PDA

View Full Version : The bizarre case of Artie Markiewicz


Narcizo
11-15-2006, 07:34 AM
Anyone who has been following Quiksand's Group Think thread (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=53725) will have heard of Artie Markiewicz (probably from me). Basically he was a wide receiver with a great combine showing but very poor scouted skills.

[/URL]
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6042/marky2oz1.jpg

His combines pushed him up the boards but nobody wanted to draft a player with such lousy scouted ratings and he dropped out of the draft. I decided to track him as part of my attempts to understand how the draft works. Initially he was rated 12-13 coming out of the draft, as you'd expect looking at his scouted skill-set. However given the fact that he was, supposedly, 12% developed it seemed almost impossible that his ratings should be 12-13.

During the course of my tracking it became clear that he was better than the initial scout report. By 2008 his potential had doubled and I suggested that we sign him. We did so but he didn't show much in the way of signs of improving.

Skip forward to 2009 and the patch is applied. Suddenly Artie is rated 61-61. Woo-hoo! I think. However his experience is only at about 50% so probably his actual ratings are 30-61 or something. Still, a bit of a bargain for an undrafted rookie.

However I'm curious about what a scout would say about him in an interview. I was willing to bet my left testicle that the scout would say he's very over-rated. So I go back to the pre-draft file (conveniently still available in the Group Think mailbox) and install that in my universe file. At first something seems wrong. I can't find Artie where he should be (rated around 4.1 or so). So I sort by rating and see him much further up the draft board. Imagine my surprise when I see that he looks like this.

[URL="http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1254/markycu6.jpg"] (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6042/marky2oz1.jpg)
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1254/markycu6.jpg

Just to be clear. This is exactly the same file that was used for the draft. The only thing that has changed is that the patch has been applied with the second image.

What this suggests to me is that draft scouting has actually been made more sensible with the patch. The scouts are now giving us what probably is a far more accurate picture of how Artie will develop. So far from there being more scouting errors, when it comes to the draft, it seems that they are more accurate. Either that or they're catastrophically wrong and have hideously over-valued him, and have continued to do so on our team.

The downside of this is that it will probably be even harder to find gems at the bottom of the draft (and outside of it). I shall return once I've studied how some other combine vs scout report guys panned out post and pre-patch.

Narcizo
11-15-2006, 08:05 AM
So, what am I getting at with this thread? Initially, nothing. I just thought, "that's a bit weird".

However I think want this means is that the scouting of the draft (which I considered almost counter-inuitive in the pre-patch version - see my comments about over-rated = good and under-rated = bad in the Group Think thread. Basically if a player has a great combine it's almost guaranteed to mean that the scouts will consider them over-rated and vice versa) has been made logical and now works as it should.

Take the best RB in the draft Peter Copeland

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/5351/copeland1zw6.jpg

That looks horrible for a potential first round pick. He came out rated 28-43.

Post-patch?

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9361/copeland2pr0.th.jpg (http://img240.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copeland2pr0.jpg)

Now listed as the #2 pick on the boards. He's currently rated 75-75, which, with his experience bar works out about 50-75 - he wasn't being played in the game before the patch, otherwise he would be 75-75 by now. In my opinion, post-patch he would have started from day one. So there's an argument that the AI depth chart business makes more sense post-patch.

How about a juicy looking guard who the scouts love?

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4499/wolfe1df8.th.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wolfe1df8.jpg)

Came out of the draft 24-60. Looked like a great bargain. Turned out to be total pile of toss currently rated 33-33.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8317/wolfe2fw9.th.jpg (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wolfe2fw9.jpg)

That's more like it. Still looking better than he turned out but the interview is more realistic but you still might want to take a gamble on him.

I could go on. Basically the problems I had with the draft seem to be cleared up. As said, this seems to limit the chance of find a total steal but I presume it's still possible and the draft just makes much more sense now.

