Question

Post Reply
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Question

Post by lucky7jc »

Just looking at the adjustments and I had a question:

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS: ADJUSTMENTS TO WEEKLY UPDATE STATS
Kansas City Offensive Line Grade (5.8) vs. Houston Front Seven (5.8) = 0 in the trenches
Houston Offensive Line (6.1) vs. Kansas City Front Seven (6) = 0.1 adjustments to running averages
Kansas City QB Completion % Impacts (x.1): WR (6.2) + OL (5.8) - Houston F7 (5.8) - SEC (5.8) = 0.04
Houston QB Completion % Impacts (x.1): WR (5.8) + OL (6.1) - Kansas City F7 (6) - SEC (5.9) = -1.7763568394E-16

For our KC QB completion, it shows my receivers at 6.2 and his secondary at 5.8 and the two lines cancel out, but there's only a .04 adjustment instead of .4 and also

Not that it's a huge deal because we had two three fumbles as a team which is going to happen, but I'm just curious about the statistical adjustment and why it is that way. Smith completed 54% which is what may adjust that but trying to get 4 from 2+2 here. Thanks
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
Strategist
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: Question

Post by Strategist »

Lucky it is .04 because that is the decimal form of 4 percent which is the total adjustment of your QB's completion percentage.
DFFL - DAL 09-20: 113-63 .642 (6-5) 3X DIV Champs. 6 Playoff apps. DFFL Bowl I Champs
CFFL - NYG 10-12: 34-13-1 .708
AFFL - WAS 13-19: 53-59 .473 (5-3) '14, '15, & '17 Div, '17 AFC Champs
FFFL - PIT 16-17: 45-19 .703 (3-3) '16-18 Div, 16' AFC Champs
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Question

Post by lucky7jc »

I'm with you there Strategist, but look at the other figures. His offensive line was .1 better mine, he gets the full .1, not .01. Mine was a .4 better than his yet I got a .04, then you look at the qb completion and that's like a mathematician threw up, and it's difference makes no sense. So either something is missing, or maybe I've forgotten how to math, but those first two are differently scored.
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

Re: Question

Post by Goodell »

I'm not sure I'm totally understanding, but I'll try to clarify.

When we adjust a running back's average, we don't adjust it by .01. We adjust it by .1 yard, so a 4.0 average input could go as high as 5.15 for max rushing advantage (not just as high as 4.15 for almost no difference).

When we adjust completion percentage, we adjust it by one percent. 50% passer to 65% passer if 15% max adjustment. We don't adjust it to 50.15% for almost no difference.

So those are treated a little differently by design for intended impact of grades on the stats to give the grades significant meaning to adjusting the numbers in various ways.

The "mathematical thowup" is just a programming output kind of error. According to the web, scientific notation there is a way of expressing numbers that are too big or too small to be conveniently written in decimal form.

When we do math on the rounded numbers printed there, that's really 0. Program just printed it funny when it had all the decimals that made it not quite zero and displayed the small number that way mathematically. But it's essentially zero.

As the results showed, the adjustment was treated as zero as the game input and sim results were almost the same (58% vs. 59%) and not adjusted strongly one way or the other.

On the other side, your QB had a 4% adjustment increase, which the sim would work to take his game update of 54% up to 58% for thows up to his first 37 attempts. In the end he threw a lot more sim passes (59) than reality (37) so he tailed off once he got beyond his game update, but he was as high as 60% up until the last minute of the game working at that higher adjusted percentage.

Hope that helps. Thanks
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
lucky7jc
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Question

Post by lucky7jc »

Goodell wrote:I'm not sure I'm totally understanding, but I'll try to clarify.

When we adjust a running back's average, we don't adjust it by .01. We adjust it by .1 yard, so a 4.0 average input could go as high as 5.15 for max rushing advantage (not just as high as 4.15 for almost no difference).

When we adjust completion percentage, we adjust it by one percent. 50% passer to 65% passer if 15% max adjustment. We don't adjust it to 50.15% for almost no difference.

So those are treated a little differently by design for intended impact of grades on the stats to give the grades significant meaning to adjusting the numbers in various ways.

The "mathematical thowup" is just a programming output kind of error. According to the web, scientific notation there is a way of expressing numbers that are too big or too small to be conveniently written in decimal form.

When we do math on the rounded numbers printed there, that's really 0. Program just printed it funny when it had all the decimals that made it not quite zero and displayed the small number that way mathematically. But it's essentially zero.

As the results showed, the adjustment was treated as zero as the game input and sim results were almost the same (58% vs. 59%) and not adjusted strongly one way or the other.

On the other side, your QB had a 4% adjustment increase, which the sim would work to take his game update of 54% up to 58% for thows up to his first 37 attempts. In the end he threw a lot more sim passes (59) than reality (37) so he tailed off once he got beyond his game update, but he was as high as 60% up until the last minute of the game working at that higher adjusted percentage.

Hope that helps. Thanks

That makes sense then because of the yardage differences. Much easier to see a 15 yard difference through the air than on the ground. I didn't want to think of it in common sense terms rather than the statistical why's but yes, thank you.
AFFL Champion - 2019
AFC Champion - 2019
Post Reply