Popularity and Potential

[Celeval]

Just to get this out of the way first, this is all data from FOF2004. I'm using data points here that are not available in the FOF2007 files. However, they seem to generally match the anecdotal stuff mentioned in the Player Development Tell thread; so it's probably something that hasn't changed much since the previous version.

These are data from six FOF2004 draft classes. These are game-generated from 5.1d, from a game starting with the default rosters. 2004 - 2011 if it matters (not including 2005 since I actually forgot to run the report when I went through). The pertinent data I'm looking at is Popularity and "Player Potential", which is a 375-625 value that I've translated into 0-100 for ease of data.

The numbers here are:
<table border="1"><tbody><tr><th colspan="2">Potential</th><th rowspan="2"># of Players</th><th colspan="3">Popularity</th></tr><tr><td>True Range</td><td>Range</td><td>Minimum</td><td>Maximum</td><td>Average</td></tr><tr><td>375-399</td><td>0-9.6</td><td>56</td><td>0</td><td>39</td><td>19.8</td></tr><tr><td>400-424</td><td>10-19.6</td><td>662</td><td>0</td><td>44</td><td>20.9</td></tr><tr><td>425-449</td><td>20-29.6</td><td>2130</td><td>0</td><td>44</td><td>19.9</td></tr><tr><td>450-474</td><td>30-39.6</td><td>1443</td><td>0</td><td>47</td><td>20.3</td></tr><tr><td>475-499</td><td>40-49.6</td><td>461</td><td>0</td><td>44</td><td>22.7</td></tr><tr><td>500-524</td><td>50-59.6</td><td>147</td><td>0</td><td>89</td><td>51.5</td></tr><tr><td>525-549</td><td>60-69.6</td><td>82</td><td>11</td><td>89</td><td>55.0</td></tr><tr><td>550-574</td><td>70-79.6</td><td>49</td><td>31</td><td>95</td><td>65.9</td></tr><tr><td>575-599</td><td>80-89.6</td><td>24</td><td>30</td><td>96</td><td>63.5</td></tr><tr><td>600-625</td><td>90-100</td><td>3</td><td>52</td><td>76</td><td>60.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

Small sample sizes start biting us near the top of the range, but there are some interesting numbers in there:

The highest potential for a player with 0 popularity is 56.
The lowest potential for a player with at least 50 popularity is 50.
The highest potential for a player with less than 50 popularity is 86.

Total players with 50+ popularity: 189
Total players with 49- popularity: 4868
Total players with 50+ potential: 305
Total players with 49- potential: 4752

Total players with 49- popularity and 50+ potential: 116
Total players with 50+ popularity and 50+ potential: 189

So, what do we learn? (anyone else feel free to chime in)

1. If you draft solely players with 50+ popularity, you will seemingly always get players with 50+ potential.
2. Approx 38% of 50+ potential players have popularity below 50.
3. There are, on average, one complete round of players available with a popularity above 50 (31.5/class).

Now, taking all this with a huge grain of FOF2004 -> FOF2007 salt, there does seem to be something of a tell. However, it is limited, and will not take the place of many of the other draft methods (in fact, ignoring nearly half of all 50+ players). The more people in any particular league who use this, the less useful it becomes (as the case with any tell)... if you assume even a third of teams in a league find and use this with their picks, all 50+ popularity players will be gone by the end of the third round.

Thoughts?

[Ben E Lou]

Celeval, it's probably worth mentioning that the "potential" you're talking about here is the true actual rating, not the masked green bar. I know that confused some people in MalcPow's thread.

The other thing that's worth noting is that based on the averages there of the 10-49.6 players, it's pretty clear that a 41-44 pop is a pretty rare happening for those guys.

[Celeval]

Right, sorry, left that out.

For players < 50 potential:

Popularity 41+: 51
Popularity 0-40: 4701

Although the key is to note that there's apparently a hard breakpoint at 50, and a softer one at 40. For players with 40+ popularity, 51 are below 50 potential and 223 are 50 or above... so for 40+ popularity, you're looking at about 18% under 50 potential.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Nice work. This is a big tell, to me, and takes some fun out of the draft.

[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.

[QuikSand]

the only players who were popular (>50) in the draft pool had 50+ potential in the draft pool as well.

Just double checking that I understand you here...this means the same as:

All players who were popular (>50) in the draft pool had 50+ potential in the draft pool as well.

[Celeval]

Well, keep in mind that this isn't available at all through the game interface. It's only available pre-draft via Interrogator.

Again going back to 2004 - the most recent draft I've finished, there were 2 rookies with 50+ popularity to make it through the draft into Late Free Agency - a RT rated 20/35 who has an actual potential of 85 (!)... but who also had excellent combines (82 pop), and a P rated 41/63 who was actually overrated and has a 59 potential (79 pop).

