PDA

View Full Version : QB stat abnormalities not fixed?

amdaily
11-22-2003, 11:48 PM
Doesn't appear so... in my 3rd season with real rosters I have 10 QB's at 4,000+ yard and 14 QB's with over a 90 rating, and only 4 that threw more INT's than TD's. :(.

Anyone ran a test set with HeavyReign's or Dynamo's orsters yet?
RPI-Fan
11-22-2003, 11:54 PM
Anyone ran a test set with HeavyReign's or Dynamo's orsters yet?

<a href="http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17309">No</a>.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Abe Sargent
11-23-2003, 12:03 AM
I just had 11 QBs with 4000+ yards and 24 QBs! with a season rating over 90.


-Anxiety
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:04 AM
What year?
Coop
11-23-2003, 12:05 AM
Still seeing a lot of Qb's start 16 games, my only gripe
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:06 AM
Anybody can make any game look completely flawed when you take stats out of context.

It's clear there are some issues with the initial player file. Since there are alternatives to that, we need to see if the game engine is fixed. Based on what I've posted above, it is.
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:06 AM
I don't know, an average of 18 QB's starting 16 games doesn't seem like all that many. What are the NFL numbers?
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:07 AM
And this was on Injury Setting of 150, which isn't realistic compared to the NFL. For NFL results, you really need it on 200.
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:07 AM
FWIW, this is why I did a 30-year test. If I wanted unreliable results that don't mean anything, I would have simmed one year and reported what I saw.

:rolleyes:
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:08 AM
If someone else wants to do another 30-year test that'll take a couple hours to complete and be kind enough to share the results with us all, be my guest.

But I'm not going to do it again...
Ben E Lou
11-23-2003, 04:14 AM
Read RPI's study and the commentary. (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17309)

RPI--I think last year 13 guys started all 16 games. I haven't checked a five or ten year average.
Darkiller
11-23-2003, 05:46 AM
I still see between 5 and 10 QBs with 4000+ yards passing every season...
Ben E Lou
11-23-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Darkiller
I still see between 5 and 10 QBs with 4000+ yards passing every season... Did you bother to read the study?
Schmidty
11-23-2003, 06:08 AM
What's with all of the bitchy hostility in this thread?
Ben E Lou
11-23-2003, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Schmidty
What's with all of the bitchy hostility in this thread? It is just a little frustrating that RPI spent all of that time doing a definitive study and analysis, and people don't appear to be bothering to read it to understand the conclusions regarding this.
Schmidty
11-23-2003, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by SkyDog
It is just a little frustrating that RPI spent all of that time doing a definitive study and analysis, and people don't appear to be bothering to read it to understand the conclusions regarding this.

I understand, but the original guy seems like a newbie and may have not seen it before.

I can't believe that I'm trying to guard people from hurt feelings. My fellow JBLers and RWBLers must be in disbelief right now.
Ben E Lou
11-23-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Schmidty
I understand, but the original guy seems like a newbie and may have not seen it before. Fair enough.
Bee
11-23-2003, 07:29 AM
So our conclusion is that newbies can't read?
Sweed
11-23-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Bee
So our conclusion is that newbies can't read?

I'm a newbie, what does that say? ^^^^:)
Darkiller
11-23-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by SkyDog
Did you bother to read the study?

the "bother" is a bit to out of proportion I would suggest.
I'm appreciative of RPI's study and I did read it. However, I DO EXPERIENCE a higher number of 4000 passers in general.

And that has NOTHING to do with one member's own experience.
Bonegavel
11-23-2003, 10:54 AM
From now on, you are not allowed to post a question or a comment about the game here at FOFC. If you don't find it in the archives, it isn't important. Only post things like Star Wars/ Porn Names, DVD releases, and other such life-essentials.

[edit: oh, :D]
finkenst
11-23-2003, 10:57 AM
it's 10:55 am and cloudy here.
Easy Mac
11-23-2003, 10:58 AM
I think the problme is that the poster asked a question that there was an answer to right on the front page.
Bonegavel
11-23-2003, 11:03 AM
This board has such activity that it is unreasonable (especially for a nOOb) to find the diamonds in the rough. Lodged between FOFC survivor and Supreme Court ate my Ring Dings, are sometimes obscurely named threads that quickly sink down the list.

I would rather discuss something 10 times than have somebody miss out. Each time we discuss, we learn (even if it re-inforces past beliefs).
sabotai
11-23-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Darkiller
the "bother" is a bit to out of proportion I would suggest.
I'm appreciative of RPI's study and I did read it. However, I DO EXPERIENCE a higher number of 4000 passers in general.

And that has NOTHING to do with one member's own experience.

Are you using a player file by HR's utility or the real player file?
RPI-Fan
11-23-2003, 12:21 PM
And how far into the future are you.

If you look closely at my results, you see that the first couple of seasons are indeed a bit high (but not out of control), and they do steadily decline to a pretty reasonable level.

And FWIW, amdaily isn't exactly a newb.

He spent a lot of time discussing/analyzing the 4k QB problems before the patch came out.
Calis
11-23-2003, 12:28 PM
I got some time today, I'll go ahead and run through the tests RPI-Fan did again.

I'm actually quite happy with the results he came up with, but maybe it help with others.

I think I'll see what the numbers look like with injury setting maxxed out, see if that doesn't get things even closer.

But I'll try and do this while watching the games today.
Darkiller
11-23-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by sabotai
Are you using a player file by HR's utility or the real player file?

I'm using the Real Player file.
Ben E Lou
11-23-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Darkiller
I'm using the Real Player file. ...and thus my point. I figured as much.
amdaily
11-23-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think the problme is that the poster asked a question that there was an answer to right on the front page.

I do apoligize :) - RPI-Fan's thread was so far down on the list I didn't see it when I made the post.
cthomer5000
11-23-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Darkiller
I'm using the Real Player file.

it's been stated again and again that the talent level in the "real" roster file is significantly above average. Pretty much all players, and QB's especially are overrated - thus producing wacky results. The real roster file is esentially stocking the league with the best collection of talent of all time, probably not an accurate reflection of the 2004 NFL.