Simulating Attribute Aging in the PNFL

[James-Eagles]

This scenario is why we need to continue trusting the stewards of the league to make some changes in its best interests. Otherwise, nothing ever seems like it gets done.

*** PROPOSAL ***

Instead of requiring a majority vote to pass change(s), why not let Rich / Charlie guide the league and just post their plan(s) for an official vote? If a majority of owners vote NO, it wouldn't commence, otherwise they can proceed. This method would stop handcuffing them, yet still allow owners the ability to override anything wildly unpopular.

Because Rich and Charlie are human.
Charlie believed there was no 2-man DL called in running in any game in the playoffs. I found a few in just watching 37 out of one game.
Rich, Charlie, and Mitch think our rosters are too old. But looking at Brian's data, the ages are nearly right on for the player pool of the NFL, and our rosters are the same age or younger than the NFL.

As for the Aging
The biggest problem I see this shifting the age way younger. If Charlie is going to start boosting the rookie draft. This would already simulate why the NFL is younger; they are cheaper and will cause us to go younger. Then you add on that there are no rookie bust, CEI, arrest etc. ending careers early. Will push the pool back to a very young player base. While I like the concept of the idea. It does add more complexity in how you manage your roster and has way too many ripple effects. We aren't discussing.

Contrary to what people are thinking, until this off-season change, we were getting it right. Yes, there were some "unicorns" in the system, but for the most part it was spot on. This is just like sack numbers. Player sack numbers are way off in the game, but team numbers are almost spot on. We should be happy we have most of it right and play football. Instead seeing how much we can screw it up while trying to fix it.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

This scenario is why we need to continue trusting the stewards of the league to make some changes in its best interests. Otherwise, nothing ever seems like it gets done.

*** PROPOSAL ***

Instead of requiring a majority vote to pass change(s), why not let Rich / Charlie guide the league and just post their plan(s) for an official vote? If a majority of owners vote NO, it wouldn't commence, otherwise they can proceed. This method would stop handcuffing them, yet still allow owners the ability to override anything wildly unpopular.

Because Rich and Charlie are human.
Charlie believed there was no 2-man DL called in running in any game in the playoffs. I found a few in just watching 37 out of one game.
Rich, Charlie, and Mitch think our rosters are too old. But looking at Brian's data, the ages are nearly right on for the player pool of the NFL, and our rosters are the same age or younger than the NFL.

As for the Aging
The biggest problem I see this shifting the age way younger. If Charlie is going to start boosting the rookie draft. This would already simulate why the NFL is younger; they are cheaper and will cause us to go younger. Then you add on that there are no rookie bust, CEI, arrest etc. ending careers early. Will push the pool back to a very young player base. While I like the concept of the idea. It does add more complexity in how you manage your roster and has way too many ripple effects. We aren't discussing.

Contrary to what people are thinking, until this off-season change, we were getting it right. Yes, there were some "unicorns" in the system, but for the most part it was spot on. This is just like sack numbers. Player sack numbers are way off in the game, but team numbers are almost spot on. We should be happy we have most of it right and play football. Instead seeing how much we can screw it up while trying to fix it.

PNFL - 140 players with 10+ years experience
NFL - 105 olayers with 10+ years experience
PNFL has 55% of the total players in the pool

[Mitch-Dolphins]

This scenario is why we need to continue trusting the stewards of the league to make some changes in its best interests. Otherwise, nothing ever seems like it gets done.

*** PROPOSAL ***

Instead of requiring a majority vote to pass change(s), why not let Rich / Charlie guide the league and just post their plan(s) for an official vote? If a majority of owners vote NO, it wouldn't commence, otherwise they can proceed. This method would stop handcuffing them, yet still allow owners the ability to override anything wildly unpopular.

Because Rich and Charlie are human.
Charlie believed there was no 2-man DL called in running in any game in the playoffs. I found a few in just watching 37 out of one game.
Rich, Charlie, and Mitch think our rosters are too old. But looking at Brian's data, the ages are nearly right on for the player pool of the NFL, and our rosters are the same age or younger than the NFL.

As for the Aging
The biggest problem I see this shifting the age way younger. If Charlie is going to start boosting the rookie draft. This would already simulate why the NFL is younger; they are cheaper and will cause us to go younger. Then you add on that there are no rookie bust, CEI, arrest etc. ending careers early. Will push the pool back to a very young player base. While I like the concept of the idea. It does add more complexity in how you manage your roster and has way too many ripple effects. We aren't discussing.

Contrary to what people are thinking, until this off-season change, we were getting it right. Yes, there were some "unicorns" in the system, but for the most part it was spot on. This is just like sack numbers. Player sack numbers are way off in the game, but team numbers are almost spot on. We should be happy we have most of it right and play football. Instead seeing how much we can screw it up while trying to fix it.