[Celeval]

Just double checking that I understand you here...this means the same as: All players who were popular (>50) in the draft pool had 50+ potential in the draft pool as well.

Yes.

[Ben E Lou]

Again going back to 2004 - the most recent draft I've finished, there were 2 rookies with 50+ popularity to make it through the draft into Late Free Agency - a RT rated 20/35 who has an actual potential of 85 (!).Heh. I didn't realize scout error could be that large in 2K4.

[Celeval]

To follow up on that undrafted tackle, since I'm sure he'll scare some people - among all tackles in the draft, he had the 2nd best 40 (5.15), best strength (35), and best Agility (7.61). So... yeah, he wouldn't have lasted out of the first round in MP drafts even before this. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Oh sure. No worries there. Sounds like a very obvious massive creeper. I was mainly commenting on the eventual +65/+50 that he's going to see. That's extremely high for 2K4.

Are you on Wall Street?

[Celeval]

Heh. I didn't realize scout error could be that large in 2K4.

Neither did I, although this guy hits all the markers - 57% developed, the 5th highest current rating among tackles (20/35)...

[Cringer]

Nice work. This is a big tell, to me, and takes some fun out of the draft.

Well, if you didn't look at the info it wouldn't ruin anything. I am sure I will have as much fun drafting as I did before. I am crazy like that though.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Well, if you didn't look at the info it wouldn't ruin anything. I am sure I will have as much fun drafting as I did before. I am crazy like that though.

Well, I don't want to, and have never done so, but I will have to in order to compete better in MP.

[Celeval]

Neither did I, although this guy hits all the markers - 57% developed, the 5th highest current rating among tackles (20/35)...

For the fun of it, reverted the save and drafted him - he was 22/43 after training camp, 29/43 and the end of year one, and 34/49 after his second training camp.

Of course, the AI signed a 70/74 RT in FA during that second season, so he'll probably get buried on the depth chart. :)

[Cringer]

Well, I don't want to, and have never done so, but I will have to in order to compete better in MP.

Seriously? You have to look at this one thing to compete? I might as well fold up and go home then. You can still draft well without this one piece of info, and people have managed to do it for a while. There are also trades, gameplanning, signing free agents, cap management, all sorts of parts to the game that help you compete.

Even while looking at the info, I think it has been made clear that focusing your whole draft on these guys would be a disadvantage in ways. Starters, role players, key backups, maybe even stars will be found with under 50 pop. If this ruins the draft for someone because they feel they now know who to go after then the person may be screwed even more. How many times does an owner get the player he is targeting for every pick, not very often I would guess. Many a time I have been sure I want a guy, sure he has good upside, only to see him picked 5 picks before me. The draft still has plenty of intrigue and strategy with or without this info.

[Ben E Lou]

For the fun of it, reverted the save and drafted him - he was 22/43 after training camp, 29/43 and the end of year one, and 34/49 after his second training camp.

Of course, the AI signed a 70/74 RT in FA during that second season, so he'll probably get buried on the depth chart. :)You gotta cut Mr. 70/74 and get our guy in the lineup. Period.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Seriously? You have to look at this one thing to compete? I might as well fold up and go home then. You can still draft well without this one piece of info, and people have managed to do it for a while. There are also trades, gameplanning, signing free agents, cap management, all sorts of parts to the game that help you compete.

Even while looking at the info, I think it has been made clear that focusing your whole draft on these guys would be a disadvantage in ways. Starters, role players, key backups, maybe even stars will be found with under 50 pop. If this ruins the draft for someone because they feel they now know who to go after then the person may be screwed even more. How many times does an owner get the player he is targeting for every pick, not very often I would guess. Many a time I have been sure I want a guy, sure he has good upside, only to see him picked 5 picks before me. The draft still has plenty of intrigue and strategy with or without this info.

I said compete "better". This looks like a full proof plan to draft good players in the later rounds - I think it is a good advantage. It takes less guesswork out of drafting diamonds in the rough.

If it is my pick in the 6th round, and they have 20 players with roughly the same rating, I just take the one with the high popularity - he's WILL be a solid player.

[Ben E Lou]

Shane, with this information made public, there's pretty much zero chance that any of these guys make it into the 6th round. My guess is that some of them will get drafted too early. Maybe you're overestimating how many players per class we're talking about here. We're only talking about 40ish guys per draft that fit the over-40 profile in FOF2K7, and 30ish that are over 50. And I'd suspect that of those, at least 20-25 are already going in the first 50 picks. Checking the WOOF draft now...

[Hammer]

I just picked up a rookie FA Guard in the vNFL regular season, based on this new info. I was sure to ask my commish first that he approved. Popularity is available in-game in the regular season, so I am purely acting on new research available in my eyes, and his obviously.

