
So, again. My point: this = non-issue.

What he said.

And I dunno if I'd call it a scourge..more like an annoyance.

[QuikSand]

Did we ever resolve what was the original "scourge" being raised? Was it the 39.5, or was it a misunderstanding of the split stats being shown? Or, perhaps, something else... even more sinister?

[Huckleberry]

QS -

I disagree. Assigning a real value as a placeholder for an undefined value is asking for trouble. N/A should suffice.

Besides, that QB's completion percentage (edit - and also the average yards per attempt) is also undefined mathematically in the example given. Yet FOF displays it as 0.0, so the inconsistency alone is questionable.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
QS -

I disagree. Assigning a real value as a placeholder for an undefined value is asking for trouble. N/A should suffice.

Besides, that QB's completion percentage (edit - and also the average yards per attemtp) is also undefined mathematically in the example given. Yet FOF displays it as 0.0, so the inconsistency alone is questionable. But does this really matter at all in term's of one's enjoyment of the game?

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
QS -

I disagree. Assigning a real value as a placeholder for an undefined value is asking for trouble. N/A should suffice.

Besides, that QB's completion percentage (edit - and also the average yards per attemtp) is also undefined mathematically in the example given. Yet FOF displays it as 0.0, so the inconsistency alone is questionable.

Technically, you are absolutely correct, I would prefer some sort of null value there. Practically, I side with SkyDog just above.

The bottom line is that this has absolutely no material effect. Even in the case right above, when the player's zero stat line is added to the other stat line, everything works out just right -- the arbitrary 39.5 doesn't affect a thing, and every calculation works just as it should when there is data involved.

I guess to extend your analogy, I'd agree that "a real value as a placeholder for an undefined value is asking for trouble" but in this case, it's not actually getting into any.

[Maple Leafs]

I thought the minimum QB rating was 39.6, not 39.5

If that's the case, I'll be demanding a refund immediately, then suing Jim for emotional distress.

[QuikSand]

By the way, just in case someone is still misunderstanding about the 39.5 value -- let's try it this way:

If a QB throws exactly one incomplete pass, he gets a rating of 39.5. This is not the worst possibel rating. Of the four components of the rating syste, he's getting three zeroes -- he's got a zero completion percentage, a zero yards per completion, and zero TD ratings -- all are at the very worst possible level.

But in the other component -- the ability to avoid throwing interceptions -- this QB has technically been absolutely perfect. That's where his 39.5 points come from -- he has thrown zero percent interceptions so far, and therefore (based on the ridiculously small sample set) looks like a guy who never makes a mistake of that variety. That's 1/4 of the ratign system, and he's getting a perfect score in that regard.

If you want to get an absolute zero rating, you have to throw enough inteceptions to earn a zero in that rating, too. So -- the ticket to getting a zero QB rating is not just throwing incomplete passes, it's throwing plenty of picks.

[Huckleberry]

To me, it wouldn't affect enjoyment. But it's apparent that it does for some of Jim's customers.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
To me, it wouldn't affect enjoyment. But it's apparent that it does for some of Jim's customers.

If you truly believe this affects someone's ability to enjoy this game, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If a QB throws exactly one incomplete pass, he gets a rating of 39.5.39.583, actually.

(Not that it matters, but I figured if anyone would want to be exact about numbers...)

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
39.583, actually.

(Not that it matters, but I figured if anyone would want to be exact about numbers...)

Well, if you want to be exact, then the final digit 3 must be repeated infinitely. Actually.

For some reason, FOF seems to round down.

Hmmm... will this be the new cause celebre? Glaring inaccuracies from rounding errors? How can we play this game if we cannot rely on the tenth digit in our QB rating being properly rounded? Egad!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Hmmm... will this be the new cause celebre? Glaring inaccuracies from rounding errors? How can we play this game if we cannot rely on the tenth digit in our QB rating being properly rounded? Egad! Great example of why I loathe the notion that a text sim has to have "real math."

