FOF Mythbusters: What the heck do these combines mean, anyway?

[RedKingGold]

[Ben E Lou]

Good stuff, RKG. Very good stuff.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh, and when RKG IMed me about this a while ago, I felt like a real dummy for not thinking of using the methodology of importing draft classes with extreme players when I worked on this a while ago.

{Tips cap to RKG}

[Daimyo]

Keep in mind that ALL players have a rating in every skill
Is this confirmed? In the 2k4 binary files, players did NOT have ratings for every skill, but only those displayed for their position. I'm not sure how this would be knowable since the 2k7 binary is supposedly encrypted (or more likely encoded).

[Daimyo]

DOLA, great work!

[RedKingGold]

Is this confirmed? In the 2k4 binary files, players did NOT have ratings for every skill, but only those displayed for their position. I'm not sure how this would be knowable since the 2k7 binary is supposedly encrypted (or more likely encoded).

Taken from the FOF2K4 Draft File Converter CSV Help File:

Use 375 for players who really shouldn't have ratings at that position. For instance, defensive tackles should receive 375 for the Avoid Interception rating.

All players are rated for all categories, though these ratings are ignored if not relevant to the player's position.

[Subby]

Really good stuff here. A lot of it seems intuitive, but there are definitely skill translations that surprised me.

[Daimyo]

Taken from the FOF2K4 Draft File Converter CSV Help File:

Use 375 for players who really shouldn't have ratings at that position. For instance, defensive tackles should receive 375 for the Avoid Interception rating.

All players are rated for all categories, though these ratings are ignored if not relevant to the player's position.
What I'm saying is that in the actual binary data files for 2k4 the players had slots for every rating, but only actually had real numbers for the ratings specific to their position... so quarterbacks all had 00 (or whatever the null was) for breakaway speed, etc, etc. I guess the draft file will let you provide ratings for everything, but I bet they'll just be ignored when it gets imported.

[RedKingGold]

What I'm saying is that in the actual binary data files for 2k4 the players had slots for every rating, but only actually had real numbers for the ratings specific to their position... so quarterbacks all had 00 (or whatever the null was) for breakaway speed, etc, etc. I guess the draft file will let you provide ratings for everything, but I bet they'll just be ignored when it gets imported.

Sir Bustamove doesn't think so:

http://www.fof-gefl.com/upload/RedKingGold/bustamoverb.jpg

http://www.fof-gefl.com/upload/RedKingGold/bustamovess.jpg

[primelord]

Taken from the FOF2K4 Draft File Converter CSV Help File:

Use 375 for players who really shouldn't have ratings at that position. For instance, defensive tackles should receive 375 for the Avoid Interception rating.

All players are rated for all categories, though these ratings are ignored if not relevant to the player's position.

RKG,

The ratings ranges start at 375 in the data files. So 375 actually equals 0. I would guess it is unlikely these ratings have changed since 2k4. So even though every player has a value in those slots, the ones that don;t apply to their position are always 0.

[primelord]

Maybe I am not completeky familiar with how the position change works internally, but I wasn't under the assumption it only took the ratings the player already had in the other categories when you change positions. I guess maybe I am wrong though.

[RedKingGold]

RKG,

The ratings ranges start at 375 in the data files. So 375 actually equals 0. I would guess it is unlikely these ratings have changed since 2k4. So even though every player has a value in those slots, the ones that don;t apply to their position are always 0.

Yes, I am aware of this. 375 = 0, 625 = 100

It's suggested so you don't have DT's running around with high-flying QB skills (not that those guys would convert over anyway).

EDIT: What Daimyo's suggesting is that if I place a 625 in avoid interceptions for a DT, then that rating is ignored when the draft is imported. My example above gives evidence otherwise. Bustalot was an RB who I gave 375 (or zeroes) for every single running skill, but gave 625 (100 ratings) for every other skill. When he's converted to other positions, he may lose a percentage indicated in-game (aka "He will have 68% of his potential after the switch), and in this case, he would have 68% of a 100 (or, a skill of 68).

[jkat]

Sir Bustamove doesn't think so:

That is one of the worst examples I've ever seen. :confused: I don't even understand what this could be designed to show.


If you want to see if a offensive player is given values in defensive ratings, you have to change that player's position multiple times and compare the results. If he was given values in those ratings he would have consistently, either by 1-9 or by exact value, the same values.

To see that this isn't the case all you have to do is take a cornerback and change him to receiver, reload and repeat a few times. The results will be radically different, indicating neither preference to specific ratings nor consistent values. Beyond this, a rookie cornerback changed immediately after being drafted will show not show a correlation to his combine scores. Perfect 40-yard dash and Agility scores as a cornerback won't make him any more likely to have Getting Downfield/Big-Play Receiving as a receiver.

To see this even more blatantly, change that cornerback back to CB from being a receiver and see how his ratings compare to his original cornerback ratings.

Certain ratings like interceptions for defenders and offensive line ratings for D-Linemen may be there, but to say that this holds true for all ratings is not remotely accurate.

[RedKingGold]

That is one of the worst examples I've ever seen. :confused: I don't even understand what this could be designed to show.

As mentioned earlier, it is meant to show that (at least in a user generated draft file), you can attribute certain ratings (such as interceptions/pass blocking/etc.) which will carry over and be imported into the game. The example taken above in my response to Primelord's response is a better example of what I'm talking about.

If you want to see if a offensive player is given values in defensive ratings, you have to change that player's position multiple times and compare the results. If he was given values in those ratings he would have consistently, either by 1-9 or by exact value, the same values.

I can and will do this tomorrow, but I have already tried similar tests and seen that (with some variance), these ratings do carry over.

To see that this isn't the case all you have to do is take a cornerback and change him to receiver, reload and repeat a few times. The results will be radically different, indicating neither preference to specific ratings nor consistent values. Beyond this, a rookie cornerback changed immediately after being drafted will show not show a correlation to his combine scores. Perfect 40-yard dash and Agility scores as a cornerback won't make him any more likely to have Getting Downfield/Big-Play Receiving as a receiver.

There are some ratings which are completely game-generated that I have no control over (Bn'R, adjust to ball, play diagnosis, etc.). These will be completely random each time I upload a new draft file. However, certain ratings will stay consistent. Further, I never made any connection between draft scores and these hidden abilities. To my knowledge, there is no way to tell if a player from a game-generated rookie file has hidden ratings, other than to guess-and-tell based on bars pictured.

To see this even more blatantly, change that cornerback back to CB from being a receiver and see how his ratings compare to his original cornerback ratings.

This would be comparing different things, however. Whenever you flipflop such a dramatic position (from CB-WR-CB again), that CB will most likely not have the original ratings he had before.

Certain ratings like interceptions for defenders and offensive line ratings for D-Linemen may be there, but to say that this holds true for all ratings is not remotely accurate.

Care to produce direct evidence to prove me wrong?

[jkat]

CB1 changed to Flanker two seperate times

AD 00/43 00/69
GD 37/75 44/85
RR 00/43 00/55
3D 42/61 48/71
BP 60/60 100/100
Co 32/50 54/85
AB 00/66 00/62
PR 56/77 46/63
KR 43/77 35/64
En 50/77 50/77
ST 33/52 33/52

This is not the same result. The ratings he did have (in bold) stayed the same, the ratings he did not have were different. (the current ratings of 0 in AD, RR, AB are a result of 0% developed at the FL position).

[RedKingGold]

CB1 changed to Flanker two seperate times

AD 00/43 00/69
GD 37/75 44/85
RR 00/43 00/55
3D 42/61 48/71
BP 60/60 100/100
Co 32/50 54/85
AB 00/66 00/62
PR 56/77 46/63
KR 43/77 35/64
En 50/77 50/77
ST 33/52 33/52

This is not the same result. The ratings he did have (in bold) stayed the same, the ratings he did not have were different. (the current ratings of 0 in AD, RR, AB are a result of 0% developed at the FL position).

What about scouting error? What was the % of his skill change per switch? Combines/year/etc.?

[RedKingGold]

Further, that test really proves nothing to the point that I was trying to get across. Once again, the point I was trying to get across was that, when a player is "imported" into FOF, he has ratings in other areas which do not translate to his natural position that are not zeroes (which is what Daimyo was asking).

That's all I was asserting, not that there are 335 LB DT's wandering around in FOF with hidden killer QB skills. Also, whether or not those skills actually translate into success in the game engine is anyone's guess, I haven't tested that because there's really no need too.

[jkat]

As mentioned earlier, it is meant to show that (at least in a user generated draft file), you can attribute certain ratings (such as interceptions/pass blocking/etc.) which will carry over and be imported into the game. The example taken above in my response to Primelord's response is a better example of what I'm talking about.

All that example showed was that when a player is moved from RB to SS he has defensive ratings afterwards. That didn't address in any way that they came from values listed in a draft file. It would have to, at minimum, show that those values were consistent (in terms of correlation between ratings as position switches have a degree of randomness) and most importantly that those correlations reflected what was in the draft file.

Further, I never made any connection between draft scores and these hidden abilities. To my knowledge, there is no way to tell if a player from a game-generated rookie file has hidden ratings, other than to guess-and-tell based on bars pictured.
The comment about combine scores wasn't in direct response but instead to mention something I felt was closely tangental to what I was saying, hence why I prefaced that comment with "Beyond this,". [edit: the word choice was obviously poor as it coud just as easily mean "additionally"]

This would be comparing different things, however. Whenever you flipflop such a dramatic position (from CB-WR-CB again), that CB will most likely not have the original ratings he had before.
Of course not, but my point isn't that the ratings will be the same. My point was that there will be seemingly no preference between ratings. While a corner may drop in overall ratings, although they do occasionally improve over that transition, his ratings should still be similar as far as what his best ratings are and what his worst ratings are. This seems to show no preference between ratings, a corner with only great MtM could end up with no MtM and just run defense and zone for example.

[RedKingGold]

All that example showed was that when a player is moved from RB to SS he has defensive ratings afterwards. That didn't address in any way that they came from values listed in a draft file. It would have to, at minimum, show that those values were consistent (in terms of correlation between ratings as position switches have a degree of randomness) and most importantly that those correlations reflected what was in the draft file.

However, with scouting error present, there would be no way to prove that other than playing players out of those positions. Are you suggesting the game randomly draws those ratings when a player is transferred over? That may be, but you have about as much chance of showing me that as I do of proving that the ratings shown after position change are the same ones that were uploaded in the initial help file.

