Contents this issue: Special Announcement!Letters to the Editor
Words of Wisdom: The Changing Face of SPARF, II
Pontification: Scott Emery Goes Insane
Forum: What Good is Mark answered again
The unbalanced defender
Choosing Substitutes
Mistake of the Week: Specify your subs!
Random thoughts for new managers
A personal communication with Commisioner Nicholson has yielded a somewhat bogus but at least reasonable method for checking your team's strength.
When you want to see the offensive contribution of a forward against a defender, a rough estimate of the actual formulas is:
2*(Scramble - OPP(Defense)) + (Mark - OPP(Mark))
(where OPP refers to the opponent's skill)
If this number is positive, your forward should get offensive oppor- tunities. If negative, he is shut down. Therefore, a defender should not only have a great Defense, but had better have a decent Mark skill as well. Similarly, offensive players need more than Scramble to get open. Centres and Mobiles have the comparison done both ways, so it is possible for two ROVs (for example) to get numerous shots off each other: it is not an "either/or" proposition.
Rerun that comparer script Mel sent out in Issue 3 (?); I have copies for anyone who needs one. This formula is VERY IMPORTANT (and, of course, changes my entire philosophy AGAIN).
From: labc-4ac@WEB.berkeley.edu (Matthew L. Seidl)
A stat I would be interested in is Injury. Who CAUSED the most injuries? Every one who helped cause the injury would get a point here. What skills are the best for putting your opponent in a body bag??
Other useful stats might include, # of shots caught, # of good kicks, time of ball carrying, and maybe something for number of times he touched the ball. (for determining is this player getting it a lot and duffing it, or is he actually being useful).
[Editor's Note: I'm not sure YOU have anything to do with your OPPONENT'S injuries. Mel?]
From: kjp%cv.ic.ac.uk@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Something I would like to see changed about the SPARF game is the random order generation for the lineup. It is pretty frustrating for a manager to find that the players he has been improving with 4 fatigue each week for next season has been placed in the lineup for a match due to the random order generation and has ended up injured in hospital. One method you can prevent this happening is by picking the player with the least fatigue level who is not in the lineup. If there are several players who have the same fatigue you can then pick the player randomly from that group of players. Having selected the player you can then select the position he will play in randomly from the positions that are open. This will prevent players with a high fatigue level playing. One problem with this method is that a player who is in the recovering stage of his injured might be picked. So that this is more unlikely you can say that the person who is recovering has 10 or 20 fatigue points more than he really has when you are selecting the player. This would be a nice adition to the game for people who are planning to go on holiday over the next few months (me being one).
[Editor's Note: I think this is an issue Mel has been working on, actually. I like it. On the other hand, part of the reason for having such potentially hazardous substitution rules is to entice people to submit morally correct orders. However, I lean to Kevin's view more than the harsher existing system...]
From: Henri_Hayim_Farhi@cup.portal.com
Well, contribution is too generous for this but here it goes: Both in SPARF (and for that matter in the EEFL and UEFL where your editor and I regularly match wits -- well, he seems to stomp on mine fairly regularly), the various equations and formulae that generate the final score tend to be uncapped. That is, you can get some fairly silly results when a good team meets a bad one. It would seem to make some sense to damp those functions somehow in order to make games more competitive (and less embarrassing). It might make things somewhat more interesting by generating some unlikely upsets as well.. (I will douse all flames by ignoring them).
[Editor's Note: Actually, I seem to remember Mel saying that if one of your players beats an opponent by more than about 10 skill levels, then any extras ar wasted. In a sense, the game IS capped.
However, keep in mind that when Wimbledon loses 11 players to injuries, he has a whopping NINE left on the field against my EIGHTEEN. I really SHOULD wax him there. But Henri has a point: Should the Cattle/Redwoods/etc. be able to completely demoralize an opponent by beating him 250-3? I'll wait for Mel on this one.]
Comissioner's Notes:
Most of the features I mentioned last week were the big ones that won't happen until I get a big burst of free time in one lump. The following change are the little ones --- those that could be done in a hour or three and are therefore more likely to appear without notice allofasudden.
The first of these is a new stat program whose sole difference from the previous one is that it will display all the stats for a player side by side rather than the way rawstats are currently printed.
Next, I'm hoping to add something to scout reports so that when an IC enters the field, it will list the skills of the IC and to what position the IC was playing.
Then (and this is one that got asked for a lot), a period by period breakdown of the scoring.
Neater result printouts. (So the scores will line up)
Auto-subject marking (most things already are, but not all)
An improved pairscript (q.v. Issue 3, section F) which will make a somewhat dubious odds prediction.
Next Week: Injuries --- why you get them, and why they hurt so much.
This week, ToW goes whole hog and lets Scott Emery (Livermore Rowdy Yobbos) go insane with 184 lines of Pontification Extraordinare.
From: emery@acfcri1.arc.nasa.gov (Scott Emery)
[Editor's Note: It should be pointed out that due to the inordinate delay in sending out this issue, Scott's tactic actually failed once since he wrote this. But then, this IS Pontification.]