This Guard reads 25/45. His popularity is 64. He looks a pretty sure thing then if I understand this correctly?

I guess all the MP leagues may have a few FA's getting attention right now, lol.

[Ben E Lou]

OK. Here we go. As I've mentioned, WOOF had a very high number of >40 pop guys this year: exactly 50. 38 were at 50 or greater.

Of the 50 who were >40...

23 went in the first round.
8 went in the second round
6 went in the third round
4 went in the fourth round
2 went in the fifth round
2 went in the sixth round
2 went in the seventh round
3 were undraftedSo we're talking only 13 guys left after the first three rounds. 30 of the 50 went in the first 49 picks of the draft. As has been said by numerous others, most of these guys can be spotted purely from the front end of FOF. And I'd argue that several of the ones who went in round 4 or later were also obvious high-quality guys, just that they were at low-impact positions (a punter and three fullbacks with higher pop went in those later rounds).

I get the distinct impression that there's a perception still out there that there are dozens of 70-popularity guys just lying all over the place, waiting to be snatched up and become starters. That's simply not the situation at all.

[Ben E Lou]

I guess all the MP leagues may have a few FA's getting attention right now, lol.I wouldn't say "all," by any means. There are people who have been picking up higher pop guys in FA2 as a matter of routine for quite some time, dating back to FOF2K4 days. There has for a long time been some level of knowledge out there that some correlation existed. What's new now is that there are specific breakpoints to watch for, and that Interrogator exposes them prior to the draft. There have been straight-up bidding wars in FA2 over high pop guys, even.

[Hammer]

I get the distinct impression that there's a perception still out there that there are dozens of 70-popularity guys just lying all over the place, waiting to be snatched up and become starters. That's simply not the situation at all.

I can confirm that from my experience. I only found 1 50+ player in the 3 MP leagues I have looked at so far. A few 40+ guys, but none at skill positions, other than veterans who are past it.

[Cringer]

Exactly as Ben said, I can see this making some of those later round guys go a little earlier, maybe help a guy decide between who they want at pick 1.15, but other then that I don't see it as a huge thing. In the last Imperial League draft I had 6 3rd round picks, 3 ended up having >40 pop. With this info out there, maybe they go sometime in the second instead, with the QB possibly in the late first. Not the end of the world.

[Hammer]

I think this info will make things easier for those picking higher in the draft. Drafting will become even easier than it already is. That may not be a bad thing, it should even things out and make leagues more competitive. Those GMs constantly picking late 20's, early 30's are going to find it that much tougher now.

[Cringer]

I think this info will make things easier for those picking higher in the draft. Drafting will become even easier than it already is. That may not be a bad thing, it should even things out and make leagues more competitive. Those GMs constantly picking late 20's, early 30's are going to find it that much tougher now.

See on this one I will disagree with. You will still have volatility related booms and busts. You also can't rule a guy out because of low popularity. Also, just looking overa couple MP drafts, most of the top 10 picks have had >40/50 pop. anyways, before now.

[cartman]

See on this one I will disagree with. You will still have volatility related booms and busts. You also can't rule a guy out because of low popularity. Also, just looking overa couple MP drafts, most of the top 10 picks have had >40/50 pop. anyways, before now.

I think what he's saying is that the guys that might have dropped down to the P0wn3rs with 14-2 records, picking at the end of the 1st round, won't do so at the same rate, and will be picked up by the average owners in the 15th to 20th pick range. Over time, this might help to balance things out a small bit.

[Cringer]

Ah. So you mean I wouldn't have been able to grab RT Roetman in FOFL then? I guess so. Time will tell eh?

[headtrauma]

I get the feeling some folks are confusing causality and correlation.

[Celeval]

I actually think the second round is where this will cause the most change. I'm not generally satisfied with a 50 potential player in the first round, but I would be with the second.

[Ben E Lou]

See on this one I will disagree with. You will still have volatility related booms and busts. You also can't rule a guy out because of low popularity. Also, just looking overa couple MP drafts, most of the top 10 picks have had >40/50 pop. anyways, before now.Right Cringer...it'll need to be repeated many more times, I suspect:
All high popularity players are solid or better players. This does NOT mean that all solid or better players have high popularity.

First round of the WOOF draft....

<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">QB</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="66" sdnum="1033;" align="center" width="65">66</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center" width="69">1</td> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0);" sdval="1" sdnum="1033;" align="center" width="59">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="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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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> </tbody> </table>
So 8 of the top 10 were 50+. The lower pop guys who went in the top 10?

1(2): a cornerback with four red and two blue combines. Pop was 33, but he's still a sure thing with combines like that. Barring a volatility hit, he's pretty much a lock for being worth the 1(2).

