A Player Development Tell

[MalcPow]

I wanted to share with the community a fairly recent discovery of mine that points to a strong correlation between player development and the player's initial fan popularity. I'll outline some of my more specific findings as well, but I'll note that it is a significant discovery in light of the fact that the Interrogator program in the StelmackSuite software actually reveals this information before it might otherwise be available in game. Recognizing that advantage, it's best that information about this "tell" be publicized in a way that levels the playing field for multi-player league participants.

Specifically, it appears that a player that has a fan popularity rating >40 as a member of the draft class is a player of at least backup quality. It also appears that a player with a fan pop > 80 is a good starter, and pop >90 seems to be a strong indicator of an elite player. Many of these players have other signs (such as good bars and combines) that give some hint of their talent, but some do not. Particularly in the later rounds, this information can be used to get much more certainty and value from a large pool of very similar players.

I'll open up for discussion here, and try to clarify in response to any questions people have. I do not have vast quantities of data to back all of this up, but I have seen enough that I find it to be compelling enough to reveal. I will say that low popularity does not seem to mean a player sucks, only that popularity >40 seems to be a surefire indicator that you have a solid player, regardless of any other data points.

For reference, the average draft class has approximately 50 players with fan pop >40.

[cuervo72]

I wanted to share with the community a fairly recent discovery of mine that points to a strong correlation between player development and the player's initial fan popularity. I'll outline some of my more specific findings as well, but I'll note that it is a significant discovery in light of the fact that the Interrogator program in the StelmackSuite software actually reveals this information before it might otherwise be available in game. Recognizing that advantage, it's best that information about this "tell" be publicized in a way that levels the playing field for multi-player league participants.

I wasn't aware that there were specific values associated with this "tell", but I have heard it kicked around that high fan popularity could generally indicate that a player was good (as few have really really high fan pop).

I was also aware that Interrogator could extract this information, as I stumbled upon it in scripting the FOFL site. Specifically, the team chemistry/personality screen:

http://www.thefofl.com/teampages/personality.php?t=6

I found that if I plugged in the team id for draftees, the personality ratings showed up, even if they didn't in-game. I pretty quickly figured that this wasn't the best thing to have out there, and put an if/then statement in to prevent that team id from revealing anything. This may not be an issue just for fan popularity, but also for intelligence if you subscribe to RKG's theory that Solecismic score is derived from both intelligence and the hidden avoid INT rating (where high Sol + dumb QB = WIN).


The other thing to be noted here is that when these players enter the FA pool undrafted, their personality traits will appear on the Personality View roster page. I don't think they appear on the player pages yet, though I could be wrong. Either way, it seems to me that such players are immediately targeted by some of the shrewder owners out there, assuming they make it through the draft.

[Ben E Lou]

On the one hand, I'm glad that MalcPow decided to go public with this. On the other, I have some concern that it might lead to "witch hunts" in MP leagues: "Oh no! So-and-so drafted 5 guys with higher pop, so he must be looking at it ahead of time!" This point is probably worth emphasizing:

Many of these players have other signs (such as good bars and combines) that give some hint of their talent, but some do not.

The vast majority of these guys can be identified as good players by the many other tells that are available from the front end of FOF. For example, 9 of the 50 players who fit the identified profile in the most recent WOOF draft went to the two teams owned by QuikSand and Celeval. This should not exactly surprise anyone. :p

Either way, it seems to me that such players are immediately targeted by some of the shrewder owners out there, assuming they make it through the draft.Well sure. That's information available right there in FOF. You should have seen the crazy bidding wars that MalcPow and I had over a small handful of guys in the most recent ECFL season during FA2. :D

[Eaglesfan27]

This is disappointing, but I really appreciate MalcPow going public with this.

[RedKingGold]

The bigger question is, does it work in the opposite direction (i.e. guy with studly bars but low popularity is a fake?)

[Ben E Lou]

No.

[MalcPow]

The bigger question is, does it work in the opposite direction (i.e. guy with studly bars but low popularity is a fake?)

It's not really clear. I wish I knew. I certainly view a guy like that with more skepticism than I did previously. It's important to note, popularity can change a lot over the course of a career, and I am speaking specifically to a player's initial popularity. Some guys lose popularity very rapidly, even if they're starting games. Other guys gain it rapidly, there's a fairly standard +3 to popularity every time a player wins POG in fact, so QBs shoot up quickly.

[VPI97]

From a design point of view, it makes some sense....if a player is popular/well known coming into the draft, then it's probably because he was good in college. If a draftee was good enough in college to be popular, then there's a better than average chance he'll be a solid pro.

What doesn't make sense is if that's the design decision for initial popularity values, then why didn't Jim expose that number in the draft report.

From a MP point of view, I would expect all leagues to have a rule that prohibits using data that's not exposed by the game. Obviously, the pre-draft popularity falls under that category. Enforcing the rule can be sticky, but I know of at least one league that dismissed someone for an almost eerily similar situation where proof was based primarily on speculation and supposition.


Shurg...either way it's just another gutshot to the rotting corpse of FOF MP.

[Ben E Lou]

MP, I make that comment based on a couple of different data points:

1. I've seen massive creeping from guys with low popularity. For example, ILB Jared Caniff in WOOF is a +35 creeper with only 15 pop.

2. I've seen players who are created using FOF's players.csv file who I *know* are good players but have lower pop.

[Eaglesfan27]

Shurg...either way it's just another gutshot to the rotting corpse of FOF MP.

Agreed. The more I think about this, the more disappointing it becomes to me.

[albionmoonlight]

I trust the people with whom I am in a MP FOF league. But, geeze. A commonly available utility allows people to see something that is important but not in the game. And, if they use this information with any sense, it will be hard to catch them because other, legal, tells will make their choices seem legit.

I mean, I trust the people in my MP FOF league. But that doesn't mean that I'm ready to give them my ATM card and PIN number either, you know?

[MalcPow]

Well an interesting wrinkle to things is the AI's refusal to trade players that are "fan favorites" in SP games. Even if those fan favorites appear to be fairly average players, you can't wrest them from AI teams no matter what. Having built some pretty 'popular' teams trying to test this, I can attest that the impact on ticket sales is minimal at best from what I've seen. On some level, popularity may serve as a kind of cover story for the AI protecting top players.

[gstelmack]

A commonly available utility allows people to see something that is important but not in the game.

And I remain embarrased at this. For most players, this data is available. And once the draft is complete, it's available for everyone (thus, without Interrogator you could use this along with the now-exposed future to make more intelligent decisions about who to go after in Late FA). But it's hidden for the draft class, and thus should be hidden in Interrogator (much like I did for staff data in 2k4, and still do for HoF votes in 2k7). I've tried hard to only expose data that is also exposed by the game, and I missed this.

[cuervo72]

Well in fairness Greg, things like this were missed in the game before, weren't they? At one point couldn't you get accurate rating information from the Roster Attributes screen before the players had actually gone through camp?

[Ben E Lou]

I don't know. I think it's important to note that a good majority of these guys are getting drafted in the first few rounds just from the front-end information that's out there. It's probably more significant during FA2 when the bidding free-for-all takes place. I can't help but wonder if the solution is to publish a "Fifty Fan Favorites" list pre-draft, and level the playing field a bit. It's not like they're all studs. A "1" player (1 - Replacement-Level Starter (decent backup) - 23.9%) can fit into this group, so it's not like that's a guy I want to be drafting in the 1st or 2nd round. And like I said above, there are plenty of examples of quite solid players who come out of the draft with low pop.

[albionmoonlight]

And I remain embarrased at this. For most players, this data is available. And once the draft is complete, it's available for everyone (thus, without Interrogator you could use this along with the now-exposed future to make more intelligent decisions about who to go after in Late FA). But it's hidden for the draft class, and thus should be hidden in Interrogator (much like I did for staff data in 2k4, and still do for HoF votes in 2k7). I've tried hard to only expose data that is also exposed by the game, and I missed this.

You have a great tool. Don't apologize. It's really like you have it right and the game has it wrong. (Which, I know, isn't the point, but still . . .)

[Dutch]

Fan Popularity just became the "TCY/Intelligence" bug.

Thanks for posting.

[Subby]

Off topic comment to Greg....

Why not expose HoF votes? That would be pretty sweet to see and I am not sure that gives any advantage.

