Post Camp Rankings

[Mitch-Oilers]

Here's a comparison of my Post Camp ACT roster rankings and Rich's Post Camp ACT salary cap roster rankings:

[Dean-Atlanta]

What is the number under "Team Avg" and how is that calculated?

[Dean-Atlanta]

I ran the numbers and they produced this. This is weighted ratings of individual players, and the number to the right is the average weighted points per player. So this team ranking is not a nominal ranking but an actual ranking of actual overall roster talent, that is weighted. In other words, this is real legit data, not "dirty data" as Shawn said in WhatsApp. The weighting is heavily EN biased, so if you have many lower EN players on your roster, your ratings takes a beating here. My team values EN highly and as a result, this ranks my team higher than I expected. My team is well below where I want it, when it gets there, it will shoot up to #1on this weighted ranking. In the ends, PPPs will make the difference, not these rankings. This is for entertainment value only.

2044PNFLTeams.jpg (61.52 KiB) Viewed 217 times

[Mitch-Oilers]

What is the number under "Team Avg" and how is that calculated?

The "Team Avg" is the cumulative number generated by my weighted scale. The lower the number, the better.

Even though the results are similar, I can't speak for how Rich generates his "dirty, illegitimate" data. However, I will share how I generate my ACT roster assessment:

- Weight each rating category by importance for each position
- Weights for ratings categories based on information found at https://www.gelat.com/fpssite/
- Adjusted weightings based on my learnings, observations and preferences over the years
- Use the Scouting Report feature in FPedit98 to calculate player averages for each position based on my ratings weights
- Rank each team by each position based on the Scouting Report rankings
- Weight each position by level of impact in the game (EX: CB 3x more impactful than a TE)
- Apply my Position Impact weighting to the Scouting Position rankings to generate the Team Avg
- Sort Team Average from Low to High since the low the number, the better based on my scale

You're right, after typing out my process and the careful thought that goes into it, I can see how it might be viewed as "nominal, illegitimate and dirty".

[Jerry-Redskins]

Rich and Mitch are ranking based on their perceived weights/importance of attributes at positions with modification based on positional weights. Mitch by his personal position importance and Rich I believe with NFL salary importance. You have two different experienced players weighting players that end up somewhat similar. Dean's is the same. He used a personal weighting with no positional modification. Thus different results. Nothing dirty about any of the three. They are all just statistical analysis of the player pool. Without seeing the Ratings, I would have assumed I'd see Rich's as the best, based on his vast experience in the game and his absolutely best in the business roster capabilities. Both Rich and Mitch look at players similar to how I do based on the salary numbers he has used and Mitch's draft analysis as compared to my analysis.

I ask these questions about Rich and Mitch's dirty numbers and that the ratings do not matter but the PPP's do. Player talent is not the be all end all, but why is it that the teams that win the most games the most consistently are at the top of these talent rankings? How much is PPP and how much is talent? Are the best roster managers just the best PPPs as well? When Rich was active how was his team beating mine with my PPP against his in sims the same as his own? Most frustrating thing ever. Meant I had little chance in games against him due to talent before we walked on the field. The game does have true real world type randomness with the % calculations in the game software and PPP do matter as well though. Rich will tell you there is proof of that, huh Rich?

Based on the fact that actual results lead me to see Rich and Mitch's analysis as the better way to look at the talent, maybe others should reevaluate how they look at the talent and manage their rosters. Maybe more teams should care about the top talent and picks they trade for lower prices. Or move them at all. Maybe just maybe their is more of a balance between PPP and talent than some believe. PPP's with silly errors, that miss opponents weakness ands vice versa, and do not use their team talent the best will squander any talent advantage. Teams that have solid PPP's that guess right on their opponent play calling can also over come a talent advantage and win. It's a balance. It's also true anyone can't beat anyone in a given week. It's the overall week to week season that shows at the end. If you are a PPP is what matters types, no matter how much you think the talent matters in the end, why would you want to walk on the field and give your opponent any head start? As I continue to say, that point here and point there may just affect the right software calculation on the right plays and provide that extra score or stop. This game is settled on small things and a few key plays at key times.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I would not be surprised if Rich had me as #1 or #2 in his rankings the season I won the Super Bowl. That team was the most talented team I ever had in this league. Since then I have not had a true infusion of new talent and have lost more talent to retirement and bad trades than I have gained. That’s why I have stockpiled picks for the next draft and actively traded away retiring players from my roster this offseason. I know this roster is not where it needs to be. That said, this roster is still high on Rich’s rankings so it will still be competitive. Will it win a Super Bowl? Only if my PPPs make it so. Keep in mind I have a lot of 2045 picks including all of my own picks so I won’t be disappointed if this season takes a turn for the worst. Basically I’m insured.

