MSWL UNITEDMSWL U2 TMBL MSWL The Manager
Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 - 09:20:14 AM (gmt)
 
ball MSWL UNITED ① - Landing
 
Home Auctions Blog Forum History Login Rules Scores Stats Tables Teams
 
Coaches Directory Donate Guest Rankings Schedule Updates Waitlist Wall
 

Join
MSWL
UNITED!

Recent Entries

Mike Parnaby
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Tim Batth
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Paul Cockayne
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Dave Dowson
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Dave Dohm
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Hayes
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Baptiste
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
19 Comments
Brian Beerman
20 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Andy Bate
1 Comment
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
21 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Graham Wilkes
1 Comment
Jose Freitas
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
10 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Rob Baptiste
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Graham Wilkes
6 Comments
Graham Wilkes
5 Comments
Dave Dohm
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rob Peterson
5 Comments
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
John Holden
3 Comments
Brian Beerman
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Kevin Martin
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
19 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Rob Baptiste
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Rob Baptiste
5 Comments
Mark Stretch
5 Comments
Jake Hanny
1 Comment
Andy Bate
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Graham Wilkes
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Brian Beerman
7 Comments
David Blair
2 Comments
Brian Beerman
12 Comments
Brian Beerman
5 Comments
David Blair
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
18 Comments
Graham Wilkes
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Mark Stretch
17 Comments
John Holden
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Rob Peterson
1 Comment
Brian Beerman
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
25 Comments
Allan Sellers
30 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
15 Comments
Andy Bate
12 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Mike Cabral
4 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
26 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Brian Beerman
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Allan Sellers
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Kevin Martin
6 Comments
Dave Dohm
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Brian Beerman
4 Comments
Brian Beerman
14 Comments
Brian Beerman
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
3 Comments
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
14 Comments
Allan Sellers
12 Comments
John Holden
4 Comments
Mike Cabral
9 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
23 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Simon Compton
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
2 Comments
Abe Hamdali
1 Comment
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Roy Rolsten
6 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Roy Rolsten
2 Comments
Andy Bate
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
20 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Andy Bate
7 Comments
Andy Bate
3 Comments
Andy Bate
2 Comments
Andy Lewis
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
4 Comments
Simon Compton
4 Comments
Kevin Martin
12 Comments
Simon Compton
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Simon Compton
1 Comment
Dave Dowson
2 Comments
Kevin Martin
7 Comments
Allan Sellers
11 Comments
Rene Wilkens
5 Comments
Trevor Taylor
3 Comments
Rob Peterson
17 Comments
Allan Sellers
16 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Trevor Taylor
7 Comments
Trevor Taylor
2 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
3 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Allan Sellers
27 Comments
Allan Sellers
6 Comments
Dan Fitzgerald
9 Comments
Allan Sellers
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
13 Comments
Alon Atie
5 Comments
Allan Sellers
9 Comments
Rob Peterson
10 Comments
Allan Sellers
8 Comments
 
Team Hardness Levels and Opposing Team Injuries
Posted by Allan Sellers on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 PM

I've gotten some feedback on the "hardness vs. injuring the opposition" topic.

A few points:

1) I'm not sure people that play a high hardness have the thought of "I'm trying to injure my opponents".  At least for me its, I feel like I need more skill in an area and I'm willing to take a chance on DP and allowing PKs.

2) I'm not married to the concept that a high hardness value means the opposition has to get injured.

3) I AM in favor though of a similar amount of injuries.  

 

Are there ideas out there on how to adjust the formulas to get a similar number of injuries but less of them being tied to hard play? 

Currently the chance of injury to the opposing team (based on your team's hardness factor) is:

injury change = hardness + 2.5%

What if we did something else like capping the hardness impact on injury at 5 and went with:

injury change = hardness + 4.0%

We'd go from an environment where playing a value of 10 HRD equates to a max of a 12.5% chance of injury to one where its maxed out at 9% while elevating the base chance of injury.

Again, I like the injuries.  I think it makes for an interesting game with some unpredictability and a need to spread your resources around a little.  If folks have some issues with how playing certain teams (you know who you are)...

...leads to more injuries, than I'm okay with a rework...provided we keep the formula relatively straightforward.

Thanks,

Al

 

 

Readers Comments

How about;

Hardness level / 2 + 4%, maximum chance 9%,.  I think that might work better than a cap. 

On a personal note I have played hardness all season because I believe the extra 10 shots will get more goals than the 10% chance of conceding a penalty (1 per game).  The injuries to the opposition is not my intention, although one can see it as an added advantage, so perhaps a slight reduction in injury chance is required and get a better balance between those playing hard and the saints. 

Additionally perhaps we should reduce the chances of the longer term injuries.  A level 6 injury is very tough, how about,

25% No injury,  20% 1 Injury level,   20% 2 injury,    15% 3 injury,  10% 4 injury,  5% 5 Injury,  5% 6 Injury

 

The alternative is to break the link between injuries and hardness.  Just have a flat % (5?) chance of an injury

James Tucker on Sunday, May. 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 PM
 

I'm not crazy about the injury being tied to hardness.  I don't have the time to search the data provided but I see the use of hardness being a huge advantage.  You can get 9 extra points to use, really increase the chance for your opponent to have injuries giving you an even bigger point bonus, at the risk of only PKs.  I don't see that as that a big penalty especially considering in one game I had 9 hardness played against me and I didn't even get a PK while I played NO hardness and my opponent scored a PK which was the only goal of the game.  Shoot I had a ton of YC/RC without every playing any hardness.  One game I had like 4 or 5 YC with NO hardness while my opponent with 9 hardness had NO YC.  Just seems a little odd to me. 