[gstelmack]

Off topic comment to Greg....

Why not expose HoF votes? That would be pretty sweet to see and I am not sure that gives any advantage.

'cause I try not to expose info the game doesn't expose ;) . Once the guy enters the hall of fame, it's exposed.

[Kodos]

Ugh.

[Subby]

From a MP point of view, I would expect all leagues to have a rule that prohibits using data that's not exposed by the game. Obviously, the pre-draft popularity falls under that category.
Didn't have any specific language about this in the FOFL Constitution but added it earlier today...

Enforcement is going to be tough considering most of these guys get drafted anyway and have a lot of other things in common. An owner that drafts five popularity guys per season isn't necessarily breaking the rules.

[Ben E Lou]

Enforcement is going to be tough considering most of these guys get drafted anyway and have a lot of other things in common. An owner that drafts five popularity guys per season isn't necessarily breaking the rules.I'm really chewing on this for WOOF and about to put it up for league discussion. There's a big part of me that thinks an immersive "50 Fan Favorites From The Draft Class" list being published is a better solution than people being suspicious of one another when they see high pop players getting drafted, but I don't know what the league thinks.

[MalcPow]

I'll be posting a list of > 40 pop players when the draft class is released in my leagues from here on out (assuming commissioner's are cool with that). I don't know if that addresses all concerns, but it should open things up for people from a fairness perspective.

[primelord]

I think people are over reacting a bit to this. This isn't an end all tell or anything. You can't just make your way down the popularity list and get all studs. As has been said, in the top leagues the vast majority of these guys are drafted already as it is.

It's important that everyone know this kind of stuff so everyone is working from the same page, but this did not suddenly unlock the draft. It is not equivelant to a key to print out the real ratings for all the players.

[MalcPow]

I think people are over reacting a bit to this. This isn't an end all tell or anything. You can't just make your way down the popularity list and get all studs. As has been said, in the top leagues the vast majority of these guys are drafted already as it is.

It's important that everyone know this kind of stuff so everyone is working from the same page, but this did not suddenly unlock the draft. It is not equivelant to a key to print out the real ratings for all the players.

This is pretty true. The advantage here is not so much in guaranteeing you get all studs, it's in value selections. You're not going to have a roster stocked with guys in the 90s by using this information, but you will accumulate solid players where you may have been drafting duds previously. This is not a silver bullet to success, but there is an advantage here.

[larrymcg421]

If anything, I think this might make the draft more interesting. I bet you'll see some strong combine guys fall later int he draft than they normally would because they have lower popularity. I'll gladly scoop these guys up while everyone else fights over the "safe" picks.

My late 1st round RT has 12 popularity and he is at 59/59 in his 3rd year.

[VPI97]

I'll be posting a list of > 40 pop players when the draft class is released in my leagues from here on out (assuming commissioner's are cool with that). I don't know if that addresses all concerns, but it should open things up for people from a fairness perspective.
I wouldn't be cool with that. Breaking a rule and giving the results to everyone may be better than breaking a rule by yourself...but it's still breaking a rule.

[larrymcg421]

I wouldn't be cool with that. Breaking a rule and giving the results to everyone may be better than breaking a rule by yourself...but it's still breaking a rule.

I don't see how it's breaking a rule if the commissioner is cool with it.

Also, I think it's obvious that some people will use this cheat. It'd be naive to suggest otherwise. Since that's the case, the information should just be revealed to everyone so there is no unfair advantage.

[MalcPow]

I wouldn't be cool with that. Breaking a rule and giving the results to everyone may be better than breaking a rule by yourself...but it's still breaking a rule.

Noted, as you're the commissioner of a league I'm in. I tend to lean toward Larry's thinking, but I'll obviously respect your wishes.

[VPI97]

I don't see how it's breaking a rule if the commissioner is cool with it.Commish doesn't make the rules in any leagues I'm in...he just enforces them. If the owners change the rule, then the commish changes his stance.

It would just seem hypocritical to ask someone to stop enforcing a rule after x amount of time...especially if violations of this rule have been dealt with differently in the past.

[cartman]

Those of you ready to declare FOF MP dead, because of this I'll just throw out that I have never used Interrogator, and I made it to the Conference championship game in WOOF last season. :)

[headtrauma]

Those of you ready to declare FOF MP dead...

Yeah, it does seem to me that there's an inordinate amount of hand-wringing over this. I think we're all underestimating the role of randomness in this game (or just using this as an excuse to decry the oft-cited shortcomings of the game yet again).

[MalcPow]

Commish doesn't make the rules in any leagues I'm in...he just enforces them. If the owners change the rule, then the commish changes his stance.

It would just seem hypocritical to ask someone to stop enforcing a rule after x amount of time...especially if violations of this rule have been dealt with differently in the past.

Not to really linger with this, but I wouldn't interpret this as against the rules in the constitution of the GEFL, or any of the leagues I'm familiar with, unless it was deemed to be so as part of a broad "commissioner's discretion" mandate with regard to general conduct.

And I agree with those that are calling a lot of the responses here overblown. Again, this is not some instawin superstrat. It's a slight edge that can be exploited a tad too much with the (unintended) use of one of Greg's awesome utilities. I'm wary of having given this angle too much of a spotlight at this point. I think it is a datapoint worth noting, but this shouldn't revolutionize the way anyone plays (or doesn't play) the game. *shurg*

[RedKingGold]

I think people are over reacting a bit to this. This isn't an end all tell or anything. You can't just make your way down the popularity list and get all studs. As has been said, in the top leagues the vast majority of these guys are drafted already as it is.

It's important that everyone know this kind of stuff so everyone is working from the same page, but this did not suddenly unlock the draft. It is not equivelant to a key to print out the real ratings for all the players.

+1

Is it a tell? Perhaps yes. Is it good for the community to know? Yes. Are we going to see super teams built off of Fan Favorite players? I doubt it.

[Ben E Lou]

Somewhat related to the point about exposing/not exposing is the fact that it's actually very odd where the personality stuff is and isn't exposed in the game. For example, in the most recent WOOF draft (completed yesterday), I didn't interview TE Dixon Grant, who ended up being my 6th round pick. He's now on my roster in FA2. Because he wasn't intereviewed, I can't see any of his personality information. However, I know from other in-game information that he's 80 leadership, 10 intelligence, 92 loyalty, 88 play for winner, 8 personality, and 13 popularity. I wonder if one or the other is an oversight.

[sovereignstar]

Redo. I've been drafting nerds. :(

[sovereignstar]

lol.. which team is mine and which team is MalcPow's?

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/342/clipboard01gs7.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6616/clipboard012cg2.jpg

[Antmeister]

Well I brought this up in WOOF, so I will post it here as well. How do you think this will affect the draft if a list is posted. From my understanding, it appears that people with a popularity of 80 or above, they are just about guaranteed a starter. So my concern is that when used in combination with combines and/or bars, this will drastically reduce 1st round busts since more people are only gonna look for that combination in the first round. I am not saying that anything under 80 is a bust, but who is gonna take that risk when they have a guarantee.

In one respect it will make the draft much more exciting because there will be those that take those risk on low popularity players. However, I doubt you are gonna see many people doing that in the 1st round and 1st round busts aren't gonna happen much anymore.

[primelord]

Well I brought this up in WOOF, so I will post it here as well. How do you think this will affect the draft if a list is posted. From my understanding, it appears that people with a popularity of 80 or above, they are just about guaranteed a starter. So my concern is that when used in combination with combines and/or bars, this will drastically reduce 1st round busts since more people are only gonna look for that combination in the first round. I am not saying that anything under 80 is a bust, but who is gonna take that risk when they have a guarantee.

In one respect it will make the draft much more exciting because there will be those that take those risk on low popularity players. However, I doubt you are gonna see many people doing that in the 1st round and 1st round busts aren't gonna happen much anymore.

Ant,

I don't think it is that big of a deal. Without having really looked too deeply into this, I am willing to bet that most of those 80+ guys are guys that had combine numbers and what not good enough to go in the spots they will go in anyway.

It's also important to remember that a guy with a lower fan pop can still be a beast. So in other words seeing a guy with great combine scores and an 85 fan pop may make you feel very confident in your pick, but my guess is the vast majority of the time his combines alone would have made you feel very confident about that pick.