You also have to ask yourself, why is Charlie considering changing course and "boosting" the rookie draft pool after a few seasons of "trying" to slowly create more spread in rookie ratings? It's because even with a "slight" adjustment ratings spread, our overall player spreads are so tight that coaches are keeping the older players vs infusing rookies. How do we excellerate a league with slightly more ratings spread amoung players, we slowly introduce the spreads in the draft while ensuring older players exit the league in a timely manner.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

No one, including QBs, Ps, Ks, should lose any IN and DI. Real life players do not lose skill in those areas, they become no longer useful as players (esp QBs) because their physical skills decline.

Actually, the game itself does not reduce these over the course of the game.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Part of the issue is also the PS and 0 point bidding I think. I continue to say if you want to affect the points and force younger players into rosters we need to mirror the NFL. Players put on the PS (not IR). Should have their contract reduced to 1 year. This would do several things:

1. Since it is a one year contract, people would likely bid on them more as there is no penalty.
2. Teams would not risk better players to bidding
3. Teams would not want to lose the contract years on a player due to cost and dump vets instead

If someone thinks we need 0 points because of a team that may mange their points poorly and not able to meet the A/O roster minimums, let them have to take the lowest actual rated player in Rich's ratings and penalize a pick or something to get to the 46 min.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

Part of the issue is also the PS and 0 point bidding I think. I continue to say if you want to affect the points and force younger players into rosters we need to mirror the NFL. Players put on the PS (not IR). Should have their contract reduced to 1 year. This would do several things:

1. Since it is a one year contract, people would likely bid on them more as there is no penalty.
2. Teams would not risk better players to bidding
3. Teams would not want to lose the contract years on a player due to cost and dump vets instead

If someone thinks we need 0 points because of a team that may mange their points poorly and not able to meet the A/O roster minimums, let them have to take the lowest actual rated player in Rich's ratings and penalize a pick or something to get to the 46 min.

Agree

[Charlie-49ers]

I re-read Charlie's proposal and excluded IN and DI from the random selections. In this snapshot, there are 2 random attributes selected from only 6 total attributes. Each selected category was reduced by 1 pt. ACT doesn't exceed POT in the selected categories.

Mitch, you have the correct idea! However, in your scenario, a player would definitely get hit on two attributes, or take a double hit on one attribute, as each random selection is a mutually exclusive event! I intended to retain IN and DI as a null factor, meaning if they came up, the effect would be zero. As an example, two random events might be AC = -1 and IN = 0, or DI = 0 and EN = -1.

Your scenario ensures a 100% hit on an attribute in each random event. My scenario only has a probability of 75% that an attribute other than IN & DI would be hit.

We are obviously still debating the merits of a moot point.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I re-read Charlie's proposal and excluded IN and DI from the random selections. In this snapshot, there are 2 random attributes selected from only 6 total attributes. Each selected category was reduced by 1 pt. ACT doesn't exceed POT in the selected categories.

Mitch, you have the correct idea! However, in your scenario, a player would definitely get hit on two attributes, or take a double hit on one attribute, as each random selection is a mutually exclusive event! I intended to retain IN and DI as a null factor, meaning if they came up, the effect would be zero. As an example, two random events might be AC = -1 and IN = 0, or DI = 0 and EN = -1.

Your scenario ensures a 100% hit on an attribute in each random event. My scenario only has a probability of 75% that an attribute other than IN & DI would be hit.

We are obviously still debating the merits of a moot point.

If I understand correctly, here's what you want to happen:

- IN and DI not impacted
- 2 random categories selected per player for a ratings change
- Ratings for a player's selected categories could randomly change 0, -1 or - 2

If this is correct, I can update the calculator I created to incorporate the random ratings change of 0 to -2.

[James-Eagles]

PNFL - 140 players with 10+ years experience
NFL - 105 olayers with 10+ years experience
PNFL has 55% of the total players in the pool

Again, you are looking at one year; that is cherry-picking.

You need to look over a long period of time.

Based on when people retire in the NFL(1995-2024) compared to are player base
10(11) 2.7%:2.5%
11(12) 2.4%:1.8%
12(13) 1.3% :1.0%
13(14) 0.8%:0.7%
14 (15) 0.2%:0.4%
15(16) 0.1%:0.2%
16(17) 0.1%:0.1%
17(18) 0.1%:0.1%
Notice there isn't a huge difference. We are right on.

[James-Eagles]

Part of the issue is also the PS and 0 point bidding I think. I continue to say if you want to affect the points and force younger players into rosters we need to mirror the NFL. Players put on the PS (not IR). Should have their contract reduced to 1 year. This would do several things:

1. Since it is a one year contract, people would likely bid on them more as there is no penalty.
2. Teams would not risk better players to bidding
3. Teams would not want to lose the contract years on a player due to cost and dump vets instead

If someone thinks we need 0 points because of a team that may mange their points poorly and not able to meet the A/O roster minimums, let them have to take the lowest actual rated player in Rich's ratings and penalize a pick or something to get to the 46 min.

0-point contracts help new players get in because it is restricted to 0-4, but I honestly think it should be 0-3.