Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Player and Draft Pick Trades

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Player and Draft Pick Trades


    The new FBM 2009 v7.0.5.0 trading algorithm has some improvements (a more accurate relationship between salary and ability); however, it is not an improvement over the old algorithm as far as usefulness. The new algorithm makes it IMPOSSIBLE to improve a team. Trading is now a worthless activity. Under the old algorithm, while flawed, you could trade up. The new algorithm only provides trades that are a MAJOR trade down.

    Playing in "fan" mode:

    Example 1: trading for current year draft picks using the trading block feature
    draft pick cash for a computer pick cash offered for my pick
    1 20 2
    2 11 1
    3 7 0
    4 5 0
    5 4 0
    6 2 0
    7 1 0

    Example 2: trading 7-th round draft picks using the trading block:
    4 draft picks offered by me results in 1 same year same round draft pick offered by the computer opponents. 3 draft picks offered gets NO computer offers.

    Example 3: trading two players (27 and 25 years old) rated at 75 gets offers of players rated below 75. Adding a third player provides little detectable change. Adding a fourth player will sometimes result in players equal or slightly better than the best player offered. This is not realistic. It is very common for teams to trade multiple less talented players to obtain a single better player. Furthermore, teams will trade down to fill a shortfall on their team when they have a surplus a another position. This does not happen with the new algorithm.

    For the person who says just use Commissioner mode: Yes, I know how to use that mode. I don't want to. For me, the interesting part is building the team through trades. There is (was) a challenge to this. There is NO challenge to using the Commissioner mode to build the team. The playing of the season is anticlimactic for me. I use it to provide feedback on how well I built the team.

    Please return to the old trading algorithm. It is at least worth using. The current algorithm may as well not exist.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Re: Player and Draft Pick Trades

    I agree. I do sometimes obtain decent players via trade, but this appears to only due to poor scouting by the team trading them. I would much prefer a game where everyone had the same information and were willing to make trades of essentially equal value to meet the needs of the team. It's absurd to see teams refuse 5 potential starters for a benchwarmer. And it's annoying to have them call me an idiot for even suggesting such a trade.

    The problem, I suspect, is that combining unequal scouting with a willingness to make equal-value trades leads to a lot of bonehead trading. The approriate alogorithm would be for teams to form a statistical "confidence interval" for the value of a player, then trade in a risk-averse manner.

    For example, suppose a team's scouting is accurate to plus or minus 10%. A player scouted at 85 might be anything from 76.5 to 93.5. It would be reasonable to rate your own players toward the uppper end, say 88 to 90, and players offered toward the lower end, around 80 to 82 in this example. For players with significant playing time, this estimates could be combined with observed results. At any rate, it is entirely possible to construct a statistically valid trading algorithm where teams seek to make equal value trades with imperfect information. (Of course, a teams needs should figure heavily in the formula, trading excess players at one position to plug gaps elsewhere, and having little interest in acquiring surplus players at positions you have well covered.)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Re: Player and Draft Pick Trades

    The problem is the current algorithm is risk adverse. I would prefer to see an algorithm where a team trades "equal" value. Value should be determined by the teams scouting report on its players and the players being traded for (not by the true ability of the player). That is how the NFL does it.

    If there are some bargains due to an imperfect algorithm, that is OK. Look at the Redskins recent acquisition of Hall at less than 1/2 million. Teams get rid of players at less than apparent value for many reasons.

    I am 100% with you that a team's needs must figure into the value of a trade. If I have six solid DTs but am weak at DE, I would be willing to trade 2 DTs for a DE that is slightly better than one of my two DTs being traded. The computer trades should have this as part of the evaluation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts