Question about draft class talent.

[Ben E Lou]

(This mainly pertains to the BFL, but I'm posting it here to get a wider viewing and potentially wider range of viewpoints on these QB/WR nerfed draft classes that I'm generating.)

Taking a step back from how FOF creates talent, how should I create talent? I just added some code to generate 500 draft classes using my current percentages and get the average talent, and here's where I have landed right now.

OVL RTG	AVG # PER DRAFT CLASS
40-49	40.6
50-59	22.6
60-69	8.0
70-79	5.6
80-89	7.0
90-100	3.3

(Yes, according to csv.txt, FOF generates more 70-79 guys than 80-89 guys....)

The thinking here is partly based on an observation from other MP leagues: that at any given time in a 75-injury league (BFL's setting), there exist roughly 8 classes worth of fully-developed talent that hasn't dropped off the table yet due to aging. If that's true, then this amount of overall talent means that roughly half of the league's starters will be rated 50/50 or better, and around 90% will be 40/40 or better.


But I'm wondering about a system that's more like this...

90+: One every 20 years per position. (.7 per year)
80-89: One per decade per position. (1.4 per year)
70-79: Five per decade per position. (7.0 per year)

...and then leave the lower numbers basically where they are, but with a higher percentage of 60-69 players.

60-69: 14.8 per year
50-59: 22.6 per year
40-49: 40.6 per year

And then I'd nerf the QBs and WRs down to max 55 instead of 60 to account for the lowering of defensive talent.

Thoughts?

[Julio Riddols]

Do it. And if possible, make all draftees come to the draft without combine info.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

And if possible, make all draftees come to the draft without combine info.

Not possible. I'm just using the generator. There's no magic here. FOF decides which ones get the no-combine tag.

[Julio Riddols]

Damn that FOF... I like the rest though, sounds like a solid way to do this.. and with the specialists, the real value of the lower rated draftees may be higher depending on how people operate their individual teams. It'll be nice to have to try and gameplan differently for different types of offenses, etc.

[Subby]

Why add more 60+ rated players?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Subby

Why add more 60+ rated players?

I'm not adding more 60+ rated players. I'm adding more 60-69 rated players because I'mreducing 70 and ups. There were 15.9 players rated 70 and up per draft class. Now in my current testing, I'm getting right around the 9.1 I'd expect (.7@90+, 1.4@80-89, 7.0@70-79.) So those 6.8 players per year rated 70 and up are being replaced by 6.8 guys rated 60-69. The total of 60 and up players remains at


WAS

60-69	8.0
70-79	5.6
80-89	7.0
90-100	3.3

TOTAL: 23.9 players per year rated 60 and up.

IS, IN CURRENT TESTING
90+: .7 per year
80-89: 1.4 per year
70-79: 7.0 per year
60-69: 14.8 per year

TOTAL: 23.9 players per rated 60 and up.

I guess another way of looking at it is that I'm shifting 6.8 players per season from the 70-100 range into the 60-69 range.

[scorp]

IDK, if we lower the number of 70 and higher players, aren't we pushing the values of those guys up like QB's and WRs are normally.
Don't we risk trades that someone gives up a lot to get a 80 rated guys since they are so rare?
In part the BFL is looking to even things out so people don't go after studs and give up a lot. I like the idea of more 60 rated guys and less 70 80 90 guys, but once those guys get to rare you open another possible issue in players getting over valued.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by scorp

IDK, if we lower the number of 70 and higher players, aren't we pushing the values of those guys up like QB's and WRs are normally.
Don't we risk trades that someone gives up a lot to get a 80 rated guys since they are so rare?
In part the BFL is looking to even things out so people don't go after studs and give up a lot. I like the idea of more 60 rated guys and less 70 80 90 guys, but once those guys get to rare you open another possible issue in players getting over valued.

That's one that we'll have to see, but given the engine that we have, I don't see that happening. People make outlandish trades for QBs and WRs because they're major different-makers by themselves. I don't have any reason to believe that adding a single 95/95 player at other positions will have the impact of adding even a single 70/70 player at WR, therefore I don't see anyone giving up outlandish value to get such a player. And if I'm wrong and it happens and makes a huge difference, we can tweak it.

I'm probably most concerned here about whether the amount of 40-50 talent is "right" so that it's conducive to creating an environment where we'd often draft a 5th rounder hoping that he'll contribute immediately--something that good FOF MP players never have to do.

[scorp]

If a good portion of the 40/50 guys have combines/eventually bars that are useful for their position I see no problem with that.
more specifically WR's and QB's if all the 40-50 guys have poor GD/BPR everyone will be all over the 60 guys.

[PhinsFan]

Ben's said:
I'm probably most concerned here about whether the amount of 40-50 talent is
"right" so that it's conducive to creating an environment where we'd often draft
a 5th rounder hoping that he'll contribute immediately--something that good FOF
MP players never have to do.

Does this mean that you would add to the 40-50 talent pool and decrease the 39 and down talent pool?? Or would you add to the 40-50 talent pool and decrease say the 60-69?

I assume you would add to the 40-50 talent pool and that would lower the 39 and lower talent pool. If this is the case I would think that could entice some GM's to go for a player in the 40-50 range in the later rounds in a draft. I for one would like to see some value in the later rounds of the draft, so I would like this idea of increasing the 40-50 talent pool. I am not sure how much to increase it but I would think something like this:

32 teams * 3 rounds of the draft (4,5,6 or however you look at it) = 96
so maybe add 100 more 40-50 players talent players would be good.

Maybe even better is to multiply 32 teams by 2 for 64...nice round number would be add 70 more.

In summary I like the idea to add to the 40-50 talent pool. I also am assuming that we are talking about 40-49 and 50-59 in this conversation.

[Erik Holland]

So why do you wan't to get rid of the superstar players? is this because you wan't all teams to be almost the same?