I dont quite understand how you can find value. Why wouldn’t you just use positional rating and buy the highest rated player you can afford? Expand
Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
Middleweight165 said: Hey @Mark Does the positional rating on GS not take into account the position value or is it just inaccurate? Why is your calculation necessary?
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct? Expand
Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark.
Middleweight165 said: @Mark am i right in saying that if I want a players true positional rating, in its simplest form, I need to reduce the GS positional rating by 2.17 for every point under 20? Expand
It is by 2.17%. For example you have a player rated 18/20 for a position and GS shows 56.84%. The calculation is 56.84% - (56.84% x (2.17% x 2)) = 54.37%
Jamolisim said: @Mark Does your chart on page 1 you show (not FM scout one) work for LLM as well or are ratings weighted differently? Thank you in advance for your response. Expand
I only play LLM. It works across the board but it is harder to find players at lower levels. You need to reduce your expectations
Evanscam97 said: Thanks anyway mark. I admittedly went down an excel rabithole yesterday evening and set up a quick "best xi" picker based off stats pulled from GS Arena, using the YK Ratings and Position scores and your formula to derive true positional rating...
Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion. Expand
Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.
If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10
Evanscam97 said: Hi there Mark, Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.
Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI
Thanks again mate Expand
I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked.
johnconnerson said: Are the Potential positional ratings worth looking at when scouting young players? Or am I better off looking at something else?
Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything? Expand
I always look at current first. I do look at agility difference and potential ability when looking at younger players but cant say I have looked at Probability of Development.
dzek said: So for every position we use the same number? Expand
I am unsure what you mean by use the same number for every position, does that mean the same calculation?
Look at post #245 above. The player has a different Genie Rating for each position and a different position score out of 20 for each position. And resulting calculation is a different final rating for each position.
dzek said: Its working actually for positional rating also. I mean if i have a player with score 20 in winger and another player who has score 19 in winger position i can see which one is better.
For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right? Expand
dzek said: So if i use ykykyk balanced ratings in excel spreadsheet and do the calculations on my own, which is the exact number to use for different positions? Including weak foot attribute because in Genie Scout we cant set foot weights for any position and its something that i asked Eugene to add it and he told me that will add it later, maybe in the next game version.
I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you! Expand
That link is for the general rating not the positional rating.
dzek said: I have a question about your formula. Why you use 46 and not 48?
If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct? Expand
It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.
johnconnerson said: I have a question about this formula. Are you going off of the General Rating from a player's page in Genie Scout? Or the Positional Rating? When I plug in the General Rating into A1 and the position rating (the 1-20 one) I'm not getting close to GS's Positional Rating. Am I doing something wrong? Expand
Here is a screenshot of one of my players from Genie Scout. Top left you can see the score out of 20 for the 4 attacking positions. Further along you see a rating for each position.
Now here is the screenshot of my spreadsheet having calculated the ability for each position using the algorithm I provided above.
So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%.
I am hoping this clarification helps you understand
If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance Expand
My calculation would be that Player B would rate 81.3% so I would go with him. Training and playing him in that position may even lift the position rating up to 19 or 20.
saycarramrod said: @Mark Just curious if there's an inverse formula for this? For instance say I was looking for a player that was out of position that I wanted to convert and figure out their GS Rating if they went from 1 in a position to 20 (extreme example, but lets roll with it). If I have a CM that is a 1 for the position rating and is a 60% GS Rating, it's not as simple as adding the ~40% to that if he became a 20 in the position rating and becomes a 100% for the CM rating - so just curious if it's something you've looked into. Thanks! Expand
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
dzek said: Can we have the updated table about positions abilities and penaltys? FM21 had 6.5% in Accomplished and in FM22 has 8.5%? Expand
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Middleweight165 said: @Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this? Expand
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing. For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
Can you expand a bit further on you trying to get value for your money that you described in this post https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/14024/
I dont quite understand how you can find value. Why wouldn’t you just use positional rating and buy the highest rated player you can afford?
Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
So not really tested but an assumption.
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct?
Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark.
It is by 2.17%. For example you have a player rated 18/20 for a position and GS shows 56.84%. The calculation is 56.84% - (56.84% x (2.17% x 2)) = 54.37%
I only play LLM. It works across the board but it is harder to find players at lower levels. You need to reduce your expectations
Pulling the data from GS is very awkward, however. Cant find a simple way to copy and paste the data and exporting doesn't give the position data (x/20) for whatever reason. Having to screenshot and use a "picture to table" conversion.
Yes, unfortunately that aspect is manual. I haven't been able to find the info in the game itself to be able to download it and it is one of many fields not downloadable thru third party applications due to FM licencing.
If it helps, you don't need to include any ratings below 10
Been lurking for a while now, appreciate all that you (and the other great people on here) do for the community! Was just curious as I looked at the above post - Is there any way to change the positions that GS uses for these formations? I.e in the 4-1-3-2, switching TS (Default) to FS, and MC x3 to AM R/C/L etc in line with the @ZaZ formation for example.
Purely the lazy side of me would find it useful at a glance for seeing Best XI (Unless there another way in GS that I am unaware of) as well as the weakest members of the Best XI
Thanks again mate
I cant see any easy way to do this. There is no functionality I can see in GS to facilitate it. You can maybe look for other structures that use the position you are after and see which players are picked.