The comment about combine scores wasn't in direct response but instead to mention something I felt was closely tangental to what I was saying, hence why I prefaced that comment with "Beyond this,".

Well, I'd appreciate it if you would be sure to preface comments like that in the future as coming from your own opinion and not falsely attributed to what I'm trying to say with my comments.

Of course not, but my point isn't that the ratings will be the same. My point was that there will be seemingly no preference between ratings. While a corner may drop in overall ratings, although they do occasionally improve over that transition, his ratings should still be similar as far as what his best ratings are and what his worst ratings are. This seems to show no preference between ratings, a corner with only great MtM could end up with no MtM and just run defense and zone for example.

Once again, I request of you to prove that assertion. With the challenges of scouting error, I believe you have as much chance of proving this as I do of proving exact ratings.

In my tests with this phonomon, I''ve found that the rating shown on the player card is within 15-20 points of the actual rating(s) placed in the draft file. I believe that this fluctuation of points is due to the high level of scouting error found in this game.

With pass coverages, you've seemed to figure out a way to answer a seemingly unanswerable problem. Perhaps, you can use some of this wisdom and testing to prove your assertions in this manner.

However, I would prefer if you were to do so in another thread (for the purposes of this thread have gone completely off-kilter.

[jkat]

All that example showed was that when a player is moved from RB to SS he has defensive ratings afterwards. That didn't address in any way that they came from values listed in a draft file. It would have to, at minimum, show that those values were consistent (in terms of correlation between ratings as position switches have a degree of randomness) and most importantly that those correlations reflected what was in the draft file.However, with scouting error present, there would be no way to prove that other than playing players out of those positions. Are you suggesting the game randomly draws those ratings when a player is transferred over? That may be, but you have about as much chance of showing me that as I do of proving that the ratings shown after position change are the same ones that were uploaded in the initial help file.

I didn't suggest anything about how the values are transferred over from the file. I was addressing the example you had used as I didn't feel it showed anything as it consisted of only a picture of a RB and a picture of him changed to SS with no additional explanation.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you would be sure to preface comments like that in the future as coming from your own opinion and not falsely attributed to what I'm trying to say with my comments.
I don't understand how I you say I attributed that comment to you. It had a similarity to what I was saying and it was relevant to the initial subject of the thread as far as what ratings affect combine scores; as it would seem to indicate that a cornerback's Getting Downfield/Big-Play Receiving (and other ratings) doesn't affect the cornerbacks 40-yard dash/Agility (and other combine scores) and conversely that a cornerback's combines don't affect their out of position stats. Though it wasn't in direct response to that specific post it was within the subject of the thread.

Once again, I request of you to prove that assertion. With the challenges of scouting error, I believe you have as much chance of proving this as I do of proving exact ratings.
I stated, "Certain ratings like interceptions for defenders and offensive line ratings for D-Linemen may be there, but to say that this holds true for all ratings is not remotely accurate." In the example I posted above (from a specfic player file, not draft file) the cornerback had been at 0 in punt and kick returns before the change. Despite that, he had significantly more afterwards and changing every receiver and defensive back in that career, with very low return ratings, to the opposite side of the ball they all increased towards the 40-70 range. This seems to show something more than just using their specific ratings as listed, in regards to players given a specific rating in a player file (again not neccessarily to the draft files in question).

The draft file may work differently than that and if the values are consistent (just over a generalized range, they don't need to be anywhere near exact considering the position switch) it would seem to indicate that it would be accurate to say 'it holds true for all ratings', at least with the exceptions of those ratings that you can't change in the file.

It's quite possible the ratings (at least ignoring return ratings in a player-file) match up close enough after that first position change and may hold true for all the ratings from a draft-file.

As far as proof, if you use that same player and save before the position swtch and then make the switch 3-5 times it should be adequate. If the overall shape of his bars, as far as whats high and whats low is close it would indicate that it is being based off his ratings. Even if the return bars aren't consistent (though they may well be from a draft-file) it would show a lot of support for your point. While it may not completely disprove "to say that this holds true for all ratings is not remotely accurate.", if it showed it held true for all ratings shown on that one player (excepting what can't be changed in the draft-file) it would be enough to have the weight of evidence in vast support of your argument.

That case of course wouldn't have scout error as a factor as you are just using the one specific player. Unless you have the idea that the possibility of scout error is reapplied when a player changes position which, while it would seem peculiar to me, I suppose can't be discounted.


As far as switching a player's position and then switching back getting a different overall blend of ratings for that player; I thought this was well known as a way to essentially re-roll a player and was one of the main reasons extensive house rules covering position changes were so widespread.


That pretty much covers my interest in the matter, at least for this thread. I don't mean that in the sense of walking out of the discussion but to, as mentioned, avoid adding anymore significant clutter to the thread.

[Hammer]

Great work RKG.

[Icy]

Awesome stuff RKG.

It's nice to see how Jim payed as much attention to the draft combine numbers correlated to real ratings instead of using it just as cosmetics.

[bmerryman]

Great work. I like how you picked what I believe to be the toughest position to assess. I've got a draft starting today, so could you hurry it up with the other positions!:D

Anyone have a percentage idea/guess as to how often good combine scores are a bluff (player busts or doesn't develop as expected in correlated skillsets)? From my perspective, it seems very low, like in the less than 5% range.

[Sgran]

Where does the overall draft grade fit in?

[bulletsponge]

cool stuff. now to go look at the qb's in my upcoming online draft

[DougW]

Great stuff RKG !

[RedKingGold]

Thanks for the comments guys.

I'm halfway done with running backs (which is actually a lot tougher than I thought) and hope to get my results posted tonight. Unfortunately, I've got some real-life stuff to get done today, but I've only got a few more things to look at for RB's anyway.

[MIJB#19]

Thanks for the comments guys.

I'm halfway done with running backs (which is actually a lot tougher than I thought) and hope to get my results posted tonight. Unfortunately, I've got some real-life stuff to get done today, but I've only got a few more things to look at for RB's anyway.Oh yeah, RBs are, maybe 2nd to QBs, the toughest position to find trends in their combine scores and their actual (scouted) skills.

[Celeval]

FWIW, in 2k4 (and, for that matter, all versions of FOF that I've worked with, including TCY), all players had spots for all ratings. In FOF, generally these were specific to their own position, with some exceptions - quarterbacks, for instance, had ratings for all running back ratings. TCY actually had it much more spread out - a ton of defensive players would have offensive ratings and vice versa. The other ratings would be empty.

Edit: one exception - only QBs had QB ratings.

There's a much cleaner way than position changing to test the draft bit - but I don't have 2k4 installed for the draft file generator. If someone wants to put together a sample one, I can swap the positions straight-up in the file, and test that way.

[Celeval]

Dola... while the player data is encrypted in the 2k7 files, there are still some things to be gleaned - the encrypted player records are all the same size; as are the ratings. The footprint of those locations are identical for all players. I would hazard a pretty good guess that there are still values stored for all ratings for all players (again, except QB ratings for QBs).

[RedKingGold]

Bump for Running Backs in the top post.

Running Back correlations were very hard to figure out as speed to the outside/blitz pickup figure heavily into at least two (if not three) of the ratings. However, I think I did enough tests to feel satisfied with the correlations that I posted.

Ben, if you could update the chart? (me read HTML no good too much :))

Receivers are next on the list, and I think those are pretty easy to figure out. It should be done and updated by tomorrow, but might have to wait until Tuesday night.

[RedKingGold]

Where does the overall draft grade fit in?

As per the Solecismic help file:

The Adjusted Grade is the Grade, adjusted by the player's position to give some idea of when the player should be taken in the draft.

So, to my recollect, the "player grade" (grade on the left) is what all the scouts in the league think the player's overall value to be based on ratings and combine scores. The adjusted rating simply adjusts the overall rating by order of importance in the draft (so kickers aren't given first round grades)

[RedKingGold]

FWIW, in 2k4 (and, for that matter, all versions of FOF that I've worked with, including TCY), all players had spots for all ratings. In FOF, generally these were specific to their own position, with some exceptions - quarterbacks, for instance, had ratings for all running back ratings. TCY actually had it much more spread out - a ton of defensive players would have offensive ratings and vice versa. The other ratings would be empty.

Edit: one exception - only QBs had QB ratings.

There's a much cleaner way than position changing to test the draft bit - but I don't have 2k4 installed for the draft file generator. If someone wants to put together a sample one, I can swap the positions straight-up in the file, and test that way.

Dola... while the player data is encrypted in the 2k7 files, there are still some things to be gleaned - the encrypted player records are all the same size; as are the ratings. The footprint of those locations are identical for all players. I would hazard a pretty good guess that there are still values stored for all ratings for all players (again, except QB ratings for QBs).

Thanks and thanks. This is all I was trying to prove with my simple switching RB-SS example above.

[DougW]

Question ..

I'm having a little bit of trouble turning your test results into expected ratings.

I can follow what your saying, but what doesn't add up - is if I do it backwards.

For example :

For QBs - the Solecismic Test (ST) is graded :
50% Avoid Int
30% Short Passes
10% Read Defense
10% 2 Minute Drill

OK, I can understand - you are saying you're perceived importance to those ratings are the listed values. But how does that work when I am trying to evaluate what a player will be rated in a specific rating ?

What I mean - Of the ratings influenced by the ST - none are influenced by any other combine score. So, let's take "Read Defense" (RD). What does that tell me about that expected rating ?

1. His expected RD is 100% effected by ST (since no other score effects this rating).

2. His expected RD is 10% effected by ST (the listed value).
- If so, what effects the other 90% ? Is it random ?

Anyway - just trying to better grasp this, I appreciate your testing & work. Good stuff :).

PS - Also, am I right in assuming on your RB write up that all the "Blitz Frequency" comments refer to "Blitz Pickup" ?

[DougW]

NM - Duh; I get it. The game just generates players and ratings - and not everything is made up completely of the combine scores (as in RL) - the bars "may" tell the rest of the tale, or may be masked.

The study simply shows how to help to possibly unmask certain players.

[Ben E Lou]

Ben, if you could update the chart? (me read HTML no good too much :))



Done, but I'm not using HTML, just WYSIWYG. :p

[adubroff]

I think it would be interesting to try this in reverse, take guys with maxxed out ratings and then zero them out one by one and see the skill effects, I wonder if it's the same as starting at a zero and working up.

[RedKingGold]

Don't worry guys, I haven't abandoned or forgotten about this. The past two days have been absolutely crazy (even got my car towed today, WOO-HOO!), but I'm about to start cracking on receivers (which should be pretty easy) and hope to have that posted by tomorrow night.

