Statistical Research

Discussion in 'The Experience' started by GoGators, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    So here's some general info through whatever week we're current in this season.

    Passing Stats:

    NCAA Stats (min 100 attempts)

    Attempts - 29,297
    Comp - 14,870
    Comp % - 51%
    Yards - 188,915
    Yards / Att - 6.45
    Avg Ovr Rating: ???
    Avg Acc Rating: ???

    User QBs

    Attempts - 2,409
    Comp - 1,442
    Comp % - 60%
    Yards - 25,035
    Yards / Att - 10.39
    Avg Ovr Rating - 90
    Avg Acc Rating - 89




    Name Position Team Att Comp Comp %
    Richardson, Tom QB Florida 158 113 72%
    Griffin, Robert QB Baylor 196 131 67%
    Manuel, E J QB Florida State 189 125 66%
    Gilbert, Garrett QB Texas 259 169 65%
    Robinson, Denard QB Michigan 106 68 64%
    Parker, Kyle QB Clemson 258 156 60%
    Estes, Travis QB Auburn 220 131 60%
    Guiton, Ken QB Ohio State 173 100 58%
    McCarron, A J QB Alabama 240 131 55%
    Boisture, Joe QB Michigan State 187 100 53%
    Dixon, Brian QB Miami 143 75 52%
    Allen, Drew QB Oklahoma 280 143 51%

    2,409 1,442 60% (man I wish we had tables!)
     
  2. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    Rushing Stats:

    NCAA Stats (min 90 attempts)

    Attempts - 16,286
    Yards - 67,533
    YPC - 4.10
    Avg Ovr Rating: ???

    User HBs

    Attempts - 1,564
    Yards - 8,095
    YPC - 5.18
    Avg Ovr Rating - 88
     
  3. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    Receiving stats (WRs & TEs only, min 25 receptions):

    NCAA Stats:

    Receptions - 8,502
    Yards - 110,676
    YPR - 13.02
    Avg Drops - 2.42

    User Stats:

    Receptions - 381
    Yards - 7,153
    YPR - 18.77
    Avg Drops - 2.5




    Name Position Team Catches Yards Drops
    Bell, Kenny WR Alabama 34 620 6
    Bowman, Michael WR Alabama 29 499 2
    Lutzenkirchen, Phillip TE Auburn 29 438 1
    Benton, DeAngelo WR Auburn 28 507 1
    McNeal, Bryce WR Clemson 40 720 3
    Adams, Spencer WR Clemson 35 778 4
    Bryant, Martavis WR Clemson 33 783 3
    Debose, Andre WR Florida 35 594 2
    Hammond Jr, Frankie WR Florida 29 518 2
    Hines, Omarius WR Florida 26 445 1
    Green, Christian WR Florida State 25 492 1
    Roundtree, Roy WR Michigan 38 759 4

    381 7,153 2.5
     
  4. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    Both of those backup what I've been saying...passing is too easy and rushing isn't too hard. ;)
     
  5. Hova

    Hova Live Action. YiYiYi!

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    12,136
    Dixon 52% lmao
     
  6. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    I disagree! Here's my initial thoughts:

    Passing - I think this data shows that the QB accuracy and WR catching slider are in good spots, if anything, user QB accuracy maybe could use a +5. Us users have some of the best QBs in the NCAA as shown by the ratings I've provided. Also, you must consider that the NCAA as a whole has 59 schools with QBs completing less than 50% of their passes. This is pulling their average way down.

    The piece of data that stands out to me is the "Average Per Attempt". Users are getting 4 more yards per attempt than the CPU. Yards per completion is even bigger, 5 yards more per completion (17 to 12). To me, this indicates that we need to boost the CPU pass rush and pass coverage.

    Another interesting stat:

    NCAA Attempts / INT - 31
    User Attempts / INT - 25

    I'd attribute that users are throwing INTs more frequently than the CPU due to horribly inaccurate passes from the slider that are out of our control.

    As for the WR catching slider, I'd say that is spot on. The user drops are right in line with the CPU, so that should stay right where it is.
     
  7. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    As for the rushing stats, there's some interesting stuff here as well. Yes, this does support your theory Shaun that rushing is easy as quite a few teams seem to be having great success running the ball as evident by the high YPC for some guys. However, typically in college, it's normal for good backs to average around 5 - 6 ypc, reason being is that they usually get a few of those stat padding cupcake games and unlike the NFL, you get many more big plays in college. Also, if you consider the caliber of backs were using in comparison to the rest of the NCAA, I don't think us averaging an extra YPC than the CPU is out of the norm.

    Something else that stands out to me is if you note the teams in regards to YPC from their best back, the teams that run the spread litter the bottom of the list. Texas, Auburn, Michigan and Florida are the worst rushing teams here, all except Texas are averaging under 4 ypc, and that's only because Texas' Whaley falls forward for 4 yards everytime he's tackled. Now, maybe I'm alone in this thought, but I think that proves my point, that the current slider set is unfair to us guys running the spread offense. We are unable to run the ball against the CPU with anywhere near the success that you guys are. Now I fully understand that it's unlikely we'll ever be able to balance the two style of offenses together to get similar results, but I think this shows that us spread and shredders are unfairly being handicapped in two aspects:

    1 - The non spread offenses are able to run the ball with ease to move the chains and the spread guys don't have that luxury.
    2 - You want to continually make passing more difficult as well.