[Ben E Lou]

Well I brought this up in WOOF, so I will post it here as well. How do you think this will affect the draft if a list is posted. From my understanding, it appears that people with a popularity of 80 or above, they are just about guaranteed a starter. So my concern is that when used in combination with combines and/or bars, this will drastically reduce 1st round busts since more people are only gonna look for that combination in the first round. I am not saying that anything under 80 is a bust, but who is gonna take that risk when they have a guarantee. Well, the sheer numbers here won't allow that to happen. In the WOOF class that we just drafted, there are only 8 players with pop >80. I did 6 Interrogator runs on SP and MP leagues this evening, and there are a total of 35 >80 guys, so we're probably just talking 4-8 guys a season.



In one respect it will make the draft much more exciting because there will be those that take those risk on low popularity players. However, I doubt you are gonna see many people doing that in the 1st round and 1st round busts aren't gonna happen much anymore.Even a 100 pop rookie can get hit by the Volatility Stick Of Death.

[Antmeister]

Ant,

I don't think it is that big of a deal. Without having really looked too deeply into this, I am willing to bet that most of those 80+ guys are guys that had combine numbers and what not good enough to go in the spots they will go in anyway.

It's also important to remember that a guy with a lower fan pop can still be a beast. So in other words seeing a guy with great combine scores and an 85 fan pop may make you feel very confident in your pick, but my guess is the vast majority of the time his combines alone would have made you feel very confident about that pick.

Oh...don't get me wrong, I know there are under indicators. My concern is the term "guarantee". I am having this discussion on the other board, but does that also mean that regardless of volatility, the players with >80 popularity and good/great combines and/or bar not destined to be a bust.....ever. In other words does, volatility only become a factor if the player has <40 popularity.

The reason why I ask this is because of the verbage used in the first post. I am not sure how far out in the future he looked, past the draft, to determine that the players with >90 popularity will be elite.

[Celeval]

FWIW, it looks like there were 7 players with a popularity under 40 taken in the first round of the WOOF draft; and 2 with 90+.

[Celeval]

Oh...don't get me wrong, I know there are under indicators. My concern is the term "guarantee". I am having this discussion on the other board, but does that also mean that regardless of volatility, the players with >80 popularity and good/great combines and/or bar not destined to be a bust.....ever. In other words does, volatility only become a factor if the player has <40 popularity.

The reason why I ask this is because of the verbage used in the first post. I am not sure how far out in the future he looked, past the draft, to determine that the players with >90 popularity will be elite.

I don't think that's the case at all. The most likely scenario is that initial popularity is generated in some fashion based on the existing talent of the player - i.e. higher talent = higher popularity, on average. To have future booms and busts - which have been confirmed many times as being purely random - dependent on the popularity of the player is just silly. :)

[Ben E Lou]

I doubt he went out into the future. You can come to this conclusion simply by creating a player files filled with rookies of the same number on the 0-9 scale.

[QuikSand]

I think the vision of having a public list of high-popularity draftees completely upending the draft is a bit misguided. If we're talking about fewer than 100 players in a typical draft... and the sizable bulk of them are already guys who are standouts in some other way (likely great combines)... then what's the practical effect here? Maybe a dozen or so guys in the entire draft suddenly get tagged as looking a bit better than they would have otherwise? And that's including a fair number who move from "undraftable" to "late round project" not just *sure star* or anything. I'm not seeing the practical effect of that (if these numbers are accurate) as totally overhauling the way we evaluate drafts... it's not like the predictive power of this suddenly overwhelms everything else we understand about the draft.

Obviously, each MP league ought to consider what is best to do about the subject...but I really don't see a public revelation of this data rendering the draft pointless or empty. It would just add one more layer of information to the mess we already have to navigate through.

[Antmeister]

Ahhh....okay. For some reason I interpreted the post to mean that the players with >80 popularity was discovered with players who were superstars in the future.

I didn't know you meant the rating prior to training camp. Because, in my way of thinking, I don't know how you can determine that someone is a good starter or elite without having played any seasons.

[QuikSand]

In one respect it will make the draft much more exciting because there will be those that take those risk on low popularity players. However, I doubt you are gonna see many people doing that in the 1st round and 1st round busts aren't gonna happen much anymore.

I think this is the sort of thing I mean above. If you're thinking that there will be a pool of 50 or so guys sitting out there with 95 popularity, and that we'd just see all those guys getting taken with picks #1-50 or so... that's pretty misguided. Look at what Celeval dug up above - from the whole first round in the last WOOF draft, only *two* guys with superhigh popularity, and I can vouch for the fact that there were no fewer than three sure-fire can't-miss franchise-building type of players in there, who naturally went #1 to #3. Tell me exactly who were the guys with 90 popularity, even if both were other players, and I'd *still* rank the same three studs #1-2-3. It's not like I'd junk all the obvious signs telling me that these three studs are studs just because they have initial popularity ratings of, say, 75, 50, and 25 and some other guy has a 95.

[Ben E Lou]

I think this is the sort of thing I mean above. If you're thinking that there will be a pool of 50 or so guys sitting out there with 95 popularity, and that we'd just see all those guys getting taken with picks #1-50 or so... that's pretty misguided. To further expound on this, I've pulled together six draft classes and checked. Here are some numbers:

>90: 6 players (avg. 1.0 per class)
>40: 245 players (avg. 40.8 per class)

[Front Office Midget]

Maybe it's because I just finally got into online multiplayer over the winter and have enjoyed being at the top of the eNFL for the last two seasons, and I've never used the Interrogator (don't really know what it does), but ummm... why/how is FOF multiplayer dying?

[Commo_Soldier]

I am not in an online league or anything so maybe I am missing something. But I am not sure how this would be much of an issue since it is viewable in free software that anyone in the league could have access too. If people are willing to take more time in doing research than others then they should be rewarded just like I am sure teams in RL are rewarded. This may be more of an issue if not everyone is able to access the software, but if accessible to everyone in the league than I do not see where a problem would really lie. Other than some owners not wanting to go through as much work, but than as stated as in RL if you do less work than someone else you have to be prepared to possibly pay for doing less.

[larrymcg421]

I am not in an online league or anything so maybe I am missing something. But I am not sure how this would be much of an issue since it is viewable in free software that anyone in the league could have access too. If people are willing to take more time in doing research than others then they should be rewarded just like I am sure teams in RL are rewarded. This may be more of an issue if not everyone is able to access the software, but if accessible to everyone in the league than I do not see where a problem would really lie. Other than some owners not wanting to go through as much work, but than as stated as in RL if you do less work than someone else you have to be prepared to possibly pay for doing less.

I think you should be expected to do more work if you want to succeed in an online league, but I think that extra work should be confined to what is provided by the actual game, and not third party utilities, which is why I think the list of popular players should be provided to the league. Looks like most of the WOOF owners agree with that so far, so I don't expect it to be a big deal for us.

[Ben E Lou]

