RyanM wrote:I won, so this is just a question. In losing it would probably have been a gripe.
Seattle OL to Detroit F7 was a 0.5 advantage to Seattle. Stewart ran for a craptastic 2.3 ypc IRL. I would have expected that average to go up with the OL advantage, but instead it dropped to 1.8.
Seattle F7 to Detroit OL was also a 0.5 advantage to Seattle. Medenhall ran for a 6.5 ypc IRL. I would have expected that average to drop with the F7 advantage, but instead it stayed exactly the same.
I don't know if this was a bug or not, or if there's an explanation - just wanted to raise those points. The bigger issue is Henne needs to get the ball in the damn endzone & quit settling for FGs!!
That was a heck of a game and great comeback to win in the final moments thanks to Stafford having those 5 INTs. Lots of 4th quarter action.
Actually Medenhall was right where he should be. I should probably reword some of that because someone else thought the same thing earlier in the year.
Detroit RB1: 22-155 (6.5
adj) | SIM: 23-150 (6.5 ave)
155 yards in reality divided by 22 is over 7 yards a carry, so the -.5 you mentioned for trench disadvantage put him to an expected 6.5 adjusted average going into the game which he ended up with exactly.
Your RB1 was under his expectations, though, but that happens sometimes unless we had RBs only run for the exact same yards every time. The sim basically reacts from run to run to try to bring it back into balance around the adjusted average. If he gets under it, the next run is much more likely to be longer. If he gets over his expected average, the next run probably will be shorter to get close to the average. Basically RBs should be a play away from their average, and the game might end before there is a reaction to get them exactly back.
Being behind at the end, it paid less attention to running the ball and more passing trying to score quickly. But in Stewart's second to last rushing attempt he was right on his average as it posts after every run:
14:41 | 1 and 10 @ 20 (20)... Jonathan Stewart runs for 3 yards (9-21yds |
2.3 ave:2.3).
2.3 in-game average versus a 2.3 expected average.
The next play he happened to get stuffed.
2:51 | 1 and 10 @ 18 (82)... Jonathan Stewart runs for -3 yards (10-18yds | 1.8 ave:2.3).
And didn't get a carry after that, but if he did, it would have adjusted back toward the average with a longer run to compensate but game ended before that chance.
But as should be the case most of the time, a RB should be within a run of his average and either hit it or be right on it on his second to last run if the game didn't have time for another carry to bring it back to the average. But for the vast majority of the game outside of the last attempt, RBs should be at their adjusted average. With so few carries, one extra play can really move an average on it's own quite a bit to exaggerate that.
But in this case, it worked at least as it was intended. It doesn't put up the final numbers and work backwards knowing exactly how many chances a player will have, but instead goes from zero up without knowing when a player's last attempt will be to make sure he ends up exactly at his average. But there will always be an action and a reaction to that in attempts to keep a balance of plays and moving toward that adjusted average on each attempt. Hope that helps...