I know that what I've seen this season has me seriously considering a tactics change for next year to just being nasty in every game.

Andy Lewis on Monday, May. 4th, 2009 at 2:28 AM
 

 Luckily Kevin Martin's excellent analysis of hardness usage is right on the front page, so we don't have to go far to get the numbers. The numbers don't lie, folks playing 0 hardness received FAR fewer cards and yielded FAR fewer PKs than those playing at hardness 8-10.

Hardness Tracker: Season 1 Final Totals
Hardness # Matches Yellow Cards Red Cards Injuries PKs Avg YC Avg RC Avg Inj Avg PK
0 420 208 44 123 19 0.50 0.10 0.29 0.05
1 65 37 11 24 10 0.57 0.17 0.37 0.15
2 21 16 3 14 5 0.76 0.14 0.67 0.24
3 52 45 10 23 22 0.87 0.19 0.44 0.42
4 48 47 10 32 29 0.98 0.21 0.67 0.60
5 66 87 8 46 32 1.32 0.12 0.70 0.48
6 31 37 5 24 15 1.19 0.16 0.77 0.48
7 30 49 9 30 19 1.63 0.30 1.00 0.63
8 16 30 7 16 14 1.88 0.44 1.00 0.88
9 14 33 8 18 12 2.36 0.57 1.29 0.86
10 83 192 28 97 79 2.31 0.34 1.17 0.95

Using this chart, you can see that teams playing at 10 hardness had their fair share of negative impact - these are actual numbers, not speculation.

  • Hardness 10 received, on average, 4.62 times more yellow cards PER GAME than Hardness 0.
  • Hardness 10 received, on average, 3 times more red cards PER GAME than Hardness 0.
  • Hardness 10 inflicted, on average, 4 times more injuries PER GAME than Hardness 0.
  • Hardness 10 gave up, on average, 19 times more PKs PER GAME than Hardness 0.

Given that most of the teams who played Hardness 10 did so becuase they were not fielding as high SL players as their opponents, the above information all is important. Above, there are 3 negative columns, and 1 positive. Add to that the fact that the team playing Hardness 10 does get a couple extra points per area, and that makes 3 negative aspects and 2 positive aspects. One of those negative aspects meant that players were out of games due to suspension far more often that any other team. 

PKs... Playing 0 hardness, a team actually gave up an average of 0.05 PKs per game. That's not a "% chance" to give up a PK - that's an actual number - that's what happened in reality. In 420 matches where 0 hardness was played, only 19 PKs were awarded to opposition. There is no way someone can complain about that. That's not even 1 PK per team in the league. On the contrast, teams playing 10 Hardness gave up an average of 0.95 PKs per match. The total number of games played is 1/5th of the games played for Hardness 0, so the numbers still have some fluctuating that they can do next season. But, in 83 matches, 79 PKs were surrendered. Given that there were only about 3 or 4 teams that played Hardness 10, that's approximately 20 PKs surrended per team, versus less than 1 per team for Hardness 0. 

Yellow cards... teams that played Hardness 10 received almost 5 times more yellow cards than teams playing hardness 0. That's a fact. Yes, there are going to be games where the Hardness 10 team receives fewer YCs than the opposition, but that's the random factor coming into the game. There has to be some randomness, otherwise there'd be no reason to play the game as the outcome would be decided before it was even played. PLY ended up with a total of 40 games suspended throughout the season. Teams playing Hardness 0 didn't even come close. Most of the teams who played Hardness 0 didn't even break 5 suspensions for the season. If some teams received multiple cards in 1 game, they were fine overall as they most likely received 0 yellow cards in the vast majority of thier games. Looking at the above chart, you can clearly see that as you move up the chart in Hardness, you WILL receive more and more yellow cards per game and these yellow cards definitely add up over the course of a season.

Injuries Inflicted... I listed this as a positive for playing Hardness 10. This does NOT mean that I'm looking forward to injuring players from other teams. However, with all the negative to playing additional Hardness, there has to be SOME advantage. Inflicting injuries on the opposition is that advantage. Having a top player on the opposition have his SL halved for the match can mean the difference in giving up 5 shots to the FW instead of 10. It can also mean that my SBY/APP FW line gets 4 shots instead of 1.

 

The difference in injuries inflicted is similar to the difference in yellow cards recieved. With this information, if you are considering decreasing the injuries inflicted by Hardness, then to be fair, you MUST also decrease the yellow cards received from increased hardness. It's the only fair thing to do.

Based on some of the threads, it really seems like there's a witchhunt going on here. I know that's not Al's intent. I know Al is simply trying to make this game the fairest he can and the most enjoyable for all managers. However, the discussions going on in the various different topics all lean towards making it such that Hardness 0 or Hardness 1 are the only Hardness levels ever used. If the penalties are so far out of proportion to the advantages, then we're going to end up with an aspect of the game that no manager ever uses. And if that's the case, then why do we even have it?

Rob Peterson on Monday, May. 4th, 2009 at 12:55 PM
 
 
 
Terms and Conditions