So, high play familiarity good, low play familiarity bad... got that, but how much does it actually impact?

I'm usually one to play by my gut instinct, but it'd be really helpful to get a feel for what the difference is in real terms as I've plays I don't want to run that are close to 100%, with other plays I'm more interested in using at 5% or less. I'm I reducing my chances of a successful play by 95% by taking the unknown play, or is the effect less pronounced?

Any guidance welcome. I searched the forum for half an hour but came up with nothing more concrete than "familiarity good".

Good question.

I'd also like to add whether anyone knows the impact on "team cohesion", i.e., familiarity with a play, of inserting into the lineup younger players with good to great physical attributes but less play familiarity versus older, slower and less physically skilled players who have a great deal of play familiarity. In other words. do the older players make up in play recognition, reaction and anticipation for their deteriorating physical skills. That is likely in RL, but is experience much of a factor in MFN. Hopefully, jdavid can give some guidance.

It's very difficult to quantify, too many other factors.

Say you have 100% familiarity with the 2-3 outside runs, but your opponent has 100% defensive familiarity with those same plays, has anticipated their use, and set up a rule. He also has MONSTER ends and slot backs. You will generally get stuffed.

On the other hand, it is 3rd and short, you sub in a fresh WR and go for that 0% LP that everyone forgot was in the playbook. TD! You're a genius! . . . It does happen.

I recently had an opportunity to significantly upgrade a QB. The new guy only knows about half my current playbook well. I've made an effort to call more of the passes he knows well, but he's been struggling. Is it just . . . he will improve as he learns? . . . or some code tweak in a version change that happened about the same time? Then it's time to rethink the playbook. . . . dumb luck? . . . better opponents? . . .

Familiarity will have a greater impact at certain positions than others. My new big dumb LG knows the difference between pass block and run block. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference how well he knows the playbook, but he affects my play familiarity average score.

A team that calls 20 plays they know 100% will generally beat a team with +5 average player ratings that calls 40 plays they know 30% . . . by a lot.

To sum up - high familiarity good, low familiarity bad

TarquinTheDark covered that well. Nice writeup.

But don't forget ColonelFailure, you can't just spam a few familiar plays from your playbook to your advantage. No-no-no-no-no. There's a lil thing called play overuse penalty that can burn you in a heartbeat. It's a balancing act. Especially with the new version, because one play can make a difference in the game a lot more than it used to.

We all used to throw hay makers all game long, but now we have to jab, mix in a couple of hooks, jab again and then maybe get a hay maker in.

All good responses.

I guess the answer is "dunno, but it clearly does something".

He said it is so a player can always get better even if the ratings are full. That’s it. At one point long ago I counted how many plays /practices it took to reach a full bar