Starting RB Playing Time!

[ShaneTheMaster]

Ok, this is getting frustrating.. I have a stud RB, who is a top 5 RB in the league, and I don't understand why he is not getting enough touches. This has to be a bug.

He has 83 endurance, my gameplan is set to 100% playing time, and he is the starter in every formation. Well in the last game, he only got 16 out the 26 rushes. His backup got 10. (whom is rated a 37 overall).

Anyone having similar problems? Endurance can't be the problem because on the first play of a possession, the backup RB got a carry on at least 2 occasions.

:confused:

[JMO]

Exact same thing happening with me. It is really frustrating. I havee this guy playing all formations and situstions and he still only gets 60% of the carries.

[miami_fan]

There have been a few threads with people complaining that there were RBs getting too many carries in a season when compared to real life. I guessing the answer is somewhere in between

How many carries your stud RB getting over the course of your season or previous season?

[ShaneTheMaster]

There have been a few threads with people complaining that there were RBs getting too many carries in a season when compared to real life. I guessing the answer is somewhere in between

How many carries your stud RB getting over the course of your season or previous season?

In 13 games, he has 216 carries. I don't have a big problem with the overall amount of carries in a season, but it seems like in some games, the starting RB is substituted for no reason (like on the first play after a change of possession).

The docs say starters are substituted more often during a blowout. I won the aforementioned game 38-14, but it was close until the 4th quarter. This should be a typical game where my starting RB gets about 20-25 carries. I should be pounding the ball with my starting RB at the end of the game - not substituting him 1 out of 3 plays.

[Sgran]

This happens with players on defense as well. One time on the second play of the game my back-up MLB got the tackle, assisted by the back-up WLB.

[MizzouRah]

How is your HC and OC rated in playcalling?

[Ben E Lou]

Rock and a hard place here. A few people couldn't handle backs getting 450 carries, and Jim made a tweak here. In the vein of "text simmers love control", my personal opinion is that we ought to be able to run them as much as we want, and have their performance suffer and injury risk increase if we keep 'em on the field too much.

[ShaneTheMaster]

How is your HC and OC rated in playcalling?

good and very good, respectively.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Rock and a hard place here. A few people couldn't handle backs getting 450 carries, and Jim made a tweak here. In the vein of "text simmers love control", my personal opinion is that we ought to be able to run them as much as we want, and have their performance suffer and injury risk increase if we keep 'em on the field too much.

What is worrying me the more and more as I play this game is that all the game worries about is statistical accuracy. It doesn't care how it gets the numbers, or the actual gameplay on the field.

For instance, if a guy is rated an 80 in endurance, and you have his playing time set at 100, it's like the game just picks a random number between 1-100, and if it is greater than 80, then he will be sidelined - doesn't matter the scenario or how much he played thus far.

It seems like the above is being done instead of dynamically maintaining each players fatigue during the course of a game, and sidelining them as they get tired, depending on their endurance.

[Richard Weed]

it seems like in some games, the starting RB is substituted for no reason (like on the first play after a change of possession).

This happens with players on defense as well. One time on the second play of the game my back-up MLB got the tackle, assisted by the back-up WLB.
This seems to be the big problem here. Why would the AI switch out starters at the beginning of a series?

[MizzouRah]

good and very good, respectively.

After I finally switched HC's, my RB's carries were much higher, just as I expected them to be, could just be coinsidence though. I also have a much better team and play with the lead more often, which results in less passes.

[Front Office Midget]

Rock and a hard place here. A few people couldn't handle backs getting 450 carries, and Jim made a tweak here. In the vein of "text simmers love control", my personal opinion is that we ought to be able to run them as much as we want, and have their performance suffer and injury risk increase if we keep 'em on the field too much.

As one of the main reporters of the too-many-carries thing, I feel like what you said may be a wonderful compromise... though I'm not sure. I really hated seeing Shaun Alexander get 550 carries, and at least 2 guys over 400 carries every year. It was killing the realism for me.