*Spoiler for Quiksand who if he's reading this, might not want to read this bit*
.
.
.
.
.
.
Spearman looks exactly the same in the draft pre- and post-patch. Sorry.

QuikSand
11-15-2006, 09:44 AM
So, trying to use Markiewicz as a clue to hos the red/green situation is currently constructed...

He's a guy now rated 61/61 by our scout, in our patched GroupThink game. In his graphic, he has only a trifle of apparent green, a few points worth in "courage."

I'm trying to square this with the fact that Markiewicz's "experience" at FL, his starting position, is only about 50%. If reds were simply a function of greens this variable -- I just don't see how a 50% experienced guy comes out as 61/61 and nearly all red.

But there is supposedly the lingering issue with "scout error." So is that the answer?

What kind of player is Artie Markiewicz right now?

-Is he really more or less a 30/60 guy, whose reds are showing up way too high?

-Is he something like a 50/60 guy, where there's a capped effect of experience, and his reads are still shoing up too high?

-Is he really fuilly developed, and the red and greens are mor or less correct... but that the apparent red ratings are mitigated in their effect by the fact that he doesn't have much experience?


I'm at a loss.. but this case study seems useful to me.

Narcizo
11-15-2006, 09:49 AM
Looking at his current ratings in the pre-patched version gives me an idea of where he currently is - but I don't know if you want me to tell you about that stuff as I guess it sort of jeoparises suspension of disbelief. Basically, do you think of the Armadillos as a proper game or a learning exercise?

JeffW
11-15-2006, 05:51 PM
Hmmm, isn't there a danger of creating too much parity in MP leagues because of this change? In 2k4 it takes quite a bit of skill to identify good players. If one can simply look at blue bars and pick the best player, that's going to substantially reduce the skill needed to draft well.

Peregrine
11-16-2006, 12:42 AM
On a sort of side topic related to this, what has been people's experiences with seeing players who seem to be mis-scouted in a particular skill area? Is it possible? I guess I'm going on one player I saw in my draft pick dynasty, Peter Hanks. I don't have all the pictures, but in the draft he was listed as the top ILB, and he had excellent ratings across the board, except in run defense where he was terrible, basically slammed as far to the left as you can go. Everything else was slammed far to the right. The interview said he was overrated because of his good combine results.

Basically after training camp (and this is all pre-patch) I checked him out and he showed around a 50 current run defense skill, no green. I was pretty surprised and impressed. All his other skills were top of the line as expected. Over his career his run defense kept going up, I think it reached 75 current through his career, and he ended up being a really good player.

So, what exactly happened here? Was there a massive scouting error that underrated his run defense? If so why didn't it affect everything else? Did he just get a good experience bump as he played his position which brought it up to a good level? I'm not sure. This ties in with the Artie picture above because it could be that there was a scouting error initially, for all but two stats (his good stats seem almost unchanged between the two pictures) and afterwards he shows his true self. All I can say is, if it turns out that there can be scouting errors that just affect certain skill areas, that's pretty cool and seems like real life.

Narcizo
11-16-2006, 12:58 AM
Hmmm, isn't there a danger of creating too much parity in MP leagues because of this change? In 2k4 it takes quite a bit of skill to identify good players. If one can simply look at blue bars and pick the best player, that's going to substantially reduce the skill needed to draft well.

I think there's still room for interpretation of combine figures and comparing them to the skill sets you see. Someone like Shawn Wolfe above still looks decent enough in the patched draft but his relatively poor combine showing is a warning sign. Someone who just blindly listens to their scout (erm, should that be "deafly" maybe?) is still going to get burned. I'm sure there's still some gems to be picked up as well, it's just a matter of knowing where (and how) to look.

Narcizo
11-16-2006, 03:15 AM
Markiewicz is back to 31-40 with the new patch, and all is well with the world.

And Jeff will be pleased (but I'm not) to hear that he looks just as dreadful in the draft again. His bars are back to being rubbish and he's considered "very overrated". :(