What is the Plunge with Defensive Chaser?
I have made some good use of a strategy that my loss to the Tartan Terror pounded into me. Actually it is based a little broader than that, several issues of the TOW helped, but I am going to have to pull a Biden. Suffice to say that this is a synthesis and not a creation. What follows is my analysis from game 2.
G = Goal; M = Mark; W = Miss; P = Point; L = Livermore; G = Glasgow
TOP: Livermore Rowdy Yobbos
BELOW: Glasgow Tartan Terror
G 2 G 1 G
LFP V V V G M FF M A A R M 2 RFP G G A M M
RBP M M M A W FB i A A A G W 2 LBP i M M M A W
P P 1 P 1
G 1 G 1 G 1
LHF A G G A M 1 CHF A G A M M RHF i G G G A M
RHB R M M M W CHB A A A G W 2 LHB M M A M W 1
P P P
G G G
LW M A M M M 5L 1G C A A G A M 1G RW M M A M M 1L 1G
RW M M R M W C i V V V V W LW G A A G W
P P P
G 1 G G
LHB A A A A M CHB A A A A M RHB A A G A M
RHF M M A M W CHF A A G A W 2 LHF A A G A W 1
P P 1 P 1
G 2 G G
LBP M M A A M FB M A A G M 1 RBP G G V V M
RFP M M A M W 1 FF M M M M W 2 LFP M M R R W 1
P P P 1
G 1 G G 3
ROV V V G G M 4 RKM V V V G M RKR V V V G M
W W 1 W 1
P 1 P 1 P 4
G 3 G G 5
ROV V V V V M 5 RKM V V V V M 5 RKR T V V V M 1
W 2 W 2 W
P 5 P 2 P 4
IC1 G G G A IC2 A A A M
IC1 M M R R IC2 M M R M
static mobiles
Total number of LRY shots (G+W+P) = 25 13 12
Total number of LRY hits (G+P) = 18 8 10
LRY hit percentage = 72% 61% 83%
LRY hit average score ((G*6)+P/G+P) = 3.77 4.75 3.00
Total GTT shots (G+W+P) = 36 13 23
Total GTT hits (G+P) = 25 6 19
GTT hit percentage = 69% 46% 82%
GTT hit average score ((G*6)+P/G+P) = 3.31 3.50 3.10
Let us note a couple of things here... something beyond I got stomped :-) Note that my players had superior stats or roughly equivalent stats to his except in (from my point of view) C RW ROV RKM RKR, and in some cases where I completely dominated his players (LFP LHF RHF). It hardly had the effect one might expect. I figured that this was because my players never got the ball. I laid this squarely at the feet of my C being overpowered by his. (even though he has a Terrific mark on his RKR it is his RKM that is doing the Ballup work and our RKMs are comparable) Note also that his mobiles have very good defense (no pun intended). I figured that they had something to do with my not being able to score. While his mobiles obviously carried the game for him, were there not some improvements to my lineup that I could make to more efficiently feed the ball to my forwards. Then Ivan Erdel came up with the Plunge with Defensive Chaser.
I had a couple of problems, I had concentrated on attack ignoring defense and I had dispersed my talent across the field. I decided to dominate the center to control the ball. So I put some of my talented 3's into the C and CHF position. This was the Plunge. I then took Digger 'Archy' Harkness out of the back and made him my RKR (not knowing a better place to put him, I still have never seen a game of ARF) hoping that his high defense would make up for the lower defenses of my other mobiles. I used him as a stop gap while I brought up the defense on my other 3's (It is after all the Perpetual Flux Plan). After I did these things I started winning. Whether it is due to the plan or a small team or a relative lack of injuries, I don't know.
Since I just went over the airwaves I don't have any problem with showing you my analysis my most recent game. Note that the analyzed game is not the game that I describe in the preceeding paragraph. Anyone would be able to grab this information and do this analysis with the tools available.
