Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > FOF9, FOF8, and TCY Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-16-2019, 02:37 PM   #1
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Is endurance underrated?

First, we need to suspend disbelief -- I genuinely don't believe that the lot of NFL-caliber players are truly dispersed all along a continuum between high and low endurance, in meaningful ways. But, that's how things are in FOF. Got it, so we'll just take that as a given, and assume it's in the game for some reason.

So, I eventually came around to the notion that the endurance rating is important for RBs, even if you do the sort of things that might make sense with low-endurance players, like a constant 3-back rotation. I've seen enough wizened people get good results from high endurance RBs to convince me it's important unto itself, for whatever reason.

I also have started noticing a few players whose performance seems better or worse than I might have expected, and anecdotally there's a correlation to the endurance rating. I guess what I'm wondering is... is the FOF endurance rating actually some sort of dumb but meaningful proxy for "good at football" instead?

QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2019, 05:43 PM   #2
Julio Riddols
College Prospect
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bryson Shitty, NC
I wouldn't be surprised. Intelligence also seems to have an effect on consistency in my anecdotal opinion.
__________________
Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused.

FUCK EA
Julio Riddols is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2019, 06:43 PM   #3
Sharkn20
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio Riddols View Post
I wouldn't be surprised. Intelligence also seems to have an effect on consistency in my anecdotal opinion.

That's a good point, didn't know that one.
Sharkn20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 09:14 AM   #4
Ushikawa
H.S. Freshman Team
 
Join Date: May 2015
I would respond a big YES to the title of your post and a big NO to the question within your post.

Obviously all anecdotal.
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 01:18 PM   #5
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
(the: all anecdotal caveat is basically in force for the whole thread, but definitely here, too)

Okay. So, the reason I asked it in the way that I did above is based on some reasoning.

My logic is basically: if FOF endurance worked the way I would expect, then its effects would be more pronounced for players who are pressed into extended duty during a game. Easiest example seems like a RB. Your low-End RB might do fine with 8 carries a game, but give him 24 and he'd tail off by getting too winded, or whatever.

My sense, however, is that this isn't how it manifests. I get the sense that even at low-duty, a high-endurance RB will perform materially better than a low-endurance one. That suggests (again, following my initial logic) that the problem isn't that they run out of gas faster (at 15 carries rather than 25), but that there's just some sort of overall factor at work. Thus the posit... is Endurance just Ability?
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 01:27 PM   #6
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
I think back to the good old days of FB Pro. There was an EN rating there, as we recall. I think it effectively served as a trigger on how rapidly a "fatigue" multiplier took effect over time.

So, to illustrate, two players start out with a fatigue factor of 1.00, and the low-endurance guy loses 0.02 per play, while the high-endurance guy loses 0.01 per play. That multiplier is just run through each relevant rating when the dice are rolled on each play.

As the two guys start out the game, we'd see the divergence look like this:

Code:
Play HighEN LowEN 1 1.00 1.00 2 0.99 0.98 3 0.98 0.96 4 0.97 0.94

No huge differential. Your 90-speed WR is effectively either an 87 or an 84, more or less.

But after, say, 15 plays, it would start to matter a lot more:

Code:
Play HighEN LowEN 15 0.86 0.72 16 0.85 0.70 17 0.84 0.68 18 0.83 0.66

Here, your 90-speed WR is effectively either a 74 or a 59 - a huge difference.


THAT is the simple-minded implementation of endurance, spelled out probably too plainly but for clarity.

IF that were how it would work in FOF, we'd expect you to mostly run into trouble when you tried to overuse your low-endurance guys. Give him 30 carries, or line him up to rush the passer 40 times, and he'll wear down too much and his performance would really suffer. But lessen that load and you'd be able to mask most of the problem.

So... IF (for the sake of argument) performance doesn't just tail off mostly as a player gets tired, but instead it's basically just in effect the whole time he plays in any game... then how should we think of it?

Last edited by QuikSand : 03-18-2019 at 01:29 PM.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 02:19 PM   #7
RGVicedo
n00b
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Per the in game Help Topics regarding Tired players--> they may be substituted in addition to what you’ve set up in the depth chart. In this case, the game will make an intelligent choice as to who will substitute, and this will be done on a play-by-play basis. If you use the personnel charts to try and force a player to remain on the field too long, he will start “economizing” his performance and you will get a generally reduced level of play.