[Rich-League Officer]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[Dean-Atlanta]

I will readily admit that my weighting put a lot more weight on EN because I believe that EN, which directly impacts the first 5 ratings, is more valuable than most weighting assess it's value. I rate higher EN players higher and put them on my roster, and that bias moves my team ranking up high than most would rank it, and right now, even a bit higher than I would rank my own team for overall talent. I don't just construct a weighting that ranks my team higher for vanity sake. That does no good. Judging against the player ratings goals I am seeking, my team right now is still in need of improvement at a number of roster spots and will gain that improvement when I draft my own draft picks rather than trade them.


What Rich uses to calculate salaries I think is a straight up valuation of overall talent, and it is valid way to determine salary numbers for the salary cap.

I think one of the major flaws in Mitch's "dirty data" as Shawn call it, or his ranking of teams compared to others is his over-reliance on relative rankings rather than actual talent value of players. I will illustrate there below with a quick lesson in ranking vs rating:

Rank Rating
1 99
2 98
3 96
4 85
5 64
6 62
7 61
8 60
9 58
10 56

As you can see, a ranking of 3rd here is nearly equal to first because the RATINGS are so close. But the difference 4th and 5th is so great, the difference between the 85 and the 64 tells us a LOT more than the difference between 4th and 5th. Apply this to 8 skill ratings of our players, and 53-63 player per roster, and ranking by positions are of very little value in assessing overall player talent value. FBPro uses the in-game ratings of players to calculate the outcome of plays in the games as Jerry has noted.

If I play Washington and WR Tee Higgins is being covered by CB Dane Cruikshank, it doesn't matter if Mitch ranks Higgins the #1 WR in the PNFL or he ranks Cruikshank the #56 CB in the league, none of that matter in the matchup that determine if Higgins catches the ball. Their ratings in game, in part degraded by fatigue (affected by EN) and to some degree the game rolling the dice, decide if Higgins catches the ball or it get broken up, or possibly picked off. Higgins might be the best WR in the PNFL, but that #1 ranking won't let him catch every pass Kyler Murray throws to him.

Winning and losing games, and ultimate, Super Bowls is what counts the most. The rest of this is entertainment. Let's not take it too seriously.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Not to speak for Mitch, but I think you are misunderstanding his data. He does have the weighted analysis based on the actual stats. It is the base of everything else. He also does a rough order of magnitude look at talent by position relative to each other on the teams. Both are valuable on a player by player basis. By team, yes, too many variables, but a general ranking of the talent on the teams is still not wrong. The player by player relative rating is important as it looks at how you are based on talent. Yes, there are gaps potentially but the idea is to gather the best talent at each position.

Mitch's draft value does matter by player. Do I draft the 12th best WR or the #1 C in the 4th. WR is generally a more valuable position toward winning games, but there is a point the C is better. Mitch tries to capture that. I think he has a few tweaks to make it better and Rich is correct it is in the eye of the beholder, but it is reasonably close to my value and draft board. I already know we have similar values on many position attributes. Getting the most value out of your picks matters to have the best top to bottom roster.

EN is the single most valuable attribute. No doubt, but player by player and position by position, I believe other attributes matter more in weighting the players. EN is the only attribute I have weighted in the middle for every position other than K/P as it matters every where, but it in no way would be better at say C than ST or HA.

[Justin-Chicago]

I don’t believe that salary cap numbers necessarily correspond to Rich’s ACT roster ranking. The salary cap numbers don’t currently mean much since alot of different personnel decisions would be getting made if a cap was still in place.

And my 2 cents on Mitch’s rankings is that they don’t recognize or reward depth very well. For instance, if I were to trade away my WR6, who would be WR3/4 on several teams, my WR position would actually seem to improve on paper within Mitch’s system. But my team almost certainly does not improve by doing so.