Guys,

Olmec software owner Al Sellers is asking for some help on coming up with some better methods to assign “player ratings” in the software.

The one we have now is fairly generic, lots of 6’s, right?

The outcome would be a clear set of rules for the software to use to apply/update ratings for players as the match progresses.

Post any ideas here on the forum

Mark

There must be a formula for deciding Man of the Match, so can this not be utilised or tweaked?

eg. all players start on 5 rating

GK lose 0.25 per goal lost, and gain 0.5 for each save.
FW lose 0.5 or each shot missed, and gain 1.5 for each goal
any player gains 1 for a shot and 0.5 for an assist

There is a formula that the old software used and I'll see if I can dig it out tonight.

The new software must use something similar but it isn't enough. The new software also has extra match commentary that has nothing to do with whether your team had a chance of a goal. I've a feeling it's when you "roll" just a little too high.

OK, I'm not 100% sure here as there's a lot of code to run through but this is the general idea of how the old code worked.

Each player starts with a rating of 0. Points are added or subtracted from this.

+1 for all MF, WG, FW if you get a shot on goal
-1 for all SW, DF, MF if you allow a shot on goal

No goal

+1 for GK, SW, all DF if their shot is off target
-2 for all your WG, FW if your shot is off target

+2 for GK, SW, all DF and +1 for all MF, WG, FW if the shot is saved

Goal

+2 for the assist
+6 for SW, DF +4 for MF and +2 for WG, FW to the goal scorer
+1 for all DF, MF, WG, FW for a goal

-3 for the GK that allowed the goal
-1 for SW, all DF that allowed the goal

There are also bonuses if the game is tied at 60 minutes or a team is 1 goal ahead at 60, 75 and 80 minutes after a goal.

There is also a +1 to the winners and -1 to the losers.

These additions and subtractions will lead to big numbers so there's a conversion

more than 20 -> 10
14 to 20 -> 9
8 to 13 -> 8
4 to 7 -> 7
1 to 3 -> 6
0 -> 5
-1 to -3 -> 4
-4 to -7 -> 3
-8 to -13 -> 2
-14 to -35 -> 1

I know this isn't quite right as there's a game (AI vs CB Sesh 0 last season) where there were only 2 shots by one team in a 1-0 win and the losing forwards rated 6 (and they never got a shot) while the rest rated 4. But this is likely to be a bug.

That seems quite complex Steve.

Has anyone can a suggestion how player ratings can be simplified?

See my post above Commish, on February 27, 2006 11:56 am

The defenders appeared to be rated too low I thought, as although perhaps defeated, a DF may well have a good game and make several vital blocks to avoid further goals conceeded (similarly with a GK whose team has lost by GK did OK still, should get rating of 6 or 7 rather than 3 or 4.)

For real life football, I always look at the ratings that the newspapers produce, and while it is all about opinions, there should be 1 player per game on 9 rating (MotM) with a 10 rating for any player who scores a hattrick of 3 goals, and a handful on 7 and 8, and yes I suppose majority may well get 6's (which software owner is trying to get away from I suppose!)

If you look at any MSWL or SaSo games (just replace sesl with either in the olmec.org url) you will see plenty of action where there isn't a shot on goal - for example:

Min 6: Superb sliding block by Fabian (AK) denies DJ McDermott a sure goal...
...after great work from Jay McEveley in the Asteria box.
Min 13: A superb strike from Sergio Gomez (AK)...
...who smashes one with power from 20 yards out...
...but its caught by the alert BFC goalie Paddie Bonner.
Min 17: Juani almost penetrates BFC's sheilds with a dazzling volley...
... a little more power and Jay McEveley would have lost his well placed foot.

Only the middle one is a shot on goal but points (or fractions) could be given for some of the players mentioned in the other two.

At least 99% appear to get rating of 6.


So if we assume all players begin on rating of 5.

Earn +1 if they play full 90 minutes.

Every save a GK makes he should earn +0.5 and have it rounded up.

Every goal conceeded should be allocated to 1 defender to blame (last DF mention in match comm text, or at random) and that DF loses -1

Every assist +0.5

Every shot +0.5

Every goal +1

Then some corrective text so only 1 player rating of 9 per team allowed, 1 rating of 8, and whatever 5, 6 or 7's. Losing team should have max rating of 7.

A hattrick of 3 goals earms a player a 10 rating.

Perhaps goalies should get a special rating?

Suppose the GK his facing just 1 shot and the ball goes in, he shouldn't get more than 3 for that match.
On the other hand, a goalie facing 15 shots and letting one or two in should still get a good rating, for stopping all the other shots.

Anyone else got comments to add on this topic?

Was there any outcome about these player ratings,

and how they can be tweaked?

I must say, I'm with the previous poster, well, not with them, like sitting next to them, but with them as in the Hearts poster has a Very Good posting about this Player Ratings thing.

The number generated by the papers would be a 6 if the boy played for 90 minutes without incident. So all the numbers in Hearts posting above make complete sense.

I would however add +0.2 for the player making the tackle/block/interception to stop a shot on goal, so as to boost the defenders ratings as DF/SW's have been missed out in gaining ratings.

Then some corrective text so only 1 player rating of 10 per team allowed, 1 rating of 9, and whatever 7's or 8's. Losing team should have max rating of 8. (changes in bold)

As for Hat-trick hero's... one CP/TP or a fortnight in the Bahama's?

Another possibility for the 10 (& presumably MoM) would be a keeper who manages to keep a clean sheet despite a barrage of shots.

But overall the above is something to work with as a starting point.

GMcD.

While this is all lovely and football manageresque is there any real point. Given that we have no real semblance of form or individual abilities is it not really all window dressing. I for one never even bother to check player ratings.

Window dressing, yup! You're right Mark, it is all window dressing... All of it

A number of years ago some really nice guy used to sit in his kitchen and roll some dice, after he'd gotten the results of the dice rolling he posted the results (in envelopes with stamps on them) back to all the kind people who had sent him some numbers to use for his dice rolling session. Ever since then we've been window dressing.

Those kind people are still there, sending in there numbers, and the dice rolling is now done by a Mr Ol Mec. But ever since the days in the Kitchen, the player ratings have nearly always been 6, so nobody really paid much attention to them, then one day, they were 10's and 9's, 3's and 4's! Some of the kind people's lives were better for it, and some of them didn't notice... But they all lived happily ever after...

THE END

Utterly pointless window dressing, it's why we're here oh, and talking about it!