1(10): combine-skipping AS LB who showed up with 60+ current rating on the roster. His pop was 38, but I'm not too worried about that. (I picked him.)

[MalcPow]

Great to see this stuff Celeval. I'm sure not a whole lot has changed with the move to 2k7. I'm sure there are some sample size issues here, but I can say that I've seen guys generated with 100 popularity (looks like max you saw in six classes was 96, which is not at all unexpected considering the small number of 90+ guys). Your work also dispels my theories about 80 and 90+ guys having any particular greater value, which is good to know. Obviously without access to the real ratings, and trying to account for masking, I was basically spitballing those theories based on numerous observations and guesses based on their percentage distribution matching the suggested roster file breakdowns fairly closely. It's good to have some solid data that's likely still pretty accurate. I think this goes a long way to helping us better understand this phenomenon.

[Yoda]

I wouldn't say "all," by any means. There are people who have been picking up higher pop guys in FA2 as a matter of routine for quite some time, dating back to FOF2K4 days. There has for a long time been some level of knowledge out there that some correlation existed. What's new now is that there are specific breakpoints to watch for, and that Interrogator exposes them prior to the draft. There have been straight-up bidding wars in FA2 over high pop guys, even.

I've been picking up high pop guys to fill out my roster when I have room to help boost ticket sales (which is one thing I equated pop too).

[Hammer]

I actually think the second round is where this will cause the most change. I'm not generally satisfied with a 50 potential player in the first round, but I would be with the second.

Yes, agreed, I see where your coming from. After reading your post again, there were more 50+ guys than I expected. Even if you take out the TEs and FBs there will still be some "safe" 50+ picks available into the 2nd. But then, some of these may be made up of bars your not interested in, blocking strength, avoid drops, blitz pickup or whatever. So, there is still plenty to consider, its not just take a 50+ guy and your laughing. I will be interested to be involved in a draft or two, see how it plays out in MP leagues now.

[Julio Riddols]

All I know is after looking at a couple of my better MP teams, I don't believe the popularity of a player matters for much of anything. I have 12 players on my New Rngland team in RNFL with 40 or higher fan pop, only 10 of which are starting, and most of those starters have had about 5 years or so with the team to build popularity as well. We're 8-3 and have allowed the lowest point total in the league while scoring among the highest. Only one of my creepers is a guy who had 40 popularity or higher. I have at least 4 or 5 that had 39 or lower, some with as little as 1 fan pop..

[drakeborn]

All I know is after looking at a couple of my better MP teams, I don't believe the popularity of a player matters for much of anything. I have 12 players on my New Rngland team in RNFL with 40 or higher fan pop, only 10 of which are starting, and most of those starters have had about 5 years or so with the team to build popularity as well. We're 8-3 and have allowed the lowest point total in the league while scoring among the highest. Only one of my creepers is a guy who had 40 popularity or higher. I have at least 4 or 5 that had 39 or lower, some with as little as 1 fan pop..

To save Ben a reply:

it'll need to be repeated many more times, I suspect:
All high popularity players are solid or better players. This does NOT mean that all solid or better players have high popularity.

[Ben E Lou]

Thanks drakeborn, but no worries. I've just given up.

[JetsIn06]

Also, gotta remember that this only matter for rookies. Once a guy starts playing his popularity will go up and down based on playing time, starting, position, etc.

[Matthean]

Well, keep in mind that this isn't available at all through the game interface. It's only available pre-draft via Interrogator.

Might get flamed for this, but how is this done? I was using the utilities for my first draft and pop. never showed up. Came looking here when I was playing around the my 2nd predraft and saw that Interrogator needed to be run. After stumbling around I went back into the draft analyzer and imported pop. One guy got a score and he was an unsigned draft pick from the year before.

Note, this is for a SP league and I'm using the utilities for the draft since I struggled so heavily in my first draft, IMO. Pretty much all of my guys were gone after the 3rd round and I was tagging guys way down the list to make sure I got them. IF, I were to use the pop. info, it would be vastly used for my late picks since that felt like such a futile thing at that moment. I'm rather happy with my 1-3 picks. Once I saw some of the options you could do with it(mark players, move them up, or down in a round, etc.) I figured I would go out and try to wrap my head around how to use the tool. Outside of some tribal rain dance, I'm clueless on getting the pop. thing to show up in mass.

[Yoda]

Someone in the eNFL drafted a TE 1.9 because he had a 91 pop....

[Ben E Lou]

Someone in the eNFL drafted a TE 1.9 because he had a 91 pop....
..or maybe it was because he had the most insanely off-the-charts combines I've ever seen for a TE and will probably be in the 90-100 range in virtually every offensive category. *shurg*

The eNFL Front Office Football Conscriptor version 1.15 (http://www.the-enfl.com/eNFL/fof_draft/show_player.php?player_id=15)

Let's break 'em down, using the where this guy would stand on the FOFL's draft history page (17 draft classes)...