[bulletsponge]

thanks redking

[DougW]

Don't worry guys, I haven't abandoned or forgotten about this. The past two days have been absolutely crazy (even got my car towed today, WOO-HOO!), but I'm about to start cracking on receivers (which should be pretty easy) and hope to have that posted by tomorrow night.

I sure hope you're still planning on finishing this thread. Very informative stuff :).

[Nogram]

Don't worry guys, I haven't abandoned or forgotten about this. The past two days have been absolutely crazy (even got my car towed today, WOO-HOO!), but I'm about to start cracking on receivers (which should be pretty easy) and hope to have that posted by tomorrow night.

RedKingGold,

I was wondering if you were still planning on getting back to this.

Also, if your still pressed for time (aren't we all :( ), is there anything that I could do to help out?

Thanks,

Nogram

[Mistwood19]

RedKingGold,

I was wondering if you were still planning on getting back to this.

Also, if your still pressed for time (aren't we all :( ), is there anything that I could do to help out?

Thanks,

Nogram

RKG - update? I'm loving this stuff but I'm not savy enough with stats to put it together, sure looking forward to the next installments....

Thanks for the work!!!!!!!

[RedKingGold]

I'm still planning on coming back to this, most likely between Christmas and New Years. From November 1st til December 17th is my busy time, cutting drastically into my FOF/free time. For now, however, this is in my catalog of FOF projects (behind helping Rodney with Extractor -- it's coming, I swear! :))

[bulletsponge]

goodie

[PiemasterUK]

This is one of the most awesome threads ever.

Bumping for greatness and so hopefully RKG won't forget about it :)

[RedKingGold]

Bumpity for good news. :)

1. I used a new testing methodology which allows me more trials in less time. Using it for receivers; I was able to cut the time needed for previous testing down by 2/3.

2. I re-tested quarterbacks a little bit b/c of a flaw I found in testing. Please re-read quarterbacks to see the change (hint: Solecombine score)

3. Receivers have been tested and added.

Offensive lineman are next (and will hopefully not take too long)

SD, please do your thing with the WSYSIWHSGHSG Chart. :)

[Northwood_DK]

Nice timing.

[gstelmack]

Excellent...

[zbuckley]

Great research! I had been looking at the intelligence thing all wrong. I had thought that high Intelligence would reflect high Read defense, hole recog, Route running and so on. I wouldn't have suspected that high intelligence takes away from these ratings.

[MrDNA]

Hopeful bump? This is amazing stuff.

[Caratacus]

***SPOILER***


***UPDATED***

Updated info in Italics.


Using the draft file I have just finished testing for every position.

My findings differ slightly from above e.g.

QB
Dash = Scramble + Hole Recognition.
Solecismic = Avoid Interceptions + Intelligence.
Strength = Long & Deep Passing.
Agility = Sense Rush + Screen Pass.
Broad Jump = Medium Passing.
Position Specific = Accuracy + Timing.

No correlation = Short Pass**, Third Down Passing** Read Defense*, Two Minute Offence* + Kick Holding*.

*Done further testing and there is no correlation with combines and the above ratings, they are randomly assigned. When players have all ratings minimised they can still get high ratings in the above, but there is no change to the combine scores when they recieve high marks in these ratings.

**Where as the others have no field entry, Short Passing & Third Down Passing do, but when maxed out it makes no changes to the combine results whatsoever.

Players with Zero Avoid Int & Zero Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 10 & 28.
Players with Zero Avoid Int & 100 Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 23 & 34.
Players with 100 Avoid Int & Zero Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 35 & 40.
Players with 100 Avoid Int & 100 Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 46 & 48.

(I can post more rating ranges, but this may be a spoil to far...?)

I entered 625 singularly in all possible enteries for each position. By doing so I discovered some combine numbers are used for ratings we do not see.

Namely: Hole Recognition for QBs + Breakaway Speed, Elusiveness & Getting Down Field for FBs.

If anyone is interested I'll post the rest of my findings.

[QuikSand]

Post what you've got, please. There's an appetite for this sort of stuff.

[Celeval]

Namely: Hole Recognition for QBs + Breakaway Speed, Elusiveness & Getting Down Field for FBs.

And, FWIW, in 2k4 these definately existed as non-zero attributes for those positions. I believe in 2k7 it's the same, although it's only circumstantial via position switch testing.

[Caratacus]

All testing finished.

Things aren't as simple as they may seem below...

e.g. Solecismic Score for QBs
Avoid Int + Intelligence Maxed = Score between 37 - 53.
Avoid Int Maxed = Score between 41 - 43.
Intelligence Maxed = Score between 26 - 40.
Both Minimised = 8 - 26.

So you can't simply scout for Intelligence and subtract from the Solecismic Score to find the players Avoid Interception rating. Well you can and sometimes it will give you a clear picture (e.g. Intelligence Rating of 1 & Solecismic Rating of 43 you know that the Avoid Interceptions is going to be pretty damn good), but a lot of the time things are going to be quite muddy. (I used Solecismic as an example, most of the ratings that don't give a link between 1 Ability and 1 Combine work this way).

OFFENSE

QB
Dash = Scramble + Hole Recognition (50/50)
Solecismic = Avoid Interceptions & Intelligence (60/40)
Strength = Long Passing + Deep Passing (50/50)
Agility = Sense Rush + Screen Pass (50/50)
Broad Jump = Medium Passing (100)
Position Specific = Accuracy + Timing (50/50)

No Correlation = Short Pass, Third Down Passing + Avoid Fumbles.
Randomly Generated = Read Defence, Two Minute Offense + Kick Holding.

RB
Dash = Breakaway Speed & Speed Outside.
Solecismic = Hole Recognition + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Power Inside (100)
Agility = Elusiveness + Getting Down Field + 3rd Down Rushing (33/33/33)
Broad Jump = Endurance + 3rd Down Rushing (50/50)
Position Specific = Route Running & Blitz Pick Up (testing).

No Correlation = Avoid Drop, 3rd Down Catching, Special Teams, KR, PR & Avoid Fumble.

FB
Dash = Breakaway Speed (100)
Solecismic = Hole Recognition + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Power Inside (100)
Agility = Elusiveness + Getting Down Field + 3rd Down Rushing (33/33/33)
Broad Jump = Run Blocking + 3rd Down Rushing (50/50)
Position Specific = Route Running (100) *See below

No Correlation = Pass Blocking, 3rd Down Catching, Avoid Drops, Endurance, Special Teams & Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Blocking Strength & Blitz Pick Up.
*Postion Specific Skill is only used for route running, but it also goes up according to overall ability.

TE
Dash = Big Play + Getting Down Field (50/50)
Solecismic = Route Running + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Blocking Strength (100)
Agility = Getting Down Field (100)
Broad Jump = 3rd Down Catching + Run Blocking (50/50)
Position Specific = Avoid Drops (100) *See below

No correlation = Courage, Pass Blocking, Endurance, Special Teams & Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Long Snapping, Adjust To Ball
Strength is randomly assigned linked to overall ability, which in turn is used to determine blocking strength.
*Position Specific Skill is only used for Avoid Drops, but goes up according to overall ability.

WR
Dash = Big Play + Getting Down Field (50/50)
Solecismic = Route Running + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Courage (100)
Agility = Getting Down Field (100)
Broad Jump = KR + PR (50/50)
Position Specific = Avoid Drops (100) *See Below

No correlation = 3rd Down Catching, Endurance, Special Teams, Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Adjust to Ball.
*Position Specific Skill is only used for Avoid Drops, but goes up according to overall ability.

OT/OG/OC
Dash = Run Blocking (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence (100)
Strength = Blocking Strength (100)
Agility = Pass Blocking (100)
Broad Jump = Endurance (100)

Randomly generated = Long Snapping.
Run Blocking & Pass Blocking make up the strength rating which then correlates to Blocking Strength.

SPECIAL TEAMS

K
Dash = Kickoff Distance (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + FG Accuracy (50/50)
Strength = Kick Power + Kickoff Hang Time (50/50)
Broad Jump = Kick Power (100)

Agility appears to be a red herring as it is randomly assigned and a player who has no bars and all fields zeroed can have a "Red" agility score.

P
Dash = Punt Distance (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Directional Punting (50/50)
Strength = Punt Hang Time (100)

Agility & Broad Jump are randomly assigned and have no correlation to anything.

Kick Holding is randomly assigned with no correlation to combine scores.

*DEFENSE

Some things with regards to defense need explaining.

The only fields that can be entered for defenders in the draft file are:
1. Run Defense
2. Pass Rush
3. Man-to-Man
4. Zone
5. Interceptions
6. Special Teams
7. Endurance
8. Intelligence

For Defensive Linemen only 1, 2, 7 & 8 have a correlation to the combines.

Run Defense maxed out gives Red Scores in Agility & Blue in Strength.
Pass Rush maxed out gives Red Scores in Dash & Blue Scores in Strength.
Endurance maxed gives a maximum score in Broad Jump.
Intelligence maxed gives a Blue Score in Solecismic.

When maximising all scores all fields appear Red.

Solecismic Score:
All Ratings Maxed = 33 to 44
Intelligence Maxed Only = 24 to 29
All Ratings Maxed (But not Intelligence) = 21 - 31
All Ratings at Minimum = 9 to 17
(No singular rating when entered had a correlation with the Solecismic Score).

With all ratings Maxed Play Diagnosis was between 25% and 100%, probably on average at about 75%. In all other tests it was between 0% & 50%, on average not above 25%.

Now if the maxed player had 25% or 100% Play Diagnosis it had no correlation to his solecismic score, they would appear the same.

Make of that what you will, But I *Think* the talent level ups the Solecismic score and when intelligence is taken away that score determines the range of the players Play Diagnosis that is assigned.

Also while Run Defence & Pass Rush Technique make up the strength rating, that rating then seems to be split randomly between PR Strength & Punishing Hitter.

DL
Dash = PR Technique (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis *See above
Strength = PR Strength + Punishing Hitter **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defense (100)
Broad Jump = Endurance (100)

LB
Dash = PR Technique (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis * See Above
Strength = PR Strength + Punishing Hits + Bump & Run **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defense (100)
Broad Jump = Man to Man (100)
Pspec = Interception + Zone Defense (50/50)

DB
Dash = Man to Man + Zone (60/40)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis *See Above
Strength = Bump & Run + Punishing Hitter **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defence (100)
Broad Jump = KR + PR (Random Split)
Pspec = Interceptions + Zone (50/50)

**Also linked to overall ability of player.
For LBs & DBs there is no correlation in the combine for Endurance or Special Teams.

