Orion said: Keep in mind that this is for difference between actual attribute value and the average for the league. So for example if average finishing was 10, the higher than that would result in -0.000456 per every finishing point. So if the average was 10 and players value was 20 it still results in lowering average rating by 0,00456. So for features with coefficients this small you can basically say that they just don't make any difference. Finishing having negative coefficient this low could be possibly just 0. Simply for such numerical models it's very unlikely to have coefficient equal exactly 0. Tl;dr coefficients this low are basically noise and they don't contribute either way into target variable. Expand
Althoug possible, I think there might be another explanation. In your experiment, you are comparing players with respect to the league average. I think its safe to assume that in any given league, majority of players are close to some "average" CA value for that league. Lets take 2 strikers from one league with the same CA. For Strikers Finishing has PA weight of 8; Acceleration has PA weight of 10, Pace has PA weight of 7, Jumping reach 5 and Balance 2!!! Striker A has 15 finishing. Striker B has only 10 finishing. But this will free 40 PA that can be redistributed to other attributes. For example: 4 ACC; 5 PAC + 1 JUM; 10 BAL + 4 JUM; and so on.
So I think in the end, Finishing isnt useless or negative. But there are simply better attributes to have for striker. Therefore striker with high FIN can suffer from lack of other essential attributes if the CA should be on similar level.
I have sometimes problems to expres my thoughts, but I home this makes some sence.
I observed that for many positions, very similar type of player is the best. For example I have 3 pacy CDs with great jumping reach and well who would have guessed that, they would also rank as 1, 2 and 4 in my strikers lineup. So I think this weights give us great understanding what stats are most valuable, but only on very general scale. I for example don't believe that FB(att) will benefit from those 8 attributes the same way as IFB(Def). Or similar example wide playmaker VS inside forward.
Maybe the think that is missing in all these test is some atribute variability within the team. Like sure jumping reach is OP, but maybe it's enough to have 3-4 really good players in that and the team would benefit more if other players have better passing, or dribbling or whatever.
Just want to say how much I appreciate the work you put into testing and letting us see behind the curtain. I like the influx of new research regarding attributes and training and whatnot.
I just find it hard to wrap my mind around the fact that this is currently the best Left back I can have (playing as Malmö 3rd season)
From your experiance, the roles dont matter so much? Like if player is good as CM, it doesnt matter if it is playmaker, channel, attacking ?
Tl;dr coefficients this low are basically noise and they don't contribute either way into target variable.
Althoug possible, I think there might be another explanation.
In your experiment, you are comparing players with respect to the league average. I think its safe to assume that in any given league, majority of players are close to some "average" CA value for that league. Lets take 2 strikers from one league with the same CA.
For Strikers Finishing has PA weight of 8; Acceleration has PA weight of 10, Pace has PA weight of 7, Jumping reach 5 and Balance 2!!!
Striker A has 15 finishing.
Striker B has only 10 finishing. But this will free 40 PA that can be redistributed to other attributes. For example:
4 ACC; 5 PAC + 1 JUM; 10 BAL + 4 JUM; and so on.
So I think in the end, Finishing isnt useless or negative. But there are simply better attributes to have for striker. Therefore striker with high FIN can suffer from lack of other essential attributes if the CA should be on similar level.
I have sometimes problems to expres my thoughts, but I home this makes some sence.
For example I have 3 pacy CDs with great jumping reach and well who would have guessed that, they would also rank as 1, 2 and 4 in my strikers lineup.
So I think this weights give us great understanding what stats are most valuable, but only on very general scale. I for example don't believe that FB(att) will benefit from those 8 attributes the same way as IFB(Def). Or similar example wide playmaker VS inside forward.
Maybe the think that is missing in all these test is some atribute variability within the team. Like sure jumping reach is OP, but maybe it's enough to have 3-4 really good players in that and the team would benefit more if other players have better passing, or dribbling or whatever.
I just find it hard to wrap my mind around the fact that this is currently the best Left back I can have (playing as Malmö 3rd season)