<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td align="right">Solecismic Score:</td> <td>40--red , T4 in FOFL history
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">40 Time:</td> <td>4.50--red, best ever
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">Bench Reps:</td> <td>33--red, T6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">Agility:</td> <td>7.13--red, T1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">Broad Jump:</td> <td>10' 2"--red, best ever
</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">Position Drill:</td> <td>40--blue, T21
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Combine that with the fact that all of his bars but one looked maxed out. (And I have some beautiful ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell anyone who believes that his RR bar is going to stay where it is.) The guy is an obvious top-tier stud, popularity revealed or not.

You people who are acting like the sky is falling (or just trying to stir up crap) over this issue are really amusing.

[Celeval]

Plus, that's pretty silly, given that based on the above chart, a 91 popularity has been had by players as low as the 70-79 range. And I don't think many people would consider a 70-rated TE worth the 1.9 pick. In the most recent IHOF draft, a LT who is currently (pre-TC) 32/85 (and looked it beforehand), with a 92 pop fell out of the top 10.

A 90-rated TE (which that guy could be, I don't know, not being in the league and looking at the combines) is a different story.

[RedKingGold]

That TE is ridiculous. I don't care if his popularity was 1 or 100, that is a HOF type of talent.

[wade moore]

That TE is ridiculous. I don't care if his popularity was 1 or 100, that is a HOF type of talent.

Nu-uh - he's the bogey man!

I think there are some out there that just like to stir up trouble. This seems to be one of those cases.

[Dutch]

The problem remains, checking out popularity is like getting free insurance. If it's not a big deal, let's remove it from Greg's utility and not look at it. It's not game given data, it should not be viewed. Period.

[ace1914]

That TE is ridiculous. I don't care if his popularity was 1 or 100, that is a HOF type of talent.

Right. In the right offense that dude is deadly.

[ace1914]

The problem remains, checking out popularity is like getting free insurance. If it's not a big deal, let's remove it from Greg's utility and not look at it. It's not game given data, it should not be viewed. Period.

Too many people already have the utility. And most likely, its not going to be any of us (meaning me, not any of you guys) noobs trying to use the tell anyway. The guys who are going to use it will, and the guys who will not, won't. Its not like having this makes people automatic winners anyway.

[Ben E Lou]

The problem remains, checking out popularity is like getting free insurance. If it's not a big deal, let's remove it from Greg's utility and not look at it. It's not game given data, it should not be viewed. Period.I agree in principle, but in practice, I don't find it practical. Just look at the posting above as Exhibit "A" of what I mean. ("OH NOEZ!!!! HE WAS PICKED BECUZ HE HAD HIGH POP!!!111") Let's say that popularity was not revealed to everyone, and someone had taken this TE in the top 10. (If I needed a TE, I absolutely would have, without giving a crap about his popularity.) Then after the draft, when everyone can see popularity, you get either suspicious owners, or owners flat-out accusing the owner who picked him of using Interrogator to view the popularity.

As has also been mentioned in either this thread or the other one, there are some pretty darned identifiable bar patterns out there. There are certain guys that I take a chance on without even good combines, simply because they have a bar signature that has often indicated masking. (Some people have started drafting in SP without interviewing, and that has helped them learn to find some tell-tale signs of masking in the bars and/or combines.) I don't hit on all of those guys, but I certainly do hit on a decent percentage of them. It's not difficult to envision a draft where, without popularity being revealed, someone who really knows the draft well would snag high pop guys in the middle and late rounds with every single pick. And then you have the same thing mentioned above: mistrust, witch unts, etc. etc. etc. I've already seen a situation in one league where an owner questioned the drafting (without pop being revealed) of a 4-red, 1-blue punter in the 6th round because he had low bars, expressing a concern that the owner must have looked at popularity in advance to make that pick.

The key factor here is that any league member can "check up" on another very easily. With other cheats in the past, it would take a decent amount of effort. In the situation in IHOF, I suspect that half or more of the league hadn't even noticed anything fishy since to do so would be a more long-term thing. With this, anyone can look very quickly immediately after the draft and see which teams got the most high popularity guys. And it's just human nature for people to think "he must have cheated" rather than "he must really know what he's doing."

The information is out there. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Even if Greg changes his mind and decides to hide it, we certainly can't check for old versions of Interrogator on people's machines.

[Dutch]

Too many people already have the utility. And most likely, its not going to be any of us (meaning me, not any of you guys) noobs trying to use the tell anyway. The guys who are going to use it will, and the guys who will not, won't.

I'm not 'tell'ing anybody what to do with their utility. I'm just saying what they should do with it. It's not game data. If people want to hack the game files and grab it, nobody can stop that. We shouldn't just make it readily available.