I use @ZaZ ones. They appear to be the best now
Does the 'Probability Of Development' mean anything?
I always look at current first. I do look at agility difference and potential ability when looking at younger players but cant say I have looked at Probability of Development.
I use Fast Striker calculations for False 9.
I am unsure what you mean by use the same number for every position, does that mean the same calculation?
Look at post #245 above. The player has a different Genie Rating for each position and a different position score out of 20 for each position. And resulting calculation is a different final rating for each position.
For example player A has 80% positional rating in AMR with 20 position score and player B has 85% positional rating in AMR with 19 position score. With your formula i mention above we can determine who is the better right?
Correct
I put 48 for every position but i saw your full formula here and you use different number each time. Please clarify this a little bit further. Thank you!
That link is for the general rating not the positional rating.
If I understand correctly, number 46 is the total attributes included within the formula. Is that correct?
It is not quite that simple. I looked at the percentage impact in the FM Arena Attributes testing table for Playing Position Rating both in this year's and last year's games. It worked out to be very close to 2.5% per point or 1/40th. Then I needed to calculate what Genie Scout uses for a reduction, which is quite a minor adjustment. I took a download of around 1000 wingers and looked at the differences in ratings against their positional ratings out of 20. Moving from 1/40th to 1/46th was the nearest to the adjustment.
Hope this helps
Here is a screenshot of one of my players from Genie Scout. Top left you can see the score out of 20 for the 4 attacking positions. Further along you see a rating for each position.
Now here is the screenshot of my spreadsheet having calculated the ability for each position using the algorithm I provided above.
So the calculation for AML is the GS rating of 47.22% * (1-(20-16)/46). 20-16 = 4. 4/46 = 0.087. 1-0.913 = 0.913. 47.22% * 0.913 = 43.11%.
I am hoping this clarification helps you understand
It depends on your tactic. I generally only use AFs so I use Fast Striker
Middleweight165 said: I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once
If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance
My calculation would be that Player B would rate 81.3% so I would go with him. Training and playing him in that position may even lift the position rating up to 19 or 20.
I think the best way to do this is looking at the general rating for each position which is at the following post
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/13851/
I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
Below are excerpts from guides on FM Scout where they have extensively looked at CA and PA to develop their tool. I hope this helps.
General
Well, first and foremost it is very important to understand that attributes are the most important thing. As a player develops, their attributes will increase and this drives the increase in CA, not the other way around. So it is important to have effective training for your players and give them game time at an appropriate level. For players 18 and younger, training is the most important. Above 18 getting adequate game time at an appropriate level becomes more important than training. Of course, a player also needs a good personality and determination in order to develop. A player with a poor personality may benefit from mentoring by a more senior player with a good personality.
Remember that the PA acts as a cap on the CA and hence the attributes. The player development does not depend on PA i.e. a young player with 180 PA will not necessarily develop faster than one with 100 PA. It simply means that the 100 PA player will reach his limit sooner and hence stop developing.
For training, you can look to improve any weak attributes by selecting an appropriate additional focus that covers those attributes. The player will then spend more training time on those attributes causing them to rise leading to an increase in CA. You can look at the weights to decide which attributes are important for the players position. For example, Central Defenders have high weights for Decisions and Marking so you may choose to use 'Defensive Positioning' as that focusses on Marking, Positioning and Decisions. Role training covers several attributes that are considered key for a particular role.
Higher weighted attributes will essentially use up more CA than lower weighted ones. If a player already has a decent value for a highly-weighted attribute, further development in that attribute is essentially at the expense of potential growth in other attributes. So if you have a striker with 17 for Finishing and still some room for development, it could be better spent increasing his poor heading ability rather than trying to get him to have 20 for Finishing. Basically, try and develop well-rounded players with decent values in all the relevant attributes for their position and role. Regularly check on the training progress and change focus to better spread the development across attributes.
Current Ability
CA is a translation. It takes the attribute ratings, along with a few hidden attributes and calculates all of it into a number between 0 and 200. At that point in time, with those exact stats, that is the CA of the player.
This does not mean that if someone were to play out of this world, they would have a CA of 200, rather CA is the calculation of the overall player’s ability based on their stats. Not a form calculation.
CA can fluctuate, it is not static. As a player improves or decreases throughout the simulation, their CA can fluctuate accordingly. You as the manager do not see an overall increase or decrease in a set number as in FIFA, rather you see the attribute fluctuations within your player over time.
Potential Ability
PA is like CA, rather than it being a current representation of a player; PA is the potential that a player can reach. However, it does not mean that they will achieve their potential as is the case in real life.
Again, this can be misjudged by your staff and even yourself, there are guides and development tools available on FMScout to help you grow your players - but nothing is ever set in stone.
A player will only ever reach their maximum potential if they develop under the right circumstances. It can depend on multiple factors such as; age, personality traits, playing time, club facilities, mental attributes, hidden attributes, and youth staff.
Therefore, it is crucial for you as a manager to keep an eye on your staff and your youth players and plan out what is best for them.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/11281/
should be