There were exactly 50 players with >40 pop in the WOOF draft. By all indications, that's on the high end of the scale. The average draft class appears to have in the low 40s. Here's where they went.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="4" frame="void" rules="none"> <colgroup><col width="31"><col width="65"><col width="69"><col width="59"></colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17" width="31">Pos</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="65">Popularity</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="69">DraftRound</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" width="59">DraftPick</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="91" sdnum="1033;" align="center">91</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="22" sdnum="1033;" align="center">22</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="90" sdnum="1033;" align="center">90</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4" sdnum="1033;" align="center">4</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="88" sdnum="1033;" align="center">88</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="85" sdnum="1033;" align="center">85</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4" sdnum="1033;" align="center">4</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="31" sdnum="1033;" align="center">31</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">OLB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="85" sdnum="1033;" align="center">85</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="20" sdnum="1033;" align="center">20</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">S</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="84" sdnum="1033;" align="center">84</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="9" sdnum="1033;" align="center">9</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="83" sdnum="1033;" align="center">83</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="27" sdnum="1033;" align="center">27</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">CB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="80" sdnum="1033;" align="center">80</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="19" sdnum="1033;" align="center">19</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="78" sdnum="1033;" align="center">78</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="11" sdnum="1033;" align="center">11</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DT</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="76" sdnum="1033;" align="center">76</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="32" sdnum="1033;" align="center">32</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">C</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="75" sdnum="1033;" align="center">75</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="5" sdnum="1033;" align="center">5</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="21" sdnum="1033;" align="center">21</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">OLB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="73" sdnum="1033;" align="center">73</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="12" sdnum="1033;" align="center">12</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">P</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="73" sdnum="1033;" align="center">73</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="6" sdnum="1033;" align="center">6</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="8" sdnum="1033;" align="center">8</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="73" sdnum="1033;" align="center">73</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">CB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="73" sdnum="1033;" align="center">73</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="6" sdnum="1033;" align="center">6</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">RB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="72" sdnum="1033;" align="center">72</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="5" sdnum="1033;" align="center">5</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">P</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="70" sdnum="1033;" align="center">70</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="17" sdnum="1033;" align="center">17</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">FB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="69" sdnum="1033;" align="center">69</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="24" sdnum="1033;" align="center">24</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">FB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="69" sdnum="1033;" align="center">69</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4" sdnum="1033;" align="center">4</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="22" sdnum="1033;" align="center">22</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">S</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="66" sdnum="1033;" align="center">66</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="18" sdnum="1033;" align="center">18</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">QB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="66" sdnum="1033;" align="center">66</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">OLB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="65" sdnum="1033;" align="center">65</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="21" sdnum="1033;" align="center">21</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">C</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="64" sdnum="1033;" align="center">64</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="60" sdnum="1033;" align="center">60</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="5" sdnum="1033;" align="center">5</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="60" sdnum="1033;" align="center">60</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="59" sdnum="1033;" align="center">59</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="7" sdnum="1033;" align="center">7</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">OLB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="59" sdnum="1033;" align="center">59</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="8" sdnum="1033;" align="center">8</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">TE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="58" sdnum="1033;" align="center">58</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="17" sdnum="1033;" align="center">17</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">FB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="57" sdnum="1033;" align="center">57</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="7" sdnum="1033;" align="center">7</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="16" sdnum="1033;" align="center">16</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="57" sdnum="1033;" align="center">57</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="8" sdnum="1033;" align="center">8</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="57" sdnum="1033;" align="center">57</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="16" sdnum="1033;" align="center">16</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="56" sdnum="1033;" align="center">56</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="23" sdnum="1033;" align="center">23</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">FB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="55" sdnum="1033;" align="center">55</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="16" sdnum="1033;" align="center">16</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">K</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="55" sdnum="1033;" align="center">55</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="3" sdnum="1033;" align="center">3</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="31" sdnum="1033;" align="center">31</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">TE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="54" sdnum="1033;" align="center">54</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="9" sdnum="1033;" align="center">9</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">G</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="54" sdnum="1033;" align="center">54</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="15" sdnum="1033;" align="center">15</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">TE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="53" sdnum="1033;" align="center">53</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4" sdnum="1033;" align="center">4</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="30" sdnum="1033;" align="center">30</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="52" sdnum="1033;" align="center">52</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="13" sdnum="1033;" align="center">13</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">RB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="50" sdnum="1033;" align="center">50</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="6" sdnum="1033;" align="center">6</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">S</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="49" sdnum="1033;" align="center">49</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="31" sdnum="1033;" align="center">31</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="49" sdnum="1033;" align="center">49</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">WR</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="48" sdnum="1033;" align="center">48</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="17" sdnum="1033;" align="center">17</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DT</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="44" sdnum="1033;" align="center">44</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="2" sdnum="1033;" align="center">2</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="12" sdnum="1033;" align="center">12</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">OLB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="43" sdnum="1033;" align="center">43</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="27" sdnum="1033;" align="center">27</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">CB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="43" sdnum="1033;" align="center">43</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">RB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="43" sdnum="1033;" align="center">43</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="25" sdnum="1033;" align="center">25</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">RB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="42" sdnum="1033;" align="center">42</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="7" sdnum="1033;" align="center">7</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="19" sdnum="1033;" align="center">19</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">FB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="42" sdnum="1033;" align="center">42</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="6" sdnum="1033;" align="center">6</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="20" sdnum="1033;" align="center">20</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DT</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="41" sdnum="1033;" align="center">41</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="0" sdnum="1033;" align="center">0</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" align="center" height="17">DE</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="41" sdnum="1033;" align="center">41</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="4" sdnum="1033;" align="center">4</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="13" sdnum="1033;" align="center">13</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
So a stud guard went at 1(22). Given the heavy depth of guards in this particular class and the lack of importance of that position in FOF, that's about right. If this info had been out to the entire league ahead of time, what happens? Maybe someone screws up and drafts that guard too early? Maybe the 1(3) and the 1(4) WR switch places? As you can see, the 1(2) pick didn't make the grade, but has combine stdevs of 3.22, 2.33, 2.00, 3.58, 4.00, and 2.43. Does this guy drop because of his popularity? If so, then the people who let him drop are likely making a huge mistake. This data point would have been most useful for the three guys who went undrafted. My best guess is that the lower two of them are 1s (probably end up in the 45/45ish range), and the center is maybe a 2 (somewhere in the 50/50 range). And like many leagues, the WOOF has a buttload of 50/50+ centers (at least 25 by my scout). Maybe those three guys go in the fourth or fifth round instead of undrafted. So again, my argument is that having the list public doesn't change much, other than giving an additional data point that would--if they choose to use it--end up helping people who don't know how to read the combines very well.

[Subby]

Well I'll point out another issue with folks using Interrogator to get information about a draft class.

Traits like leadership and personality don't reveal themselves until after a player is interviewed. That said - if you use Interrogator to pull the data, you can see personality traits for every single draftee. This has a pretty serious impact since chemistry is an important part of team building. Instead of having to use an interview on a mediocre LB who is a potential killer affinity match, you can save your interviews for the sole purpose of talent evaluation.

Anyway - the tube is out of the toothpaste, so to speak. In FOFL we have outlawed the practice of using Interrogator in certain situations for the time being, but I could see a day where we just post all of this stuff for the whole league's consumption.

[Celeval]

+1 to Subby. Thinking about it, that may be a bigger deal than the popularity - as particularly, giving the personality score away means it's no longer necessary to interview to figure out exactly how a particular player will fit into your affinity scheme (if you have one).

[Ben E Lou]

Traits like leadership and personality don't reveal themselves until after a player is interviewed. That said - if you use Interrogator to pull the data, you can see personality traits for every single draftee. This has a pretty serious impact since chemistry is an important part of team building. Instead of having to use an interview on a mediocre LB who is a potential killer affinity match, you can save your interviews for the sole purpose of talent evaluation.Agreed that you can see it, but don't agree that it's a big deal. My thinking on that is that it's a good bit more work (for most people) to pull leadership and personality strength and then cross-reference those with your players. If the high-pop list is already out there, though, I don't think there's enough advantage gained to be a motivation for someone to go through the trouble to do that just to grab the affinity info. On the other hand, if doing so is outlawed but someone is still putting in the effort to do it to grab popularity, then it's not as big a step from there to grab the other information as well.

[gstelmack]

Well I'll point out another issue with folks using Interrogator to get information about a draft class.

Traits like leadership and personality don't reveal themselves until after a player is interviewed. That said - if you use Interrogator to pull the data, you can see personality traits for every single draftee. This has a pretty serious impact since chemistry is an important part of team building. Instead of having to use an interview on a mediocre LB who is a potential killer affinity match, you can save your interviews for the sole purpose of talent evaluation.

Anyway - the tube is out of the toothpaste, so to speak. In FOFL we have outlawed the practice of using Interrogator in certain situations for the time being, but I could see a day where we just post all of this stuff for the whole league's consumption.

A couple of points. First off, I'm more than willing to fix Interrogator on this issue, but other solutions are being provided since a version that does this is out in the wild (and has been for a very long time).

Second, while the personality data can be used to predict the strength of affinity / conflict, the fact that there is an affinity or conflict can already be predetermined. So we're talking degree here, not whether or not an affinity or conflict exists.

[ace1914]

I agree with sentiment that if everyone knows, its not an unfair advantage to anyone. Just post it in the league. Hell, everyone on here is likely using Jdbaker's utility anyway. Ask if he can make it a function on the draft utility and, if he can that ends all of this "cheating" stuff.

Ironically, I've seen the stuff on interrogator and did not pay much attention to it.

