Rookies - Booms and Busts

[Hammer]

When is it exactly that you know how a rookie is going to work out. The first time you see their profile on your roster? When you sign them? After Training Camp?

I've gone for some high volatility guys late in the draft, that won't make the roster unless they turn out better than expected.

As a side note, I've found low and average volatility guys booming. Is volatility the only factor that has a hand in this, or do some of the other variables have an effect.

One other thing. Why is it that players always tend to drop a point or two when they are actually on the roster screen. Is there something wrong with my franchise, or is this always the case? Often when I realise players, they pop up a few points when waived from the franchise. No conflicts, so can't make it out. They never get worse, only better when they leave. :confused: Again just the odd point or two.

Thanks in advance. :)

[QuikSand]

I think every stage with a rookie, you get increasingly better information.

When you see him in the draft, it's "from a distance."
Once he is on your team, you get a slightly closer look.
Once the draft ends completely, there seems to be another refinement.
Once training camp ends, you get another bump.

Each of these stages can be useful in judging the direction his ratings (most notably the future potential ratings) are moving. I've seen quite a lot of guys who went through a predictable and disappointing sequence - something like: 22/54...21/52...21/50...22/45. After a couple seasons, most of those guys are on the dump heap.

[Cotton]

But the ratings you get are how the scouts you hire see the player.

They can be wrong at first, but after a few good or bad on field performances, they often upgrade or downgrade those ratings. Like stock brokers. ;)

Either way, they're not an actual representation of a player's talent. Especially if you scrimp on scouting salaries.

It's fun to blow off your scout's ratings altogether sometimes and just hang on to or start a player with low scout ratings because he does great things in the log. After a season or two the scout finally catches on.

[Cotton]

I've seen ratings jump after a player is released, too. Again, I think it has a lot to do with my scout and coaches. I'm assuming, of course.

[QuikSand]

I've seen ratings jump after a player is released, too. Again, I think it has a lot to do with my scout and coaches. I'm assuming, of course.

I think that's a function of scout error, actually. I believe that your scout sees a player differently when he is on your roster, as opposed to if he is not on your roster. If you sign/release/acquire a player, his ratings will be slightly different when he makes the transition.

Whether the "on your roster" view is more or less accurate... I don't know. It would make sense to me that it's always the more accurate view, but it might be a function of your scout's abilities.

[RedKingGold]

I think that's a function of scout error, actually. I believe that your scout sees a player differently when he is on your roster, as opposed to if he is not on your roster. If you sign/release/acquire a player, his ratings will be slightly different when he makes the transition.

Whether the "on your roster" view is more or less accurate... I don't know. It would make sense to me that it's always the more accurate view, but it might be a function of your scout's abilities.

I believe that when you see a player on the free agent list, you are seeing the total composite of what all of the scouts hired by the thirty-two teams see the player's abilities at.

[Cotton]

The fact that the future ratings don't often come to fruition is an indication that scouts err all the time whether a player's on or off the roster. A lot has to do with their development and experience, of course. I'm sure they're more accurate in general if they're looking at a player on your own team, but they definitely can get it wrong - at least in terms of a player's actual in-game performance, and especially with rookies and new free agents you've signed.

I've had lowly rated guys stay that way for a few seasons while being major positive contributors on the field, and vice versa. I'm sure you have, too.

Haven't you gotten that email from your scouting department that they're 'very concerned' about your starting quarterback right after the game in which he's thrown for 330 yards, 4 touchdowns and no interceptions? ;)
So you just ignore it, keep him in there, and they go away. And next season you get a new scout!

When I first started playing, I was a little put off by not being able to actually see a players 'real' talent in their ratings, but now it's one of the things I love about the game. I love it when you start the 19 Current RB over the 45 and he gives you three straight weeks of 100 yard games.

I haven't been playing as long as you, but haven't you seen the same?

[QuikSand]

The fact that the future ratings don't often come to fruition is an indication that scouts err all the time whether a player's on or off the roster.

I think you and I are using the term "scout error" to mean differerent things.

What you cite above, I don't attribute to a scouting problem -- but just to the very common (in FOF, and also in the NFL) phenomenon of many players simply never reaching their potential. This is a somewhat nuanced part of FOF... and it involves a number of different factors, some of which can help you predict this in advance, and some whoch keep it a guessing game.

I'm using "scout error" to mean a game element designed to provide a certain degree of uncertainty in any scout ratings. A player whose true rating is 40/50 might look like he's 44/57 to my lousy scout, and he might look like he's 39/49 to your pretty good scout... that, to me, is scout error. Its magnitude varies with the player's age, his roster status, and the scout's skill... perhaps among other things.

[Cotton]

I'm using "scout error" to mean a game element designed to provide a certain degree of uncertainty in any scout ratings. A player whose true rating is 40/50 might look like he's 44/57 to my lousy scout, and he might look like he's 39/49 to your pretty good scout... that, to me, is scout error. Its magnitude varies with the player's age, his roster status, and the scout's skill... perhaps among other things. Oh, I can see that, but I guess I never really think of any rating as a 'true' rating. I didn't think there were any, really. I could, of course, be totally wrong, since I haven't been playing as long as you, I'm guessing. I used the example of an emailed concern about a player playing extremely well to point out the fact that your scouts (who send the email as well as rate your players - I thought) are often wrong with players on your own team, too. The bottom line is how they perform in the simmed games and not the candy colored numbers on the roster screen. There's often a disconnect. And I don't mind that. Like you said, it's one of the nice little subtleties of the game.

[yabanci]

I believe that when you see a player on the free agent list, you are seeing the total composite of what all of the scouts hired by the thirty-two teams see the player's abilities at.

what gives you that idea?

[Dutch]

what gives you that idea?

I always imagine the free agency pool (and players on other teams for that matter) to be a bit inflated. It gives you that "the grass is always greener" feeling to signing free agents. I don't recall ever being surprised with a free agent signing that turned out to be better than he was in the free agency pool. (Since I haven't seen it, I could be wrong about this.)

If it were a composite score of all scouts, I would imagine I'd see more fluctuation in ratings (up and down) based on my own scout.

But as it stands, the ratings always stay the same or drop when I sign somebody. And they always stay the same or go up when I release them.

[MIJB#19]

Solecismic has confirmed that off-roster (free agent/on another team) looks of players are less accurate than the on roster looks. It still doesn't mean that on-roster looks are 100% accurate, just that they are more accurate.

[Cotton]

Solecismic has confirmed that off-roster (free agent/on another team) looks of players are less accurate than the on roster looks. It still doesn't mean that on-roster looks are 100% accurate, just that they are more accurate. That's basically my understanding of it. And it makes sense, too. Once a player is on your team and in your camp, you always get a better sense of his abilities, but as is the case in real life, you never really know how a guy is going to play on Sunday. (Or whatever Sim Day your sim league plays its sim games on.)