Things to note.

Players with the same ratings in all fields can look very different in the combine, some players are great at the combine while others are very poor, this leads to combine studs whos bars don't hold up or players with bars that their combines don't stand up to. You need to look at a players combine numbers & bars to get a picture, then preferably a scout report.

If you see a player who has an amazing combine and tiny bars and he comes back as very underrated don't presume that he is a star, it is probable that his combine is still lying and although he may be a good and not poor player, he is most probably not a star.

[RedKingGold]

Yes, yes, good catch on the hole recognition and QB's. Your correlations jive enough with mine that I can agree with your conclusions no further testing.

Sorry for letting this fall behind. I basically stopped testing all things FOF due to lack of my own personal interest (in testing).

Please feel free to post the rest of your observations (it's nice to have some confirmation).

[RedKingGold]

Also, I'd double check agility and pass blocking with TE's. I don't think agility is purely getting downfield and has pass blocking to it as well.

From my limited testing of FB's and TE's, I found it difficult because those combine correlations are hybrids of RB's/WR's.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Position Drill for receivers is not just avoid drops, but is adjust to ball as well (hard to determine, but my caluclations above are why).

[QuikSand]

So, if the 40-yard dash for QBs is connected to the unseen hole recognition skill... how do you test for (or observe) that? Are you manually converting all these guys to RB or something? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious -- I don't see how you get past "must connect to something we don't see."

[Caratacus]

Also, I'd double check agility and pass blocking with TE's. I don't think agility is purely getting downfield and has pass blocking to it as well.

From my limited testing of FB's and TE's, I found it difficult because those combine correlations are hybrids of RB's/WR's.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Position Drill for receivers is not just avoid drops, but is adjust to ball as well (hard to determine, but my caluclations above are why).

Cheers, I'm in the process of double checking the Kickers & Punters, I'll go back and look again when I've finished.

I agree with "Adjust to Ball", it seems tied to Avoid Drops. I think that it might be a case of part of the "Avoid Drops" rating is filtered off, but I'll see what I can find.

The reason I stated little or no correlation is that some things seemed very random or I couldn't find enough proof to list it as a definite.

[Caratacus]

So, if the 40-yard dash for QBs is connected to the unseen hole recognition skill... how do you test for (or observe) that? Are you manually converting all these guys to RB or something? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious -- I don't see how you get past "must connect to something we don't see."

In the draft file I put 625 (Max rating) in Hole Recognition for QBs and 375 (minimum rating) in everything else and it gave a Dash rating of around 4.5.

I can be 100% sure of certain ratings, but some ratings are not available to edit, this is were it gets tough.

E.G. Sense Rush has no entry field and is randomly generated, but it was easy to spot as minimised players with high sense rush would have great agility scores.

But Minimised WR's for example could have a small rating in "Adjust to Ball". The other problem here is attribute masking, is the adjust to ball rating real or not? Most players would come up with "Very Overrated" despite possibly only showing a rating in "Adjust to Ball".

I'll keep increasing the sample sizes and see what I can find.

[Caratacus]

RedKingGold.

Sorry, should of said thank you in previous post, as I would never of thought of doing this without your study.

[Caratacus]

Also, I'd double check agility and pass blocking with TE's. I don't think agility is purely getting downfield and has pass blocking to it as well.

Group 1> I entered 625 in Getting Down Field.
Group 2> I entered 625 in Pass Blocking.
Group 3> I entered 625 in Both.
Group 4> All at minimum.
All other ratings at minimum.

Group 1 = 7.15 to 7.38 agility
Group 2 = 8.41 to 8.5 agility
Group 3 = 7.14 to 7.35 agility
Group 4 = 8.38 to 8.5 agility.

Pass blocking has no affect on Agility.

[Caratacus]

Also, I'm pretty sure that the Position Drill for receivers is not just avoid drops, but is adjust to ball as well (hard to determine, but my caluclations above are why).

Players with minimised skills and a green combine in PSpec can still post a fairly high Adjust to Ball rating.

What I have started seeing though is that if a player is rated highly all round it bumps up other ratings.

e.g. Block Strength is randomly assigned to TEs (there is no field to input a rating) and is shown in the Strength/Bench Press Combine, but in general it is assigned higher with the more talented players. The same thing happens in general with Adjust to Ball for WRs, but there is no combine correlation for it.

[RedKingGold]

Group 1> I entered 625 in Getting Down Field.
Group 2> I entered 625 in Pass Blocking.
Group 3> I entered 625 in Both.
Group 4> All at minimum.
All other ratings at minimum.

Group 1 = 7.15 to 7.38 agility
Group 2 = 8.41 to 8.5 agility
Group 3 = 7.14 to 7.35 agility
Group 4 = 8.38 to 8.5 agility.

Pass blocking has no affect on Agility.

Hm...guess I was wrong about that one. Carry on.

[RedKingGold]

RedKingGold.

Sorry, should of said thank you in previous post, as I would never of thought of doing this without your study.

No prob. I'm just glad someone else was willing to take the ball I dropped and run with it (no football pun intended).

[Mistwood19]

In the draft file I put 625 (Max rating) in Hole Recognition for QBs and 375 (minimum rating) in everything else and it gave a Dash rating of around 4.5.


I'm still missing something...QB's don't have a Hole Recognition attribute...please explain....

Thanks for the work also, I've been using RKG's pvs data here recently and this is good stuff to compliment that info.

Also, two questions:
1) You don't note 3rd Down Passing in the QB summary, assuming there is no correlation but it's not in your list & wondering where it fits if at all
2) For FB & TE does it make sense that Block Str & Pass Block would not be the same as O-lineman? Seems like it should but does the data not show that at all or just not with enough to say it is directly applicable?

[QuikSand]

I'm still missing something...QB's don't have a Hole Recognition attribute...please explain....

Every player has a rating in every skill.

The game, to keep things manageable, only displays to us the ratings that are considered relevant to the player's position.

So, QBs are rated for hole recognition... centers have a rating for breakaway speed... linebackers have a rating for avoiding interceptions, and so forth. It's just that most of these ratings are essentially zero for skills that are completely unconnected to the player's initial position, and are hidden from view because they are pointless to evaluate and would just muck up the simple red/green bars screen view.

[Caratacus]

I'm just going over everything and updating my spread sheet then I'll update everything.

Something that may interest you in the meantime...

Both these CBs have everything maxed out, this is how they appear in the draft....

CB A > 4.29 38 16 6.74 11-00 60 56%
Adjusted Rating 8.4 Scout says Underrated.

CB B > 4.42 35 12 6.94 10-04 45 58%
Adjusted Rating 6.2 Scout says Very Underrated.

CB A has all bars nearly maxed except Run Def which is at about 50%

CB B has Zone, Punishing Hitter at 100% all other bars at 30 to 50%

We know under the bonnet these players are maxed out and most CBs look like CB A, CB B obviously isn't a combine stud and would be a hidden gem.

[RedKingGold]

I'm just going over everything and updating my spread sheet then I'll update everything.

Something that may interest you in the meantime...

Both these CBs have everything maxed out, this is how they appear in the draft....

CB A > 4.29 38 16 6.74 11-00 60 56%
Adjusted Rating 8.4 Scout says Underrated.

CB B > 4.42 35 12 6.94 10-04 45 58%
Adjusted Rating 6.2 Scout says Very Underrated.

CB A has all bars nearly maxed except Run Def which is at about 50%

CB B has Zone, Punishing Hitter at 100% all other bars at 30 to 50%

We know under the bonnet these players are maxed out and most CBs look like CB A, CB B obviously isn't a combine stud and would be a hidden gem.

Yup, this is the masking effect of FOF. Even though CB A and CB B are both identical players, CB A will always be considered the "better CB" because his overall rating will likely always be higher than CB B. However, their results on the field should be relatively the same, as they are in fact the same player.

That's the key thing to remember about combines. We can't really point to a 4.38 WR Dash and say, "Oh, his Big Play Receiving is going to be at 70." However, we can tell what bars are fake and which are not by looking at the draft correlations.

[Caratacus]

Also, two questions:
1) You don't note 3rd Down Passing in the QB summary, assuming there is no correlation but it's not in your list & wondering where it fits if at all
2) For FB & TE does it make sense that Block Str & Pass Block would not be the same as O-lineman? Seems like it should but does the data not show that at all or just not with enough to say it is directly applicable?

1. Sorry, Updated now, it had no correlation.

2. Stick with me while I go back over everything and I'll answer in full.

[Mistwood19]

1. Sorry, Updated now, it had no correlation.

2. Stick with me while I go back over everything and I'll answer in full.

Thanks and no problem, just trying to help make sure all the bases are covered.

[Caratacus]

2) For FB & TE does it make sense that Block Str & Pass Block would not be the same as O-lineman? Seems like it should but does the data not show that at all or just not with enough to say it is directly applicable?

Pass Blocking for TEs & FBs has no correlation in the combine. (If I enter Min or Max in the draft file it makes no difference to the results of any combine).

TEs Block Strength comes from their strength rating and there is no correlation for FBs (it is randomly applied and has no affect on the Combine scores).

[Caratacus]

All testing finished.

Things aren't as simple as they may seem below...

e.g. Solecismic Score for QBs
Avoid Int + Intelligence Maxed = Score between 37 - 53.
Avoid Int Maxed = Score between 41 - 43.
Intelligence Maxed = Score between 26 - 40.
Both Minimised = 8 - 26.

So you can't simply scout for Intelligence and subtract from the Solecismic Score to find the players Avoid Interception rating. Well you can and sometimes it will give you a clear picture (e.g. Intelligence Rating of 1 & Solecismic Rating of 43 you know that the Avoid Interceptions is going to be pretty damn good), but a lot of the time things are going to be quite muddy. (I used Solecismic as an example, most of the ratings that don't give a link between 1 Ability and 1 Combine work this way).

OFFENSE

QB
Dash = Scramble + Hole Recognition (50/50)
Solecismic = Avoid Interceptions & Intelligence (60/40)
Strength = Long Passing + Deep Passing (50/50)
Agility = Sense Rush + Screen Pass (50/50)
Broad Jump = Medium Passing (100)
Position Specific = Accuracy + Timing (50/50)

No Correlation = Short Pass, Third Down Passing + Avoid Fumbles.
Randomly Generated = Read Defence, Two Minute Offense + Kick Holding.

