I'd rather win the game myself but facing Jean Marc's team is a bit daunting. Got to the semi last season and lost to GDSL, but with a pretty good performance. Hopefully more of the same in the final, just hope it's close as I'd rather not lose in a one sided blow out.
Not sure if my D is going to be able to match up.

1934lions wrote: I'd rather win the game myself but facing Jean Marc's team is a bit daunting. Got to the semi last season and lost to GDSL, but with a pretty good performance. Hopefully more of the same in the final, just hope it's close as I'd rather not lose in a one sided blow out. Not sure if my D is going to be able to match up.

First off, congrats on a big win! But in looking at the start and end game ratings, I'm once again, just blown away by the results and scoreline. Jean Marc pulled in a rather ridiculously awesome start game rating with 16 players pulling the 5* start game rating and I think they all ended with a 5* ratings too. Your team, very good in its own right, only managed to pull in 4 players with a 5* start game rating.

This is just another example to me that the start game ratings do not come close to providing useful data. I really rarely even look at them anymore and even then, it's only out of sheer curiosity, not to elicit any worthwhile data that would be useful to making any adjustments. The game engine and idividual randomness of the "play" rolls just seems to be the key driver in results.

AbCat wrote: Gatr22 wrote: 1934lions wrote: I'd rather win the game myself but facing Jean Marc's team is a bit daunting. Got to the semi last season and lost to GDSL, but with a pretty good performance. Hopefully more of the same in the final, just hope it's close as I'd rather not lose in a one sided blow out. Not sure if my D is going to be able to match up. First off, congrats on a big win! But in looking at the start and end game ratings, I'm once again, just blown away by the results and scoreline. Jean Marc pulled in a rather ridiculously awesome start game rating with 16 players pulling the 5* start game rating and I think they all ended with a 5* ratings too. Your team, very good in its own right, only managed to pull in 4 players with a 5* start game rating. This is just another example to me that the start game ratings do not come close to providing useful data. I really rarely even look at them anymore and even then, it's only out of sheer curiosity, not to elicit any worthwhile data that would be useful to making any adjustments. The game engine and idividual randomness of the "play" rolls just seems to be the key driver in results. If you take an average of start game ratings, and line them up against league placings, the correlation will be much stronger. What this game has shown is that inferior start game ratings can be overcome, but only to a small extent.

I would respectfully disagree with you. There is nothing small about 5 starters with 5* atart game rating beating up on a team that draws 16 starters with 5* rating. My only point, regardless what start game rating means, there is little correlation between those ratings and the outcome of the game that just transpired. If by "small extent" you meant that occasionally they don't match the games outcome, but usually they do, I would have to disagree with you based on my review over the seasons of my own team. Anyhow, don't want to make a huge topic out of this, I was just shocked at the 16 players ripping 5* start and end game ratings for Jean Marc's squad and still losing by 14

TrevorJames wrote: The key performance indicator in that match was the pass completion rate - more than 10% higher for Hitchin's QB - even if every single player on the pitch has the performance of their career, if the losing QB's performance drops by a whole star in the 2nd half (as happened in this match), then that's going to have a fundamental impact on the end result. I can't think of many other team sports that rely so heavily on one player (ie. the QB) performing to the best of their ability.

Perhaps you were looking at a different player. Jens Steffensen was the starting QB for Jean Marc's team and he had a 5* start game rating and a 5* end game rating. Where did you see his performance rating drop by one whole star? I would agree with you that the Lions QB had a much better percentage completion rate for the game, but what I'm saying is the randomness of the game must have compensated for the start and end game ratings. The Lions starting QB was 4.5* start and end game rating.

In summary, from just the offense and defense side of the ball (not counting ST's) Jean Marc's team had 16 out of 22 starters hit the 5* start game rating. Very impressive, but doesn't correlate very well to the final result. The Lions had just 5 out of 22 starters at 5* start game rating. Just another reason I put very little faith in the start game ratings, but would absolutely love to see how they are calculated and then compare to individual play calculations to get a better understanding of the start game rating impact.

TrevorJames wrote: Sorry, I was looking at the top player expecting that to be the QB. My bad.

No problem, I did the same thing at first and thought, ok, maybe the qb just let the team down. Also noticed the Lions had 7 offensive players check in at 4* start game ratings. It's nice, on one hand to know the game engine allows upsets, which you would find in real life, but on the other hand just baffles the mind to make sense of it from a relevance standpoint. Most especially when you knock down 16 out of 22 starters! I think the best I have seen on my team was 15, but the real issue for me is to realize that start game ratings just don't regularly match the outcome......at least that is my experience