[Subby]

Second, while the personality data can be used to predict the strength of affinity / conflict, the fact that there is an affinity or conflict can already be predetermined. So we're talking degree here, not whether or not an affinity or conflict exists.
Right - I was talking specifically about strength and leadership possibilities. Apologies if I wasn't clear about that.

[Yoda]

It's so interesting to see such.... 'doomsayers' here on this....

I'll admit, I've been using the Interrogator for quite a while. I have always associated popularity with putting people in the stands, helping team support, there for providing more $$ for things like hiring coaches and better chances for building stadiums.

I think this is an interesting and actually quite correct correlation.

I just honestly don't see this as that big of an issue. Especially now that it is in the public. Well, let me rephrase that....

The issue I see is that people are going to 'witch hunt' with this now. Outlaw/ban it.... huh? And just how on Earth are you going to do that? If someone drafts a below average player that ends up showing a high popularity you sanction that player?

Depending on my needs, sometimes I'll just sort by 40-dash, or strength or agility and take the highest, just hoping I get a hit, if he happens to have a high popularity, do I now need to load up Interrogator and see if he has a high pop so I don't draft him?

I almost feel as if this is a witch hunt really....

Anyway, all banning/outlawing it is going to lead to is witchhunts, it's a 'neat' thing, but I don't see it as a killer or a massive advantage.

[Subby]

Wise you are.

[Yoda]

Anyway - the tube is out of the toothpaste, so to speak. In FOFL we have outlawed the practice of using Interrogator in certain situations for the time being, but I could see a day where we just post all of this stuff for the whole league's consumption.

I am almost finished with my asp.net webpage with an sql database based off the Interrogator that I was going to be posting the the PFL website, but I guess I'll need to talk with Shard before I do it now, to see how the league is going to handle it.

[MalcPow]

Ben's numbers match what I've seen. A >90 player is a rare occurence, usually one or two per class, and probably never more than four. Players with popularity between 80-90 are also by no means common, we're probably talking 5-10 guys a draft class.

For what it's worth, the concept of good players having high popularity isn't a revelation for a fair number of people. The Interrogator angle that reveals this stuff pre-draft is probably the piece that pushes this from "advanced knowledge of the game" to "exploit." I'm not pretending to know what the popularity numbers mean exactly (and I'm fairly certain they were never intended to "mean" anything very specific in this regard), but the >40 breakpoint would be obviously significant to anyone who takes a look at this stuff. The other information is informed theory based on what I've seen.

Again though, I'll reiterate that there are always other indicators that would lead someone to valuing these players. Whether it is combines, strange bar patterns, %developed, or any number of things, these guys have other data points that would make them intriguing. The popularity angle just seems to be a very reliable confirmation of that.

[Hammer]

Big fuss over nothing. If this is a big deal, people who do studies revealing the combine-skill relationship should be shot. What about the guys who don't read FOFC and arn't privelege to this excellent info? The sky isn't falling, this is no big threat to the game.

Think back to FOF2004 when MP GMs could sim ahead...now that was something to worry about.

[QuikSand]

For what it's worth, the concept of good players having high popularity isn't a revelation for a fair number of people.

Totally agreed there. I think a connection between initial popularity and overall quality/potential has been there a long time, and I know it's been commented upon here from time to time, though not with as much precision as in this thread. The real matter is the access/timing.

[MIJB#19]

I think people are over reacting a bit to this. This isn't an end all tell or anything. You can't just make your way down the popularity list and get all studs. As has been said, in the top leagues the vast majority of these guys are drafted already as it is.

It's important that everyone know this kind of stuff so everyone is working from the same page, but this did not suddenly unlock the draft. It is not equivelant to a key to print out the real ratings for all the players.That's pretty much how I feel about it. To me, it almost sounds like it's no big deal at all.

[Dutch]

Ideally, a patch that opened up Fan Popularity for all to see would fix this problem. But I'm guessing, due to circumstance, that won't happen.

Realistically, a top-50 would be a fair alternative.

[cuervo72]

Ideally, a patch that opened up Fan Popularity for all to see would fix this problem. But I'm guessing, due to circumstance, that won't happen.

Realistically, a top-50 would be a fair alternative.

If it were just Fan Popularity, that would be a good solution (I can't see why it should be hidden anyway, unless Solecismic understands it as a "tell"). You'd still have the other personality ratings to contend with though. Though I do personally lean towards making Fan Pop public.

[KWhit]

Totally agreed there. I think a connection between initial popularity and overall quality/potential has been there a long time, and I know it's been commented upon here from time to time, though not with as much precision as in this thread. The real matter is the access/timing.

Interesting.

I, for one, had no idea that connection was there. It's the accumulation of little things like this that clearly a few (or possibly many) people know that give them a huge leg up on others that don't.

Those kind of undocumented, non-intuitive 'tells' make the game much less appealing to me. Not knocking you guys for using them, it just has negatively affected my opinion of the game.

[Chubby]

Interesting.

I, for one, had no idea that connection was there. It's the accumulation of little things like this that clearly a few (or possibly many) people know that give them a huge leg up on others that don't.

Those kind of undocumented, non-intuitive 'tells' make the game much less appealing to me. Not knocking you guys for using them, it just has negatively affected my opinion of the game.


but it's also going to benefit people without them knowing it. I for one have looked for high popularity players to fill in my roster (tho I've done it primaryily with old guys) to get a ticket boost and neevr knew about this "tell".

I also don't think that the number of guys this affects in a draft makes it all that big of a deal but safeguards should be in place for however a league wants to deal with it.

[gstelmack]

Ideally, a patch that opened up Fan Popularity for all to see would fix this problem. But I'm guessing, due to circumstance, that won't happen.

Well, it's not exactly fair for Solecismic to fix a mess that I basically created.

[st.cronin]

Those kind of undocumented, non-intuitive 'tells' make the game much less appealing to me. Not knocking you guys for using them, it just has negatively affected my opinion of the game.

+1

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting.

I, for one, had no idea that connection was there. It's the accumulation of little things like this that clearly a few (or possibly many) people know that give them a huge leg up on others that don't.

Those kind of undocumented, non-intuitive 'tells' make the game much less appealing to me. Not knocking you guys for using them, it just has negatively affected my opinion of the game.

I'm in the same boat and I find this whole situation disheartening.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting.

I, for one, had no idea that connection was there. It's the accumulation of little things like this that clearly a few (or possibly many) people know that give them a huge leg up on others that don't.

Those kind of undocumented, non-intuitive 'tells' make the game much less appealing to me. Not knocking you guys for using them, it just has negatively affected my opinion of the game.The highlighted portion has been an interesting sidelight to this discussion for me. It makes complete sense to me that popularity should correlate with talent. Are there any guys in the NFL who we'd categorize as Pop>90 who haven't been at least very good players at some point in their careers? Maybe one or two stray guys who do a bunch in the community might have localize popularity, but FOF doesn't claim to try to model that sort of thing.

[gstelmack]

So I can boil this down to we have two choices, and it does not seem like we've reached a consensus yet:

1) I fix Interrogator (it's only a couple of minutes to fix), and we outlaw using old versions in leagues. I've got other fixes / features I could roll in to encourage the upgrade. This has the problem that old versions are out there, we can't guarantee people aren't using it (it becomes a trust issue), and it opens the door for folks who happen to find a creeper through other means being labelled a "cheater" if the guy is revealed later to also have high pop. I actually think we could trust most folks on this, but it's the false accusations that concern me.

2) We publish the data in the leagues to level the playing field, which is what Ben is proposing in WOOF. This means that everyone has the info, and it really is only going to affect a handful of players every draft (high popularity, low bars and combine guys), but it continues an exploit that is unavailable in the game itself, ruining part of the design and balance of the game.

So the ultimate question is, do we open close door #1 or open door #2? If there are leagues that desire #1, I can do it anyway, even if others want to go #2.

[larrymcg421]

If someone can explain to me how option 1 can even be enforced, I'd love to hear it. I've heard several people in this thread mention that the use of this information should be banned, but how on earth are you gonna be able to enforce that? I fear that someone who could just be an excellent drafter and randomly get a bunch of high pop guys over a couple seasons will be targeted, and I'm not comfortable with someone being punished with such circumstantial evidence.