RB
Dash = Breakaway Speed (100)
Solecismic = Hole Recognition + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Power Inside (100)
Agility = Elusiveness + Getting Down Field + 3rd Down Rushing (33/33/33)
Broad Jump = Endurance + 3rd Down Rushing (50/50)
Position Specific = Route Running (100) *see below

No Correlation = Avoid Drop, 3rd Down Catching, Special Teams, KR, PR & Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linking to overall ability = Blitz Pick Up, Speed To Outside.
*Position Specific Skill is only used for route running, but it also goes up according to overall ability.

FB
Dash = Breakaway Speed (100)
Solecismic = Hole Recognition + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Power Inside (100)
Agility = Elusiveness + Getting Down Field + 3rd Down Rushing (33/33/33)
Broad Jump = Run Blocking + 3rd Down Rushing (50/50)
Position Specific = Route Running (100) *See below

No Correlation = Pass Blocking, 3rd Down Catching, Avoid Drops, Endurance, Special Teams & Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Blocking Strength & Blitz Pick Up.
*Postion Specific Skill is only used for route running, but it also goes up according to overall ability.

TE
Dash = Big Play + Getting Down Field (50/50)
Solecismic = Route Running + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Blocking Strength (100)
Agility = Getting Down Field (100)
Broad Jump = 3rd Down Catching + Run Blocking (50/50)
Position Specific = Avoid Drops (100) *See below

No correlation = Courage, Pass Blocking, Endurance, Special Teams & Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Long Snapping, Adjust To Ball
Strength is randomly assigned linked to overall ability, which in turn is used to determine blocking strength.
*Position Specific Skill is only used for Avoid Drops, but goes up according to overall ability.

WR
Dash = Big Play + Getting Down Field (50/50)
Solecismic = Route Running + Intelligence (50/50)
Strength = Courage (100)
Agility = Getting Down Field (100)
Broad Jump = KR + PR (50/50)
Position Specific = Avoid Drops (100) *See Below

No correlation = 3rd Down Catching, Endurance, Special Teams, Avoid Fumble.
Randomly generated linked to overall ability = Adjust to Ball.
*Position Specific Skill is only used for Avoid Drops, but goes up according to overall ability.

OT/OG/OC
Dash = Run Blocking (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence (100)
Strength = Blocking Strength (100)
Agility = Pass Blocking (100)
Broad Jump = Endurance (100)

Randomly generated = Long Snapping.
Run Blocking & Pass Blocking make up the strength rating which then correlates to Blocking Strength.

SPECIAL TEAMS

K
Dash = Kickoff Distance (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + FG Accuracy (50/50)
Strength = Kick Power + Kickoff Hang Time (50/50)
Broad Jump = Kick Power (100)

Agility appears to be a red herring as it is randomly assigned and a player who has no bars and all fields zeroed can have a "Red" agility score.

P
Dash = Punt Distance (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Directional Punting (50/50)
Strength = Punt Hang Time (100)

Agility & Broad Jump are randomly assigned and have no correlation to anything.

Kick Holding is randomly assigned with no correlation to combine scores.

*DEFENSE

Some things with regards to defense need explaining.

The only fields that can be entered for defenders in the draft file are:
1. Run Defense
2. Pass Rush
3. Man-to-Man
4. Zone
5. Interceptions
6. Special Teams
7. Endurance
8. Intelligence

For Defensive Linemen only 1, 2, 7 & 8 have a correlation to the combines.

Run Defense maxed out gives Red Scores in Agility & Blue in Strength.
Pass Rush maxed out gives Red Scores in Dash & Blue Scores in Strength.
Endurance maxed gives a maximum score in Broad Jump.
Intelligence maxed gives a Blue Score in Solecismic.

When maximising all scores all fields appear Red.

Solecismic Score:
All Ratings Maxed = 33 to 44
Intelligence Maxed Only = 24 to 29
All Ratings Maxed (But not Intelligence) = 21 - 31
All Ratings at Minimum = 9 to 17
(No singular rating when entered had a correlation with the Solecismic Score).

With all ratings Maxed Play Diagnosis was between 25% and 100%, probably on average at about 75%. In all other tests it was between 0% & 50%, on average not above 25%.

Now if the maxed player had 25% or 100% Play Diagnosis it had no correlation to his solecismic score, they would appear the same.

Make of that what you will, But I *Think* the talent level ups the Solecismic score and when intelligence is taken away that score determines the range of the players Play Diagnosis that is assigned.

Also while Run Defence & Pass Rush Technique make up the strength rating, that rating then seems to be split randomly between PR Strength & Punishing Hitter.

DL
Dash = PR Technique (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis *See above
Strength = PR Strength + Punishing Hitter **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defense (100)
Broad Jump = Endurance (100)

LB
Dash = PR Technique (100)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis * See Above
Strength = PR Strength + Punishing Hits + Bump & Run **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defense (100)
Broad Jump = Man to Man (100)
Pspec = Interception + Zone Defense (50/50)

DB
Dash = Man to Man + Zone (60/40)
Solecismic = Intelligence + Play Diagnosis *See Above
Strength = Bump & Run + Punishing Hitter **(Random Split)
Agility = Run Defence (100)
Broad Jump = KR + PR (Random Split)
Pspec = Interceptions + Zone (50/50)

**Also linked to overall ability of player.
For LBs & DBs there is no correlation in the combine for Endurance or Special Teams.

Things to note.

Players with the same ratings in all fields can look very different in the combine, some players are great at the combine while others are very poor, this leads to combine studs whos bars don't hold up or players with bars that their combines don't stand up to. You need to look at a players combine numbers & bars to get a picture, then preferably a scout report.

If you see a player who has an amazing combine and tiny bars and he comes back as very underrated don't presume that he is a star, it is probable that his combine is still lying and although he may be a good and not poor player, he is most probably not a star.

All finished, hope you find it of use.

I have lots of data which I can work with now, I will see what I can do to look deeper into the numbers and maybe write up a draft guide.

[QuikSand]

I am very interested in this, but I still am having trouble with your presentation of certain ratings not having any correlation to combines at all, and some being connected to overall skill. I have not been able to follow how you reached these conclusions, and why they seem to be pretty different on offense and defense. Can you help me through it a bit more?

here's an exmaple, if it helps:


RB

Dash = Breakaway Speed (100)

Randomly generated linking to overall ability = Blitz Pick Up, Speed To Outside.

Before reading this, I would have placed my hand over my heart and sworn that the dash time connected to speed to the outside. You say it doesn't. Can you walk me through how you conclude this to be true? I'm not disputing you (at least not yet) I just don't understand how you got there.

[Caratacus]

I am very interested in this, but I still am having trouble with your presentation of certain ratings not having any correlation to combines at all, and some being connected to overall skill. I have not been able to follow how you reached these conclusions, and why they seem to be pretty different on offense and defense. Can you help me through it a bit more?

here's an exmaple, if it helps:



Before reading this, I would have placed my hand over my heart and sworn that the dash time connected to speed to the outside. You say it doesn't. Can you walk me through how you conclude this to be true? I'm not disputing you (at least not yet) I just don't understand how you got there.

Ok, quick test, 10 players in each group.

Group A everything maxed out.
Group B everything on Minimum.
Group C Max Breakaway, Min everything else.
Group D Min Breakaway, Max everything else.

Speed to Outside.
Group A = Blue Bar between 90 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.31 > 4.44)
Group B = Blue Bar between 0 & 40 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.71 > 4.85)
Group C = Blue Bar beween 0 & 45 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.34 > 4.53)
Group D = Blue Bar between 85 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.67 > 4.74)

There is no entry in the draft file for speed to the outside, the only entry that affects the Dash is Breakaway Speed.

[RedKingGold]

Ok, quick test, 10 players in each group.

Group A everything maxed out.
Group B everything on Minimum.
Group C Max Breakaway, Min everything else.
Group D Min Breakaway, Max everything else.

Speed to Outside.
Group A = Blue Bar between 90 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.31 > 4.44)
Group B = Blue Bar between 0 & 40 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.71 > 4.85)
Group C = Blue Bar beween 0 & 45 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.34 > 4.53)
Group D = Blue Bar between 85 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.67 > 4.74)

There is no entry in the draft file for speed to the outside, the only entry that affects the Dash is Breakaway Speed.

Are you giving ranges?

The problem is that the ranges you have given contradict that Dash only affects breakaway speed.

If the highest Player C can score in the dash is 4.34 (with max breakaway, min everything else), then he should have as high of a dash score as Player A. Instead, we see player A (who is maxed in everything) still has consistently a higher dash score than player C (at least 4.44 and the higest possible value at 4.31).

So something must be affecting that 40-yard dash score. It's probably not a high correlation, but it is higher than zero.

I think your testing has good merit, but there is a flaw when you tested the offensive positions that you did not repeat when testing the defensive positions.

With the offensive positions, you have categorized certain ratings as being randomly generated (which they are), but concluding that there is no correlation. However, with defensive ratings, you have noticed and recorded correlations with ratings that you have no control over (such as bump and run, play diagnosis, and punishing hitter).

[RedKingGold]

Nice job, btw. I don't want to sound like an ass contradicting all of your hard work (and I know how arduous it is), but just wanted to make sure we're on the same page before we make any conclusions.

FWIW, I largely agree with your conclusions for defensive positions.

[MalcPow]

Ok, quick test, 10 players in each group.

Group A everything maxed out.
Group B everything on Minimum.
Group C Max Breakaway, Min everything else.
Group D Min Breakaway, Max everything else.

Speed to Outside.
Group A = Blue Bar between 90 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.31 > 4.44)
Group B = Blue Bar between 0 & 40 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.71 > 4.85)
Group C = Blue Bar beween 0 & 45 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.34 > 4.53)
Group D = Blue Bar between 85 & 100 on all players. (Dash Scores 4.67 > 4.74)

There is no entry in the draft file for speed to the outside, the only entry that affects the Dash is Breakaway Speed.

Well, the big flaw here could be in thinking that because the csv format for the 2k4 draft file generator didn't have certain ratings then those ratings aren't in 2k7 draft files or that they bear no correlation with certain combines. Bump and Run isn't in the csv file format, but I think everyone, including you, can see that it clearly correlates to the bench press. When 2k7 generates its draft files it's quite possible (pretty likely even) that ratings other than those in the old draft file generator's csv format are being reflected by certain combine scores. I think the research you guys have done is great with regard to figuring out how certain ratings that are in the old csv format used by the 2k4 generator correlate to 2k7 combines, but I think your efforts shouldn't be extended to mean anything conclusive about the ratings that aren't in there. Just my two cents.