[Huckleberry]

Originally posted by Bee
If you truly believe this affects someone's ability to enjoy this game, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Seems like you might want to take that up with Bonegavel.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I didn't see anything in either of the linked articles that says that the correct result for a player with no attempts is zero. The only people who are saying that are in this thread. So, let's not declare that issue settled quite yet.

The fact of the matter is that the QB rating is undfefined when the player has zero attempts. To calculate QB rating, you need a completion percentage. This means that you have to divide zero by zero in this case. What is the result of 0/0? It's not zero. It is undefined - there is no answer. You cannot calculate it.

So, what do you use? An asterisk would be fine, or a dash -- either one clearly indicates that the result is a null of some sort. Jim chose to assign the fairly familiar 39.5... I really don't have a problem with this, and I see it as no more or less objectionable than using a zero.

So, again. My point: this = non-issue.

Actually, I think more accurately what he does is make all the factors (completion %, ypa, td% and int%) zero for someone with zero attempts. When those factors are all 0, the proper rating is the familiar 39.5.

It is technically undefined, yes, but putting all the factors at zero when zero attempts is better than a crash due to dividing by zero. Also, the overall rating for the season is computed correctly here. It is not supposed to be the average of the ratings with the two teams, but the rating based on his total stats for the year. Since all of his attempts were with the Eagles, his season rating SHOULD equal his rating with the Eagles.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Samdari
It is technically undefined, yes, but putting all the factors at zero when zero attempts is better than a crash due to dividing by zero. Also, the overall rating for the season is computed correctly here. It is not supposed to be the average of the ratings with the two teams, but the rating based on his total stats for the year. Since all of his attempts were with the Eagles, his season rating SHOULD equal his rating with the Eagles.

I'm not certain if this was intended to contradict the selection (of mine) you quoted before postig this, but I agree with everything above completely. Your conclusion has been my main point all along: this is a non-issue.

[Samdari]

The only point I was making, which I don't think disagrees with you, but which you did not explain, was that the program probably stores zero for all the passer rating factors when computing them for QBs with zero attempts. It is difficult to store N/A in a floating point variable.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
Seems like you might want to take that up with Bonegavel.

Guess you missed my point. :D


So about that bridge...

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Samdari
The only point I was making, which I don't think disagrees with you, but which you did not explain, was that the program probably stores zero for all the passer rating factors when computing them for QBs with zero attempts. It is difficult to store N/A in a floating point variable.

Actually, I have another similar theory, which might be even simpler. My guess is that whenever the game computes something like "completion percentage" it actually uses a formula that looks something like this:

Int (10 * [Completed Passes / (Attempted passes + 0.000001)]) / 10

When the actual variables are zeroes, this will genrate a zero, and when there are real variables there it will generate an imperceptible degree of error.

Amounts to the same thing as a fixed assignment of zero, though.

[Daimyo]

Wow! If I was you and this was the biggest flaw I found in the game I wouldn't be complaining, i would be thrilled to death! That is awesome!

This reminds me of a recent Dr Z column (I think it was him). Its bad enough that QBR is used as a serious stat, but now we care about partial season QBR's? (heck, the NFL is now tracking per game QBR thanks to Manning!) I want to see QBR's calculated on a per drive basis! How about per pass? :)

[ozias]

Well here is the actual mathmatical way to come up with the QB rating.

a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.
if greater than 2.375 award 2.375 and if less than zero award zero.
QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06


It's been years since I last looked some of this stuff up, but if I remember correctly the actual lowest score given out is a 39.5, if at least 1 pass has been thrown but not completed.

So in the example at the top, the QB should of had a zero rating while playing for Oakland, because he had no attempts.

[Bee]

Originally posted by ozias
Well here is the actual mathmatical way to come up with the QB rating.

a = (((Comp/Att) * 100) -30) / 20
b = ((TDs/Att) * 100) / 5
c = (9.5 - ((Int/Att) * 100)) / 4
d = ((Yards/Att) - 3) / 4

a, b, c and d can not be greater than 2.375 or less than zero.
if greater than 2.375 award 2.375 and if less than zero award zero.
QB Rating = (a + b + c + d) / .06


It's been years since I last looked some of this stuff up, but if I remember correctly the actual lowest score given out is a 39.5, if at least 1 pass has been thrown but not completed.

