Key assumptions:
1) Higher ranked players are generally better than lower ranked players.
2) If I had to blindly bet on a any matchup based on one metric alone, I would go with composite team talent. I believe that it is the single best metric on which is (or should be) the better team and most likely to win.
And yes I know about manziel, anais smith and several other 3* players that were/are much better than 5* players, but I'll gladly take a roster full of 5* and 4* star players (alabama) than one full of 3*.
That being said, I'm wondering if there is an easy way to break down the composite team talent scores a little more.
You can only have 11 players on the field at once and I understand that certain positions you have a 2 deep rotation rather than a designated starter, but even if you correct for that and occasional injuries, it seems like the talent level of your starters is more important than overall team talent.
For example, consider 3 team talent compositions:
Team A: 15 5*, 70 4*
Team B: 85 4*
Team C: 10 5*, 25 4*, 50 3*
I would rather play against Team B than Team C even though Team B would have a higher team composite talent rating.
I would also say Team C has a fighting chance against Team A since the gap between their top ~30-40 players is not as big as the team composite talent might suggestion.
1) Higher ranked players are generally better than lower ranked players.
2) If I had to blindly bet on a any matchup based on one metric alone, I would go with composite team talent. I believe that it is the single best metric on which is (or should be) the better team and most likely to win.
And yes I know about manziel, anais smith and several other 3* players that were/are much better than 5* players, but I'll gladly take a roster full of 5* and 4* star players (alabama) than one full of 3*.
That being said, I'm wondering if there is an easy way to break down the composite team talent scores a little more.
You can only have 11 players on the field at once and I understand that certain positions you have a 2 deep rotation rather than a designated starter, but even if you correct for that and occasional injuries, it seems like the talent level of your starters is more important than overall team talent.
For example, consider 3 team talent compositions:
Team A: 15 5*, 70 4*
Team B: 85 4*
Team C: 10 5*, 25 4*, 50 3*
I would rather play against Team B than Team C even though Team B would have a higher team composite talent rating.
I would also say Team C has a fighting chance against Team A since the gap between their top ~30-40 players is not as big as the team composite talent might suggestion.