[Caratacus]

Points taken, the tricky part is players over and under achieving in the combine, it can give pretty freaky results at the top and bottom ranges.

I've had an idea, it will take quite a bit of time tho, so bear with me. (Not that this hasn't taken many hours already lol, but at least it gives me a good starting place). (I'll post ranges also, so you guys can spot things that maybe I'm missing!)

Please keep any thoughts, flaws coming.

[Firefly]

Yup, this is the masking effect of FOF. Even though CB A and CB B are both identical players, CB A will always be considered the "better CB" because his overall rating will likely always be higher than CB B. However, their results on the field should be relatively the same, as they are in fact the same player.

That's the key thing to remember about combines. We can't really point to a 4.38 WR Dash and say, "Oh, his Big Play Receiving is going to be at 70." However, we can tell what bars are fake and which are not by looking at the draft correlations.

Are you saying that a player with a high combine score (say a DE with a fast dash), will generally perform at a high level (in this case a high sack count), despite the fact that his bars will never grow to be very high (in this instance the passrush technique bar)? Because that would be awesome!

If so, how often do you think this happens compared to players with high combine scores that don't, in fact, pan out?

[RedKingGold]

Well, the big flaw here could be in thinking that because the csv format for the 2k4 draft file generator didn't have certain ratings then those ratings aren't in 2k7 draft files or that they bear no correlation with certain combines. Bump and Run isn't in the csv file format, but I think everyone, including you, can see that it clearly correlates to the bench press. When 2k7 generates its draft files it's quite possible (pretty likely even) that ratings other than those in the old draft file generator's csv format are being reflected by certain combine scores. I think the research you guys have done is great with regard to figuring out how certain ratings that are in the old csv format used by the 2k4 generator correlate to 2k7 combines, but I think your efforts shouldn't be extended to mean anything conclusive about the ratings that aren't in there. Just my two cents.

I have yet to see any difference between how FOF2K7 handles importing draft files to how FOF2K4 handled draft files.

However, everything I have shared and posted have just been my own personal tests (when I tested) and was willing to share what I thought and why I thought it with the FOF Community. If you read my introductory post, the idea wasn't to break down drafting into a scientific formula. In fact, FOF does a really great job of randomizing talent, even with knowledge of potential correlations, that there are few sure picks.

Thus, the idea wasn't to say: "Hey, a 4.37 Dash means this guy has a 77 Big Play Receiving." First off, this was outside of my capabilities, and second, there should be some mystery to the draft.

I personally believe that these correlations hold up and have yet to see anything that they do not. If I am proven wrong by someone who has more will to test or better technological know-how, then so be it. However, all I will say is that I have had much better success drafting since looking at how FOF2K7 handles importing FOF2K4 draft files.

I guess that's all I can do to defend what I have tested. It's what I believe and will continue to use until proven different.

[RedKingGold]

Are you saying that a player with a high combine score (say a DE with a fast dash), will generally perform at a high level (in this case a high sack count), despite the fact that his bars will never grow to be very high (in this instance the passrush technique bar)? Because that would be awesome!

If so, how often do you think this happens compared to players with high combine scores that don't, in fact, pan out?

Read through this thread: The Eddie England Saga (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=60363&highlight=Eddie+England) to get a better idea of how extreme I think scout error can be. The majority of the pictures are missing, but the story is basically about a defensive end scouted at no better than 10/14 who put up double-digit sacks on a consistent basis.

Granted, that thread was dated at an older patch, and scouting error has been tweaked, but I've seen enough in the historical FOF MP league that I'm in to know that a scouting error of 20-30 points is still very, very possible.

[Caratacus]

1,000 RB Draft File

Overall
Dash 4.29 > 4.85

Without Breakaway Speed.
Dash 4.60 > 4.85

With Breakaway Speed.
Dash 4.29 > 4.60

Maximum Everything but Minimum Breakaway
Dash 4.60 > 4.75

Minimum Everything but Maximum Breakaway
Dash 4.33 > 4.60


There seems to be a definite cut off point with regards Breakaway Speed and the Dash @ 4.60.

Overall Ability seems to add a + 0.04 at the top end of the Dash.
and a +0.10 at the bottom end.

I see no correlation with Speed to the Outside or Blitz Pick Up.
No other single rating has any affect on the Dash.

This leads me to believe that players with higher overall ability get a slight bump in the combines or are more likely to over perform at the combine hence the small differences we are seeing, or am I missing something?

EDIT: Also note not including QB, K & P only stats the Defence has 11 possible field enteries and the Offense has 19 (both including KRs, PRs & Avoid Fumble), so the fact that most of the defensive stats correlate to the combine and less of the offensive ones is not completely suprising. I'll keep on testing anyhow....

[QuikSand]

Okay, since I used "speed to outside" as my example... this is the total you had to say on that specific rating.

I see no correlation with Speed to the Outside or Blitz Pick Up.
No other single rating has any affect on the Dash.

This leads me to believe that players with higher overall ability get a slight bump in the combines or are more likely to over perform at the combine hence the small differences we are seeing, or am I missing something?

Since I don't see anything in your digging that gets to any indicator of strength effect, I assume that you have not been doing any sort of regression, and are simply looking at the min/max analysis. Correct?

So... it would still be possible, for instance, that speed to outside does indeed have a correlative relationship with the RB's dash time at the combine, but since it remains spread across the entire scale for that rating, you wouldn't see it by just looking at min/max. Right?

[MalcPow]

I have yet to see any difference between how FOF2K7 handles importing draft files to how FOF2K4 handled draft files.

However, everything I have shared and posted have just been my own personal tests (when I tested) and was willing to share what I thought and why I thought it with the FOF Community. If you read my introductory post, the idea wasn't to break down drafting into a scientific formula. In fact, FOF does a really great job of randomizing talent, even with knowledge of potential correlations, that there are few sure picks.

Thus, the idea wasn't to say: "Hey, a 4.37 Dash means this guy has a 77 Big Play Receiving." First off, this was outside of my capabilities, and second, there should be some mystery to the draft.

I personally believe that these correlations hold up and have yet to see anything that they do not. If I am proven wrong by someone who has more will to test or better technological know-how, then so be it. However, all I will say is that I have had much better success drafting since looking at how FOF2K7 handles importing FOF2K4 draft files.

I guess that's all I can do to defend what I have tested. It's what I believe and will continue to use until proven different.

There's a ton of value in these tests, I was just trying to respond to the "dash has no correlation with speed to the outside" sort of rationale. It seems like something like that isn't testable in the same way the two of you have tested other attributes that you can control in the csv format. If it's beyond the methodology of the test, those observations should probably be qualified.

As a sidenote, other tests could be run using Extractor data from game-generated classes to spot trends between combines and bars as well. Somebody with the head for that sort of thing would seem to have all the available info needed to crunch things. It would be an interesting complement to the work here.

[Firefly]

Thanks, redkinggold, I checked that thread out and now I'm gonna look for skydog's.

[Caratacus]

There's a ton of value in these tests, I was just trying to respond to the "dash has no correlation with speed to the outside" sort of rationale. It seems like something like that isn't testable in the same way the two of you have tested other attributes that you can control in the csv format. If it's beyond the methodology of the test, those observations should probably be qualified.

I'm pulling together all the info I can which I'll post here. As you say it isn't testable like the majority of fields. So it's not the easiest thing to test for.

As a sidenote, other tests could be run using Extractor data from game-generated classes to spot trends between combines and bars as well. Somebody with the head for that sort of thing would seem to have all the available info needed to crunch things. It would be an interesting complement to the work here.

I've never used extractor, so I don't know exactly what it covers.

The other big problems are a) Scouting Error and b) Good & Poor performers at the combine. All this can make things very muddy.

[Caratacus]

Here's some info for you, see what you make of it...

Group 1 > Players with all attributes maxed & players with everything maxed bar one attribute.

Group 2 > Players with all attributes at minimum & players with all attributes at minimum with one attribute maxed.

Group 1:
Fastest Player @ 4.29
Fastest Player without BA @ 4.60
Slowest Player with max BA @ 4.54
Slowest Player @ 4.75

No player had less than 50 SPO

6.4% of Red Combines had less than 75% SPO (27/420 players)
47% of Blue Combines had less than 75% SPO (16/34 players)
37.8% of Black Combines had less than 75% SPO (7/22 players)
100% of Green Combines had less than 75% SPO (3/3 players)

Average Speed of 479 maxed players @ 4.41
By far the highest total of players (63) fell in this group.

Before jumping to conclusions remember the players with the fastest and slowest speeds are subject to scouting error, many of the slower players had lower bars across the board even though they had maxed out skills in those areas.

Group 2.
Fastest Player @ 4.33
Fastest Player without BA @ 4.73
Slowest Player with Max BA @ 4.60
Slowest Player @ 4.85

No player scored over 50 SPO.
(The fastest player @ 4.33 had Zero SPO).

All Players

Average Dash of all players with BA 4.40
Average Dash of all players without BA 4.81

Players have to have a speed of no less than 4.75 to score 100 SPO
Below 4.75 the maximum a player can score is 50.

[Caratacus]

Between high quality & Low quality players there seems to be a small difference in ranges.

0.04 at the top speed.
0.13 without Breakaway Speed.
0.10 at the bottom

The high quality players can score between 50 - 100 SPO.
The low quality players between 0 - 50 SPO.

I would suggest that it is the ranges (0-50) & (50-100) that account for the differences not the score within that range as the slowest of high quality players can still post 100 SPO & 100 BA (Combine Weakling) and the fastest low quality player (4.33) posted a 0 SPO (Combine Stud).

So from the above data I'm willing to concede that Speed Outside is part of the dash.

[Caratacus]

Final Analysis of the FOF DRAFT (from me anyway).

Key.
No correlation: Draft file has an entry, but makes no change to any of the combine scores.

Unknown correlation: Ability that has no entry in the draft file and "no correlation can be seen" when studying the draft. (Many but not all, seem to be triggered by a high overall ability)

*Ability has no entry in the draft file, but "almost definitely has a link" with a combine result.

**Ability has no entry in the draft file but "may have a small link" with a combine result.


QB
DASH: Scramble & Hole Recognotion.
SOLE: Avoid Interceptions & Intelligence.
STRG: Long & Deep Passing.
AGIL: Sense Rush* & Screen Pass.
BJMP: Medium Passing.
PSPC: Accuracy & Timing.