So in the example at the top, the QB should of had a zero rating while playing for Oakland, because he had no attempts.

So you've concluded that 0/0 is less than 0?

[sabotai]

39.5 is not the lowest given out. As QS pointed out above, the only reason you get a 39.5 when you only throw 1 incomplete pass is because you are perfect in regards to the interceptions.

[korme]

Originally posted by SkyDog
But does this really matter at all in term's of one's enjoyment of the game?

Of course not, but if something can be fixed that is techincally incorrect, what is the harm in bringing such details to the point where the programmer can easily fix said problem?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Shorty3281
Of course not, but if something can be fixed that is techincally incorrect, what is the harm in bringing such details to the point where the programmer can easily fix said problem? No harm, but to call it a scourge??? Come on. He's either:

a) trolling
b) got ulterior motives
c) seriously over-reacting.

[Bonegavel]

d) none of the above

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
d) none of the above So what is it then?

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, you're going to have to give those of us who are trying to defend you a little somethin' to work with. :D

It seemed obvious to me that this was simply something that bugged him in the previous versions and when he saw it still hadn't been taken care of, it bugged him even more. Seems reasonable. And if this ain't the place to bring it to attention, then there really isn't one.

[TroyF]

And here I was worried that some of us might overanalyze the game. . .

TroyF :)

[ozias]

Originally posted by sabotai
39.5 is not the lowest given out. As QS pointed out above, the only reason you get a 39.5 when you only throw 1 incomplete pass is because you are perfect in regards to the interceptions.

:) If you re-read my post you will see that I did write that same sentence of getting a 39.5 when 1 pass is thrown but not completed.


edited for spelling error.

[Ksyrup]

I think Subby might have to re-think his "Golden Shower of FOFC" comment. We might have reached it (again) with this thread.

[Bee]

If Jim changes this to 0, it's a scourge I say because 0 isn't correct either!!! :D

Also, Bonegavel's title was "stat errors still a scourge"...so what other error was there (assuming you count this as an error).

[sabotai]

Originally posted by ozias
:) If you re-read my post you will see that I did write that same sentence of getting a 39.5 when 1 pass is thrown but not completed.

"It's been years since I last looked some of this stuff up, but if I remember correctly the actual lowest score given out is a 39.5, if at least 1 pass has been thrown but not completed."

Not exactly the same, as you are saying that 39.5 is the lowest score you can have, which it's not. You can get a score less than that. What I was saying was that you get a 39.5 if you throw one incomplete pass that is not intercepted. If it is intercepted, you get lower than a 39.5.

[ozias]

Well I think we are saying the same thing....its just that I didn't state the interception part.
I was saying incomplete, meaning no one caught the ball. But now that I think about it, the ball could be intercepted and that would count as an incomplete pass for the QB.

[Bonegavel]

Ok. I started with FOF2002. These are the stat glitches I saw related to the '>>>' notation:



http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/fof2002badstats01.gif http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/fof2002badstats03.gif http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/fof2002badstats02.gif http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/fof2002badstats04.gif

Now, as you can see, something is very wrong with these.

This made me Hate this version. I could guarantee that some players would start statsplosion at some point each season and that ruined the game for me.

[edited: looks like i was looking at the Career stats anyways, so that may be right, but the list is still screwed up]

[Bonegavel]

dola,

so, naturally, with this as my guide, everytime I saw the double '>>>' it made my skin crawl and I quickly jumped on it as an error. In my above example from FOF2K4, I did see that the numbers seemed to add up for the player for playing one year with 2 teams, but the fact that there was a rating on the line with zero attemtps, I had just assumed it was still broken. But, this thread has proven that like it or love it, the stat page is no longer broken with this version.