Its not like having this makes people automatic winners anyway.

This is true, using that data won't help people beat the likes of me...but I understand why folks would think they need it to get an upper hand.

[Dutch]

We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

And you can't make people stop stealing bicycles, but we still buy those bicycle locks anyway. Anybody who *wants* to steal that bike, still can, but it keeps the majority of the people honest. I'm not suggesting penalties, I'm just suggesting that I don't like it and won't use it because it's wrong.

[Ben E Lou]

And you can't make people stop stealing bicycles, but we still buy those bicycle locks anyway. Anybody who *wants* to steal that bike, still can, but it keeps the majority of the people honest. I'm not suggesting penalties, I'm just suggesting that I don't like it and won't use it because it's wrong.It's not "wrong" if a league makes the determination that they're going to display it. If I were in a league that decided to make it illegal (which again, I suspect to be an extremely impractical solution), then I wouldn't look at it. But in a league where it has been decided to display it, then it's no longer "wrong," and not doing to is goign to put me at a disadvantage against people who do look at it.

[MacroGuru]

http://www.flfl-fof.com/sky-is-falling.jpg

[MalcPow]

I'd say that, on the whole, having this revealed is probably hurting more people than it's helping. It's an extra piece of information that can be pretty valuable in the hands of somebody that already has a good idea of what they're doing, but I think a lot of people are overthinking its value. Combines are still the best indicator of what you're getting from a player, they'll tell you about his general skillset and the specific strength of a lot of his abilities. The bars can be a nice check to either visually confirm what the combines are telling you or raise a flag that a guy is being masked and will creep. Popularity would be something that comes after those two in evaluating a player, and only really has value in cases where the other two are marginal or misleading.

We don't really know what it means, and naturally people who haven't really looked are simplifying things to get to an easy conclusion. Celeval's numbers here are really helpful, but they're taken from a version of the game released five years ago and the sample size is only large enough to confirm a general trend (>50 pop is almost certainly >50 potential). I don't think they tell us anything about what 99 pop means versus 51 pop, or anything in between, and I don't think people should be putting their faith in the numbers in this chart as anything further than a confirmation of a very broad trend.

And obviously the TE in question looks ridiculously good from his combines. 4.50 may be as fast as they come. Is he worth 1.9? That's roster building strategy and a value judgment that any savvy player would make with a lot more in mind than simply his pop. This game is very complex, and I think there has been a rush to latch onto something that simplifies some of that complexity to provide some easy answers. Fortunately (unfortunately?), that's not what we have with pop. I've seen guys generated with 100 pop max at 53/53 and play that way. I've seen guys generated in the 50s max at 100/100 and play THAT way. And I've seen almost everything in between, including guys with low pop dominating.

In the end, I think it is an advantageous piece of information when you creep into the middle and later rounds, but it has the potential to harm you more than it helps you when you're looking at otherwise attractive prospects.

[Yoda]

Yes, the TE is amazing, and in the hands of the right owner, he will be dradly, but given the rest of the talent in said draft, I can't see drafting him in the top 15, let alone top 10.

Just me I guess.

[Celeval]

I agree, actually, about the harm-more-than-help after two MP drafts post-popularity. I find that some of the guys I have targeted go earlier, but a bunch have fallen farther than I would have expected - I think (and this would be impossible to prove) that one result of this thus far is that the talented guys with under 50 (and under 40) popularity fall farther than before (and people who can identify them will benefit from this), while the guys who may not be quite as good but do have 50+ or 40+ popularity go sooner. So that guy who has a 60 pop and a 55 potential may go in the second round instead of the third, in front of the guy with a 24 pop and a 65 potential.

[Matthean]

Oh look at what I have done. :lol:

Since I got the popularity scores to work on my own, here's what I've noticed looking at the draft. The amount of difference this is going to make in my initial picks is very minor. I'll post two of the guys I'm currently looking at. Just based on combine numbers and their bars, I would be all over these guys anyway. (begins praying they fall to 1.23 and 2.9)

First, here's the break down of 40+ pop guys in my draft by position.

QB: 2. #1 and a guy way down on the list with 6 Strg and 82 PSec. He's probably Joe Montana 1-15 yards. and bottom of the barrel after that.
RB: 2. Both are the top 2 rated.
FB: 1. #1 ranked FB.
TE: 1. #1 tanked TE.
WR: 7. 3 in the top 6. Spread out after that and the bottom one being unremarkable in any stat and green in BJmp.
C: 3. #1, #3, #7.
G: 8. 3 in the top 5. Spread out after that. Bottom two are next to each other. The one has 3 green stats and the other has 20 Sole and "--" in the rest.
T: 2. Both are the top two rated.
DE: 6. 4 in the top 5. 5 in the top 8. Last one has two blue and a green(dash).
DT: 4. #1 ranked and a decent spread on the others. 2 blue and a green on the lowest one.
ILB: 2. #1 ranked and a middle ranked guy with 2 green and a blue.
OLB: 5. All in the top 7.
CB: 3. #1 ranked who was unsigned from the year before. 1 did no workout.
S: 3. #1 and #4 with a low rated one having two green and a blue.