No correlation: Short Passing, 3rd Down Passing, Avoid Fumbles.
Unknown correlation: Read Defense, Two Minute Offense, Kick Holding.

RB
DASH: Breakaway Speed & Speed Outside*
SOLE: Hole Recognition & Intelligence.
STRG: Power Inside.
AGIL: Elusiveness, Getting Down Field & 3rd Down Running.
BJMP: Endurance & 3rd Down Running.
PSPC: Route Running & Blitz Pick Up**

No Correlation: Avoid Drop, 3rd Down Receiving, Avoid Fumble, KR, PR & Special Teams.

FB
DASH: Breakaway Speed.
SOLE: Hole Recognition & Intelligence.
STRG: Power Inside.
AGIL: Elusiveness, Getting Down Field & 3rd Down Running.
BJMP: Run Blocking & 3rd Down Running.
PSPC: Route Running & Blitz Pick Up**

No Correlation: Avoid Drop, 3rd Down Receiving, Avoid Fumble, Pass Blocking, Endurance & Special Teams.
Unknown correlation: Blocking Strength.

TE
DASH: Big Play & Getting Down Field.
SOLE: Route Running & Intelligence.
STRG: Blocking Strength*
AGIL: Getting Down Field.
BJMP: Run Blocking & 3rd Down Receiving.
PSPC: Avoid Drop & Adjust to Ball**

No Correlation: Courage, Pass Blocking, Avoid Fumble, Endurance & Special Teams.
Unknown correlation: Long Snapping.

WR
DASH: Big Play & Getting Down Field.
SOLE: Route Running & Intelligence.
STRG: Courage.
AGIL: Getting Down Field.
BJMP: KR & PR.
PSPC: Avoid Drop & Adjust to Ball**

No Correlation: 3rd Down Receiving, Avoid Fumble, Endurance & Special Teams.

OL:
DASH: Run Blocking.
SOLE: Intelligence.
STRG: Blocking Strength*
AGIL: Pass Blocking.
BJMP: Endurance.

Unknown correlation: Long Snapping.

K
DASH: K.O. Distance.
SOLE: FG Accuracy & Intelligence.
STRG: Kick Power & K.O. Hang Time.
AGIL: ?
BJMP: Kick Power.

P
DASH: Punt Distance.
SOLE: Directional Punting & Intelligence.
STRG: Punt Hang Time.
AGIL: ?
BJMP: ?

Unknown correlation: Kick Holding.

DL
DASH: PR Technique.
SOLE: Play Diagnosis* & Intelligence.
STRG: PR Strength & Punishing Hitter*
AGIL: Run Defense.
BJMP: Endurance.

LB
DASH: PR Technique.
SOLE: Play Diagnosis* & Intelligence.
STRG: PR Strength, Punishing Hitter* & Bump & Run**
AGIL: Run Defense.
BJMP: Man to Man.
PSPC: Interceptions & Zone.

No Correlation: Endurance & Special Teams.

DB
DASH: Man to Man & Zone.
SOLE: Play Diagnosis* & Intelligence.
STRG: Bump & Run** & Punishing Hitter**
AGIL: Run Defence.
BJMP: KR & PR.
PSPC: Interceptions & Zone.

No Correlation: Endurance & Special Teams.

Final notes:
Where there is a field entry in the draft file you can see a definite change in the combine scores or not. So we can safely assume all these are correct. (There is also no cummilative effect when adding all non showing combine fields together).

Where there is no field entry things become far more complicated, especially when you add in scouting error and players who perform well or poorly in the combine. Sense Rush for QBs was by far the easiest to spot of these and can safely be assumed correct.

Observations:
The QB position was easily the most volatile, with players displaying bars & combines far removed from what their true ability was.

Scouting is very important, the combines and the bars lie to you often. Usually one is closer to the truth than the other.

Eg: A RB with 100 breakaway speed can have a dash score anywhere between 4.57 and 4.31. This is where looking at the bars can help, if the guy with 4.57 is showing 100 Breakaway Speed, scout him, it could be true.

Warning though, scouts get it wrong and occasionaly very wrong, use all the info at hand, Combine + Bars + Scout, this will give you the best chance of success.

Lastly, I have gone back over all this three times now and each time massively increased the amount of players in the tests and looked at every combination of the field enteries, combine results and even drafted lots of players that showed bars that didn't agree with my thoughts to check for scouting error. I have tried above (through the key) to show things that we can know and things that we can see and also vague links that may or may not be there. Hopefully this will be acceptable. (I can post ranges if it's felt necessary to prove the above regarding all combines that have a draft file field entry).

[MalcPow]

Great work! Thanks for this.

[Darren29]

Outstanding work. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say thanks for putting so much time into this, much appreciated.

[MIJB#19]

Mostly confirmation of earlier research by RKG and me, but thanks for doing this, Caratacus!

[NoMyths]

Tremendous work, RKG and Caratacus.

[Hammer]

I thought about creating a new thread for this, but I figured really this thread is on topic for the new research I am about to put forward. This really builds on the previous work that has been done.

I am going to be discussing those "static bars" here. The ones that come out fully developed when a rookie hits your roster. Sense rush, breakaway speed, blocking strength to name a few.

This is a bit tough to take in for experienced players, as it kind of goes against the grain of what you have probably learnt in the past. Bars lie, combines are more accurate. Well, not in the case of static bars. In short, static bars always lay in the range that your scout sees. Its as simple as that. Test it for yourself.

What the above combine calculation information does, is give you a predictor of where a bar is going to lie. In this case, what the scout does is give you an absolute definitive answer in regard to the range in which the bar lies. Having a good scout really helps, as it narrows the bar range. Usually the combines will point you in the right direction - that is how correlations have been found. Sometimes they do lie though, and will catch you out in dramatic fashion as I will illustrate later.

This research is fairly new. The one exception to this hard and fast rule may be the boom/bust phenomenon. At this point we are unsure whether that can impact static bars. My guess is that it probably can. But that is just a guess.

Through testing I have satisfied myself that these bars that come out far and away from where the combine correlations indicates they should, are correct. There is no particular masking effect.

So how did this come about? Well in the NAFL draft the year before last the Raiders took this guy late in the first.


http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii258/Togarth/Shiromascouted.jpg

A few of us debated what his sense rush would be. Jeffrey used his wizardry to generated this profile.


http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii258/Togarth/shiroma.png

I thought the combine should generate a sense rush in the region of 45-50. We talked back and forth a little. Anyhow, the resulting player was way off. Maybe it was just a random bust I figured.


http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii258/Togarth/ShiromaNow.jpg

What Jeffrey and I didn't know at the time was that the scout is always right with static bars. Hard to believe isn't it, under our noses all the time. Luckily for us, another NAFL GM was looking on and had a eureka moment. Bill, the Browns GM is the guy who nailed this. It seems so obvious now, but he was the only guy to my knowledge who actually saw what was so obvious on reflection.

So this year when this guy came up....


http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii258/Togarth/Poolescouted.jpg

...we knew that what appeared to be potentially be a good sense rush bar if you believe the agility combine, actually was not. The irony was that maybe the best drafter in the league took this guy at 1.4. In theory, without this knowledge you would figure he just nailed an absolute stud. Well, he is pretty good. But that sense rush bar makes a big difference.


http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii258/Togarth/Poolenow.jpg


Static bars generally only creep very, very slightly. Maybe a couple of points. As I say, from my own testing, I am satisfied the bar that goes against the combine information on face value, is an accurate representation of the players ability. At least as much as any other bar, on any other player is.

It may be in the case of Poole that the 7.44 agility will be illustrated through the other half of the equation, screen pass. That is a bar that can creep. Having said that, I have seen a high strength score directly equal a low blocking strength with no evidence of a bust on any other bar.

This information, in conjunction with the combine work in this thread really does nail the draft pretty good now. I think Jim is going to have to throw something else into the mix now, to make it a little less obvious and mechanical.

[gstelmack]

Is there a list of the "static bars"?

[jeffrey]

Guess I may as well post this here, too:

FYI, this is what I get if I nail down the sense rush bar for these two:

Shiroma:
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu287/nideic/shiroma-1.png

Poole:
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu287/nideic/poole.png

[TheMeat]

Excellent work guys. Good to know and it'd be good to have a list of these static bars as well, although I'm pretty sure I know what most of them are I'm probably unaware of some.

[brimar]

Great read and really interesting stuff. Like others would love to know what these "static bars" are though, or at least some of them??

[Celeval]

Quality work here. Some stuff here that's new thinking to me, and very well done.

This research is fairly new. The one exception to this hard and fast rule may be the boom/bust phenomenon. At this point we are unsure whether that can impact static bars. My guess is that it probably can. But that is just a guess.

My working theory for some time is that the rookie boom/busts are exactly the same as the veteran boom/busts, with perhaps a difference in frequency.

[wade moore]

Have you tracked this over time? Are we sure these "static bars" do not creep? I'm not sure we really have that much information here if we do not know that.

[RedKingGold]

It may be in the case of Poole that the 7.44 agility will be illustrated through the other half of the equation, screen pass. That is a bar that can creep. Having said that, I have seen a high strength score directly equal a low blocking strength with no evidence of a bust on any other bar.

I think this is something you may be dismissing one or two things a little bit too easily.

I do agree with your overall point that there is usually little movement behind static bars. However, I disagree with the thought that this makes that combine correlation irrelevant.

I believe that combine numbers are dictated by the bar profile, not that the combines dictate the values of the bars. In your example, therefore, a quarterback can have a strong agility score, a low sense rush, but also a much higher than indicated screen pass score.

As to your blocking strength/bench press example above, there is often (1) noise included with the raw combine numbers, and (2) the created combine score is a representation of that individual's skill with the collective group. Therefore, guy with a "high" bench press score might only be in the 40's-50's for pass rush/block strength because the majority in his class are low in that same skill.

That said, I think that it would be very smart to take into strongly account static bars for drafting. I, for one, usually comb through running backs when a draft class is released and will not even interview (let alone consider) drafting an RB when my scout indicates that his Breakaway Speed is not above the middle line.

Also, don't forget scouting error. I've seen scouting error frequently apply to all bars (including static ratings) in my testing which might be making some ratings lower than they appear.

Lastly, there are some bars that are just a difficult animal to test because they are randomly generated for each draft class. Sense rush is one of those, IIRC (I haven't played with the draft file generator in awhile).

