 |
01-16-2014, 01:46 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
FOF7 and Draftee Combine Scores
So, how does that combine score really relate to the quality of the player drafted? I did some black box analysis of this in 2007 and I will slowly (note: slowly) be doing the same analysis for FOF7.
Methodology: I started a league with the combine accuracy set to 100 and advanced the league through the first season to the Pre-Free Agency stage. I will use the FOF 2004 draft file creator to create 1,000 player drafts of players at each position (QB, RB, FB, ... , S) and each quality level (625, 600, 575, ... , 375). I will import each draft into FOF7 and see what combine scores are generated from the quality of player. I will export the data using the built-in Data Export Utility. The output will be brought into Excel and parsed. I will present the raw data at the top and my observations at the bottom. I will try to make a new post for each position as I get the data exported and analyzed. Hopefully this data will be useful because it's a metric ton of work. Data to follow. Edit: Suggestions for use: First and foremost, let me say that this analysis is not guaranteed to produce results. It is not intended to provide absolutes. Jim has created an incredible game that has outliers who "break the mold". This was intended as black box analysis of the most accurate look at draftees that we have available. That being said, here are some ways this data could be used: 1. Finding delineation points in draftee scores. Data tends to indicate that there is little difference in QBs with a 4.60 40 yard dash time vs. 4.63 but there is a bigger difference between 4.63 and 4.66. 2. "Banding" of players. It would be very easy to write an Excel macro or function to estimate or "band" a combine rating based on position player. For example, a QB with a dash of 4.63 looks like it is between a 625 and 550 while a Solecismc score of 42 for the same player would indicate somewhere between 625 and 475. These bands could be summed, averaged, what have you to compare between two similar-looking and/or -graded players of the same position. 3. Mathematical weights and values based on individual combine scores. I am going to try this for a few seasons to see how this works out. If it does, I might post my method (if I get back to my winning ways in the CFL).  Last edited by stretch : 01-17-2014 at 08:56 AM. |
||
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 02:14 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Mascot
Join Date: Mar 2009
|
Quote:
My feedback would be to put the accuracy to 50 I think most leagues are going there and would probably have the most impact for the community. I started this with 625s but got derailed do to work. Will be glad to help you crunch the numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 02:16 PM
|
#3 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
QBs
Skipping Workouts
Out of 11,000 QBs 461 did not receive combine scores. These 461 QBs were scattered somewhat evenly throughout the ratings. Code:
40 Yard Dash Code:
Solecismic Code:
Strength Code:
Agility Code:
Long Jump Code:
Position Drill Code:
Notes Players' combines must be taken as a whole. Individual combine scores are not guarantees of the exact quality of the player. For example, a QB draftee may have a 40 time of 4.43, indicating he could be one of the best in the game. However, if his Solecismic is 9, Strength is 9, Agility is 8.3, Long Jump distance is 90, and his position skill is 50, this is likely just a really fast QB who won't be a very good one. Indicators of good players:
Indicators of bad players
Cautions
Last edited by stretch : 01-17-2014 at 08:45 AM. Reason: Clarifying a few things. |
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 02:17 PM
|
#4 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
Crud. I've done a truckload of work at 0 already with QBs done and RBs almost done. I may have to complete those at 0 and possibly come back later at 50. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 02:28 PM
|
#5 |
|
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
When you say "each quality level" does that mean that you set all ratings to that level? (So a 550 means that every skill was 550, for example?)
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 03:01 PM
|
#6 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
That is correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 03:27 PM
|
#7 |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Louisburg, KS
|
__________________
TRA, the Royal Ape |
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 08:03 PM
|
#8 | |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-16-2014, 11:54 PM
|
#9 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
** in the correlated skillsets. Which, by the way, old 2k7 combine correlations may or may not apply any longer. It might not be nearly as simple as "bench is 50/50 deep/long" or "agility is pass blocking." |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 04:18 AM
|
#10 | |
|
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting there's evidence that the old correlations no longer exist? Or just that we shouldn't necessarily take it for granted that they do? If the former...please share at least a skeleton of what you're seeing. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 06:08 AM
|
#11 | ||
|
Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
Because of this...