G = Goal; M = Mark; W = Miss; P = Point; L = Livermore; P = Pinyin
TOP: Livermore Rowdy Yobbos
BELOW: Pinyin Mandarins
G G G
LFP A A A M M FF G A G G M RFP i1 A M M M M
RBP R A L G W FB M G M V W 3 LBP R A R G W 2
P 2 P P
G G 3 G
LHF i0 G G A A M CHF V V V V M 2 RHF G G A G M 1
RHB A G M V W 3 CHB M G M V W LHB R A M V W
P 1 P 1 P 1
G G G
LW G A A A M C V V V V M 1L RW i1 A A A A M 1L
RW A A M A W C V V G A W LW M M M A W
P P P
G G G
LHB i1 A A A A M CHB A A A G M RHB A M A A M
RHF M M V M W 1 CHF A V G A W 1 LHF M V A A W 1
P P P 1
G G G
LBP A G A A M 1 FB M A M M M RBP A A A G M
RFP M M A A W 2 FF G V V M W LFP M A M A W 1
P P 1 P
G 1 G 2 G 1
ROV V V V V M 4 RKM V V V V M 1 RKR V V G V M 1
W 2 W 2 W 2
P 2 P 8 P 2
G 3 G 3 G
ROV G V V A M 2 RKM V T V A M 2 RKR G V T A M 1
W W W 2
P P 1 P 2
IC1 G A G G IC2 A G G A
IC1 M A R G IC2 M R R L
static mobiles
Total number of LRY shots (G+W+P) = 38 16 22
Total number of LRY hits (G+P) = 24 8 16
LRY hit percentage = 63% 50% 72%
LRY hit average score ((G*6)+P/G+P) = 2.46 2.85 2.25
Total PM shots (G+W+P) = 19 8 11
Total PM hits (G+P) = 11 2 9
PM hit percentage = 57% 25% 81%
PM hit average score ((G*6)+P/G+P) = 3.72 1.0 4.33
Well, from the numbers, I took twice as many shots, scored about as often, but had a poor(?) ratio of Goals to points. Despite the fact that he has a couple of Terrific kicking mobiles Without the high number of shots that I was able to take I would not have won the game. Statics are less important than mobiles, but suppose that my CHF had not been there. Suddenly my score drops to 40 and I lose by one point. Not to mention any ball control advantage that may have given me. Note that his CHF and LHF and FF, though they have good kick ratings have been shut down. This is probably more due to the high D on my Mobiles and the high D on my C. I am believe that his ROV's kick is in the high range of V and that his RKR is in the lower range of V (I would think that the T mobility on his RKR would make him more points).
He appears to have a centerline-based defense and attack that might fall victim to one of the side strategies that I have heard described. His is a good counter to the strategy that I prefer, the chess-based control the center of the board strategy, if one can dominate the center. In this case it is something that he has failed to do. With his RHB in the CHB position and his FF in the CHF position the play may have been different. Hindsight is sometimes 20-20. I believe that the defense in my mobiles and the lack of defense on his made a big difference in the outcome of the game.
Whew! In summary I have inferred a couple of things from the imperfect information at my disposal. It IS important to have defense on your mobile units. The Center appears to have significant influence on the way the ball is initially tipped. An overpowering advantage in the secondary can net you significant points, but it is also easier to shut down. An overpowering advantage in your front line can be shut down by a weak secondary. I have yet to see anyone say anything good about power in the wings, but they do seem to want to Mark the ball (I have not seen any Marks in the backfield, does anyone want to put a high mark player back there to find out :-) ). Does anyone see something else in the data presented? Does anyone want to sell a couple of good year 0 players? (Thought I would ask...)
Two Issues ago, we asked about Mark. See above for at least a partial answer to that qeustion. Last Issue, we asked about the unbalanced (imbalanced?) Defender.
From: kjp%cv.ic.ac.uk@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
On your discussion about the ridiculous defender people build with a Defence of 50 and the other skills at 5 I would like to give my opinion.
Having a defence of 50 you are likely to stop an attack by the opposition but what use is it when you cannot get the ball foward to your midfield as the other team's attackers have a reasonable defence (say about 15-20) and your attack values are all down at 5. The opposition attackers are likely to get the ball back and eventually score. As far as I see it, you should try to make sure that any player that not have a stat value below 10 for this reason.
A fairly similar situation arises for the players in attack. If they have a fairly good defence value as well as excellent attack values then the opposition team are likely to have a terrible time getting the ball out of their side of the pitch which is where you want the game to be played most of the time.
[Editor's Note: And I like the opening of Kevin's .sig:]
******************************************************************************** ... Logically incoherent, semantically incomprehensible, and legally ... impeccable! ********************************************************************************
[Editor's Other Note: Again, because Defense is not the ONLY skill involved in stopping your opposition, you should be aware that he needs at LEAST Mark as well. But consider this: I had a defender along the lines of: Player Name POOR LOUSY LOUSY TRFIC So when he got HOSPITALIZED, his middle skills went down below RETIREMENT levels. You DEFINITELY want to avoid that.]
All right then, the Mistake below inspires me to throw open the question: How should you choose your substitutes? Subs beat me in the Kittens match, so they're not trivial. What do YOU do?
From: emery@acfcri1.arc.nasa.gov (Scott Emery)
This one was pretty simple. From the final score against Bodoe Glimt and the injuries that I took, I assume that I lost control of the center. I had a good player and a mediocre player as mICs. I had the good player in as IC1 and the mediocre as IC2. Apparenta position other than center was injured first and the mediocre took the important center post. I should have put my good player second with a 2F C (ROV RKM RKR) line, Ah well, lose and learn.
[Editor's Note: I believe the correct terminology is: Midfielders: LW C RW Mobiles: RKR RKM ROV Scott means "Mobiles" when he says "Centers".]
This week, I am thoughtless. I have been scrambling elsewhere and apologize for the lateness of the issue as it is.