[Synovia]

As one of the main reporters of the too-many-carries thing, I feel like what you said may be a wonderful compromise... though I'm not sure. I really hated seeing Shaun Alexander get 550 carries, and at least 2 guys over 400 carries every year. It was killing the realism for me.

Then they should fix the issue, not institute some arbitrary artificial limitation.

You should be able to run Shaun Alexander 550 times, just with the knowledge that theres no chance hes going to make it out of the season unhurt.

[Fonzie]

This seems to be the big problem here. Why would the AI switch out starters at the beginning of a series?

I agree that it makes no sense. And what's more is that I've seen the starting RB subbed out on the first play of the game. I've seen games unfold in which the backup RB gets 8 of the first 10 carries. 550 carries per season kills realism to be sure, but so does this kind of stuff.

[MizzouRah]

I haven't see this issue at all now that I have a bonifide stud RB. He gets all but 5-8 carries a game and that's when he's tired.

[Chubby]

If your RB isn't getting the carries it's most likely your gameplan.

[ShaneTheMaster]

If your RB isn't getting the carries it's most likely your gameplan.

Not in my case. My RB is listed as a starter at every formation, every package, and is set to 100% playing time.

The problem is that the game randomly substitutes, instead of when the player is tired. Therefore, at the start of a possession, or in crucial times of the game, my backup RB is being put in the game (when my starter has endurance in the 80's range.)

[Cotton]

I've often wondered the same, Shane. One of the few real headscratchers for me, too. I have seen from playing SP that running backs get tired at odd times, but early in the game is kind of strange.

[Cotton]

Dola: Odd times meaning 'earlier than you expected'. I have a fullback that goes to POOR in his condition column after one run. ;)

[Subby]

I agree that it makes no sense. And what's more is that I've seen the starting RB subbed out on the first play of the game. I've seen games unfold in which the backup RB gets 8 of the first 10 carries.
I see this all of the time and it is incredibly irritating. I assumed it was submitted as a bug report because I thought I read something from CT complaining about it. No idea if it was actually submitted, however.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Would a possible temporary fix be to put your top RB as the backup and then put starter's playing time to the lowest percentage? Has anyone tried that?

[Kodos]

I've had this problem with Cedric Alcott in IHOF. I've seen him subbed out on the first play of the game. Never did get him over about 60% of the carries. Of course, his endurance is only average. I'm going to try to slim him down in camp to see if that helps his endurance.

[tarcone]

Not in my case. My RB is listed as a starter at every formation, every package, and is set to 100% playing time.

The problem is that the game randomly substitutes, instead of when the player is tired. Therefore, at the start of a possession, or in crucial times of the game, my backup RB is being put in the game (when my starter has endurance in the 80's range.)

And when Im inside the 5 and my crappy backup is getting the carries. I think this would cause an attitude problem for the star RB.

[Fonzie]

And when Im inside the 5 and my crappy backup is getting the carries. I think this would cause an attitude problem for the star RB.

Same here - in my SP career my backup routinely has just as many TD carries as my starter.

And my starter has reasonable endurance and is listed as the primary back in all situations. I just don't see why the backup is being used so much.

[JeeberD]

Would a possible temporary fix be to put your top RB as the backup and then put starter's playing time to the lowest percentage? Has anyone tried that?

In one of my MP leagues I have my (statistically) better back (44 endurance) in the second spot and he's carried the ball more times than the starter (22 endurance). The starter is set to 85% PT.

[beargrowlz]

I haven't had any trouble with this. Playing a smash mouth offense (628 rushes/381 passes+34 sacks), my 80 endurance RB, set to carry 100% and the #1 back in all formations, but not my 3rd down back, had 479 carries out of 628 -- or 76.27%.

I'd surmise it has to do a lot with the gameplan used, how much you play with a lead, game plan adjustments etc.

YMMV however.



Cheers.