In short, every position listed had a guy with 40+ pop sitting at number one except for WR which had ones at #2 and #3. Some of these guys have so poor of combines I'm not sure pop. could really boost them to "OMG" levels. You would likely be investing a lot into the guy just to make them halfway decent. At least a couple of them had no workouts.

I find that some of the guys I have targeted go earlier, but a bunch have fallen farther than I would have expected - I think (and this would be impossible to prove) that one result of this thus far is that the talented guys with under 50 (and under 40) popularity fall farther than before (and people who can identify them will benefit from this), while the guys who may not be quite as good but do have 50+ or 40+ popularity go sooner. So that guy who has a 60 pop and a 55 potential may go in the second round instead of the third, in front of the guy with a 24 pop and a 65 potential.
In other words, a good GM is still finding steals in the draft. As where it might have been more pop. heavy guys before, it's more low pop guys now.

Anyway...

Ricky Boner S

Height: 5-10
Weight: 205
Grade: 5.9/5.6
Dash: 4.48 (Blue)
Sole: 38 (Blue)
Strg: 20 (Blue)
Agil: 7.13(Blue)
BJmp: 8-00(Green)
PSpec: 49(Blue)
Devl: 20%

#4 listed saftey. 5 blue stats. His bars are all crazy high with only zone defense being average. Special teams is fairly tame.

Tracy Middleton C

Height: 6-4
Weight: 309
Grade: 5.4/4.6
Dash: 5.13 (Blue)
Sole: 24
Strg: 32 (Blue)
Agil: 7.90(Blue)
BJmp: 7-11
Devl: 17%

#3 listed C. 3 blue stats with no green. Bars are also crazy high with pass blocking being slightly above average although he sucks for long snapping. For me, combine + bars = somebody who I would be willing to risk unless I got a (very) overrated interview.

[Dutch]

It's not "wrong" if a league makes the determination that they're going to display it. If I were in a league that decided to make it illegal (which again, I suspect to be an extremely impractical solution), then I wouldn't look at it. But in a league where it has been decided to display it, then it's no longer "wrong," and not doing to is goign to put me at a disadvantage against people who do look at it.

Smoking cigarettes is legal but for long-term health, it's wrong.

But use any advantage you need, I'll still beat ya. :)

[Julio Riddols]

To save Ben a reply....

What I was basically saying there is that I don't care what the popularity numbers say, I have done fine drafting without them and won't need them to continue drafting well. I have my own formula for finding players that seems to be working better every draft as I refine it. If anything, this new "tell" will probably help some of the players I like fall further than they might normally.

As for that TE, I would have taken him over any skill player except for the top WR in that draft. I didn't even know what his popularity was. Unfortunately, he didn't fall to 1.20, and I didn't expect him to either.

[Ben E Lou]

Smoking cigarettes is legal but for long-term health, it's wrong.

But use any advantage you need, I'll still beat ya. :)
Intend to win the SE in perpetuity with one half of your brain tied behind your back, eh? ;)

[Dutch]

Intend to win the SE in perpetuity with one half of your brain tied behind your back, eh? ;)

I know enough within the framework of the game to overcome this game-cheat.

[Matthean]

I went data digging and tried to do some experimenting. My scout is rated good for noted positions. Numbers are estimates from my scout.

Case #1: Antoine Greer, DE

Pop: 97

Run Def: 43-74
Pass Rush Tech.: 7-38
Pass Rush Strength: 43-74
Play Diag: 30-61
Punishing Hitter: 46-77
Endurance: 24-55

Post interview.

Run Def: 48-62
Pass Rush Tech.: 14-29
Pass Rush Strength: 49-63
Play Diag: 29-44
Punishing Hitter: 47-62
Endurance: 22-36

Yeah, the interview didn't go so well. :lol:

Case #2 Darren Baer, OLB

Pop: 78

Run Def: 64-100
Pass Rush Tech.: 46-82
M-2-M Def: 53-89
Zone Def: 43-79
B-n-R Def: 61-97
Pass Rush Strength: 57-93
Play Diag: 26-62
Punishing Hitter: 64-100
Endurance: 59-95
Special Teams: 24-60

Post interview.

