Thoughts on the overall ratings scale.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm trying to get my hands around FOF2K7 ratings as opposed to FOF2K4. Both from reading the changes in the help file, and from experience in SP, it's clear that the scale has changed significantly. Painting with a relatively broad brush, here's my thinking so far...

32-37: decent backup
38-44: solid backup/marginal starter (would start for maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the teams in the league)
45-50: starter for most teams at most positions
51-56: solid starter for most teams
57-62: very good starter...all-pro candidate many years
63-68: star player..could be one of the very best at his position
69-74: usually one of the top 2 or 3 players at his position any time in any universe
75-88: top-of-his-generation star...sure-thing HOFer if he doesn't get hurt
89-100: rare superstar who dominates the league..a Deion/Peyton Manning/Walter Payton, who comes along once in generation, if that generation is lucky

Comparing this scale to a mature FOF2K7 league (2024...all original players gone), at the beginning of the regular season, here's what we get at some positions that only use one starter:

QUARTERBACKS
1. 85/85
2. 80/80
3. 77/77
4. 75/75
5. 62/62

Top-heavy group of QBs, but as far as the breakdowns above, we have 18 QBs in this league rated 45 or better ("starter for most teams..."), so at least 16 teams will start players rated 44 or less.

RUNNING BACKS
1. 92/92
2. 77/84
3. 75/75
4. 69/87
5. 67/67

The 92/92 guy rushed for 2254 yards, 5.17ypc, 15 TDs, and caught 52 passes for 561 yards and 6 TDs. Definitely a once-in-a-generation performer. 24 backs are rated 45 or better, so the "marginal starter" number holds up pretty well once again.

MIDDLE LINEBACKERS
1. 75/75
2. 68/68
3. 68/79
4. 67/67
5. 58/58

23 MLBs rated 45 or better.


So yeah, from this very brief snapshot, it looks like somewhere from the 45-50 and up range is where we can normally expect the pool of starters to be drawn from. Does this way of looking at things match up with what others are seeing?

[Ben E Lou]

Some other position thoughts...

Is it just me, or is there ALWAYS more 50-70 talent at TE than any other position? In this current league, there are 25 TEs rated 51 or better, and two other rookies at 33/60, and 27/57. Nearly every team in the league starts a solid TE. I used to think this was just a problem with pref drafts, but in playing the game more, it looks like TE is to FOF2K7 as C was to FOF2K4.
It's a little harder to break down, because the scout only shows the best 25 players at a position, but given the way the two-starter positions are looking from 1-25, it looks like the scale is roughly the same for all positions except TE.
On the whole, the league has 4 position players rated higher than 85. all four put up the monster numbers we'd expect. Guys in that stratosphere seem to *really* stand out in this game, I suppose since they're rarely/never competing against guys as good as they are.
It's nice to know that the draft doesn't appear to automatically replace talent at a given position when it sees get lower than normal. This was mentioned elsewhere, but the screenie is relevant to this thread:http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/backs.jpg
<!-- / message -->
Lots of pretty marginal backs starting in that league, but one superstar.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I would adjust your ratings upwards by about 5 points. The once in generation guys should be in th 90s. I've seen a few too many high 80s guys otherwise.

[Ben E Lou]

I would adjust your ratings upwards by about 5 points. The once in generation guys should be in th 90s. I've seen a few too many high 80s guys otherwise.

All, though, or just the top tier? I feel like I have a decent handle on 35-70, but I'll fully admit that I don't have a good read on the upper tier.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

All, though, or just the top tier? I feel like I have a decent handle on 35-70, but I'll fully admit that I don't have a good read on the upper tier.

Hmm, I'm also thinking maybe 60 should be the floor for the "very good starter/all-pro potential" types, no? Admittedly, I have done no research on this, and that is strictly "gut feeling," which could be greatly affected by the psychology of having the 6 in front of the number.

[MrDNA]

The rare beast floor sounds a little too low for me, but only by 2 points or so.

And I am in complete agreement with the TEs. They spring up like weeds.

[Ben E Lou]

Hmm, I'm also thinking maybe 60 should be the floor for the "very good starter/all-pro potential" types, no? Admittedly, I have done no research on this, and that is strictly "gut feeling," which could be greatly affected by the psychology of having the 6 in front of the number.

I did some looking yesterday and today. It seems like usually 30-40% of the all pro guys are rated under 60. That's a pretty significant portion.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok. I'm going to move the upper tier a little higher.