I'm honestly not sure how any league could possibly progress fromt his point without resorting to option #2.

[Yoda]

Well, it's not exactly fair for Solecismic to fix a mess that I basically created.

Well, honestly, I don't see the reason it's hidden to begin with, popularity is something that should be well known.

[st.cronin]

The highlighted portion has been an interesting sidelight to this discussion for me. It makes complete sense to me that popularity should correlate with talent. Are there any guys in the NFL who we'd categorize as Pop>90 who haven't been at least very good players at some point in their careers? Maybe one or two stray guys who do a bunch in the community might have localize popularity, but FOF doesn't claim to try to model that sort of thing.

I think the non-intuitive part relates to this being pre-draft analysis. There are lots of players who are very popular coming out of college who are not good NFL players. Reggie Bush, for example.

[gstelmack]

I think the non-intuitive part relates to this being pre-draft analysis. There are lots of players who are very popular coming out of college who are not good NFL players. Reggie Bush, for example.

:D

:popcorn:

[st.cronin]

lol

I suppose a better example would have been somebody like Troy Smith or Chris Leak.

[Yoda]

So I can boil this down to we have two choices, and it does not seem like we've reached a consensus yet:

1) I fix Interrogator (it's only a couple of minutes to fix), and we outlaw using old versions in leagues. I've got other fixes / features I could roll in to encourage the upgrade. This has the problem that old versions are out there, we can't guarantee people aren't using it (it becomes a trust issue), and it opens the door for folks who happen to find a creeper through other means being labelled a "cheater" if the guy is revealed later to also have high pop. I actually think we could trust most folks on this, but it's the false accusations that concern me.


This really isn't an option for the reasons you stated.


2) We publish the data in the leagues to level the playing field, which is what Ben is proposing in WOOF. This means that everyone has the info, and it really is only going to affect a handful of players every draft (high popularity, low bars and combine guys), but it continues an exploit that is unavailable in the game itself, ruining part of the design and balance of the game.


I can see why people are calling it an exploit/cheat, but honestly, as I mentioned before, popularity is something that should be known, it makes SENSE for it to be known. And I am not sure I agree with 'ruining part of the design/balance of the game'.


So the ultimate question is, do we open close door #1 or open door #2? If there are leagues that desire #1, I can do it anyway, even if others want to go #2.

I see this is as a tool, no different than using various people's studies on finding the relationships between combine scores/ratings and other 'niches' in the game.

Personally, I would like to see a list of 'hidden information' (HoF for example) that would be 'neat' info to have, but isn't damaging (like where the actual values for players are), I feel that kind of information would just add to the experience, and that's what I believe this will do, is just add to the experience.

There are people that will use it, that that will dismiss it, and people that don't put that much effort into drafting anyway.

[VPI97]

If someone can explain to me how option 1 can even be enforced, I'd love to hear it. I've heard several people in this thread mention that the use of this information should be banned, but how on earth are you gonna be able to enforce that? I fear that someone who could just be an excellent drafter and randomly get a bunch of high pop guys over a couple seasons will be targeted, and I'm not comfortable with someone being punished with such circumstantial evidence.

I'm honestly not sure how any league could possibly progress fromt his point without resorting to option #2.
Were you in a league prior to FOF 2007? Because with FOF 2004, none of the critical hidden data was encrypted like it is now. Anyone with a hex editor and a bunch of time could have went in the data files and figured out all sorts of useful things. Or they could have went ahead and converted a MP league to SP to sim ahead. Or a bunch of other things. Since all those possibilities were there (and unenforcable), you had to rely on trusting people to follow the rules. Of course, it's better now since those things were shored up with FOF 2007, but even then, if you're in a league where you don't think you can trust adults to follow the rules, I would suggest that you may need to find yourself new league.

[larrymcg421]

Of course, it's better now since those things were shored up with FOF 2007, but even then, if you're in a league where you don't think you can trust adults to follow the rules, I would suggest that you may need to find yourself new league.

I'm in WOOF and I trust the players in the league to follow the rules. However, it would only take one person to ignore this rule and we'd have no way of knowing. I'd say if you're in a league and don't think it's possible that 1 of the 32 owners could be cheating, then that's pretty naive.

Also, the bigger point I think is the accusations that would be leveled against those that end up with lots of high pop guys. That wouldn't come from me. It would come from others (and we've seen a little bit of it in the WOOF thread), so my trustworthiness int he rest of the league isn't really a factor there.

I really think leagues will be much better off just publishing the high pop list than trying to trying to enforce an unenforceable rule.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think the non-intuitive part relates to this being pre-draft analysis. There are lots of players who are very popular coming out of college who are not good NFL players. Reggie Bush, for example.

Thanks. Way to follow-up the gut punch of this thread with a high knee to the groin. :p

[KWhit]

The highlighted portion has been an interesting sidelight to this discussion for me. It makes complete sense to me that popularity should correlate with talent. Are there any guys in the NFL who we'd categorize as Pop>90 who haven't been at least very good players at some point in their careers? Maybe one or two stray guys who do a bunch in the community might have localize popularity, but FOF doesn't claim to try to model that sort of thing.

Well, then I'd expect leadership to be an attribute tied to ability too. You don't see too many team leaders who suck on the field. Is it the same kind of tell?

Also, I'd expect taller receivers to have an edge. And for a guy who was a FB last week, but a RB this week to be able to be a FB again the following week without totally forgetting everything he ever knew about the position. And for locker room relationships to be based on something other than a guy's Love Sign. And if a guy's rating slightly improves when he's first put on the roster that would mean he was actually better (not worse) than before.

But I digress.

[MalcPow]

Well taller receivers do have an edge. :) (Straight from the horse's mouth: February 2008 Solecismic Q&A: Drafting Tips - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1660460#post1660460))

Not trying to be a smartass, and I can very much relate to the feeling that most of the information about this game is spread about in semi-random places, but figured I'd clarify that point since people seem to be checking this thread out.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, then I'd expect leadership to be an attribute tied to ability too. You don't see too many team leaders who suck on the field. Is it the same kind of tell?

Also, I'd expect taller receivers to have an edge. And for a guy who was a FB last week, but a RB this week to be able to be a FB again the following week without totally forgetting everything he ever knew about the position. And for locker room relationships to be based on something other than a guy's Love Sign. And if a guy's rating slightly improves when he's first put on the roster that would mean he was actually better (not worse) than before.

But I digress.Heh. I don't really disagree with any of that (and as is pointed out, the tall WRs do). All I'm saying is that in this particular case, it's not a big non-intuitive kinda thing.

[jdavidbakr]

Just released 1.14 of Conscriptor that allows the admin to upload this info when they upload the draft. If uploaded, the popularity can be selected as one of the columns on the player list and also shows up as a bar on the player's page.

[ace1914]

Just released 1.14 of Conscriptor that allows the admin to upload this info when they upload the draft. If uploaded, the popularity can be selected as one of the columns on the player list and also shows up as a bar on the player's page.

Problem solved. Plus, is it really unlikely for someone to be popular because of their play on the field, but not high on draft charts and average/below average combines and STILL end up being pretty decent?

[zullojer]

So I can boil this down to we have two choices, and it does not seem like we've reached a consensus yet:

1) I fix Interrogator (it's only a couple of minutes to fix), and we outlaw using old versions in leagues. I've got other fixes / features I could roll in to encourage the upgrade. This has the problem that old versions are out there, we can't guarantee people aren't using it (it becomes a trust issue), and it opens the door for folks who happen to find a creeper through other means being labelled a "cheater" if the guy is revealed later to also have high pop. I actually think we could trust most folks on this, but it's the false accusations that concern me.

2) We publish the data in the leagues to level the playing field, which is what Ben is proposing in WOOF. This means that everyone has the info, and it really is only going to affect a handful of players every draft (high popularity, low bars and combine guys), but it continues an exploit that is unavailable in the game itself, ruining part of the design and balance of the game.

So the ultimate question is, do we open close door #1 or open door #2? If there are leagues that desire #1, I can do it anyway, even if others want to go #2.

I like having any extra information I can gather, and I don't think any leagues need to publish a top 50 list or ban anything. The only post that makes sense to me, is one saying, here is a link to the gstelmack software, then describing the benefits to using said software.
Thus, if i put in the extra time scouting over the next owner who chooses not to utilize this great software. Then naturally that should give me a slight advantage in my scouting. Besides, you still have other variables that can counter that one (popularity) rating, until somebody proves otherwise with some simulations.

