( edited 6 hours, 38 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#151
Link to the post:
rfsm said: Using the blended file for the GS ratings and can someone explain me why Martim is better than Baio?
Based on the physical side always assumed it would be the other way around. Expand Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
Panneton0 said: I am currently trying a Youth Academy Challenge, which makes me unable to buy players, and only use my academy newgens.
With that in mind, I'm trying to put together the best way to approach the GS rating files you provided (I am on FM26 so I know they are not fully compatible, but I am wondering about the philosophy of it anyways, more than the actual scores). In this challenge, I only want to assess my own team a) probable best performers b) probable future best performers. But I don't need to find players who are "good even if low CA" because anyways I have a fixed roster and can't try to find a cheap hidden elite.
The "pure performance" file would provide me with an indication of probable best performers in my team. That part seems straightforward.
But is the "youth" file as relevant in that context? Wouldn't a player's potential, rated by the "pure performance" file, be a better prospect than a player with good "youth" rating? Do we know how GS rates "potential" of a player is computed? Is it simply considering a direct scaling of their current attributes as if linearly scaled up to their PA?
Sorry if these questions are unclear, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this! Expand How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it. Expand
thank you very much for the answer.
If i understand it right, with this new file the attributes of acceleration and speed are not as valued, also taking into account the issue of training and possible growth. However, I am using the fm match lab training file, will it have an impact on the development of speed and acceleration and therefore will this have an effect on this ratings?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow). Expand
You dont think stamina is important for a full back? Definitely ahead of jumping, balance and strength. I would also include work rate.
Later on you go on to say you had to accept harvest green was correct about some things. Had you previously said he was wrong?
Sorry im obsessed again but your attributes for full back seem wrong.
rfsm said: Using the blended file for the GS ratings and can someone explain me why Martim is better than Baio?
Based on the physical side always assumed it would be the other way around.
Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
Baio vs Martim:
16 acc > 14
15 pace > 14
11 drib < 14
10 jump < 12
13 bal < 15
11 inj < 7
11 str | 11
12 con < 13
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
Panneton0 said: I am currently trying a Youth Academy Challenge, which makes me unable to buy players, and only use my academy newgens.
With that in mind, I'm trying to put together the best way to approach the GS rating files you provided (I am on FM26 so I know they are not fully compatible, but I am wondering about the philosophy of it anyways, more than the actual scores). In this challenge, I only want to assess my own team a) probable best performers b) probable future best performers. But I don't need to find players who are "good even if low CA" because anyways I have a fixed roster and can't try to find a cheap hidden elite.
The "pure performance" file would provide me with an indication of probable best performers in my team. That part seems straightforward.
But is the "youth" file as relevant in that context? Wouldn't a player's potential, rated by the "pure performance" file, be a better prospect than a player with good "youth" rating? Do we know how GS rates "potential" of a player is computed? Is it simply considering a direct scaling of their current attributes as if linearly scaled up to their PA?
Sorry if these questions are unclear, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this!
How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow).
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
Baio vs Martim:
16 acc > 14
15 pace > 14
11 drib < 14
10 jump < 12
13 bal < 15
11 inj < 7
11 str | 11
12 con < 13
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
thank you very much for the answer.
If i understand it right, with this new file the attributes of acceleration and speed are not as valued, also taking into account the issue of training and possible growth. However, I am using the fm match lab training file, will it have an impact on the development of speed and acceleration and therefore will this have an effect on this ratings?
I hope you can understand my question
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Assuming you're assessing for DR position, then the main attributes for DR are pace, acc, drib, jump, bal, injury, str, concentration.
Baio vs Martim:
16 acc > 14
15 pace > 14
11 drib < 14
10 jump < 12
13 bal < 15
11 inj < 7
11 str | 11
12 con < 13
So at a glance they look fairly even, trading 3 points of pace/acc for ~13 points of ~30% valued other attributes. Not to mention Martim is doing it with 8% less CA cost, but this isn't part of the rating, just one of the goals.
I agree with you though that at a glance, it wasn't obvious that Martim was as good as Baio, but the math seems to check out.
Keep in mind that 'blended' devalues pace/acc a bit compared to other attributes, because it's imbued with the expectation that over ~4 years of training, pace/acc will grow but technicals/mentals will stagnate/decline. But even if you use the 'performance' file, they will probably still be near even given the math above.
I know I'm blathering too much, but I would also like to say that my old file values pace/acc more, but I simply had to accept what HarvestGreen's results are showing. Based on my 1 CA tests, I don't see evidence for balance and strength being worth ~30% weighting, but his results have always ended up being on the money so I decided to accept and include it.
How GS computes potential is not known to me, and really I should have thought before to say bluntly that using GS 'potential' rating is probably too inaccurate with my files.
We've all used it for years, or at least I know I have, but just as with the rating values it's just not accurate enough anymore given what we know now. It would still give you a good indication of whether the player has room to grow or not, and that's a key thing, but we know that attribute distribution matters more than PA now. So I would look at current rating + PA + CA-to-PA gap + overall picture (i.e. injury 18 would rule a player out for me), and make a judgement based on that.
In your case I would still use the 'youth' file, as it optimizes for low CA (therefore can attain higher peak performance later) and takes into account the effect of training over ~4 years. If you're choosing youth to play first team games, then just switch to 'performance' for that temporarily to assess (or use 'blended' ).
If you just use the 'performance' file or similar, even if you intend to use this youth player in your first team straightaway then he will probably be subpar first team player at first (very few youth would have the pace/acc required immediately), and then a limited player later (high pace/acc, but low mentals/technicals that never grow).
You dont think stamina is important for a full back? Definitely ahead of jumping, balance and strength. I would also include work rate.
Later on you go on to say you had to accept harvest green was correct about some things. Had you previously said he was wrong?
Sorry im obsessed again but your attributes for full back seem wrong.