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! |
||
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 08:39 AM
|
#12 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
I will rephrase these. I meant "indicative" as "points to but doesn't guarantee". I'll change these now. Also, I am editing the first post to add "Suggestions for use." Last edited by stretch : 01-17-2014 at 08:45 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 11:43 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Mascot
Join Date: Mar 2009
|
Quote:
+ 1 here. First cut I look at on these is around the 500 or 425 level. Does this guy meet each combine at a 95% confidence he's over a 500 level player. A player with > 500 on all his sills. is going to be a damn good player. A player with over 425 in all skills will be a decent performer. Anything else is gravy. I really look to see a cut of players that I have a high confidence will perform. From there, I try to cull out the superstars. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 01:20 PM
|
#14 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
This is correct. However, before game obfuscation wouldn't you expect a, say, 600-level player to have higher average combine scores than, say, a 425-level player? We can't look at data before obfuscation, therefore we need to have SOME type of fixed point of reference off which to build. If we just set the overall value, then you may be looking at a 600-level player with a horrible single score that skews the data. Let's talk concrete examples. Suppose you have two QBs that the game, before obfuscation, rates as 475-level QBs. So, suppose the QB individual skill ratings look like: Code:
That could result in combines that look like: Code:
The presence of the great speed and great strength for QB2 are offset by the weak combine scores elsewhere. As I edited the posts above to say, the 4.50 and 16 do not guarantee a superstar QB but those combine numbers are that of an outstanding QB whether the QB is actually outstanding. None of this works, however, unless we have some picture of what a 625-rated 40-time is, and strength, and solecismic score, etc. That's why the individual ratings were set in the input file. Failure to do so will put our data all over the map and render it useless. By looking at a draftee's each individual combine score and seeing what range it falls in, we might be able to determine, approximately, where the QB could wind up overall, no matter what our scout says. That 19/25 may wind up being a 50/50 decent backup and "creep up." It makes sense in my head and I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining it. Last edited by stretch : 01-17-2014 at 01:21 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 01:34 PM
|
#15 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
RBs
Running Backs
Skipping Workouts Out of 11,000 RBs 439 did not receive combine scores. These 439 RBs were scattered somewhat evenly throughout the ratings. Code:
40 Yard Dash Code:
Solecismic Code:
Strength Code:
Agility Code:
Long Jump Code:
Position Drill Code:
Notes Players' combines must be taken as a whole. Individual combine scores are not guarantees of the exact quality of the player. For example, a QB draftee may have a 40 time of 4.43, indicating he could be one of the best in the game. However, if his Solecismic is 9, Strength is 9, Agility is 8.3, Long Jump distance is 90, and his position skill is 50, this is likely just a really fast QB who won't be a very good one. Important high rating delineation points:
Important low rating delineation points:
Cautions
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 01:43 PM
|
#16 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
You're right. Here's where I'd rate that QB: Dash = 4.81 = ~500 rating Sol = ?? = unknown, skipping Agi = ?? = unknown, skipping Str = 7 = ~400 rating Jump = 101 = ~425 rating Pos = 90 = ~600 rating Ignoring the unknown values, (500+400+600+425)/4 = 481.25. You probably have a QB (depending on what the Solecismic and Agility combines are) that has the combines of between a 475 and 500 player. These scores can be used for approximations. We'll never be guaranteed to know but it can help differentiate between potential 45/45 players and 32/32 players that never amount to much. Last edited by stretch : 01-17-2014 at 01:44 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 08:52 PM
|
#17 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Jan 2013
|
This is great stuff thanks so much.
|
|
|
|
|
01-17-2014, 11:54 PM
|
#18 | |
|
College Prospect
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
The latter, Quik. I'd share if it were the former but I haven't even played the game. It looks like a lot about how combines are generated has changed -- at least existing knowledge about correlations should probably be re-verified? This study is kinda a Malcpow-for-FOF7, and that one relied on correlation knowledge in order to draw conclusions. Every sign about FOF7 points to far more obscuring and far less 'guarantees', so even a subtle change in correlations can affect the value of a study greatly. |
|
|
|
|
|
01-20-2014, 01:02 PM
|
#19 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Fullbacks
Skipping Workouts Out of 11,000 FBs 404 did not receive combine scores (Error 404 - Workout not found. Ahem...moving on...). These 404 were scattered somewhat evenly throughout the ratings. Code:
40 Yard Dash Code:
Solecismic Code:
Strength Code:
Agility Code:
Long Jump Code:
Position Drill Code:
Notes Players' combines must be taken as a whole. Individual combine scores are not guarantees of the exact quality of the player. For example, a QB draftee may have a 40 time of 4.43, indicating he could be one of the best in the game. However, if his Solecismic is 9, Strength is 9, Agility is 8.3, Long Jump distance is 90, and his position skill is 50, this is likely just a really fast QB who won't be a very good one. Important high rating delineation points:
Important low rating delineation points:
Cautions
Last edited by stretch : 01-20-2014 at 01:03 PM. |
|
|
|
|
01-20-2014, 01:11 PM
|
#20 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Tight Ends
Skipping Workouts Out of 11,000 TEs 430 did not receive combine scores. These 430 were scattered somewhat evenly throughout the ratings. Code:
40 Yard Dash Code:
Solecismic Code:
Strength Code:
Agility Code:
Long Jump Code:
Position Drill Code:
Notes Players' combines must be taken as a whole. Individual combine scores are not guarantees of the exact quality of the player. For example, a QB draftee may have a 40 time of 4.43, indicating he could be one of the best in the game. However, if his Solecismic is 9, Strength is 9, Agility is 8.3, Long Jump distance is 90, and his position skill is 50, this is likely just a really fast QB who won't be a very good one. Important high rating delineation points:
Important low rating delineation points:
Cautions
|
|
|
|
|
01-20-2014, 01:22 PM
|
#21 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Wide Receivers
Skipping Workouts Out of 11,000 WRs 413 did not receive combine scores. These were scattered somewhat evenly throughout the ratings. Code:
40 Yard Dash Code:
Solecismic Code:
Strength Code:
Agility Code:
Long Jump Code:
Position Drill Code:
Notes Players' combines must be taken as a whole. Individual combine scores are not guarantees of the exact quality of the player. For example, a QB draftee may have a 40 time of 4.43, indicating he could be one of the best in the game. However, if his Solecismic is 9, Strength is 9, Agility is 8.3, Long Jump distance is 90, and his position skill is 50, this is likely just a really fast QB who won't be a very good one. Important high rating delineation points:
Important low rating delineation points:
Cautions
|
|
|
|
|
01-28-2014, 02:30 PM
|
#22 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Jan 2013
|
Could you outline how you go from using the data export utility to getting the draft combines into a spreadsheet?