In the CCFL I noticed that my LT was tired all the time as we ran more in 2034 and he gave up 9 sacks opposed to 3 the prior year - so I now look for higher endurance in lineman when drafting...
RGVicedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 03:05 PM   #8
Ushikawa
H.S. Freshman Team
 
Join Date: May 2015
I dont play SP but if you do and manually "play out" the games it shows you the fatigue level for everyone on the field, I would imagine that is what the primary per play interaction is.

Of course, managing this is a more complicated animal. The part I dislike is the depth chart concern mechanism. The game assumes you are gonna use a lot of 113 when setting the depth chart but that isn't necesarrily the case so the warnings in the depth chart are to be taken within context one would hope but perhaps are having some sort of affect despite snap counts and formation usage.

I think the low endurance OL thing is a real factor but as usual might not matter enough to devalue significantly top talent. Many successfu GMs trot out mulitple "Tired" OL each game, no idea if running versus passing impacts that. I personally stay away from low endurance OL as I like to be able to run out the clock and even a minor impact there would affect my W count I feel- plus OL injuries are the worst.

More interesting to me is on D. I value quite a bit D players that can play "every" snap (and play well obviously) even for guys with 80+ endurance this means the depth chart in-game says there is small or some concern for DL. And I have wondered if that will negatively affect their performance due to them holding back as Jim hints. But then again, if you forcing a lot of 3andOs (or allowing long TDs which to be honest is more my style) then the snap count should stay reasonable and the fatigue level shouldn't get too low.

Finally endurance doesn't affect OVR much, if at all, so some day that stud guy is gonna wanna get paid like an everydown player even if he aint. Seems like every draft has numerous "studs" with 0 endurance how you value them depends much on your roster building strategy and maturation but for me it is a very big factor for most positions. Plus less snaps means less development.

For newer players here is my rough estimate for the endurance needed to play "every" snap on D (about 80% of this number jsut for Regular and Nickel) with Small or less concern:
DL 80+
LB 50+
CB/S 40+
Ushikawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2019, 08:22 PM   #9
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Okay, I can fully accept the general notion that high endurance players are more valuable than low endurance players. I didn't think that needed to be said, but maybe it does. Having a quality player at any position who can play all game is surely worth more than a similar quality player whose participation is limited. Got it.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 11:36 AM   #10
stevew
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
Im probably wrong but i kinda looked at it as the chance a guy plays up to his skill level on any given play.
stevew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2019, 08:16 PM   #11
corbes
College Benchwarmer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
I think that the explanation is post #6 is basically correct. All that I would change is that noticeable effects happen earlier (even as early as during the first quarter) and more dramatically than the examples given in that post. I think it produces effective ratings during a game that can be much lower than the scout-observed ratings for a player. Most players suffer from it to some extent, running backs and receivers especially. High-endurance players seem to be outperforming their ratings; they are actually performing closer to their rating than the rest to which we are accustomed.
corbes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2020, 12:02 PM   #12
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Reviving this topic. In my mind, still unsettled.

Watching two guys from a MP league I care about:

The mid-round pick who "looks the part" overall:
RB Avery Shepard Player Details

The late-round pick who mostly has an endurance bar:
RB Leonardo Tousha Player Details

Early returns (very early, 8 games) have Mr. Endurance far outpacing Mr. Runningbackskills. Mr. E has one 39-yard run that might be distorting the stats, and I'm sure there are apples/oranges in their respective opportunities... but at the moment it's really hard to decide to shift carries away from the Endurance guy, right? (Plus, the team's clicking at a solid 7-1 so not looking to mess stuff up generally)
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2020, 12:46 PM   #13
tzach
High School JV
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
my answer to the question in the title would be 'it depends on position and game version' . in general i'd say still underrated
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2020, 02:21 PM   #14
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
I guess what I'm wondering is... is the FOF endurance rating actually some sort of dumb but meaningful proxy for "good at football" instead?

...the smoke here has not fully cleared, for me at least...
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2020, 12:24 AM   #15
tzach
High School JV
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
I guess what I'm wondering is... is the FOF endurance rating actually some sort of dumb but meaningful proxy for "good at football" instead?

i'd say it's more a proxy for 'doesn't take play off', adjusted by position. so it is a modifier, with the highest weight to DL. there's certainly endurance issues with RBs and FBs (i'll leave this to those who use it to elaborate hehe).

endurance also affects propensity for injury.

Last edited by tzach : 04-29-2020 at 12:25 AM.
tzach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 02:58 PM   #16
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuikSand View Post
Reviving this topic. In my mind, still unsettled.

