Team ratings...onto OT football/soccer discussion

[valedictor]

Can anyone give me some idea of how truly representative a team rating is of a teams ability to win a match?

For example, suppose a 200-rated team plays a 100-rated team say, 100 times, with two equally experienced coaches at the helm. On average, how many matches will the 100-rated team tend to win? At what point do you generally find that the difference between ratings becomes truly significant? (i.e: how big a difference would be required by you really experienced coaches with a higher-rated team before you could safely predict that you could expect to win nine matches out of every ten against your lower-rated but equally experienced opponent?

Reason i ask is that my regular opponent's team rating is 171, while mine is currently 119. Would be nice to know how much bearing the difference in ratings has on results between us, and in games in general between well-matched opponents. With only 20 or so games of experience, it is difficult for me to determine to what degree the results are attributable to team quality, and to what degree it is coaching skill.

Obviously, i'm only looking for rough estimates (unless someone actually keeps records of this kinda data???) due to the sheer number of variables involved in a typical game of Bloodbowl, (choice of teams, handicaps, luck, etc) but would be interesting to know what sort of win/loss performance is generally observed in the long-run from teams playing superior-rated opponents.

Cheers, John

[gallowin]

TR isn't affected by injuries. I've had two key players missing next game but my TR was still at the same level.

IMO you can't always judge a team by TR but it's a fair assessment of how much $$$ has been put into the team. Personally I buy high FF to afford extra re-rolls, replace niggling players and these help to keep my TR low.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Team Rating is not an accurate representation of a team's ability to win a match. If it was, there would be no point in playing the match.

If I let my 12 year old neice play with a 250 point team and I use a 150 point team who will win more matches? how representative is TR then?

It's nearly meaningless.

[Mestari]

Team Rating is not an accurate representation of a team's ability to win a match. If it was, there would be no point in playing the match.

I agree that TR is not an accurate representation, but on the latter part I disagree. How would it make the game itself pointless? You wouldn't want to play if you could say quite accurately that you have a 65% chance of winning the game?

Anyhow, IMO TR as it stands is a rather clumsy system, and I've tried in vain to start discussions on how we should develop the system.
Naturally, in my vision, TR is simply an indicative of the teams potential, and when we calculate in the ratings of the coaches (introduced by NAF) we could then say how likely it is for either to win the match.

As there is a formula for calculating the probability of victory for either coach and the TR's of the teams is a one factor in the formula, I feel that as long as the TR system stays as it is, the formula is of not much use.

[keethrax]

Team Rating is not an accurate representation of a team's ability to win a match. If it was, there would be no point in playing the match.

But thats only the extreme case. He doesn't want to know just howe much it takes so that thte results are guaranteed, but rather how much is a *significant* (left undefined) difference. Now I may say that all other things being equal (player skill, injuries, etc.) that two teams with the same TR oth have a 50% chance of winning. (I wouldn't actually say this, because the TR system isn't that good anyhow) A significant difference does not have to equal 100% or indeed, what would be the point. But maybe 65/35 is a good spot to mark the difference as significant. Surely there would still be a point to the match.

If I let my 12 year old neice play with a 250 point team and I use a 150 point team who will win more matches? how representative is TR then?

And of course this is just ridiculous. No one claimed that team rating was all there was to it. But when looking at one variable, one generally assumes that the rest are not changing. (ie two players of the same skill level, the same injury level, etc.) In fact this was specifically stated in the original post (at least as far as skill goes).

I apologize for all the parentheses, I've been up for way to long, and thats the way my thoughts work with no sleep.

[gallowin]

Reason i ask is that my regular opponent's team rating is 171, while mine is currently 119. Would be nice to know how much bearing the difference in ratings has on results between us, and in games in general between well-matched opponents. With only 20 or so games of experience, it is difficult for me to determine to what degree the results are attributable to team quality, and to what degree it is coaching skill.

To answer your original question if the opponents are well matched coaches, higher TR would indicate a team with more of an arsenal (skills, players, RR, etc.) or it could be saying that you've spent money free booting, lost players and be just as strong as your opponent but having a lower TR.