So, I apologize for any inconvenience and the fact that Ben thought I was trolling.

[Solecismic]

When you posted this item, I stared at your screen shot for about five minutes. Scared me good there.

I'm sorry the >>>> makes your skin crawl. I need to include all teams where there was one game played, because even if it's all 0s on one stat line, there could be positive numbers on other pages.

I did fix a bug where the --- was replaced with your current team for the current season.

I believe 39.5 (or .5833333) is the proper display for 0 attempts. That was a conscious decision, as it's implied that getting into a game and simply kneeling on the ball is better than throwing an interception.

[Bonegavel]

It made my skin crawl because of the problems with FOF2002 (see screen shots above). I now realize it works properly. I don't know if you had problems with the EA source code causing Stat errors like I posted (the FOF2002 screen shots) but when I saw the >>> it instantly reminded me of the problems I had and then I saw the rating that I thought should be zero, and thought it was still a problem.

If I could rename the thread, I would have done so, but I can't. I just wanted to show screen shots of the problems I have had in the past to show that I wasn't just making it up.

Sorry Jim, but, if it is any consolation, I had to re-install FOF 2002 and suffer through the Gigabyte interface with the 1 pixel wide scroll bars.

[SnowMan]

So, the problem is the ---? And the fact that he played a game for nobody? That does seem odd...... Maybe I'm missing something.

[Bonegavel]

So, to wrap things up.

My first experience with the FOF series was with version 2002 when it was under EA's control and Gigabyte did the interface. The second set of screen shots I posted clearly shows that the stats code for the player's cards didn't always function properly. At that point the >>> may have been to show multiple teams for a player, but, as you can see, it didn't show up that way and I thought that the >>> was garbage output of the program.

When I saw it on the cards for the players in FOF2K4, I once again saw the >>> as garbage output by the program, hence my initial post. In addition, I saw the 39.5 rating as incorrect and that really made me figure that the stats page was still broken, but I was puzzled to see 2 different team names next to the entry as this wasn't the case before.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by SnowMan
So, the problem is the ---? And the fact that he played a game for nobody? That does seem odd...... Maybe I'm missing something.

This is what I was used to seeing in FOF 2002:

http://www.bonegavel.com/images/stuff/fof2002badstats03.gif

For Kordell's year 2002, what the hell is the extra ---- ? Next to 2002 is BAL and the second entry is BAL. That makes no sense and really confused me before.

[edit - keep in mind this is Front Office Football 2002, not the current release. I'm trying to show why I thought the >>> was junk code and not meant to be there.]

[Bee]

So the error that was a "scourge" was that in previous versions instead of showing your current team's abbreviation the display showed "---" in the stat breakdown? And, it's not even an issue in the new version since it was corrected?

SkyDog,

I think I'll take (c) seriously overreacting.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Solecismic
I believe 39.5 (or .5833333) is the proper display for 0 attempts.

So then why the rounding down, Jim? I personally will not be buying this game until I find out the answer.

Or go home over Thanksgiving and get my mom's credit card.:D

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Solecismic
I believe 39.5 (or .5833333) is the proper display for 0 attempts.

Not really. The NFL proclaims loudly that they do not have QB ratings they have passer ratings. One who has not attempted a pass is not technically a passer and will not be listed with a passer rating in any official NFL stats.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Bee
So the error that was a "scourge" was that in previous versions instead of showing your current team's abbreviation the display showed "---" in the stat breakdown? And, it's not even an issue in the new version since it was corrected?

SkyDog,

I think I'll take (c) seriously overreacting.

Call it what you want, but my experience was that the '>>>' meant that the player stats were screwed up. I now know different.

[Bee]

C'mon BG, you asked to be flamed....don't get defensive now! :D

[Bonegavel]

I'm not, :D :D :D :D , but I seriously am sorry to Jim for being so wrong at such a volume. I can't tell you how that stat burp pissed me off, but, it was funny going back to FOF2002... I could sim a season in under 10 seconds.