|
Post by ManWithNoName on Sept 27, 2018 16:23:06 GMT -5
Reading all of this has just made me more confused. So is +7.2 good or bad? What do the weight of the bars say he would be before AI? 56.8
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:23:14 GMT -5
Nick can you do Feigenbaum please, your scout rocks and mine sucks He is awesome, I told you that last week lol. Honestly I was shocked how good he was. It is much quicker and easier to use Squirrel's system now. We just need to work towards interpreting the results effectively.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Sept 27, 2018 16:24:08 GMT -5
What do the weight of the bars say he would be before AI? 56.8 Then he has a bloody awesome AI
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:24:34 GMT -5
Reading all of this has just made me more confused. So is +7.2 good or bad? + is good now going forward using this system.
|
|
|
Post by thefatcat on Sept 27, 2018 16:25:00 GMT -5
Nick can you do Feigenbaum please, your scout rocks and mine sucks He is awesome, I told you that last week lol. Honestly I was shocked how good he was. It is much quicker and easier to use Squirrel's system now. We just need to work towards interpreting the results effectively. thanks Nick, who wants him for 3 1sts then . 3 people in my division need a QB< don't all fight over him at once guys !
|
|
|
Post by squirrel on Sept 27, 2018 16:25:26 GMT -5
So you just to drill the point home a -3.3 from Garrison's overall of 80. If another dude has a -3.3 from an overall of 60, his AI would be in the gutter. Where as Garrison's is merely knocked down to the solid/average area. I think the next step in all of this is to apply actual figures to the (in this case) -3.3. Should we express that as a percentage? Or an actual figure? Hmm. That takes some thinking about. We need to use that -3.3 to come up with 0-100 AI score. I have done that before Nick, I just can't remember the answer. I didn't think I found out much that was new which is why I can't remember it. I think I concluded that the absolute number meant about the same regardless of whether the QB was 20/20 or 80/80, which I recognise is counter intuitive and could well not be right
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Sept 27, 2018 16:28:14 GMT -5
So you just to drill the point home a -3.3 from Garrison's overall of 80. If another dude has a -3.3 from an overall of 60, his AI would be in the gutter. Where as Garrison's is merely knocked down to the solid/average area. I think the next step in all of this is to apply actual figures to the (in this case) -3.3. Should we express that as a percentage? Or an actual figure? Hmm. That takes some thinking about. We need to use that -3.3 to come up with 0-100 AI score. I have done that before Nick, I just can't remember the answer. I didn't think I found out much that was new which is why I can't remember it. I think I concluded that the absolute number meant about the same regardless of whether the QB was 20/20 or 80/80, which I recognise is counter intuitive and could well not be right I came up with the same calculations as you a few weeks back. Me and Nick spoke about it, I just couldn’t ever figure out a good way of getting an actual AI number. Possibly because the % isn’t definitive between every player
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Sept 27, 2018 16:28:36 GMT -5
That was not me!
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Sept 27, 2018 16:30:35 GMT -5
I guess Danny is +7.2 then.
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:32:15 GMT -5
Who doesn't really
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 27, 2018 16:37:34 GMT -5
I took a look at QBs on my rosters in other leagues. CFL, not so hot, but I do have Matt Stafford in the TFL (90/90) and a +3.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:39:01 GMT -5
I think once we have some + and - figures listed out it may fall in to place how we can come up with an actual figure.
AI is x percentage of the players overall rating. That is a key point to remember here. By looking the best performer, and taking his AI to be 100, we should be able to work out the value of x. We just need to be sure we are looking at a guy with 100 AI. In the past, before the bar was hidden there were normally a few guys with 100 AI. The best guy should be mid to high 90s at the very least so we should be able to get in to the right ball park.
I am guessing AI is a pretty hefty 20-25% of a players overall. The reason I say that is because it is powerful enough for us to see big differences between Steignebum's and Huntley's in red bars displayed.
|
|
|
Post by thefatcat on Sept 27, 2018 16:39:14 GMT -5
Mr Squirrel, how did you get to the bar weight % please?
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Sept 27, 2018 16:42:24 GMT -5
I took a look at QBs on my rosters in other leagues. CFL, not so hot, but I do have Matt Stafford in the TFL (90/90) and a +3. Must be max AI I would of thought. Got a screenshot of him? So if a +3 at 90 = 100 AI. We may find a +6 would be needed for an 80 rated player to have 100 AI and so on. The lower the rating, the higher the + would have to be to get to the 100 AI.
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Sept 27, 2018 16:43:56 GMT -5
I guess Danny is +7.2 then. Apparently my backup Jimmie Fulton has a +7.3. But he's not fully developed so who knows how accurate that is.
|
|