[Hammer]

Have you tracked this over time? Are we sure these "static bars" do not creep? I'm not sure we really have that much information here if we do not know that.


Yes we are sure that the bars remain fairly static. Feel free to do a test. You may see a couple of points in variation over a career before decline sets in, but literally just a couple of points. It may even be the case that there is absolutely no change and we are dealing with scout error.

Sorry I left this a bit up in the air been very busy. "Static bars" in other words are the ones that have no green when the rookie hits your roster, on any player, the bar is always fully developed. I don't have a defintitive list, but it is fairly easy to see for yourself. I will put together a list at some point, if I don't get beaten to it. Sense rush is the most important of these bars. RB breakaway speed probably the other main bar of note. The others are mainly "low impact bars". Blocking strength, pass rushing strength, punishing hitter...

[Hammer]

I think this is something you may be dismissing one or two things a little bit too easily.

I do agree with your overall point that there is usually little movement behind static bars. However, I disagree with the thought that this makes that combine correlation irrelevant.


I haven't really dismissed any of your points, its just that I haven't really had time to fully explain my thoughts, or illustrate the further research I have done in detail.

I don't recall saying that this makes combine correlation irrelevant. Perhaps I did, but in reality my thoughts were a little more complex.

I was thinking this really makes things easier for noobs in particular, who can see plain and simple where the players static bars will lie. When you get to a more advanced level it is indeed wise to not to completely dismiss combine information. It may well give you information as to where in that scouted bar the actual value is likely to sit.

Having said that, in the case of Poole it really isn't that important. The sense rush bar is far more important than screen, so the key information is in the scouted sense rush bar. We knew Poole's sense rush would only be between 25 and 35, which was huge in this case. In general, with your average case, I would agree it is a factor that can still be of use.

Generally speaking, the importance of the combine correlation when discussing static bars, is more important the worse your scout is. The bigger the scouted bar section, the more you have to rely on that correlation.


I believe that combine numbers are dictated by the bar profile, not that the combines dictate the values of the bars. In your example, therefore, a quarterback can have a strong agility score, a low sense rush, but also a much higher than indicated screen pass score.


Indeed. The key element I am presenting here though is that this research reveals the fact that the sense rush bar will not be masked, and will lie in the scouts estimate somewhere. Previous to this research many of the best drafters, I would go as far as to say almost all, would have made the mistake of thinking that perhaps a guy like Poole's sense rush may be better than advertised. As you rightly say, his screen may be better. But people care about sense rush, not screen.

I can see where you going though. When it comes to punishing hitter then the other side of the equation is of interest. We know roughly what punishing hitter is going to be, therefore that will give us help in estimating what BnR is going to be.



(2) the created combine score is a representation of that individual's skill with the collective group.


This is something I wasn't aware of. I don't think Jeffrey or Bill were either going by our recent conversations.

Certainly I was of the impression that a "blue" score was good. Very roughly speaking within the 50-75 range. We had discussed noise inside the score, but that would be a heck of a lot of noise to the point we felt that wasn't the answer.

The LT in question benched 34 reps and ended up with 39 blocking strength. We expected more like 60.

Still, again my scout told my that this players blocking strength would be between 32 and 42 (roughly). I'm sure many people would of thought, that seems low, probably a masked bar. With this new information, we knew that wasn't the case. When you have a quality scout it really gives you a small margin of error.

[Celeval]

The LT in question benched 34 reps and ended up with 39 blocking strength. We expected more like 60.

Still, again my scout told my that this players blocking strength would be between 32 and 42 (roughly). I'm sure many people would of thought, that seems low, probably a masked bar. With this new information, we knew that wasn't the case. When you have a quality scout it really gives you a small margin of error.

I'm leaning towards this not being the case - that "static" bars can and would be masked as well. Randomly going back in the WOOF, at an LT I've got:

Two seasons ago (Rookie)
Overall: 39/62
Run Blocking: 37/59
Pass Blocking: 36/79
Blocking Strength: 52
Endurance: 39/46

This season (Third year)
Overall: 58/58
Run Blocking: 62/62
Pass Blocking: 60/60
Blocking Strength: 55/55
Endurance: 51/51

I know for a fact that creeping affected fully-developed bars back in 2k4.

[jeffrey]

This is something I wasn't aware of. I don't think Jeffrey or Bill were either going by our recent conversations.

Definitely news to me, but that's not surprising as I've never used the draft generator/importer stuff. That would throw some nasty nonlinearity into the bar-to-combine mapping. My linear estimate seems to do well in spite of this, though. There is no way it explains the static bar discrepancy, in any case.

I'ld be very interested in the study that discovered that combines are relative. Is it posted somewhere on this board?

[Celeval]

I don't think the collective group matters. It's also worth noting that it's not just the the drafted players who have combine scores - it's the entirety of the league. We can just only easily see them for the drafted players.

Ref: Fastest man, strongest man, debate team

[Ben E Lou]

...and not to mention the scores that some guy hacked and posted, and some league members got mad at him for it. ;)

[Celeval]

:-)

Hence "easily see". :)

[Hammer]

I'm leaning towards this not being the case - that "static" bars can and would be masked as well. Randomly going back in the WOOF, at an LT I've got:

Two seasons ago (Rookie)
Overall: 39/62
Run Blocking: 37/59
Pass Blocking: 36/79
Blocking Strength: 52
Endurance: 39/46

This season (Third year)
Overall: 58/58
Run Blocking: 62/62
Pass Blocking: 60/60
Blocking Strength: 55/55
Endurance: 51/51

I know for a fact that creeping affected fully-developed bars back in 2k4.

Obviously these static bars are a different animal to the other bars. You had movement of 52 to 55. That is fairly typical of the extent of the movement that you are ever likely to see.

So, are you thinking a 3 point mask has been revealed? Or are you thinking static bars reveal much less of the mask than other bars? I hope your with me, on what I'm trying to say. "Normal" bars often display very large movements over time during the unmasking process. Static bars do not. The way I see it, either there is next to no masking, or they do not unveil the full extent of masking like other bars do.

I thought the former. While technically your right in saying there is masking, to me just a couple of point isn't worth worrying about. I would happily keep things simple and say with static bars what you see is what you get, more or less.

[nickelback]

Here are the static bars the best I can tell:

QB
-sense rush
-scramble frequency

RB
-breakaway speed
-power inside
-speed to outside

FB
-blocking strength
-power inside

TE
-blocking strength
-big play receiving

WR
-big play receiving

OL
-blocking strength

DL
-pass rush strength
-punishing hitter

LB
-pass rush strength
-punishing hitter

DB
-punishing hitter

[RedHawk00]

I am seeing a correlation here, there are 2 things that are kept and shown for all players in a sense, the two rewards: Leagues Fastest Man & League's Strongest Man. Awards that are updated each year.

These "static" bars correlate to the Bench Press & the 40 Yard Dash in the combine. Maybe I am pointing out the obvious, but this interesting to note.

It would be interesting to track the anyone who "jumps" onto this list & see if their corresponding bars move as well.

[jeffrey]

son of a....


Actually, i've long suspected this to be a bug, so this makes sense in my mind.

Sense rush actually correlates with agility, as well, but it also correlates with dash (maybe even more than agility; i don't remember and I'm too busy playing poker to check).

good catch

[QuikSand]

These "static" bars correlate to the Bench Press & the 40 Yard Dash in the combine. Maybe I am pointing out the obvious, but this interesting to note.

It would be interesting to track the anyone who "jumps" onto this list & see if their corresponding bars move as well.

I think the better explanation is just that there's some base "ability" that is used to generate the annual combine scores, but the game does so with some randomness. Thus, a given really fast guy will theoretically get times in the dash every year, and you'll see his time bounce around from maybe 4.32 to 4.42 over the course of several seasons, even while his big play receiving skill remains essentially constant. It's pretty common to see this.

[jeffrey]

Just to be clear. What I think was a good catch is the fact that this is yet another way these bars are treated differently (used in these rankings). So we now have a couple of paths in the source code where a bug could crop up that would only affect these bars.

[Celeval]

What would be interesting to know is if the degree of how far a bar is "off" changes due to the percentage of overall development. What we may be seeing here isn't the bars being treated differently (from the source code point of view), but that when a player is closer to (or at) 100% potential, the degree of under/overrating changes.

That would correlate with when we've seen a player at 54/67 gain a point in current and suddenly go to 55/55 (and be at 100%). Perhaps we're seeing the same thing, but one a one-bar level.

[MIJB#19]

Do keep in mind that there are actually three types of bars:
* 'static bars', they are maxed out from the get go
* 2/3rd developed bars (the red starts growing from roughly 2/3rd developed)
* hardly undeveloped bars (1-on-1 relation with te overall development)

QBs have mostly bars in the last category, RBs mostly in the second category, which results in RBs usually coming out of college in the 70% developed range, while QBs often are only 20% developed.

Most notable have always been the pass defense bars. Man-to-man and zone defense can start as low as 1/100, while bump and-run will always start at a 2/3rd developed at a minimum.

[Mike Lowe]

So, I didn't want to read too carefully in that first post, but is this a PROVEN study? In other words, is there room for error still? I don't want to use this info as a "cheat," so to speak for my solo league, but I'd love to use it if it's not fail-proof.

Where are the OL?

[RedKingGold]

Think of it like birth control. It's 99.99% effective, but don't blame me if one slips through the goalposts.

[Sef0r]

Players with Zero Avoid Int & Zero Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 10 & 28.
Players with Zero Avoid Int & 100 Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 23 & 34.
Players with 100 Avoid Int & Zero Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 35 & 40.
Players with 100 Avoid Int & 100 Intelligence have Solecismic Ratings between 46 & 48.


Man, this part is kind of confusing.
So if a player who has a Sole score of 39 + an intellegence of 90 will have a 10 Avoid INT rating, or there abouts?

[bighouserulez]

The rating is not 100% but you will end up 40-60 range with those parameters.

[Sef0r]

The rating is not 100% but you will end up 40-60 range with those parameters.

Thanks bighouse.
I know its not always 100% but how do you calculate that? Just so I know for other variations.

[bighouserulez]

It is tough to give 100% as there seems to be some "hocus pocus" that goes on around 36 to 42 sole.

I have an excel spreadsheet that i have embedded in my brain but for the most part 42 and up you are golden. 30-41 you really need to have an extremely low intel in order to be high in avoid ints.

[Sef0r]

That is probably the easiest thing to keep in my head, that helps lots. Thanks again.