(03-27-2020, 10:22 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:I still don't understand how you reach these TPE rankings. For example, you say that Myrtle Beach has the 5th best defense by TPE. Going to compare MB's defensive TPE using the best eleven players that fit into a nickel formation (425, 245 or 335), as that's the defensive formation most commonly used, to one of the teams ranked higher. I've picked Norfolk so that I'm not always dismissing Portland.
MB's nickel defense, ranked 5th in TPE:
DL Longshot, 250 TPE
DL Egghands 184 TPE
DL Clemente 180 TPE
DL Frackerson 100 TPE
LB Mouseman 242 TPE
LB Radson 148 TPE
DB Scott 250 TPE
DB Booker 183 TPE
DB Hellzapoppin 177 TPE
DB Altidor 148 TPE
DB Lanier 102 TPE
1964/11 = 179 average TPE
Norfolk's nickel defense, ranked 3rd in TPE:
DL Jimbo Jr 232 TPE
DL Rikiya 177 TPE
LB Scott 172 TPE
LB Marshall 125 TPE
LB Banks 116 TPE
LB Suzuki 109 TPE
DB Quin 187 TPE
DB Cross 180 TPE
DB Bumper 179 TPE
DB Eriksen 161 TPE
DB Brosley 124 TPE
1762/11 = 160 average TPE
How are you determining which team has the highest TPE? Because MB's defensive TPE is much higher than Norfolk, yet they're ranked 5th and Norfolk are ranked 3rd.
I've answered this question a few times now, however due to the fact some of my old power rankings were deleted due to unfortunate circumstances I will answer it again here.
1. I include all players active within the last 2 weeks of the time that I go through each team and put in their players.
2. I only update TPE three teams a season, once before week 1, once before the first playoff game, and one at midseason. The last update was included in last weeks power rankings, before the latest TPE Tracker was update.
3. I don’t just take the top 11 because DSFL rules stipulate (at least in terms of what has been told to me) that DSFL teams must play all players who have updated in the last two weeks.
This means that 1, MB has some low TPE players who have technically updated according to the TPE tracker at the time. Jason Kreuscher is an MB LB that was active on March 7th. His 57 TPE really skews the LB weighting. Since I organize TPE by position and not as a lump sum as you have done, this means that math is slightly different. Now, MB could not be playing this 57 TPE player, but since he appears in the TPE tracker, I include him in the power rankings. Minnesota’s issues this year are in part due to the fact that they must play an active 76 TPE QB due to DSFL rules. This too plays a factor. This LB is just one example. MB has plenty of low TPE D line men that you did not include in your math.
So, either I am mistaken about this rule and teams can choose to not play low active players, or 2 MB is cheating and not playing all their actives or 3, the TPE tracker is wrong and those MB players don’t exist/are not on their team
Hope this clears that up