[WelshWizard]

I guess I should not have drafted my 74/74 WR in one of my leagues because his popularity is 21. This gives people one other reason to second guess a decision over a player which I am fine with because even knowing what I know today about the popularity rating I would still draft the same WR. With this info being brought to light today may make someone look past this WR and I am quite happy to snap him up.

[Yoda]

I guess I should not have drafted my 74/74 WR in one of my leagues because his popularity is 21. This gives people one other reason to second guess a decision over a player which I am fine with because even knowing what I know today about the popularity rating I would still draft the same WR. With this info being brought to light today may make someone look past this WR and I am quite happy to snap him up.

And you SHOULD be, honestly, this is just another tool (like RKG's theory about the hidden avoid int skill), and should be used accordingly.

This isn't the end-all-be-all and it's not completely irrevelant either.

[WelshWizard]

And you SHOULD be, honestly, this is just another tool (like RKG's theory about the hidden avoid int skill), and should be used accordingly.

This isn't the end-all-be-all and it's not completely irrevelant either.

Agreed Yoda, completely agree with you. Not stating that this is not irrelavent but with so much talk about it i just feel people are going way overboard. It is just another thing that has been found to measure a player. Yet as someone mentioned earlier could still get hit with the Volatilty stick and be a complete bust after all the research done no player is a sure thing.

[stevew]

Fwiw the reining Woof champs were constructed with basically no use of any outer game tools and very minimal draft preparation. As well as little to no focus on chemistry and affinities whatsoever. If youre the type of casual gamer there can still be hope for you. :). This ain't everything and I hope the casual player will not be dissuaded.


And I do kick myself for not making the coorelation between popularity and success just because it did appear that good players ad a much higher chance of being fan faves un this version. Much more than in older versions in my unscientific data gained through observation

[Celeval]

I think one major part of the uproar is that it's something exposed outside the game. FOF has been a game that has generally not had the third-party-scouting utilities that are accepted (somewhat) in games like FM/WWSM. We're all somewhat LLMers that way.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

My thoughts if you care.

1. Let's be clear this isn't a bug or tell created by Solecismic, since it's a third party app. that is affecting the timing of the information.

2. I think this is a fairly non-event. There are a zillion variables that go into winning games and championships (this is what the game is all about), and the fact somebody wants to use interrogator to learn popularity early makes it rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

3. A perfect example of #2 is even knowing this information now, I have no intention of using interrogator (if it was still allowed by my league). I got better things to do with my time for such a minor advantage. I also say have at it to those who want to spend their time doing it for the advantage.

4. gst, that would be great if you could expose yearly HOF votes. It would add some nice immersion, and I see no harm in it. Pretty please.

[Dutch]

I think one major part of the uproar is that it's something exposed outside the game.

I'd be surprised that was the case. Everybody, including Jim, recognize that 3rd party utilities have helped extend the life of this product.

[Dutch]

However...

gst, that would be great if you could expose Fan Popularity. It would add some nice immersion, and I see no harm in it. Pretty please.

Fixed. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Just released 1.14 of Conscriptor that allows the admin to upload this info when they upload the draft. If uploaded, the popularity can be selected as one of the columns on the player list and also shows up as a bar on the player's page.We just finished our draft and I'd lik eto leave Conscriptor up. Am I correct in assuming that if I upload the newest version and a new database everything will be overwritten, or can I upload the Interrogator stuff now just to test it, and not lose the picks?

[JMO]

In my recent draft in the Imperial League, I had 5 picks. None in the first round. 3 of those picks had over 40 pop(at least now ten weeks into the season they do..none of them have produced enough to signifcantly effect their pop). I picked the first two on pure combine/% dev and the last one because i liked his strength and endurance bars and I had seen guards like that blossom before. He has 72 pop now although he hasn't played a snap except on special teams. I had no knowledge of the popularity tell before and i only use apps such as change tracker and the draft analyser.

Moral of the story..it would be nigh on impossible to tell who was using this tell as it will coincide way too often with good combine/creeper guys. Be careful before pointing fingers.

[jdavidbakr]

We just finished our draft and I'd lik eto leave Conscriptor up. Am I correct in assuming that if I upload the newest version and a new database everything will be overwritten, or can I upload the Interrogator stuff now just to test it, and not lose the picks?

You have to upload the interrogator stuff when you upload the rest of the draft data, but if you export the "pick" table and then re-import the draft and import the saved "pick" table it should restore the picks. (If you do this you should probably backup the whole database just in case it doesn't work). There's a database change for the new version so you'll want to run the upgrade script upgrade_1_13.sql as well. So the down and dirty steps assuming you're using phpMyAdmin:

1) Export the whole database for backup
2) Export the "pick" table
3) Unzip the 1.14 version of Conscriptor and put in place on top of the old one. Be sure to retain the "includes/config.inc.php" file from the old installation.
4) Import the upgrade_1_13.sql script (and any prior upgrade scripts starting with the version you currently have, but be sure to do them in order if you need to do more than one)
5) Log in as admin and upload the draft using all of the files
6) Go back to phpMyAdmin and import the "pick" table
7) Check to make sure the picks are still there and are for the correct players, and that the popularity bars show up.

[Ben E Lou]

In my recent draft in the Imperial League, I had 5 picks. None in the first round. 3 of those picks had over 40 pop(at least now ten weeks into the season they do..none of them have produced enough to signifcantly effect their pop). I picked the first two on pure combine/% dev and the last one because i liked his strength and endurance bars and I had seen guards like that blossom before. He has 72 pop now although he hasn't played a snap except on special teams. I had no knowledge of the popularity tell before and i only use apps such as change tracker and the draft analyser.

Moral of the story..it would be nigh on impossible to tell who was using this tell as it will coincide way too often with good combine/creeper guys. Be careful before pointing fingers.This is precisely my concern about not making the list public--especially when it comes to all of those little bar tells like the one you mention. It seems like it's just a more sophisticated/complex version of the old FOF2K1 redliners--different for each position, and sometimes multiple tell-tale patterns per position, but people who draft a lot will begin to see these patterns and use them to their advantage. And in the meantime, the guys who don't see the patterns will just see "JMO drafted a guard in a later round who had 72 popularity," and be suspicious of you. It's very easy for any league member to "check up" on their other fellow owners, and suspicions will arise. That's bad for leagues.

[gstelmack]

I'd be surprised that was the case. Everybody, including Jim, recognize that 3rd party utilities have helped extend the life of this product.

That may be true, but the point still remains that the utility is exposing something that the game does not, and that was NEVER the intent.

[gstelmack]

4. gst, that would be great if you could expose yearly HOF votes. It would add some nice immersion, and I see no harm in it. Pretty please.

Now I'm sorry I let that slip. Let me be clear: I am not talking about info that is not already in FOF. I am talking about info that is exposed in the data file before it is exposed in FOF. When a guy retires, FOF runs the HoF calculations immediately, then stores them for later use. When the guy is finally eligible, those results are exposed. If I let these through in Interrogator early, all you'd get is an early HoF list. There is NOTHING in the file that is not already shown on the HoF screen, or at least nothing I've found. We're talking about a timing issue, that's all. And I like having to wait until the guy should be eligible to find out.

So, no :p

[cuervo72]

Oh...so it doesn't store vote totals for guys who don't get in?

[gstelmack]

Oh...so it doesn't store vote totals for guys who don't get in?

Not any place that I have found. Which is not the same as saying it doesn't, but the point is I don't have it to show.

[ShaneTheMaster]

The highlighted portion has been an interesting sidelight to this discussion for me. It makes complete sense to me that popularity should correlate with talent. Are there any guys in the NFL who we'd categorize as Pop>90 who haven't been at least very good players at some point in their careers? Maybe one or two stray guys who do a bunch in the community might have localize popularity, but FOF doesn't claim to try to model that sort of thing.

I think what you saying is true for veterans - but not necessarily true for rookies. Ryan Leaf would have been very popular his rookie season, but in year 2 I would say he wasn't. Rookies are such question marks that the fans popularity rating should not directly correlate to how well a player will eventually be.

