ROY

[apollo_tsg]

Why is it that no talent players can win ROY?

This year I have a 28/28 MLB with a 38 in Run D - all other attributes are bad...

He had just over a 100 tackles, 1 sack, 1 hurry, 1 pass defended and 1 int.

His team gave up over 400 points, and only won 3 games.


I then compare him to another R MLB - stats are close, but fewer tackles
But he is rated as 52/67 - his team was somewhat better, though still a bottom feeder.

The magic question - how or why is a really bad player performing to that "well" (likelly running right at him because his team is behind at the start of the 2nd qtr every game) and actually out perform a player rated much better than him.

I noticed CB's pick up yearly awards if they have high amounts of tackles...usually due to their poor coverage.

[Sidhe]

The rookie of the year goes to the guy that the program deems to have had the best stats. Don't look too closely at it, just enjoy it from a distance.

Also, the ratings you see aren't necessarily the true ratings of the player. You have to account for scouting error. Look around this forum for plenty of threads about that sort of thing.

[Raiders Army]

I don't know why you can't vote for categories ala the Heisman in TCY.

[mbarry55]

I wonder how some of the "voting" is done myself. I have a 74/74 RB in the season I just ended, who ran for 2072 yards(he broke his own league record of 2032), 15 TDs, caught 46 balls for 278 yards and 2 TDs, but wasn't voted even to 1st team RB. the guy who was 1st team RB only had 1700 some yards and like 12 TDs, and also won League MVP. I was pretty shocked.

[apollo_tsg]

The rookie of the year goes to the guy that the program deems to have had the best stats. Don't look too closely at it, just enjoy it from a distance.

Also, the ratings you see aren't necessarily the true ratings of the player. You have to account for scouting error. Look around this forum for plenty of threads about that sort of thing.



I think it is more of an issue of a 28 rated player outperforming a bunch of other much higher players.

[Ben E Lou]

Why is it that no talent players can win ROY?

This year I have a 28/28 MLB with a 38 in Run D - all other attributes are bad...

He had just over a 100 tackles, 1 sack, 1 hurry, 1 pass defended and 1 int.

His team gave up over 400 points, and only won 3 games.


I then compare him to another R MLB - stats are close, but fewer tackles
But he is rated as 52/67 - his team was somewhat better, though still a bottom feeder.

The magic question - how or why is a really bad player performing to that "well" (likelly running right at him because his team is behind at the start of the 2nd qtr every game) and actually out perform a player rated much better than him.

I noticed CB's pick up yearly awards if they have high amounts of tackles...usually due to their poor coverage.

First off, understand that sacks and tackles reign supreme in FOF's award calculations for defense. As a result, you'll often find DBs with bad pass defense stats on the lists--especially the corners. As you said, they get a bunch of tackles because they give up a bunch of catches.

Next, with your assumption is accurate for SP. The AI runs up the middle a good bit, and it ramps up the running (and the defense's run expecation) when the team is ahead. So, a mediocre talent at MLB on a bad team will usually do well in tackles.

With regard to the RB situation, check the pass catching stats of the guys ahead of him in the All-Pro calculation. FOF loves all-purpose backs, and 46 catches for 278 yards isn't all that good. I'm guessing that the winner probably had 60+ catches and 450+ yards receiving. Also, there's more to the MVP calculation than just the top offensive or defensive performer. I've seen several instances of a player being 2nd Team, but winning MVP. I haven't studied it closely, but my assumption is that there's either a team performance component to that calculation, or that perhaps a guy gets a boost if his team does well and his performance is head and shoulders above anyone else on his team.

[Front Office Midget]

Well, a player won't win MVP unless their popularity is 100 (Idolized).

[QuikSand]

Well, a player won't win MVP unless their popularity is 100 (Idolized).

I know this is a dumb question to which I already know the answer... but do you have anything to back that up?

[zbuckley]

I know this is a dumb question to which I already know the answer... but do you have anything to back that up?


It was based on a 2 year study he did

[apollo_tsg]

It was based on a 2 year study he did

I just checked both my SP's - each player that won had 100...

[JetsIn06]

is it possible that winning the MVP makes them fan favorites?

[mbarry55]

My RB who was snubbed had previously won an MVP, and yes his popularity is indeed 100. I also had the best record in the league, and won the bowl. The other RB who beat him out didn't have that many more rec yards, he had 464.

[Ben E Lou]

Skip Peterson (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=3150), Lee Olson (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=178), Grady Milliken (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=10641) and several players in my SP career just told me that some people need to check larger samples before making definitive declarations like "a player won't win MVP unless their popularity is 100 (Idolized)." *shurg*

[Front Office Midget]

Hmmmm, that's interesting.

I'm not basing this off of a small sample size; in the 7+ years I've played FOF, I've never noticed an MVP with less than 100 popularity. When I wonder, "Hmmmmm, why didn't Player X win MVP?", the answer is often that they aren't idolized.

I'm not going to run any tests, but I'm very sure that fan popularity plays a large part in calculating MVP; I wouldn't expect a great player with a great season who only had a 50 fan popularity to be MVP.

I'm actually happy to know that 100 isn't the threshold, but I really do think, from my observations without testing, that popularity is a key to a player being MVP or not. I'm really surprised that I was wrong about that, because it was something I've noticed and said for years, based on several hundred seasons.

[Ben E Lou]

It appears that you've got the cause-effect relationship here completely backwards. For example, in the case of the WOOF, all of the QBs rated 65 or better and RBs rated 75 or better will start this season at 85 or better popularity. The odds are quite high that the MVP is coming out of that group of players, simply because of its talent.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

As per your specific example, I'm not sure it's even possible for a player to have 50 popularity and have put up MVP numbers.

[Front Office Midget]

I don't know what to say, other than repeating what I said.

Obviously highly-rated players will be more popular. But I have personally followed MVP races (something I pay close attention to every season I sim) and have noticed players who seem to have had the clearly better MVP year, but only a 65 popularity or so, and not win MVP.

I guess you're disputing that popularity has any weight on MVPs? My observations have led me to believe that it definitely does, and there's nothing more I can say about it than that. I don't have any data to support my position, and you were right that it doesn't need to be 100 to be MVP, but I highly doubt there's any players with 65 popularity who win MVP.

Note that I don't look at popularity's after MVP is awarded, but before.

[Ben E Lou]

Playing with it a little, it's technically possible, but it seems very, very unlikely in the context of a career that the user hasn't spent time manipulating the startup.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't know what to say, other than repeating what I said.

Obviously highly-rated players will be more popular. But I have personally followed MVP races (something I pay close attention to every season I sim) and have noticed players who seem to have had the clearly better MVP year, but only a 65 popularity or so, and not win MVP.

I guess you're disputing that popularity has any weight on MVPs? My observations have led me to believe that it definitely does, and there's nothing more I can say about it than that. I don't have any data to support my position, and you were right that it doesn't need to be 100 to be MVP, but I highly doubt there's any players with 65 popularity who win MVP.

Note that I don't look at popularity's after MVP is awarded, but before.

There may be some popularity component to the calculation but with the way popularity rises during the type of performance a player has in an MVP year, it just doesn't seem very likely. It can go up, what, 30 or so points?