Right now I hit 'export data' and get 27 league named files, but have no idea how to find the draft combine data in them or how to get that information into a spreadsheet. |
|
|
|
|
01-29-2014, 09:41 AM
|
#23 | |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
When you click Data Export, it will create a bunch of CSV files in a directory. The file that you're looking for is called "rookies.csv". This file will only export if Free Agency has begun (I know this is right) but the draft has not completed (I believe this end point is right). |
|
|
|
|
|
01-29-2014, 09:42 AM
|
#24 |
|
n00b
Join Date: May 2007
|
Sorry for the recent lack of data, all. I have been working 55-60 hour weeks and I just haven't had a lot of time for analysis. I hope to get some work done on this sometime this week.
Last edited by stretch : 01-29-2014 at 09:42 AM. |
|
|
|
|
01-29-2014, 07:43 PM
|
#25 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Jan 2013
|
Thank you, found the file ('rookies'). I really appreciate your help!
|
|
|
|
|
01-30-2014, 06:08 PM
|
#26 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Sep 2011
|
So what exactly should I assume is going on with guys whose combine scores don't match their scouting bars at all?
Let's say I'm looking at a QB with scores of 50 Solecismic, 4.50 dash, 16 bench, 7.00 agility, 9'8" jump, and 99 position drill, all apparently elite scores, but he's just middling in bars. Should the scouting bars always just get ignored in a situation like this? |
|
|
|
|
01-30-2014, 06:24 PM
|
#27 | |
|
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
In the old version, pretty much yes. This version, most likely, but it remains to be seen if anything has changed. Unlikely.
__________________
Hollywood Media Whores FOBL CHAMPION 2007 2020 2035 |
|
|
|
|
|
01-30-2014, 10:55 PM
|
#28 |
|
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Calgary
|
I have such a hard time committing to draft a guy in the early rounds (1, 2, 3) based solely on combine scores, especially if his bars are not even "middling" but hovering toward zero. Is he really going to creep above 50?
In later rounds, I'll try and grab good combine scores and did notice one guy I gave up on early approach 50 with another team but it wasn't a big loss. A MLB who can't stop the run? A DE with no pass rush skills? A CB who can't cover M2M? I don't care how good his combine scores are if I see players like that. |
|
|
|
|
01-31-2014, 11:05 AM
|
#29 | |
|
Mascot
Join Date: Jul 2005
|
Quote:
I agree |
|
|
|
|
|
01-31-2014, 06:05 PM
|
#30 |
|
n00b
Join Date: Jan 2013
|
My approach is:
If combines match bars, very good. If combines are higher than bars, good. If bars are higher than combines, not so good. |
|
|
|
|
02-04-2014, 05:04 PM
|
#31 | |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
|
Quote:
I have to disagree with the answer you were given. While we can't speak to exactly how everything is working in this version, in the older version you needed to look at specific bars as they were static bars. For instance, with a QB the Sense Rush bar was the static bar. So, if the above listed QB had a high SR bar it's a sign that his other bars are most likely masked. It's not as simple as that, and neither is drafting, so it's tough to give you cut and dry examples. MalcPow's old drafting thread will give you an idea of what to look for, however how much it correlates to the new game is something I'm still working out. This thread is giving us the data to be able to compare the old to the new. In relation to the example you gave, if ALL the bars were crap then the guy will probably be crap, regardless of his combine scores. However, if there's some indication that he may be better than the sum of his bars say, then he may end up being the elite player his combines showed. |
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2014, 07:58 PM
|
#32 |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jul 2012
|
Did you see better correlation between bars and final developed players in FOF7??
I saw a WR with elite combines but low (around 20s) AD, RR and END starting bars, around 35 3rd down catching and heīs 29% developed also... And am afraid of Drafting him... What would you recommend?? Looking for a better option? Or ignore these bars and go for him?? Our Draft scout was set to 75In FOF2K7 I didnīt have any doubt but here... Last edited by Sharkn20 : 02-07-2014 at 07:59 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-11-2014, 08:32 PM
|
#33 |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
|
How elite?
What was his BPR like? |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2014, 02:18 AM
|
#34 | |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jul 2012
|
Quote:
I'm waiting for TC yet but it looks like between 85-100 bar! |
|
|
|
|
|
05-17-2014, 10:09 AM
|
#35 |
|
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Near Cleveland
|
Any chance you're gonna finish this, stretch? I enjoy using it as a point of reference.
|
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
