New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By TheAdmiral
12/04/2021 3:50 am
CrazyRazor wrote:
TheAdmiral wrote:
Which is exactly the point I'm making.


I don't think anyone cares why the incompletion happens. I think everyone just wants the issue fixed. Incomplete passes are too excessive period


Which is the point I'm making.

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By TheAdmiral
12/04/2021 6:34 am
A couple of questions? and I don't know that anyone has the answers

1. What is the expected completion % on each of the routes on each play in (a) MFN, (b) NFL, (c) College?

My expectations for completion %:

On passes of 5 yards or less - my expectation would be 80% and over
On passes of 5-10 yards - 70% and over
On passes of 10-20 yards - around 50-60%
On passes of 20+ yards - less than 50%, probably around 25%

Is that realistic? I have no idea. What are your expectations? are they realistic?

Then the big question. What does JDB expect? and does MFN match his expectations?

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Mcbolt55
12/04/2021 9:59 am
I’m not sure you’ll get the exact statistical breakdowns you want, but just about everything that is possible to track is available on pro-footballreference.com.

For instance, nfl teams in general are dropping between 1-2 passes in each game (some better or worse) but overall about 3 or 4 percent of total attempts.

Almost every qb is completing 2/3 of his attempts for approx 7-8 yards on average. Some teams run a lot more play action for whatever that is worth, or attempt more downfield throws, while others dump it off more, but the bigger the sample size the more everyone gets closer to the same results, with the difference between winning and losing coming down to who makes the last mistake….
Last edited at 12/04/2021 10:02 am

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Infinity on Trial
12/04/2021 10:05 am
In beta testing, JDB frequently compares results to the NFL — but he fails to break it down in meaningful ways, such as completion percentage by yards the ball travels in the air.

I don't care what Admiral's expectations are, or anybody else's, frankly. (And none of you should care about mine.)

Once again, allow me to point to the initial post in this thread. The game would be a lot better if the drop rate and sacks were corrected. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that.

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Mcbolt55
12/04/2021 10:06 am
By the same token, I don’t think there is a way to make this code properly emulate reality no matter how many levels of random skill rolls are involved. Gamers will game and continuously break and expose whatever flaws exist. It seems whenever corrections have been made they have tended to go too far beyond the target goal and become a “beware what you wish for” situation
Last edited at 12/04/2021 10:07 am

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By TheAdmiral
12/04/2021 10:11 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
In beta testing, JDB frequently compares results to the NFL — but he fails to break it down in meaningful ways, such as completion percentage by yards the ball travels in the air.

I don't care what Admiral's expectations are, or anybody else's, frankly. (And none of you should care about mine.)

Once again, allow me to point to the initial post in this thread. The game would be a lot better if the drop rate and sacks were corrected. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that.



Drop rate or completion %?

Sacks are not a big issue if you invest in your OL and get FB's, RB's and TE's that can block. People are complaining because in 0.4.5 sacks were unrealistically low. Because of that, they didn't invest in the line of scrimmage and moaned about the trade value on OL and DL.

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Infinity on Trial
12/04/2021 10:14 am
TheAdmiral wrote:
Drop rate or completion %?


This is a thread about lowering the drop rate, which is way too high. A lot of things factor into incompletions, but this is one simple way to significantly improve the game.

TheAdmiral wrote:
Sacks are not a big issue if you invest in your OL and get FB's, RB's and TE's that can block.


This is just Grade A Bullshit.

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Mcbolt55
12/04/2021 10:18 am
Lineman lives matters too? Lol

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By setherick
12/04/2021 10:20 am
TheAdmiral wrote:


Sacks are not a big issue if you invest in your OL and get FB's, RB's and TE's that can block. People are complaining because in 0.4.5 sacks were unrealistically low. Because of that, they didn't invest in the line of scrimmage and moaned about the trade value on OL and DL.


Sacks were not unrealistically low in 4.5. They were not.

The reason that there were not more sacks in 4.5 was because no one used most long or medium passes because they got sacked a lot because the offensive line made it unbearable to use.

Now, in 4.6, both medium and long passes are even more prone to sacks because of the changes to speed (which was an awful change) and the OL penalties on medium and long passes weren't removed.

So now the only passes that are viable are short passes, and sacks will go back down to 4.5 levels once people completely rid medium passes from their playbooks like they did with long passes.

Before saying random things like the above, you might want to think through how the game actually works and how owners have to game plan around how the game actually works.

Re: 4.6 Passing Issues by the Data

By Smirt211
12/04/2021 10:23 am
New York Sports Talk Radio had a multi-decade host on WFAN whom was known for his bluster: Mike Francesa.

Admiral is dug in deep and knows things better than he did then, however, on Day 1 he was full of arrogance kicking to CJ and I how the game works when we had at that juncture easily 100 titles between us.

Day 1 of his actual appearance on the website.