    So what would the result be? Neither of us will be able to pass with any consistency, but then the spread guys won't have the running game as a crutch to lean on like the pro style guys. So what would we do? Change to a pro style offense? No offense to anyone, but I play NCAA so that I can run the spread and the spread option. If I wanted to run a pro style offense I'd go play Madden cause it's much better at sim style gameplay to begin with.

    But back on topic. I think we need to try to figure out a way to throw us spread guys a bone in regards to the running game.
     
  8. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    Fine, I'll buy your argument...but I want to see this data.

    Find a group of quarterbacks (as randomly as possible) with a similar overall average and range, THEN compare those numbers to ours.
     
  9. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    I'm not sure what you mean here. I have the data saved so it shouldn't be a problem, but I'm not sure what you're asking.
     
  10. Dru50

    Dru50 Still Chicago's #1 son

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    16,270
    First off, kudos to you gators for taking the time to put this data together.

    Secondly, if you want to compare user results to the CPU, you really should only look at the CPU teams when they play one of us. The other 90% of CPU games are not impacted by the sliders at all. The stats of those simmed games make using this data for the purpose you want kind of impossible I think.
     
  11. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I disagree with that Dru...we should be trying to match our stats against a season's worth generated by the CPU for OUR offensive stats.
     
  12. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    This is what I mean Gators.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    I agree that I can't make completely accurate slider suggestions from this data alone. However, I think this data is valid from an offensive viewpoint. Since 75% of user games are vs the computer, the data suggested above I feel is indicative of what's happening in those games. Granted, I understand your point that comparing our performance against the CPU which are games affected by the sliders isn't the same as a cpu vs cpu game, I think the cpu vs cpu (ncaa avgs) do create a baseline for us to use.

    Unfortunately I can't get a download dump of just user vs cpu games so it'll take much more time to gather that information. I'm thinking I may be able to get some useful stuff out of the user team stats, but I'll have to look later.

    Now come on Mizzou! Beat them Sooners' asses!!!
     
  14. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I have no idea how to balance so everyone can run the ball the same.
     
  15. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    Nicely done Shaun!!! How did you get to post your excel spreadsheet like that? I was trying to figure it out, but wasn't sure of the best way to do it.

    From the data you gathered, I think that's pretty fair. 4% completion percentage advantage to the users seems appropriate considering the human input will always give us a slight advantage. That doesn't seem extreme to me.

    Two things still jump out to me:

    1) The CPU has more attempts, which I think translates into a lower completion %. Consider Richardson from UF, and he has a pretty low # of attempts cause he was injured for a couple weeks. I think as the season wears on, that % will come down as his attempts go up to be more in line w/the others.

    2) The yards per completion and per attempt variance are still really high in favor of users and IMO, this is something that really breaks the game. Clearly some of this can be attributed to the aggressive defense the cpu plays giving up big plays. However, I think if you increased the CPU pass coverage a little, the average per attempt/completion would come down a bit. This should also translate into a slightly lower completion %. I'd also imagine that increasing the user QB accuracy by 5 won't increase the completion %'s much, but it'd be something to keep an eye on.

    I think we've got some good stuff to work with here. I don't think we should make any changes to the sliders until the offseason. This way we can look at the data for a full season, make some modifications for next season, and then play those out. Making changes week by week won't allow us to pin point these. Agreed?
     
  16. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    Does this mean we have tables?!
     
  17. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    No, it's an image.:)
     
  18. Masler

    Masler Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,961
    Dammit
     
  19. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I agree absolutely, and I appreciate your input. THIS is the type of discussion I like. Data actually means something, the perception of data doesn't.
     
  20. Randiesel75

    Randiesel75 Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    5,645
    Sorry, delivering content from my BB is tough. When I am back on the PC I would like to weigh in on this discussion as I have my own views, specific to this discussion.
     
  21. Dru50

    Dru50 Still Chicago's #1 son

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    16,270
    Not to be a jerk, but at what point does gameplay mean something?
     
  22. Dru50

    Dru50 Still Chicago's #1 son

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    16,270
    For what it's worth, in a new dynasty I'm doing with Basis and some others (Good Ole Boys), we decided to start with unmodified AA sliders. The thought was that nobody really knew how the core game would play after the 3 patches and various tuning packs had come out, so we figured we would play one season on default and then tweak as needed.

    Through 7 weeks, the scores are looking pretty good, we have one user who lost to the CPU (Bama vs Arkansas), and 3 other games that were down to the wire vs the CPU. The passing stats on default seems like the CPU is better than all the user teams at throwing, and the rushing stats slightly favor the users, but not by a huge margin.

    I have some stats and other information if anyone is interested.
     
  23. GoGators

    GoGators GT: KSherm

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    7,893
    I'd really like to see some of the stats you guys are getting Dru. I seen you post about this before and it is interesting to me. That's one of my biggest gripes with the current setup is it feels so extreme and handicapped that the game isn't really playing like it should. The results are tough games at times, but I think there's probably a better way. I'd make the analogy that right now it feels like we're going 1+3+8-2 = 10, when we could just go 5 x 2.

    I've gone through and put together a spreadsheet loaded w/game by game stats of all user vs cpu games. I haven't began to analyze it yet, but I'll hopefully get to that tomorrow and I'll post some of my findings.
     
  24. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    Post some stats then.
     
  25. Shaun Mason

    Shaun Mason Somebody you used to know.

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    Messages:
    24,887
    Featured Threads:
    5
    I've asked you this before I think.

    What makes gameplay "right"?
     

Share This Page