(07-19-2017, 01:42 AM)DillyDing Wrote:Stormblessed out here running the 40 in 1.0 seconds flat.Technically you'd run a 3.19. Your 92 speed would bump the average up to 71 as opposed to 69. You also have a seasons worth of tpe plus both camps but hey, still the quickest against these raw rookies.
(07-18-2017, 11:19 PM)Kcobb9 Wrote:I took a sample wonderlic and got a 29, this combine was rigged.Generally tests are easier when you're sitting a computer desk all composed, in comparison to the day when you've prepared all your life for these combine tests which sometimes make or break. (07-19-2017, 09:43 AM)37thchamber Wrote:Interesting method. I don't think averages is a good way to go though, because it's still skewed. Especially with so few people to compare. That's how you end up with these insane times, I guess. Cheers man! Yeah I felt that going with averages would've been a fair method and as soon as I saw the sub 4.22 times I felt like although that's unrealistic in the NFL, this is the NSFL. I didn't want to change the formula which I felt worked well for the majority of people on all the drills, just because some outliers focused on one attribute. I also feel like when I do this for next years prospects that although these are impressive combine times, if I changed it now then it wouldn't be a fair playing field for every prospect in the combine after S2. What are your thoughts on including 50 TPE players? I feel like if I included everybody (which meant I'd have to start collecting data at the start of each year) it would raise the averages considerably depending on builds, meaning we wouldn't see as quick and often 40 times. (07-19-2017, 12:46 PM)Dermot Wrote:Appreciate it man, it took ages! I'm game if you are, maybe we can get some more cornerback rookies involved, split the pot winner takes all?Yea I'm thinking maybe buy in of 500k, whoever leads in interceptions or passes defensed gets the pot?
[div align=center]
[div align=center] (07-19-2017, 07:05 PM)Dermot Wrote:What are your thoughts on including 50 TPE players?[/b]Probably would have made for more realistic times, but maybe not as many elite times. You might have seen the times top out lower than expected. Hard to say. I get your reasoning for using the averages though. Would be waaaaay more work to create specific formulas for each thing etc etc. I'm that weirdo who would sit and do it though, because "I'm curious" haha. I already mocked up a formula for 40 yard time estimation :shrug: I impersonate a programmer for a living
Father of the League Wiki • Friendly Neighbourhood Angry Black Guy™ • NOT British
Originator of the Sim League Cinematic Universe (SLCU)
Super capitalists are parasites. Fite me.
Alternatively, if you agree, you can support a grassroots movement dedicated to educating and organising the working class by buying a digital newspaper subscription. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
(07-19-2017, 07:41 PM)37thchamber Wrote:Probably would have made for more realistic times, but maybe not as many elite times. You might have seen the times top out lower than expected. Hard to say. Yeah, I think i'll just leave it where it's at for now. Another thing I forgot to mention was that I never included decimals. For example if a player had 80 speed and another player had 80 9/10 speed, they were both written down as 80. I think if I put it down as 80.8% of whatever the 40 yard time was we would see more of a difference in times , I also could randomise times on a site like wheeldecide.com with 5 values ranging from +.2 seconds to -.2 seconds so we wouldn't have as much cluster. |
|