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)

NOTE: As of the last sim, this league was under the minimum 20% capacity. Invite your friends to join MyFootballNow to keep this league alive! Then send them to this league to become the owner of a team! The league will expire at 1/09/2025 8:00 pm.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Poll

By setherick
10/01/2021 7:44 am
TheAdmiral wrote:

So, contrary to your scaremongering, running whilst improved is not easy and sacks are not out of control. They're both (largely) where they should be - yes we have a statistical anomaly/outlier at the top end with initially four teams averaging over 185 yards per game rushing, this dropped to two teams in each of the last two seasons. So, yes it can be tough to stop but not as out of control as you imply.


I'll just leave this here: https://lol.myfootballnow.com/box/3575

Re: Poll

By TheAdmiral
10/01/2021 8:15 am
setherick wrote:
TheAdmiral wrote:

So, contrary to your scaremongering, running whilst improved is not easy and sacks are not out of control. They're both (largely) where they should be - yes we have a statistical anomaly/outlier at the top end with initially four teams averaging over 185 yards per game rushing, this dropped to two teams in each of the last two seasons. So, yes it can be tough to stop but not as out of control as you imply.


I'll just leave this here: https://lol.myfootballnow.com/box/3575


Are you suggesting one game makes your case?

Re: Poll

By IoanBlood
10/01/2021 9:09 am
TheAdmiral wrote:
setherick wrote:
TheAdmiral wrote:

So, contrary to your scaremongering, running whilst improved is not easy and sacks are not out of control. They're both (largely) where they should be - yes we have a statistical anomaly/outlier at the top end with initially four teams averaging over 185 yards per game rushing, this dropped to two teams in each of the last two seasons. So, yes it can be tough to stop but not as out of control as you imply.


I'll just leave this here: https://lol.myfootballnow.com/box/3575


Are you suggesting one game makes your case?


You should examine all of Gold Nuggets' games. There is a very bad run defense. All games were close to or above 200 running yards against them.

Re: Poll

By Infinity on Trial
10/01/2021 9:19 am
Half of this veteran beta league's teams are giving up at least 4.4 yards per carry on the season. Five teams are averaging 5+ per carry. Eight players with 25+ carries are averaging between 6.2 and 8.5 (!) yards per carry.

Fourteen teams are running the ball at least 30 times per game. That is significantly more than I'm seeing in 4.5 leagues. As noted previously, better play selection would improve the running game even more.

(Notably, the improved running game hasn't resulted in improved passing as defenses try to stop the run.)

This isn't an argument for or against 4.6. I'm simply pointing out that the running game is much more potent in 4.6.
Last edited at 10/01/2021 9:29 am

Re: Poll

By TheAdmiral
10/01/2021 10:15 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
Half of this veteran beta league's teams are giving up at least 4.4 yards per carry on the season. Five teams are averaging 5+ per carry. Eight players with 25+ carries are averaging between 6.2 and 8.5 (!) yards per carry.

Fourteen teams are running the ball at least 30 times per game. That is significantly more than I'm seeing in 4.5 leagues. As noted previously, better play selection would improve the running game even more.

(Notably, the improved running game hasn't resulted in improved passing as defenses try to stop the run.)

This isn't an argument for or against 4.6. I'm simply pointing out that the running game is much more potent in 4.6.



This is what JDB envisioned when he released this version of BETA

[0.4.6] Version 0d5f5ac
By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
9/21/2020 2:24 pm
Spend the last couple of weeks fine tuning some variables in the engine to try to restore sacks. In unit testing I also noticed that rushing stats have been low compared to NFL averages, so I made some tweaks to that as well. What I expect to see with this version:

1) Sacks should be back and should arrive around the NFL norm of 7% with normal play calling.
2) Rushing stats should in general grow from a league average of around 3 yards per carry up to the NFL average of around 4 yards per carry.
3) Completion percentage in my massive testing should be around 60%. I changed the logic a little to try to reduce the number of longer pass plays getting dumped to the outlet too quickly, and also tried to reduce the decisions for a QB to throw into tight coverage. Once we restore the DB play that is shelved, I imagine this logic will need to be revisited, but right now I just want to get a stable 0.4.6 out without those DB coverage updates.
4) Interception percentage should be around 2.5%, also in line with NFL stats.
5) Yards per attempt is low and I'm struggling to figure out how to bring it up.

