Alternative PB Scoring System



  • Threads pop up over time regarding complaints over the PB scoring system. Normally there are two sides to the argument:
    1: the PB scoring system is shit
    2: we all know the PB scoring system so why complain
    Those who tend to go with option 2 tend to not say the current system is good, but simply it's in black and white, which I personally think is the most important.

    I would like to know if you have an alternative. As this comes up lot, try and keep the handbags to other threads.



  • Personally wouldn't change the current system. People would have bought their portfolio's based on it and it would cause pandemonium to change it now. One thing I would like to added to it however is taking into account the overall rating per match.

    For example, if a player got a 6.8 rating, he would get 68 points. An 8.9 would get an additional 89 points and so on. It would make a player that had a really good game have an advantage and shouldn't be too hard to do. Whoscored.com provides this information for every game.



  • @Lukeroro

    I'm less worried about 'pandemonium' because any changes could be phased in over long periods of time, much like the Share Split, giving people ample opportunity to update their portfolios.

    I'd like to try model some tweaks to see what works before putting in a proposal. That said, I have a few ideas on where I'd start.

    Right now the system favours wingers over any other position but I feel with effective use of coefficient modifiers on the existing system, we could find a way to have a more representative playing field, whilst keeping everything transparent.

    Incentives/Rewards for progression would be a nice touch.



  • 2 is the logical option.

    Only an idiot would buy players not based on the rules stated clearly in black & white.

    So if you do, it's up to you to adjust your portfolio - not the rest of us who have read the T&Cs.

    It's the same argument for MB too.



  • @Marco27 said in Alternative PB Scoring System:

    Personally wouldn't change the current system. People would have bought their portfolio's based on it and it would cause pandemonium to change it now. One thing I would like to added to it however is taking into account the overall rating per match.

    For example, if a player got a 6.8 rating, he would get 68 points. An 8.9 would get an additional 89 points and so on. It would make a player that had a really good game have an advantage and shouldn't be too hard to do. Whoscored.com provides this information for every game.

    I like this idea in theory, but why use whoscored? I think this would be really problematic (combining two scores from different sources). Although the overall performance should be factored in somehow as you suggest. Does Opta award an official MOTM?

    I think the easiest improvement which wouldn't upset too many would be the addition of a GK category. Not strictly speaking an improvement to the scoring matrix, but an improvement to dividends and payouts.



  • I like the overall pb system but would like to see successfull dribbles or maybe ground covered added to this along with a man of the match. But im maybe just saying this because id like to see sancho score higher 🙂

    Does anyone use the one football app. If so its quite good at scoring players it must use the opta scoring system and actually tells you the best rated player on the pitch in real time and usually this system gets the man of the match right before its been announced.



  • It would be good if FI could strike a deal with whoscored. I think this was touched on a few months ago where someone mocked up an example which was really good. I can't find it anywhere though. Scroll over the player and it tells you their FI price and the stats etc..
    Anyone know who it was who did it?



  • @Dan-w It wasn't a mock up mate. That is on Whoscored now. Just doesn't cover all players yet.

    https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1285027/Preview/England-Premier-League-2018-2019-Bournemouth-Newcastle-United

    There was this new website mock up by @El-Marko89

    https://forums.footballindex.co.uk/topic/5514/i-decided-to-redesign-football-index

    I know FI have spoke him about it. @El-Marko89 anything moving forward between you and FI regarding your design?



  • I don't think dribbles should be taken into account, but "take-ons" should. And there should be something for a "key pass" and minus points for "mistake leading to chance/goal". But I think Opta is a solid scoring system and that shouldn't be messed with.

    The site he created looked amazing.



  • Dribblers are definitely not rewarded. Mbappe for example. But otherwise the system is working very well. You could argue it’s exactly right if the best player in the world keeps winning it over and over again( argie hobbit) By the same token, if fellaini was dominating it, then you knew the PB metric was malfunctioning. 😬



  • The only thing I'd like to see changed in the PB scoring system is getting rid of the game winning goal. It doesn't really have any bearing on how well someone has played and adds in a randomness that you can't really predict.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.