FOF2004: Training Camp Study on Mentors and Contract Status

[cthomer5000]

After a couple of high-profile rookies missed training camp in IHOF (http://www.fof-ihof.com) I had some discussion with a few other owners about whether or not this affected the rookie player. We had some anecdotal evidence to go on (we saw two players take ratings hits while missing camp), but couldn't really answer any questions conclusively. So when undertaking this study, here are the questions I sought to answer:

1. Are rookies punished for missing training camp (not being under contract)?

2. Do mentors help players grow faster during training camp?

[cthomer5000]

Method

I ran series of tests under the following conditions:




under contract with mentor at position
under contract with no mentor
unsigned with mentor at position
unsigned with no mentor
I ran 10 trials for each condition, and was surprised to find out that within each type of test, the post-camp ratings came out identical.

http://www.lovetohate.us/fofc/camp_study.png

[Joe]

so THIS is what the excel questions were about, eh? The geek math war was for a good cause at least. :)

[cthomer5000]

Summary

1. Are rookies punished for missing training camp (not being under contract)?

Yes and no. It can only hurt to have a player miss camp. Not a single player gained a point of current potential while missing training camp, while a majority lost current potential while holding out.

But on the other hand there was no change in future ratings vs. the other trials I ran.

So in short, it hurts the player's short term rating, but appears to have no long-term effect. The amount that it hurts a player seems to vary by player. You can see that in some cases we're talking about a difference of up to 9 points in difference when being signed vs. unsigned for camp.


2. Do mentors help players grow faster during training camp?

No. It's blatantly obvious that the answer to this question is no. Mentors definitely help growth during the season though.

[cthomer5000]

so THIS is what the excel questions were about, eh? The geek math war was for a good cause at least. :)
heh, actually that was about something else. didn't need it in this case due to the results being either all negative or all positive depending upon scenario.

[gottimd]

Wouldn't volatility play a factor in these calculations as well?

[cthomer5000]

Wouldn't volatility play a factor in these calculations as well?
which calculations?

[yabanci]

Thanks for the study. It conforms with what I have always observed and I think your conclusions are correct. It's great to see something on topic around here.

[gottimd]

which calculations?
Any calculations based on rookies, especially. Sometimes a player drafted with High Volatility will "swing" rapidly in either direction no matter if they are signed, unsigned, with or without mentor. These statistics seem to assume that each rookie has 0 volatility.

I would think you need to throw in Volatility ratings, and standardize their effect and add into the chart. As in a player with 90+ vol can jump + or - 10 ratings points, 70+ vol is + or - 8 and so on.

[AlexB]

Interesting stuff: it appears I can now abandon my tactic of signing FA mentors at the end of the 2nd stage FA purely for training camp.

Good work fella!

[cthomer5000]

Any calculations based on rookies, especially. Sometimes a player drafted with High Volatility will "swing" rapidly in either direction no matter if they are signed, unsigned, with or without mentor. These statistics seem to assume that each rookie has 0 volatility.

I would think you need to throw in Volatility ratings, and standardize their effect and add into the chart. As in a player with 90+ vol can jump + or - 10 ratings points, 70+ vol is + or - 8 and so on. I fail to see how volatility is relevant to this study. I'm not studying volatility, I'm studying the effect of being under contract and/or having a mentor in training camp. The fact that that my results were 100% replicable in both cases is proof enough to me.

edit: And especially since volatility is nothing more than how likely a player is to boom or bust, I see no relavance here.

[AlexB]

Any calculations based on rookies, especially. Sometimes a player drafted with High Volatility will "swing" rapidly in either direction no matter if they are signed, unsigned, with or without mentor. These statistics seem to assume that each rookie has 0 volatility.

I would think you need to throw in Volatility ratings, and standardize their effect and add into the chart. As in a player with 90+ vol can jump + or - 10 ratings points, 70+ vol is + or - 8 and so on.

But these are tests for the same 10(?) players, and their situations differ only in one way each time. Volatility may affect an individual case, but in this study obviously volatility remains the same for each player in each instance, and therefore the test that cthomer ran shows the norm for players as a general rule.

Your point about volatility is right, but is not what cthmer was testing.

[gottimd]

Ok, I see what you both are saying. Sorry for the confusion, just wanted to clarify something. I am now grabbing a blunt object and beating my self senseless over the head.

[cthomer5000]

Ok, I see what you both are saying. Sorry for the confusion, just wanted to clarify something. I am now grabbing a blunt object and beating my self senseless over the head.
What your're getting at would be a different, and probably more interesting study. Although I'm not personally sure volatility has any effect on the rate at which a player grows. The speed at which a guy develops seems to be specific to the guy, and obviously hidden from view. But time after time I've seen that some guys simply grow much faster than others.

[AlexB]

What your're getting at would be a different, and probably more interesting study. Although I'm not personally sure volatility has any effect on the rate at which a player grows. The speed at which a guy develops seems to be specific to the guy, and obviously hidden from view. But time after time I've seen that some guys simply grow much faster than others.

Volatility being the x-factor that defines the likelihood of a player experiencing major +/- ratings changes, rather than how fast they achieve/exceed their future potential

[gottimd]

Doesn't this x-factor of volatility not only determine the "how fast they grow into their potential" but also effect their ratings right out of the gate? As in a draft, you usually take a high rated player with low volatility in the beginning rounds and later you go for the higher volatility because you want them to boom. So you may draft a guy that has all high blue markers, but once signed he sucks ape poopy (aka bust). Does this happen to rookies as well after camp or is it just a known bust right when you sign them?

[AlexB]

In my undertanding and experience, from non-empirical test studies, volatity doesn't affact the rate of growth, just the potential for major change.

In the early draft rounds, given an option of a player with high intelligence, the same combine ratings and high/low volatility, I will always take the low volatility guy. If he is low ranked, but high volatility, in late rounds the reverse applies for me.

The boom/bust often occurs between the draft and training camp, but not always, so if you find a low ranked guy with good combine stats and high volatility, it can be good (if you have the roster space) to keep him for a year or two in the hope that he booms for you. Sometimes a rookie will immediately fall after the draft, so you can simply not sign them, or vice versa will immediately rise, so you offer them the max, but sometimes the game is a bugger and they rise/fall after you've signed them.

I've also seen 10 year veterans boom by 20 points plus with high volatility, but likewise have seen rookies rise/drop by 40+ points - I'm sure those that have played the game more than me can give bigger examples, and probably explain it better as well!

[Joe]

Doesn't this x-factor of volatility not only determine the "how fast they grow into their potential" but also effect their ratings right out of the gate? As in a draft, you usually take a high rated player with low volatility in the beginning rounds and later you go for the higher volatility because you want them to boom. So you may draft a guy that has all high blue markers, but once signed he sucks ape poopy (aka bust). Does this happen to rookies as well after camp or is it just a known bust right when you sign them?


it depends, sometimes you see a bust right away, and other times you see gradual declines like a -5 here and -5 there.