Formula to determine best player for position.

[Herolover]

Okay. This is probably way to in-depth for many, but do you think it is possible to create a formula to determine who would be the best to play in a specific situation?

Example:
I am doing a lower league save. I have two players I am looking at to play as a Central Defender on Defend (CD-D). Both are Natural at this position, role, and duty. Looking at their their Attributes I see that:

                 Player #1            Player #2
Overall Primary Attribute (IMO)
DET               5                    6
WOR            4                    8

Primary Per FM
POS            12                    9
HEA             4                    9
MAR           11                    10
TCK            9                    9
JUM            12                    10
STR            4                    9

Secondary Per FM
AGG             6                    11
ANT            8                    8
BRA           6                    10
CMP          2                    8
CNT           4                    12
DEC            12                    8
PAC             12                    9

Impromptu example formula: (Primary Attributes x 2) + Secondary Attributes = Rating Number.
In this case Player #1 - 172         and Player #2 - 206
Therefore, using my impromptu formula player #2 would be better.

Do you think this is possible? What other Attributes do you suggest be looked at?
What kind of formula would you suggest?

PS: My assistant manager which has a 13 in Judging Ability thinks Player #1 is 2 1/2 stars and Player #2 is 3 stars.

 

 

[Snorks]

I do a similar thing as you sometimes - averaging the Primary and the secondary attributes.

 

 

[Joey Numbaz]

I would use the Harmonic Mean. Count the primary attributes two times in the formula (don’t double them, enter them twice).

Any spreadsheet program can calculate harmonic mean.

What the harmonic mean does is nudge you lower if you have some really bad ratings. More well rounded players will score better.

For example, the average of 15,5 and 10,10 is 10 for either set. But the harmonic mean is only 7.5 for 15,5.

Player 1 scores 5.9, Player 2 scores 8.7.

Those 2s and 4s for player 1 just kill him.

[Taipan]

I did sometime like this a long long time ago with CM01/02. I recall some attributes were weighted more than others, and it ended up giving me a 1-100 rating of the player as a CD, FB, MC, WM, AM & ST.

Took me ages to tweak it so I was happy with it, and then I think I used it only three or four times after that . It was just so much easier and quicker just to glance at the stats and make up my own mind. However the time wasn't ill spent as it taught me which stats are critically important for LLM and which ones you could get away with if they were a tad on the low side.

I recall Cleon doing a good summary of the value and importance of each stat a number of years ago, which was an expansion on what the manual said. This forum's good old search engine didn't let me down.  Link if you are interested

[Herolover]

5 hours ago, Taipan said:

I did sometime like this a long long time ago with CM01/02. I recall some attributes were weighted more than others, and it ended up giving me a 1-100 rating of the player as a CD, FB, MC, WM, AM & ST.

Took me ages to tweak it so I was happy with it, and then I think I used it only three or four times after that . It was just so much easier and quicker just to glance at the stats and make up my own mind. However the time wasn't ill spent as it taught me which stats are critically important for LLM and which ones you could get away with if they were a tad on the low side.

I recall Cleon doing a good summary of the value and importance of each stat a number of years ago, which was an expansion on what the manual said. This forum's good old search engine didn't let me down.  Link if you are interested

Thanks for the link

 

[Rashidi]

I am going to pour some cold water, or maybe this will inspire you to do something different.

What any formula will need to do is account for situational variability. Calculations in this game are essentially event based, so different attributes take precedence at different stages of the game. When you are defending from a transition if you are playing on a higher mentality, certain attributes will take precedence over others. When you are camping in an opponents half, other attributes have more weight. I did something like this 10 years ago, but eventually gave up for a much more simpler approach. Break the game up into phases then analyse how each player in a given role and duty is expected to perform. Now the clincher is this : you can't do it in isolation, as roles and duties are meant to work together. Comparing 2 players for a specific position is easy, comparing two players within an existing partnership is entirely different.

If you are comparing two defenders for example. Then you need to account for how you play. If you are playing on a high mentality and a wide defensive width then a defender with good acceleration, anticipation concentration is going to be more valuable than a defender who has great jumping reach. However when you are defending a corner, the player with great jumping reach and positioning is more valuable than a defender with good acceleration, anticipation and concentration.

[westy8chimp]

As per Rashidi... Thats why i choose tactical style first... Then i create my own list of important attribute for each role based on my tactic.

I think a written formula can become detrimental... The human brain is a great thing and if you dont stick rigidly to a formula and just assess the players through logical thought you will do better. Its a tiny bit like how a great darts player doesnt aim for treble 20, the brain knows where it is and will tell the arm... All he concentrates on is his action.

[Joey Numbaz]

I agree with Rashidi, even though I use formulas.

Basically the formulas make it easy to glance at one number and see which role *might* be best for a young player to retrain at. There is a lot of value in that.

Or to get an idea of whether a player is better suited for say a CDs or CDc. Things like that. It can simplify things if you aren't as familiar with the nuances of the ratings. It's a great guide. I've set up formulas for each of the groups of ratings that are trained by each type of training session, so that at a glance I can see where my players might be lacking so I can focus training or set up a tactic to deal with the deficiencies or exploit my strengths.

I wouldn't be a slave to the numbers but they are a useful guide, especially if you are new to the game. They are a good guardrail to check and make sure you aren't making a huge mistake.

I mean if you have a decent formula and it says one player is an 8.7 and the other is a 5.9, I'm going to say it's pretty obvious the 8.7 is going to better if you are remotely close to weighing the attributes properly. If it says one is a 7.5 and the other is a 7.3 then you either need to dig a little deeper into the specifics, or it really doesn't matter which one you pick. Play the one who needs development, etc.

These things don't take PPMs into account either. My 'formula' rates Luca Digne a 13.6 as a CWBLa, rates André Gomes a 13.5. But Gomes would need to be retrained and Digne is a natural. But I want this CWBLa to control the flank, and cut inside, get into the box and shoot. Gomes is either footed. Digne is very left footed, terrible with his right. So Gomes might be the one to pick. They can both get forward and Digne gets into the area. So maybe I try to develop Digne's right foot and then teach him to cut inside. All the formula does is give you some guardrails and some ideas you might miss with the naked eye if you aren't an expert like Rashidi or Cleon or westy8chimp.

It's just a tool. The spreadsheet is almost like your own data analyst, but garbage in, garbage out. Know what it's telling you and what it isn't.

[Experienced Defender]

On 12/11/2018 at 22:55, Herolover said:

What other Attributes do you suggest be looked at?

I'd put ACC before PAC.