[Ben E Lou]

I wonder if low-to-medium endurance backs are being given too high of a percentage of playing time, and as a result, they're taking longer to recover. I don't playcall, so I've never observed how that works, but I'm speculating here that if you set it to 100%, the back gets at or near some threshold that causes him to get tired more quickly, and he never gets back up. From a real-world perspective, this would make sense: if you play a guy to the point of exhaustion, he's going to get exhausted more quickly later in the game, but if you play him less, he'll be "kept fresh" as the game goes along.

I say all of this because I'm seeing some evidence in SP that actually *lowering* the percentage of playing time may actually cause a low-endurance back a higher percentage of the carries.

[Joe]

but that wouldnt really make sense, since my RB at times has gotten a fewer percentage of first quarter carries, including opening drives.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I wonder if low-to-medium endurance backs are being given too high of a percentage of playing time, and as a result, they're taking longer to recover. I don't playcall, so I've never observed how that works, but I'm speculating here that if you set it to 100%, the back gets at or near some threshold that causes him to get tired more quickly, and he never gets back up. From a real-world perspective, this would make sense: if you play a guy to the point of exhaustion, he's going to get exhausted more quickly later in the game, but if you play him less, he'll be "kept fresh" as the game goes along.

I say all of this because I'm seeing some evidence in SP that actually *lowering* the percentage of playing time may actually cause a low-endurance back a higher percentage of the carries.

If that is a problem, I don't think it is related to my problem. As seen below (I am Austin), My stud RB, Teddy Burroughs, with endurance of 83, get substituted on the 2nd play of the 2nd series of the game. My backup goes on to get the next 3 carries for the rest of the quarter. How could my starter have been exhausted from being in the game too long?

I am wondering if maybe certain big hits from the defense are knocking a player's endurance way down, causing them to get substituted, or even worse, it is just that the game randomly picks a RB to put in, based on the players' endurance rating.


<TABLE cellSpacing=1 width="98%" bgColor=#ffcc00 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>(1Q: 15:00) Martin Gramatica kicked off 74 yards from the CHM30. Touchback.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>1-10-AUS20 (1Q: 15:00) Teddy Burroughs ran around right end for 1 yard. Tackled by DE Patrick Kerney, assisted by ILB Antoine Dallesandro. The ball was fumbled and recovered by AUS Marty Erickson to the AUS21.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>2-9-AUS21 (1Q: 14:15) Peyton Manning pass completed to TE Donny Bryja for 5 yards. Tackled by ILB Don Shepherd. Bryja gained 1 yard after the catch.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>3-4-AUS26 (1Q: 13:43) Peyton Manning pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Koren Robinson. CB Charles Tillman defended the pass. The quarterback threw away from the double coverage.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>4-4-AUS26 (1Q: 13:35) Andre Borders punted 39 yards. Gilbert Worrall called for a fair catch at the CHM35.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>1-10-CHM35 (1Q: 13:26) Joey Wayne ran inside the left guard for 6 yards. Tackled by DT Junior Powell, assisted by S Donnie Nickey. Key block delivered by Howie Kerr. Kerr ran over Juan Feret to open the hole. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>2-4-CHM41 (1Q: 12:54) Joey Wayne ran inside the left guard for 2 yards. Tackled by DT Chris Hovan, assisted by OLB Juan Feret. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>3-2-CHM43 (1Q: 12:15) Tommy Maddox pass completed to WR Gilbert Wheeler for 5 yards. Tackled by OLB Juan Feret. The quarterback threw into double coverage.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>1-10-CHM48 (1Q: 11:36) Henry Willis ran inside the left tackle for 5 yards. Tackled by CB Michael Schoeppner, assisted by DT Junior Powell. Key block delivered by Jeff Roehl. Roehl ran over DeWayne White to open the hole. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>2-5-AUS47 (1Q: 11:01) Henry Willis ran around the left tackle for 7 yards. Tackled by S Donnie Nickey. Key block delivered by Dixon Reed. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>1-10-AUS40 (1Q: 10:27) Tommy Maddox pass was blocked at the line, intended for WR Raymond Stanton. DE Frankie Kelley blocked the pass. The quarterback threw into double coverage.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>2-10-AUS40 (1Q: 10:23) Tommy Maddox pass completed to WR Terrance Blades for 3 yards. The receiver went out of bounds. Tackled by ILB Brian Urlacher. The quarterback threw into double coverage.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>3-7-AUS37 (1Q: 09:35) Tommy Maddox pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Raymond Stanton. CB Julio Wilkerson defended the pass.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>4-7-AUS37 (1Q: 09:25) Martin Gramatica attempted a 54 yard field goal and succeeded. Champaign 3, Austin 0</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#d4d4cb>(1Q: 09:20) Martin Gramatica kicked off 71 yards from the CHM30. Tony Hollings returned the ball 29 yards to the AUS28. Tackled by Michael Bullock.</TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>1-10-AUS28 (1Q: 08:51) Teddy Burroughs ran around right end for 7 yards. Tackled by DT Tyrell Napiecek, assisted by S Vinny Legins. Key block delivered by Ryan Diem. </TD></TR><TR><TD align=left bgColor=#f1dad8>2-3-AUS35 (1Q: 08:12) Tony Hollings ran around left end for 5 yards. Tackled by CB Jamie Welch, assisted by DE Jason Leimkuehler. The ball was fumbled and recovered by AUS Roy Lyle to the AUS40.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Icy]