To seth's comments in the previous version thread, yes, I do run lots of automated testing to verify that the stats come out reasonable. Depending on the goals of the changes, though, some stats (like YPA) may not be resolving to a satisfactory value just because I am not able to really understand why from such a macro view. That's where your film study is so helpful. Further, the best laid plans never survive the first interaction with actual humans running the engine... the stats with my unit testing never line up with what happens with humans running the teams. That's why I'm relying on you guys - my 'boots on the ground' - to help identify on a micro level things that are not working.

Oh, one more comment about this update - please someone continue to try to get the punt block exploit to work. I want to make sure the increasing of sacks is not also going to reinstate that exploit.


Re: Poll

By TheAdmiral
10/01/2021 10:55 am
Following that there was an update in December.

[0.4.6] Version 1792c8b1
By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
12/12/2020 5:49 pm
Made some tweaks that I hope make long passing work again: deeper drop for the QB and the blocks are also held longer. Also increased the base probability for a catch, which I hope will reduce (but not eliminate) the wide-open drops.


Since then nothing.

[caveat]: The following are generalisations.


So, the running game was supposed to be more potent - it is - has it been souped up too much?

After an initial bloating of sacks, owners were put in a position where they needed to improve the OL to stop the pass rush. Resulting in sacks falling into line with where they're expected to be. If your OL (inc. TE, FB, RB) can't pass block or are too light then your QB will be under pressure and getting sacked. This doesn't really happen in 4.5.

However if you load up on pass blocking specialists, then it becomes harder to run as effectively but your pass completion goes up and sacks are controlled better. Finding OL that can do both effectively is tough and as such (both OL and DL) now play to their trade values (or at least, much closer to it). If you try to fill your lines of scrimmage with lighter weight players they are likely to get pushed around.

Completion % is currently 63.15%, slightly above whene JDB wants it, but reflective of teams wanting to play 'dink'n'dunk' possession offense. High is 81.5% (which I'm guessing compares favourably with NFL stats)

Interception % is 2.79% (5053 attempts, 141 interceptions) again slightly higher than the 2.5% ideal, but close enough? High is 6.79% (187 attempts, 13 interceptions). Six QB's are yet to throw an interception.

Sacks through 5 weeks have produced 395 from the 5053 attempts which is 7.82% - marginally on the high side but there are a couple of huge outliers 29 sacks in 122 attempts (23.77%) and 29 from 187 (15.51%) - take those two out and the line is 7.1%. The other consideration is that a sack isn't recorded as a passing attempt, if you add the sacks as an attempt the percentage is 7.25%

Yards per attempt is sitting at 5.27 yards so better than rushing (as it should be) but maybe a yard and a half to two yards lower than ideal?

As yet the Punt block has only occured when the punt timing is below 75 or it's a non Punter.


All in all, it's pretty much as expected, so why hold back on the release? Then put in a renewed focus to the passing game.
Last edited at 10/01/2021 11:53 am

Re: Poll

By Infinity on Trial
10/01/2021 11:24 am
I'm not sure the "NFL norm" for sacks is really 7%, but your league leader is at 16%, and the rushing numbers are far stronger than JDB intended. It is unfortunate that his goal for completions is 60%.

As for his "tweaks," there is no evidence the long passes improved. He did lower the drops, after several of us pointed out how unrealistic they were.

Re: Poll

By TheAdmiral
10/01/2021 11:56 am
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I'm not sure the "NFL norm" for sacks is really 7%, but your league leader is at 16%, and the rushing numbers are far stronger than JDB intended. It is unfortunate that his goal for completions is 60%.

As for his "tweaks," there is no evidence the long passes improved. He did lower the drops, after several of us pointed out how unrealistic they were.



I'm not disagreeing with you, just presenting the data and what was anticipated. There will always be outliers and anomalies.


With regards rushing the League average is 114.27 yards per game, with an average of 4.12 yards per rush (18,234 yards, 4439 attempts) . So yes, the rushing average is higher than expected
Last edited at 10/01/2021 12:18 pm

Re: Poll

By Mcbolt55
10/01/2021 12:24 pm
What’s the chance of coding to a “middle ground”? It seems things are out of whack in each version, but the ideal results would be in between

Re: Poll

By Mcbolt55
10/01/2021 12:29 pm
I also think the bigger issue is fixing zone defense. It should be a viable option to stopping certain offensive strategies, whereas man to man should be exposed by the same plays. I suppose it’s difficult to completely revamp the playbooks, but every play should work in the right circumstance, but fail in others.