% developed

[isaccoubaldi]

In the draft combine the developed % is an indicator of what?
My idea is that if the % is low the player need more times to developed his full potential. Is right?

[BreizhManu]

it's red bars vs green bars, the more developped the more closed to his real values.

[isaccoubaldi]

so a low development % is negative?

[Dutch]

Player X is 20/90 (22% dev) and Player Y is 70/90 (78% dev). Which would you rather have?

Low develpment is a negative in the sense that's it's a larger hill to climb. The green bars are the players "mask". So if you draft a guy and there's a lot of green, that's good in the sense of potential, but bad in the sense that it would take a lot of development to reach that potential. If the development happens slowly, you might have a dud on your hands. But if the player has good combines, there is reason to believe that even a low developed player can reach his potential.

[bulletsponge]

someone drafted a wr #3 overall in the PFL that was 1% developed. i think hes going into camp with around 90 potential though

[ddrrbb]

Though development is not always accurate. I've seen a stud WR with 10% development hit the roster at 50/80. I also remember a stud guard with under 5% development hitting the roster about 40/80.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by ddrrbb

Though development is not always accurate. I've seen a stud WR with 10% development hit the roster at 50/80. I also remember a stud guard with under 5% development hitting the roster about 40/80.

Not necessarily saying that it isn't accurate... but perhaps that it isn't measuring quite what you think it is.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not necessarily saying that it isn't accurate... but perhaps that it isn't measuring quite what you think it is.

What does it measure, then? The accuracy of the blue bars?

[QuikSand]

I guess what I'd say about the %Dev stat is that it pretty clearly isn't quite as simple as this:

Player X is 20/90 (22% dev) and Player Y is 70/90 (78% dev).

A quick look at any handful of pre-camp rookies shows that it isn't as simple as that.

Obviously the share of red/green bars is a factor. But I think what is embedded in that calculation is some recognition of the various kinds of ratings. To use an obvious example, Big Play Receiving is a rating that essentially just shows up fully developed in every rookie receiver. So, a guy with a 50/50 there appears to be "fully developed" by his big red bar there, but that doesn't seem to give him any real credit toward his %Dev calculation, since that rating doesn't grow toward its potential as a function of development (like several others). So, a 0% developed player wouldn't be a guy with a rating like 0/30 or 0/60 in every single category... but for many he'd be fully red, in some he'd be partially red, and in many he'd probably have no red at all. But a guy like that, depending on the mix of skills he has to grow toward,m could easily be any of 5/50, 15/50, or 25/50.

I also believe that positional experience plays a role in the % developed calculation, but I can't say whether I ever looked into it in any detail, or just sort of assumed that to be so.

[isaccoubaldi]

What do you think about the velocity of the development for the players after they leave the TC? Is the same for all the players or there are some differences (intelligence, mentoring, time of play, ecc.)?

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by isaccoubaldi

What do you think about the velocity of the development for the players after they leave the TC? Is the same for all the players or there are some differences (intelligence, mentoring, time of play, ecc.)?

Yes, mentoring, in-game action, coordinators "young talent" bar, probably chance... I used to think intelligence, too, but who knows.

* * *
So if I understand correctly, QuickSand, you're saying that %developed is a function of non-static bars. Very interesting, thanks.

[bighouserulez]

Which would make sense since those bars are pretty much stagnant from the beginning. It might help to reveal a little more if this is true.

[Celeval]

IIRC from 2k4, it worked like this (OL example in parens):

Each stat had a potential value (RB: 50, PB: 60, BS: 70)
Some stats were 100% developed from the start (BS: 70/70)
The others were aligned with percent developed (50% developed, RB 25/50, PB 30/60)
Then scouting error was applied, which had slightly different formulae for current and potential, and for each stat (like the matched pair discussion) so you get something like this: (RB 28/52, PB: 28/57).

Then the overall rating is a calculation based on the shown values. For the sake of argument, let's say all three are worth .35 towards the total value, and you get ((28+28+70)*.35/(52+57+70)*.35) = 44/63. Note that at 50% developed, it's not lined exactly up with the current/overall because blocking strength adds in.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Firefly

* *
So if I understand correctly, QuickSand, you're saying that %developed is a function of non-static bars. Very interesting, thanks.

To make it even more complicated, there seem to be three kinds of skills:
* those where the player comes out of college all red (examples: big-play ability, pass rush strength)
* those where the player is already experienced but still has green (examples: bump and run defense, special teams)
* those where the player has a lot of green to gain (examples: pass blocking technique, route running)

As QuikSand pointed out, some bars start at all red, and some can be completely green. The in-between set of skills are bars where half the bar is red, no matter how much developed the player is.

[TurfToe]

Wasn't a previous explanation provided that skills are either physical in nature or learned skills? Meaning Big Play Receiving may be based on a physical trait that is defined and set as a rookie and will only move down as the player ages and declines while the other non-physical/learned skills are what have potential and are developed with experience, mentoring, etc. I'll try to find that explanation and post a link to it...

edit:

In the March 2008 Q&A with Jim (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...62#post1686862) this was discussed:

"3. Last month, you mentioned that "physical skills" and "experience skills" exist in FOF. Will you explain a bit more about what that means?

There are several types of aging curves built into the game, and several different types of skills. With more physical skills, rookies have a higher red bar percentage right off the bat, and deterioration begins near or after the player reaches the peak experience level for his position. With more experience skills, rookies have a higher green bar percentage right off the bat, and deterioration starts slightly later."

There is good discussion that follows to explain how physical skills and experience skills look throughout a player's lifecycle.