It happened me yesterday in the NAFL, my backup RB had the first carry of the game in the first play of the game.

[ShaneTheMaster]

It happened me yesterday in the NAFL, my backup RB had the first carry of the game in the first play of the game.

That is one the things making me starting to feel like it is completely random, and that the tiredness of a player at gametime is not kept track of.

[ShaneTheMaster]

May have found a cause to my problem.. I noticed my starter was listed as "Encouraged" to play special teams (he has a 100 special teams rating). Although, I could have sworn I had him set to not play special teams. This might be the cause of him getting subbed often (if the game tracks tiredness at gametime).

I will let everyone know what happens in the next game, with him not being on special teams.

[Joe]

Would a possible temporary fix be to put your top RB as the backup and then put starter's playing time to the lowest percentage? Has anyone tried that?


I have been doing some testing with this, with the idea that if you put in a low endurance guy as your starter, he will get pulled early and your better rated player (the usual starter) will get the bulk of the carries depending on playing time. So I took a team with a starting RB with an average endurance at 42. His backup has an endurance of 2/4 and I put this guy at starter. I ran 9 seasons, each time lowering the playing time of the 2/4 endurance starter. The carries breakdown listing starter/backup:

100%: 156/232
90%: 135/217
80%: 163/227
70%: 161/234
60%: 141/221
50%: 158/234
40%: 147/248
30%: 118/280
20%: 83/342

Additional tests at 20% playing time yield the breakdowns of: 76/334, 63/302, 94/369, and 71/338.

So it seems to confirm that it is a good solution to get a guy with lower endurance carries. Although, I am not sure how the results would change subbing in a high endurance rated backup at the starting position.

[Joe]

Some tests for YPC:

1: Starter 71 carries, 3.45 ypc. Backup 320 carries, 4.32 ypc.
2: Starter 79 carries, 3.54 ypc. Backup 309 carries, 3.81 ypc.
3: Starter 75 carries, 4.11 ypc. Backup 311 carries, 3.98 ypc.
4: Starter 94 carries, 3.46 ypc. Backup 369 carries, 4.34 ypc.
5: Starter 70 carries, 3.97 ypc. Backup 319 carries, 3.62 ypc.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I have been doing some testing with this, with the idea that if you put in a low endurance guy as your starter, he will get pulled early and your better rated player (the usual starter) will get the bulk of the carries depending on playing time. So I took a team with a starting RB with an average endurance at 42. His backup has an endurance of 2/4 and I put this guy at starter. I ran 9 seasons, each time lowering the playing time of the 2/4 endurance starter. The carries breakdown listing starter/backup:

100%: 156/232
90%: 135/217
80%: 163/227
70%: 161/234
60%: 141/221
50%: 158/234
40%: 147/248
30%: 118/280
20%: 83/342

Additional tests at 20% playing time yield the breakdowns of: 76/334, 63/302, 94/369, and 71/338.

