“Competitiveness, what the hell is that?” you might say. Is it any good? How much should I use? These and other questions won’t be answered by me here, but I’m going to dip my toes into the world of competitiveness and try and figure out how much people are investing into it, and what rewards are there for those who took the plunge and put hunners into the stat.
I will use cornerbacks for this initial analysis but will come back later with a wider and less in-depth discussion of the amount different positions are putting into competitiveness.
I took a look at how much cornerbacks were putting into competitiveness, how much TPE it cost them to get there and what percentage of their total TPE that was. I’ll also compare two players pretty close in TPE, who varied in their approach to competitiveness investment and see the early effect it has had on their stats.
The mean Competitiveness was 58.59, the median was 60 and the mode was 75. The average percentage of total TPE spent on the stat was 4.78%.
So, in general, ten players went for the maximum competitiveness, For Physical corners, this was 80 Competitiveness at the cost of 100 TPE, and for Cover and Slot Corners it was 75 at the cost of 80 TPE. Most of these corners were plus 1000 TPE players with multiple traits so it makes sense they had enough to be investing in it. They put between 6.67% and 9.7% of their overall TPE into Competitiveness. There were two bold souls who went for full competitiveness whilst having lower TPE totals, spending 12.03% (Player A - 665 TPE) and 15.09% (Player C - 530 TPE) of their total TPE on the stat. They didn’t have any traits yet either so these two will be interesting to look at further. Another player with 699 TPE (Player B) only put 9 TPE into competitiveness so their total was 44, this was only 1.29% of their total TPE. I’ll compare the season they are having to the player who stacked competitiveness as an initial look at how effective competitiveness is over other stats. They are both cover corners too so that helps to compare them. Here are their stats side by side:
![[Image: HXoPSIt.png]](https://i.imgur.com/HXoPSIt.png)
We can see Player A has higher strength, whilst Player B has higher Agility. The rest of the stats are quite similar. The big difference is 82 Agility and 100 Speed compared to 77 Agility and 95 Speed. These are pretty high-cost upgrades, which Player A put into Competitiveness instead. We would expect Player B to be able to get to tackles better, and keep up with receivers better resulting in more tackles and passes defended, whilst Player A should make more impact with their tackles. I will now show what stats they have achieved so far this season.
Player A
![[Image: MC5jNSR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/MC5jNSR.png)
Player B
![[Image: lJVyAcL.png]](https://i.imgur.com/lJVyAcL.png)
We see that Player B has 5 more tackles and one more Pass Defended but Player A has 3 Forced Fumbles in only 19 tackles. That is pretty insane and probably unsustainable but it could point to competitiveness being really worth it if you have a choice between that and maxing speed/agility. It will be interesting to see what happens for the rest of the season.
Let’s also take a look at the other lower TPE player who invested in Competitiveness, Player C.
Here are their attributes:
![[Image: hqFpYdr.png]](https://i.imgur.com/hqFpYdr.png)
They were the lowest TPE player with max competitiveness with only 530 TPE overall. They only have 35 Tackling so let us see if competitiveness can make up for a lack of other attributes.
![[Image: 8GJuFvZ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8GJuFvZ.png)
Their lower agility didn’t really affect them from getting to tackles as they still had 28. The low tackling costs them a bit as they have 3 missed tackles whilst the other players have none. No fumbles whilst having 9 more tackles than Player A shows that it is probably worthwhile to invest in Tackling as well as Competitiveness.
All this is very early, and we can’t really take anything concrete from it due to the tiny sample size, but it is still interesting. I’d say that after you have gotten most of your stats up to the point where they start to become really expensive it might be a good idea to stick some more in competitiveness, especially if you are a defensive back looking for fumbles.
Word count = 715
I will use cornerbacks for this initial analysis but will come back later with a wider and less in-depth discussion of the amount different positions are putting into competitiveness.
I took a look at how much cornerbacks were putting into competitiveness, how much TPE it cost them to get there and what percentage of their total TPE that was. I’ll also compare two players pretty close in TPE, who varied in their approach to competitiveness investment and see the early effect it has had on their stats.
The mean Competitiveness was 58.59, the median was 60 and the mode was 75. The average percentage of total TPE spent on the stat was 4.78%.
So, in general, ten players went for the maximum competitiveness, For Physical corners, this was 80 Competitiveness at the cost of 100 TPE, and for Cover and Slot Corners it was 75 at the cost of 80 TPE. Most of these corners were plus 1000 TPE players with multiple traits so it makes sense they had enough to be investing in it. They put between 6.67% and 9.7% of their overall TPE into Competitiveness. There were two bold souls who went for full competitiveness whilst having lower TPE totals, spending 12.03% (Player A - 665 TPE) and 15.09% (Player C - 530 TPE) of their total TPE on the stat. They didn’t have any traits yet either so these two will be interesting to look at further. Another player with 699 TPE (Player B) only put 9 TPE into competitiveness so their total was 44, this was only 1.29% of their total TPE. I’ll compare the season they are having to the player who stacked competitiveness as an initial look at how effective competitiveness is over other stats. They are both cover corners too so that helps to compare them. Here are their stats side by side:
We can see Player A has higher strength, whilst Player B has higher Agility. The rest of the stats are quite similar. The big difference is 82 Agility and 100 Speed compared to 77 Agility and 95 Speed. These are pretty high-cost upgrades, which Player A put into Competitiveness instead. We would expect Player B to be able to get to tackles better, and keep up with receivers better resulting in more tackles and passes defended, whilst Player A should make more impact with their tackles. I will now show what stats they have achieved so far this season.
Player A
Player B
We see that Player B has 5 more tackles and one more Pass Defended but Player A has 3 Forced Fumbles in only 19 tackles. That is pretty insane and probably unsustainable but it could point to competitiveness being really worth it if you have a choice between that and maxing speed/agility. It will be interesting to see what happens for the rest of the season.
Let’s also take a look at the other lower TPE player who invested in Competitiveness, Player C.
Here are their attributes:
They were the lowest TPE player with max competitiveness with only 530 TPE overall. They only have 35 Tackling so let us see if competitiveness can make up for a lack of other attributes.
Their lower agility didn’t really affect them from getting to tackles as they still had 28. The low tackling costs them a bit as they have 3 missed tackles whilst the other players have none. No fumbles whilst having 9 more tackles than Player A shows that it is probably worthwhile to invest in Tackling as well as Competitiveness.All this is very early, and we can’t really take anything concrete from it due to the tiny sample size, but it is still interesting. I’d say that after you have gotten most of your stats up to the point where they start to become really expensive it might be a good idea to stick some more in competitiveness, especially if you are a defensive back looking for fumbles.
Word count = 715
![[Image: ZSzYLsx.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ZSzYLsx.png)
![[Image: bam_bam.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/742845006389444778/780215137557807124/bam_bam.png)