If anything, fan popularity should correlate to the PERCEIVED (OR MASKED) value of a player - not his HIDDEN potential.

The best solution by far is for FOF to be fixed so that this direct correlation does not exist, or it has some other factors put into the popularity calculation.

[Ben E Lou]

I think what you saying is true for veterans - but not necessarily true for rookies. Ryan Leaf would have been very popular his rookie season, but in year 2 I would say he wasn't.Players change pop with playing time and performance....

Rookies are such question marks that the fans popularity rating should not directly correlate to how well a player will eventually be.

If anything, fan popularity should correlate to the PERCEIVED (OR MASKED) value of a player - not his HIDDEN potential.Terrell Davis. Tom Brady. They're the exceptions, not the norm. Guys like them are represented by the Volatility Stick Of Life in FOF. Ryan Leaf? The Volatility Stick Of Death. Massive obvious combine stud creepers don't really represent any type of NFL player, if you think about it. NFL Scouts know what they're getting in the vast majority of cases. Masking is a mechanism that makes FOF a more challenging computer game. (I suppose one could call it a proxy for a coaching/scouting staff who works overtime to understand the talents of the players they have, or that creeping is a proxy for seeing the player in practice and watching more film, but I don't see it that deeply.) Point being, when an obvious superstar with monster combines shows up in FOF with mediocre bars, he's a star player, and I'm of the opinion that his popularity should reflect that. He's a guy who was a star player in college and the fans are excited about having him.

The best solution by far is for FOF to be fixed so that this direct correlation does not exist, or it has some other factors put into the popularity calculation.Or hide popularity with the real player ratings in encrypted places, only revealing it after the draft. *shurg*

[ShaneTheMaster]

Player change pop with playing time and performance....

Point being, when an obvious superstar with monster combines shows up in FOF with mediocre bars, he's a star player, and I'm of the opinion that his popularity should reflect that.


Yes, I agree, but not until the fans actually see him display it on the field and he proves himself - not before he is even drafted. The fans are basically looking ahead in time 2 or 3 seasons down the road - giving the user an indicator he should not have.

By the game's logic, Marques Colston, Dan Fouts, Sammy Knight would all have a fan popularity of 80-90, before they were drafted. Doesn't make sense. In real life, The fans have no way of knowing who is going to boom ahead of time. They may prefer players that were winners in college or who played for the hometown college team.

I can't completely blame Jim because he probably didn't intend on that number being available before the draft. But I can't blame Greg either, because there is no way to know of the weird correlation. I don't think there is anything Greg can do, but I think there is something Jim can do.

[Celeval]

By the game's logic, Marques Colston, Dan Fouts, Sammy Knight would all have a fan popularity of 80-90, before they were drafted. Doesn't make sense. In real life, The fans have no way of knowing who is going to boom ahead of time. They may prefer players that were winners in college or who played for the hometown college team.

Not necessarily. The game has plenty of talented players who aren't popular at the outset.

And the key with the hometown college team is to realize that Popularity is league-wide (i.e. it doesn't change based on team, via trade or whatever). To use an example SkyDog and I talked through, Thomas Brown may be a very popular Falcon (since he grew up in Tucker and played for UGA), but RaiderFan couldn't care less.

[Ben E Lou]

Yes, I agree, but not until the fans actually see him display it on the field and he proves himself - not before he is even drafted. The fans are basically looking ahead in time 2 or 3 seasons down the road - giving the user an indicator he should not have.We're not talking about a ton of players here with high pop. I remember exactly where I was when I heard the Falcons had acquired the 1(1) and the rights to Vick. The Falcons couldn't sell out the Dome in a 14-2 season, but they sold it out for the first preseason game he played. I scrambled to watch Herschel's first pro games ever. I couldn't WAIT to see Deion in the NFL. I would argue that these guys were wildly popular before they'd done a dadgum thing on the field. The fans wouldn't necessarily have said it the way we say it in FOF...but they were excited about these guys' potential ratings, not their current. ;)

By the game's logic, Marques Colston, Dan Fouts, Sammy Knight would all have a fan popularity of 80-90, before they were drafted. Doesn't make sense. In real life, The fans have no way of knowing who is going to boom ahead of time. They may prefer players that were winners in college or who played for the hometown college team.All players above x pop are good players. Not all good players are above x pop. There are significant numbers of quality players who do not have high pop in FOF.

I can't completely blame Jim because he probably didn't intend on that number being available before the draft. But I can't blame Greg either, because there is no way to know of the weird correlation. I don't think there is anything Greg can do, but I think there is something Jim can do.Again, it's simply not a weird correlation.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Not necessarily. The game has plenty of talented players who aren't popular at the outset.

And the key with the hometown college team is to realize that Popularity is league-wide (i.e. it doesn't change based on team, via trade or whatever). To use an example SkyDog and I talked through, Thomas Brown may be a very popular Falcon (since he grew up in Tucker and played for UGA), but RaiderFan couldn't care less.

Does the game have players that were popular at the outset but did not boom? From what I understand, the answer is no.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Again, it's simply not a weird correlation.

So, you think Fan Popularity should correlate to a) the actual hidden potential rating of the players or the b) perceived rating that everyone sees before/during the draft? Option "a", to me, is weird.

[Celeval]

Does the game have players that were popular at the outset but did not boom? From what I understand, the answer is no.

Absolutely the answer is yes. A guy could be very popular and rated 77 out of the gates, but nega-creep to 52. In addition, random busts can hit anyone.

From the data I posted in the other thread, the underlying potential of any player who has at least a 50 popularity is at least a 50 potential. Boom/bust doesn't matter - that's what he is at the time of the draft under the covers.

He could come out viewed as a 30 player who creeps to 50 or an 80 player who nega-creeps to it.

[Celeval]

And really, the term we should use is creep - the booms/busts are volatility-based, have no bearing on popularity, and happen during Training Camp.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Absolutely the answer is yes. A guy could be very popular and rated 77 out of the gates, but bust to 52. In addition, random busts can hit anyone.

From the data I posted in the other thread, the underlying potential of any player who has at least a 50 popularity is at least a 50 potential. Boom/bust doesn't matter - that's what he is at the time of the draft under the covers.

He could come out viewed as a 30 player who booms to 50 or an 80 player who busts to it.


Ok, I follow you.. so I will rephrase the question:

Does the game have players that were popular at the outset but did not become a solid player?

[Celeval]

One quick example from the league where I pulled the draft files from:

The most recent draft had a QB go at 1.5 overall to the Colts. The player was rated 38/69 in the draft pool, is currently (post-draft) 39/69 on the Colts roster and has a popularity of (oddly enough) 69. However, his under-the-hood potential is a 60; and he'll creep down to that over the next few seasons.

[Celeval]

Ok, I follow you.. so I will rephrase the question:

Does the game have players that were popular at the outset but did not become a solid player?

Based solely on FOF2004 data, the only players who were popular (>50) in the draft pool had 50+ potential in the draft pool as well. Possibilities for them not being solid players would include the random-volatility-busts (which could and do happen to anyone) and injuries.

FYI, I'm copying this post to the other thread to continue discussion there.

[Ben E Lou]

So, you think Fan Popularity should correlate to a) the actual hidden potential rating of the players or the b) perceived rating that everyone sees before/during the draft? Option "a", to me, is weird.Re-read my post on the matter. The masking has nothing to do with realism whatsoever. For the purposes of this discussion, it should be just ignored. What I'm saying is that in most cases from a design perspective, popular players should be good players, and that's precisely what's being modeled here. The fact that FOF has a fog-o-war is an entirely different discussion. Just because a player is masked doesn't mean that he's not a good player.

[stretch]

One quick example from the league where I pulled the draft files from:

The most recent draft had a QB go at 1.5 overall to the Colts. The player was rated 38/69 in the draft pool, is currently (post-draft) 39/69 on the Colts roster and has a popularity of (oddly enough) 69. However, his under-the-hood potential is a 60; and he'll creep down to that over the next few seasons.

N00b question: How'd you see the "under the hood" potential?

Or was that a hypothetical?

[Subby]

N00b question: How'd you see the "under the hood" potential?

Or was that a hypothetical?

In 2k4 the true player ratings aren't encrypted (like they are in 2k7) so they are easy to see if you use a hex editor or some other similar program.