So it seems to confirm that it is a good solution to get a guy with lower endurance carries. Although, I am not sure how the results would change subbing in a high endurance rated backup at the starting position.

Did you have either one on special teams? Also, who was listed as the 3rd and short back, passing down back, near-ceratin pass back?

[Joe]

I didn't change any special teams designations. The better rated backup was listed in the 3rd and short and passing downs.

[ShaneTheMaster]

May have found a cause to my problem.. I noticed my starter was listed as "Encouraged" to play special teams (he has a 100 special teams rating). Although, I could have sworn I had him set to not play special teams. This might be the cause of him getting subbed often (if the game tracks tiredness at gametime).

I will let everyone know what happens in the next game, with him not being on special teams.

Update... it appears taking him off of special teams helped.. he got 18 out the 23 carries in the final game - and 5 TDS! :)

[Northwood_DK]

I have been doing some testing with this, with the idea that if you put in a low endurance guy as your starter, he will get pulled early and your better rated player (the usual starter) will get the bulk of the carries depending on playing time. So I took a team with a starting RB with an average endurance at 42. His backup has an endurance of 2/4 and I put this guy at starter. I ran 9 seasons, each time lowering the playing time of the 2/4 endurance starter. The carries breakdown listing starter/backup:

100%: 156/232
90%: 135/217
80%: 163/227
70%: 161/234
60%: 141/221
50%: 158/234
40%: 147/248
30%: 118/280
20%: 83/342

Additional tests at 20% playing time yield the breakdowns of: 76/334, 63/302, 94/369, and 71/338.

So it seems to confirm that it is a good solution to get a guy with lower endurance carries. Although, I am not sure how the results would change subbing in a high endurance rated backup at the starting position.

The problem with this work-around is that it creates another problem (exploit) instead. The star running back now playing as a backup will renegotiate his contract for just a fraction of what he would normally do.

This can seriously effect MP leagues if the salary cap is no longer in play.

[Ufer]

In general, one more setting to look at -- no idea if it applies to the specific complaints in this thread -- is "Use of Injured Players". Anecdotally, when it's set very low, starters seem to get subbed for more frequently. I'm guessing that minor in-game injuries play into this somehow.

[twothree]

The problem with this work-around is that it creates another problem (exploit) instead. The star running back now playing as a backup will renegotiate his contract for just a fraction of what he would normally do.

This can seriously effect MP leagues if the salary cap is no longer in play.

I read some of the solutions that MP leagues have decided to use to combat the renegotiation problem, but I think they are flawed.

If you limit starters to no less than 50% playing time, which a patch could easily do, you could still have problems with someone putting the backup RB in specific (running) formations and listing them in the situational substitutions.

I think what is needed is a patch to make future salary demands more dependent upon the percentage of plays a player participated in during the season. This might be difficult to implement for players that switch teams during the season, depending upon the information that is stored by FOF for each player. (FOF would have to keep a running total of plays possible for each individual player.)

Edit: Or, I guess the whole RB endurance relating to how many plays they can participate in could be re-examined and patched.

[Joe]

If you limit starters to no less than 50% playing time, which a patch could easily do, you could still have problems with someone putting the backup RB in specific (running) formations and listing them in the situational substitutions.


I have tested this and haven't gotten many seasons where the carries weren't pretty evenly split between the two RBs (both over 200 carries), with playing time at 50%.