FOF Great Debate IV: Ignore DB Stats, Mostly

[QuikSand]

This will be a series of threads designed to provoke debate about a matter in the FOF 8 game, around which there appears to be some uncertainty. We will pose the topic as a statement, and invite your responses to start with either PRO or CON, as you indicate whether you agree, or disagree, with the stated assertion.

Today's statement for debate:

Ignore DB Stats, Mostly. We all know there's a tension between measurable stats from player efforts, and the ratings we see/trust in the game. When there's a red bar that says this guy is good at that thing, it's hard to trust the stats that arise from a game, season, even a career. At DB, it's even harder to trust the stats. The game's main PD% rating is an imperfect amalgamation of multiple things, and with the game's "cloud" style for generating and attributing results, it seems really hard to tally up short term statistics as being very reliable. So, wondering what to do about a player? For the most part, ignore the stats, and trust the bars/ratings.



Respond in this thread, please, starting with a clear statement in all caps of your position, PRO or CON.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Respond in this thread, please, starting with a clear statement in all caps of your position, PRO or CON.

CON

The stats, over time, show what someone is doing. Despite small samples, at some point a player is what he does, not whatever the ratings say he is. Could be bad RNG luck, but seems also possible that something that isn't fully understood about ratings/formulas is making the lower rated player a consistently better performer.

*worth noting that I'm answering in terms of playing time/usage during a season, not so much about keep/cut decisions. If this addresses the opposite, then I'd be mildly Pro for the proposition. (My single player experience has been a lot of "one bad year" for high rated guys who then recover, "one good year" for lower rated guys who never match that best season again)

[Pyser]

CON

For the obvious studs it's pro, bars overrule almost everything.

But the majority of DB's are those 40/40 guys, and I'm taking the guy who is consistently in the 79+ pd% over the guy who is 77 and below pd%.

[MIJB#19]

PRO

PD% is too much depending on too many variables to be meaningful to measure a player's performance. I don't buy overall ratings either on defense, it's all about the right bars for me.

[RainMaker]

CON

When the sample sizes are really small, ratings help guide you, but over time, I trust whoever is getting stuff done.

I'd agree with Jon that in terms of keep/cut or development of younger players, I'd use ratings more. Mainly because there aren't enough stats for them yet and they let you know what someone's ceiling might be.