Front Office Football Central - Some numbers on pass distances (6.2 vs. 6.3 vs. 6.3a)

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOF9, FOF8, and TCY Discussion (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=33)

- - Some numbers on pass distances (6.2 vs. 6.3 vs. 6.3a) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=76516)

Some numbers on pass distances (6.2 vs. 6.3 vs. 6.3a)

FOWL's season this morning (we run it all in one shot) was run on 6.3a. We also ran a season on 6.3, and of course many on 6.2. I have some data that's fascinating.

(NOTE: The one big caveat here is that this is a league where we nerf QBs and WRs by simply not allowing any with an adjusted rating above 6.5 in a draft class, so I suspect that the medium/long numbers may be skewed from what you'll actually experience. However, I think the more important takeaway here will be the version to version comparisons.)

2036 to 2040--6.2
2041--6.3
2042--6.3a

First off, screens...

year	screenattempts	screencompletions	comp_pct	screenyards	screenypc	screenypa
2036	1457	1230	84.42	5453	4.43	3.74
2037	1570	1286	81.91	5987	4.66	3.81
2038	1397	1157	82.82	5306	4.59	3.80
2039	1362	1154	84.73	5263	4.56	3.86
2040	1940	1627	83.87	7773	4.78	4.01
2041	2398	1752	73.06	9270	5.29	3.87
2042	2521	1811	71.84	10546	5.82	4.18

year	shortattempts	shortcompletions	comp_pct	shortyards	shortypc	shortypa
2036	7963	6181	77.62	43082	6.97	5.41
2037	8134	6236	76.67	43663	7.00	5.37
2038	8670	6551	75.56	45491	6.94	5.25
2039	8276	6287	75.97	44056	7.01	5.32
2040	7954	6057	76.15	41609	6.87	5.23
2041	9821	6713	68.35	52836	7.87	5.38
2042	9359	6174	65.97	48105	7.79	5.14

year	mediumattempts	mediumcompletions	comp_pct	mediumyards	mediumypc	mediumypa
2036	8591	4789	55.74	62516	13.05	7.28
2037	8412	4753	56.50	61884	13.02	7.36
2038	8283	4706	56.82	61884	13.15	7.47
2039	8512	4700	55.22	61413	13.07	7.21
2040	8686	4772	54.94	62374	13.07	7.18
2041	7935	4048	51.01	56991	14.08	7.18
2042	7333	3601	49.11	49853	13.84	6.80

Query SELECT year, sum(awaylongattempts)+sum(homelongattempts) as longattempts, sum(awaylongcompletions)+sum(homelongcompletions) AS longcompletions, (100*(sum(awaylongcompletions)+sum(homelongcompletions)))/(sum(awaylongattempts)+sum(homelongattempts)) AS comp_pct, sum(awaylongyards)+sum(homelongyards) as longyards, (sum(awaylongyards)+sum(homelongyards))/(sum(awaylongcompletions)+sum(homelongcompletions)) AS longypc, (sum(awaylongyards)+sum(homelongyards))/(sum(awaylongattempts)+sum(homelongattempts)) as longypa FROM fof_gameresults where year>2035 group by year, Thu Jan 28 06:10:09 2010

year	longattempts	longcompletions	comp_pct	longyards	longypc	longypa
2036	3533	1066	30.17	27674	25.96	7.83
2037	3387	1070	31.59	27623	25.82	8.16
2038	3489	1057	30.30	26714	25.27	7.66
2039	3542	1083	30.58	28116	25.96	7.94
2040	3874	1152	29.74	28784	24.99	7.43
2041	3053	947	31.02	25172	26.58	8.25
2042	2617	709	27.09	18878	26.63	7.21

My thoughts...