Watching two guys from a MP league I care about:

The mid-round pick who "looks the part" overall:
RB Avery Shepard Player Details

The late-round pick who mostly has an endurance bar:
RB Leonardo Tousha Player Details

Early returns (very early, 8 games) have Mr. Endurance far outpacing Mr. Runningbackskills. Mr. E has one 39-yard run that might be distorting the stats, and I'm sure there are apples/oranges in their respective opportunities... but at the moment it's really hard to decide to shift carries away from the Endurance guy, right? (Plus, the team's clicking at a solid 7-1 so not looking to mess stuff up generally)

Well, I had hoped to make this experiment moot by landing a higher quality RB in the latest draft of this league, but instead I got lured in by a (hopeful) gunner/returner who will fill the 3rd RB slot instead. So, I'll likely trot out the same two guys to split time on the same team again this season. To me, this feels pretty close to a test of my "endurance is king" theory of the RB position... how is this stiff Tousha seemingly just better at playing running back than Shepard? I mean, if he delivers another season of 5+ ypc I will be very pleased that we get that from an afterthought 7th rounder, but I'll still feel compelled to look for actual talent at the position once it's contract time (or sooner).

Last edited by QuikSand : 05-21-2020 at 02:59 PM.
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2020, 04:31 PM   #17
Front Office Midget
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Manitowoc, Wisconsin
I notice Tousha's Solecismic score is higher, as well as his power inside. FOF8 seems to favor high hole-recognition, power inside backs more than past versions. I see that Tousha's hole recognition is not rated highly, but his solecismic score may be having some benefits we don't yet see?

The best DE I have had also has low endurance. I take him out on 2 WR sets, and he puts up crazy numbers when I put him in.

Without doing studies, it does seem that high endurance guys anecdotally play better than low endurance guys, but low endurance guys can still be studs used correctly. A guy with a bunch of middling bars and a 90 endurance bar seems much more valuable than he should be, but at the same time, I have seen guys like that underperform (or rather, properly perform) also (but then again, this goes for just about every bar combination in the game).
Front Office Midget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2020, 06:24 PM   #18
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
chloe loves her some endurance, nudge nudge
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2020, 10:16 AM   #19
garion333
High School Varsity
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
Quik, I think to test this you're going to have to go SP where the backs are getting the same carries in the same situations.

Looking at one or two seasons of MP league results, where you can't put RB A in the same down and distances as RB B means you're including WAY too many variables.

The simple way of looking at it is RB A gets 6 ypc while RB B get 3 YPC. Let's say RB A has 30 endurance while RB B has 100 endurance. You'd then draw the conclusion that endurance doesn't much matter.

But if RB A is only running on 3rd and Long and RB B is only running Goal Line formations then you're coming up with a valid answer from unsound data. As in, you aren't comparing apples to apples, but apples to zebras.

That's an extreme example, obv, but to figure out how important Endurance truly is you'll need to sim SP games where the players are playing the same position as one another.

As far as endurance being an indicator of talent, I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew View Post
Im probably wrong but i kinda looked at it as the chance a guy plays up to his skill level on any given play.

I think this is fairly close to how it plays out in general terms. Guys who have better endurance won't have a negative effect applied to their dice rolls and will better play up to their bars.

We know tired players are handicapped, but we don't know how it actually works in the code. Is it truly only applied to the games they play after the "tired" tag has been applied? As in, every play for the entire game in the "tired" state would have, say, a -1 to their dice roll.

Or is there an actual in-game dice roll as someone's endurance runs down the more they play? We know there is a "tired" state and negative impact it has because, as Rick pointed out, it's in the Help File. But is there an endurance check throughout the game the more a player is used?

This leads me to ask, are there more injuries later in a game? If there's an endurance check throughout the game, we'd expect to see more injuries later on with low endurance folks.

Occam's Razor tells us it's almost certainly more likely to be applied to the entire game when played tired. However, there's a damn good chance that RBs, OL and DLs have a different Endurance formula than, say, CBs and WRs. Do RBs, OL and DLs do Endurance rolls for each play? We know DL are more frequently subbed, while OL are rarely subbed. Do the OL have an Endurance roll per play or per quarter? Does the low Endurance OT get a -1 dice roll toward the end of the game?

Lots and lots of questions with the answer most likely being, as tzach says, it depends on who we're talking about.
garion333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2020, 10:54 AM   #20
QuikSand
lolzcat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Quote:
Originally Posted by garion333 View Post
Guys who have better endurance won't have a negative effect applied to their dice rolls and will better play up to their bars.

So... let's say that's precisely how the computer program works.

How is that different, in practice, from my less articulate theory that "endurance is just a proxy for being good at football?"
QuikSand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.