My Amazons are currently at 130 TR. I've lowered my TR by losing 120 K in dead players, bought a RR (only half the cost counts towards TR), and been on a roller coaster to be -1 FF overall. I should have a 150 TR team. My next game (against Bulbear) I get a handicap roll even though our teams are fairly well matched (full rosters, skilled players, etc.)

[neoliminal]

Can anyone give me some idea of how truly representative a team rating is of a teams ability to win a match?

Reason i ask is that my regular opponent's team rating is 171, while mine is currently 119.

You should win 15% of the games, and your opponent should win 85% (assuming equal coaching skill). These numbers are based on statistical analysis of game data, and then extrapolated into a formula.

[Ghost of Pariah]

MY point is that you aren't doing yourself any good by looking at it like that. Even with the "assuming equal coaching skill" statement you don't account for a lucky roll on the kick off table allows your opponent to take advantage of his ball placement, or a weather roll that zaps your team's strength etc etc.

I don't like it when people try to use team rating in the way you are. It doesn't work and then they inevitably come up with some new and ultra complicated way of doing that doesn't work either.

[Mestari]

You should win 15% of the games, and your opponent should win 85% (assuming equal coaching skill). These numbers are based on statistical analysis of game data, and then extrapolated into a formula.

I'm still saying that for this particular purpose the TR calculation system has a lot of room for improvement. Apparently no-one cares...

Pariah:
The lucky rolls are included in the formulas. The specific rolls don't matter because this is statistics!
If we examine a large amount of data, noticing that certain relationship (such as 15-85 in the above example) holds, then we can say the other has a xx% chance of winning. It includes the lucky die rolls in itself as over a large amount of data, the die roll average converges to the most probable number. Unavoidably.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Where did you find equal coaches to get that formula? How do you determine equal coaches? Are all teams equal vs. each other? Is a dwarf better to use against and elf team than humans or orcs?

How do you account for ball placement combined with the Kick off table?

How do you even begin to calculate that 15%? It's based on statistical analysis. (of how many games?) then it's extrapolated into a formula. What formula?
It means about as much as a number I could pull out of my arse.

I guess if ya need numbers then Neo's guess is as good as anybody's. lol

Mestari show me a simple calculation that predicts the winner with anything close to accuracy.
The TR is not meant to determine who is going to win a particular game.
What is winning? You have to define that first and foremost!
If I play a 150 TR chaos team vs your 250TR elf team and I lose 3 to 1 but you have 6 players dead or missing the next game who won?
Who wins if the next game I draw a rookie skaven team and you draw another developed chaos squad?

[christer]

Where did you find equal coaches to get that formula?

Actually, you don't have to.. Given enough coaches and a way to rank them, you can fit the results into a graph and figure out a formula from it... Statistics is a wonderous thing...

-- Christer

[Ghost of Pariah]

Actually, you don't have to.. Given enough coaches and a way to rank them

Okay, what coaches were used, how were they ranked and who did it?
As far as I know there was less than 5 test leagues for the BBRC so I doubt Neo has alot of data to back anything up.

[Da Scum]

An added detail being missed is just what the team actually is, not just it's TR. Sure if both were the same race then I could see how there could be a formula applied. But let's say the higher TR team is Goblins and the lower TR team are High Elves. Odds are pretty good that the Elves are winning despite there being such a TR difference. And as also noted, it doesn't note injuries or missing games by the opposition. And we haven't even factored what a few key handicaps might do. (Virus to a team with Nigglers...ow.) So saying 85% winning is likely is only possible when dealing with certain stable factors. (I knew that Ph'D in Mathematics would come in handy for something other than figuring out mortar shell landing points.)

But when deal with TR differences over 100 pts., THEN I've noticed it
becomes almost a certainty that the lower ranked team is going to lose.
But what do I know, I've seen exceptions to that.

[Zombie]

I'm still saying that for this particular purpose the TR calculation system has a lot of room for improvement. Apparently no-one cares...

Hey, i care. If you're interested, take a look at the Oberwald where you can find an alternate system that i developped and that represents the strength of the team a lot better.

[Ghost of Pariah]

I don't care for that system because it is more complicated and is not any more accurate than the official system. It's exactly what I think is wrong with fiddling with TR. use it for the Goblin vs. High Elf example and it doesn't give any more accuracy.