These numbers scream out what a number of people have said in their impressions: YAC is a much bigger deal, and it's not cosmetic, either. Every single pass distance has seen an increase in yards per completion, and the shorter ones are remaining steady or increasing in ypa despite completion percentage going down--another indicator that YAC is making up the difference.
I like that completion percentage has gone down, especially for shorter passes. In the past, short pass completion percentage was too high to compensate for YAC being too low. This tended to create an environment where short passing was too consistent. Some people took advantage of it by building uber-consistent short pass game plans. Others (I was in this camp, and I would imagine I wasn't alone) took advantage of it by using the short pass extremely rarely except on 3rd and 3 to 7. In those situations, I threw like 95% short passes. Because I threw them rarely anywhere else, they were even *more* successful than the already-too-high percentages. (I can't prove it, but I've long assumed that doing this is why all my teams in every league tended to be in the very top tier in third down conversion percentage.)
From what I've seen in playing 6.3 and 6.3a, and in the depressed medium/long numbers in FOWL, this thing of tailoring your offensive game plan to your bars really is serious bidness. FOWL has the QB/WR nerf in place. Other leagues have seen a small increase in passing ypa in 6.3/6.3a. FOWL has experienced a rather significant drop: we were averaging around 6.45 in 6.2. It was 6.19 in the 6.3 season, and down to 5.90 in the 6.3a year. Both were all-time lows for a league that has 36 seasons under its belt.
BOTTOM LINE: Unless you have an offense that's characterized by big red bars at nearly every skill position, this is a significantly game-changing upgrade to FOF when it comes to offensive game planning. Sure, the guy with big ol' red bars at QB/RB/WR/WR/TE can use the same game plan he used in 6.2 and do just fine (although I'd argue that even in that case, some changes would better maximize efficiency), but the guy who doesn't have that luxury should consider making some changes in how he does things.

Very interesting stuff. One of my favorite screens at IHOF is the DB's Power Ratings that have a column for roster strength. I love seeing my putrid roster clinging to a top 10 spot. (Well, Top 15 these days...)

I'll be curious to see how dramatic this can be for teams with weaker (but targetted) rosters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou (Post 2213452)

My thoughts...
These numbers scream out what a number of people have said in their impressions: YAC is a much bigger deal, and it's not cosmetic, either. Every single pass distance has seen an increase in yards per completion, and the shorter ones are remaining steady or increasing in ypa despite completion percentage going down--another indicator that YAC is making up the difference.

I guess I need to think about what we can really take away from this, given the admittedly soft footing the YAC numbers meant in previous versions of the game. I hope you are right, and that this is the demonstrable conclusion, I just haven't gotten my head around it quite yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 2213612)

A long time ago in a Q&A, Jim said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG, on 10/18/2007, in [URL="http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=61562"

this thread[/url]]As an aside, people have noticed that YAC does not correlate well with NFL totals. It's one of the few stats in FOF that's calculated after the play is resolved (slightly different from KRB, which is part of the play, but not counted unless the run is a "success"). That really should be on the list of things to improve in the engine.

Based on this and what I've observed, my guess is that this has been on "the list" for a long time, and was probably on his radar for an eventual FOF7. But these comments...

Quote:

I did a huge amount of studying of play results in the NFL over the past two years and concluded I needed to rebalance how the engine resolves passing plays.

Quote:

I won't detail the changes. It would require explaining too much about how the game uses ratings. And there are too many changes to explain in full. I rewrote about 500 lines of code here. Usually that's more than I would like to do for an update, but I thought it was necessary.

Quote:

Anyway, this was a huge patch - probably the most work I've ever done on one. I hate that it isn't perfect, but I think it breathes a lot more realism into the game.

...would indicate that he decided, among other things, to put in a good bit of work to make YAC work like real life in 6.3.

I know you don't like to watch much Solevision, but that's the other place that indicates this to me. I've tried a number of different things to tease out what's going on, and everything I've tried keeps pointing back to the conclusion that those WR screens that go for 20 yards are actually called screens that are thrown as screens, not some quirk of the Timing rating, or some other obfuscation.