Run Def: 79-95
Pass Rush Tech.: 45-62
M-2-M Def: 63-80
Zone Def: 47-63
B-n-R Def: 59-76
Pass Rush Strength: 66-83
Play Diag: 22-39
Punishing Hitter: 80-100
Endurance: 54-71
Special Teams: 30-46

Still a decent player, but not something I would burn my 1.10 I have in my SP league. Not considering the OLB next to him(pop. 22) came back as very underrated.

Case #3 Leonard Diblasio, WR

Pop: 81

Avoid Drops: 63-96
Getting Downfield: 23-56
Route Running: 62-95
3rd Down Catching: 41-74
B-P Rec.: 1-34
Courage: 56-89
Adjust to Ball: 67-100
Punt Returns: 46-79
Kick Returns: 0-33
Endurance: 57-90
Special Teams: 45-78

Post interview.

Avoid Drops: 67-82
Getting Downfield: 20-36
Route Running: 60-76
3rd Down Catching: 47-63
B-P Rec.: 9-25
Courage: 57-72
Adjust to Ball: 73-89
Punt Returns: 57-73
Kick Returns: 0-19
Endurance: 63-79
Special Teams: 39-54

Came back as a hard to read versus what some might assume from the high pop that he would be at least a underrated.

Case #4: Lawrence Ross, WR

Pop: 78

Avoid Drops: 67-100
Getting Downfield: 44-77
Route Running: 67-100
3rd Down Catching: 67-100
B-P Rec.: 67-100
Courage: 67-100
Adjust to Ball: 39-69
Punt Returns: 3-36
Kick Returns: 0-33
Endurance: 67-100
Special Teams: 66-99

Post interview.

Avoid Drops: 80-96
Getting Downfield: 51-66
Route Running: 79-85
3rd Down Catching: 81-100
B-P Rec.: 81-100
Courage: 64-80
Adjust to Ball: 46-61
Punt Returns: 11-27
Kick Returns: 0-19
Endurance: 81-97
Special Teams: 65-81

Still pretty good for somebody that came back as overrated, but those numbers might get further screwed up later on.

Point is, either my scout had a number of bad reads post interview, or 40+ pop. guys, aka poppers, can also be bust on various levels. A number of them even came back as hard to read. If they are highly rated enough, you probably can get away with it to a degree. If you blindly draft poppers based solely on their pop., then you better be prepared to get your rear kicked at some point because that very overrated is coming. Not even 100 pop. would prevent me from interviewing a guy. Considering my needs at some of those positions, it was pretty painful to get some of those results back. Too bad I did more data mining than actual draft prepping, so this might be an odd draft for me.

Anyway...

Ricky Boner S

Height: 5-10
Weight: 205
Grade: 5.9/5.6
Dash: 4.48 (Blue)
Sole: 38 (Blue)
Strg: 20 (Blue)
Agil: 7.13(Blue)
BJmp: 8-00(Green)
PSpec: 49(Blue)
Devl: 20%

#4 listed saftey. 5 blue stats. His bars are all crazy high with only zone defense being average. Special teams is fairly tame.

Tracy Middleton C

Height: 6-4
Weight: 309
Grade: 5.4/4.6
Dash: 5.13 (Blue)
Sole: 24
Strg: 32 (Blue)
Agil: 7.90(Blue)
BJmp: 7-11
Devl: 17%

#3 listed C. 3 blue stats with no green. Bars are also crazy high with pass blocking being slightly above average although he sucks for long snapping. For me, combine + bars = somebody who I would be willing to risk unless I got a (very) overrated interview.

I was smoking the 40+ pop crack pipe for this draft so I didn't interview the 40+ pop guys. Middleton had a week 1 season ending hernia, but should fill out as g/vg at worst. Boner finished the season at 95/95. I was a wee bit unprepared for that kind of jump since it was my 2nd draft.

[Celeval]

Point is, either my scout had a number of bad reads post interview, or 40+ pop. guys, aka poppers, can also be bust on various levels. A number of them even came back as hard to read.

Based on the 2k4 numbers (2k7 is still open for interpretation, but seems to be about the same), 40-50 pop guys are /more likely/ to be good players, but not guaranteed. 50+ is.

A good player does not mean a creeper, anyway. It's specific that the final, overall potential grade is 50+. Could be a guy who looks /80 and is VO, could be a guy who is /30 and VU, could be a guy who is 51 and HTR/AS.

[QuikSand]

I don't think I fully understand the overall point of your efforts yet, but...

40+ pop. guys, aka poppers

I think that has a real shot of sticking.

[RedKingGold]

Poppers (40+pop) > Poopers (39-pop) ftw

[Firefly]

To elaborate on what MalcPow said, it's hurting some people who have overvalued the info without testing it, and it's hurting some people who are demonizing the info without testing it themselves, too.

Me, I don't know how to use it (well) yet. Is exactly 40 popularity still a tell, for example?