Simulating Attribute Aging in the PNFL

[Jerry-Redskins]

Tired of the league rules changing every year. Just want to play. Not try to reinvent things all the time because someone wants the game there way. I want o compete against each other and not try to be the first one to sort out something new and/or trash multiple seasons of planning. Just getting old.

[Charlie-49ers]

Even if I leave ST alone and just drop SP, AC, AG, and EN, the highest rated QB would drop from #3 to #18.

Your maximum exposure in any year is two of the 4, 5, or 6 attributes, and probably no more than one point per attribute per evaluation year to start. Maybe it's no more than one point per attribute, but after the older age threshold, we randomly select three of six attributes instead of two, not counting IN & DI. This might be a good slow start to the process.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I actually like the dropping EN which impacts everything.

We could use existing safe thresholds on the forum under anti-aging.

Year 1: EN -1
Year 2: EN -1
Year 3: EN -2
Year 4: EN -2

This is simple and allows for people to plan.

[Charlie-49ers]

This will be one of the proposals, but under this scenario, all players in the same position will age equally. Under the random, as I suggested, all players will age randomly, and some not at all. For example, if a WR is ranked 50th overall and another WR is ranked 60th, and we drop the EN equally, then they should end up like 65th and 75th, still ten players apart. If you do it randomly, the 60th player could end up higher than the 50th player after the random selection of the attributes and their impact on the overall evaluation.

[Charlie-49ers]

Below is one potential proposal based on NFL averages and the doubling of those for the PNFL. The League would use a random selection from all the attributes except IN & DI. In the first set (game year), we would randomly select one of six attributes and then randomly subtract zero or one point from both the ACT and the POT for that attribute for the two years noted (each year is a new random selection). In the next set, we would randomly select two attributes and then randomly subtract zero or one point from both the ACT and the POT for the two years noted. Again, each year is a new random selection. The last numbers indicate the year, and thereafter, we will randomly select three attributes and then randomly subtract zero or one point from both the ACT and the POT for each attribute selected, with each subsequent year being a new random selection process.

By using all six attributes, we minimize the potential hit on a critical attribute for that position.

Position NFL Average Length PNFL
Kickers / Punters ~4.87 years 10&11 - 12&13 - 14
Quarterbacks ~4.44 years 9&10 - 11&12 - 13
Offensive Linemen ~3.63 years 8&9 - 10&11 - 12
Defensive Linemen ~3.24 years 7&8 - 9&10 - 11
Linebackers ~2.97 years 7&8 - 9&10 - 11
Cornerbacks ~2.94 years 7&8 - 9&10 - 11
Tight Ends ~2.85 years 7&8 - 9&10 - 11
Wide Receivers ~2.81 years 7&8 - 9&10 - 11
Running Backs ~2.57 years 6&7- 8&9 - 10

I like this one, and people are more stimulated to comment if they see an actual proposal to shoot at.

[Donovon-Steelers]

While I stand in favor of this, it's really more to simplify the process. I'm also an agreement with what Jerry says and that constantly changing rules makes it overly complex. One example is the system from last year for retirements / percentages I couldn't recall, and clearly some others didn't either.

I think we should be moving away from complexity and more towards simplification if it achieves the same end goals. I've had 2 guys I've wanted to introduce into the league, but they both said there was too much to wrap their head around.

Not saying we should water down the league for casuals, but we don't need to be adding any more complexity to it either. For many of us, time spent is a consideration for continuing to play.

[Rich-League Officer]

The idea is interesting but who the hell is doing this editing and work? lol
I think I know the answer already.

But, if there ever was attribute decline, the only attribute to hit would be EN.
You take that down and it affects every other attribute.
Not 1-2 points but you start going 5-10 points over time, you'll get the old player playing like an old player.

Of course, Jerry's comment makes a lot of sense to me
This would be the type of change you need to get all coaches on board.

[James-Eagles]

I agree with Rich, kind of. I like the idea, but I agree with Jerry. Aging would be nice, but I think it will be near impossible to get something realistic and still reasonable and fun. I really just want to get to just playing games.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I've put more thought into this topic overnight.

The current aging and retirement system isn't broken. It may need some tweaking from year to year to keep a good age balance in the league, but it isn't broken. Although I like the idea of players ratings aging overtime, I believe the effort it will rake to do it isn't worth it for the small increase in realism.

If we want to spend extra time on something that will create more NFL-like realism, I'd prefer the effort, time and energy be used on creating and managing a salary cap system. We are an NFL based league without one of the biggest compnents of the NFL, a salary cap.

I'm playing either way...

[James-Eagles]

I understand the data, but we need to be careful using the average retirement age. From Brian's data, you can see 69% after 5 or fewer seasons and 4 or fewer (during or right after their first contract ends) 61.8% retire. These retirements are mostly players who can't play in the league. This is what the purge simulates. Also remember there are over 500 first-year players every year in the NFL at the start of training camp. We would need draft classes over 280 to simulate this.(I am not wanting this) We can't really use NFL numbers. We don't have real draft busts, career-ending injuries, arrest etc.

To Donovon's post, I do think we need to make it easier, not harder. Yes, roster management is fun, and clearly it is a part I enjoy well. But caps, aging, etc., all add a learning curve. What is this league, really? It is a coach vs. coach PPP league. It is what makes this league great. The rest is really busy work that distracts from what is important. (simming 100,000s of games). Even when you just look at that, how much of a learning curve is that? We need to be making the extra stuff as easy as possible because based on what we seed every week on Friday nights, profiles are hard to get right even for veteran coaches. I like to point out most of this stuff seems easy for us because most of us have been doing it forever. I have been back 14 years and have 21 years total in the league and Charlie can attest. I screwup plans.