Very odd (to me) target situation

[Ben E Lou]

theFOFL.com : Player >> Ernest Browning (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=20873)

<table class="playerstats" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="playerheaders"><th colspan="2">Year</th><th colspan="2">Team</th><th>Gms</th><th>Tgt</th><th>Rec</th><th>Yards</th><th>YPC</th><th>YPT</th><th>YAC</th><th>Lg</th><th>TD</th><th>Drp</th><th>PPly</th><th>Tgt%</th><th>YPG</th></tr> <tr class="playeryear"><td>2025</td><td width="14">http://www.thefofl.com/players/expand.jpg (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/)</td><td>http://www.thefofl.com/teampages/images/37x15/CHA37x15.jpg</td><td>CHA (http://www.thefofl.com/teampages/summary.php?t=16&y=2025)</td><td>16</td><td>168</td><td>101</td><td>1320</td><td>13.07</td><td>7.86</td><td>177</td><td>53</td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>449</td><td>37.4%</td><td>82.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

Look at his target percentage. 37.4. That's very high--second in the league, as a matter of fact. We should expect that sort of number from a WR with high RR who is usually on the field with a bunch of guys with relatively low RR. However, this wasn't the case at all. He started the year out in the low 20s for RR, and ended it in the high 50s. He was our WR2, and here are WR1 and TE1:

theFOFL.com : Player >> Justin Horn (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=16672)
theFOFL.com : Player >> Tyrell Hutchins (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=17481)

So, not only was Browning's current RR quite a bit lower than the other two guys, most of his highest-target games were in the early part of the year, when his RR was allegedly in the upper 20s/low 30s, and our WR1 and TE1 were already in the upper 60s.


The possible explanations that are on the table to me:

Perhaps *current* can be masked much more than I'd ever thought. (He *was* +9 in TC, so I guess if that's true for any player, it might be true for a guy with a big overall mask.)
Insanely odd dice rolls. But really, it seems that the sample size here is too large for that to be likely. It wasn't just one game or a few games. This was happening with great consistency. In fact, it happened in all four preseason games as well, when his RR was in the low 20s. He led the team in targets in all four of those games: 12, 12, 13, 9.Other possibilities that I'd tend to rule out immediately:

Something odd in my game plan. I'm using the same game plan here that I use in every other MP league and in most of my SP play. And historically, this game plan has shown a tendency to force the ball to the WR1 and the TE1 over the WR2 if RR ratings are similar.
Double coverage. If it were as simple as that, the ball would be heading to the stud TE a whole lot more instead of the WR2. (I saw that a lot *last* season in this same league when all I had was WR1+TE1+ball-gagged low-RR gimps.) And the TE was on the field for a very high percentage of our snaps this year.Any other educated guesses here?

[Ben E Lou]

Oh...and the QB is nothing special at read defense or timing:

theFOFL.com : Player >> Lincoln Wallman (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=9733)

[MIJB#19]

That many targets should be based on awesome RR combined with pretty good END to boost. First thing I looked at was the Solecismic score. At 20, that doesn't scream like his RR is going to be very good, even with an 11 for intelligence.

Maybe he experienced some wacky RR only volatility boost?

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe he experienced some wacky RR only volatility boost?
Heh. The +9 *was* a bit of a surprise. I was expecting a bump, but not that much of one. I guess this would fold into thought #1 above: his *current* rr is masked.

[MIJB#19]

Not to side track the discussion, but in IHOF we have an interesting LB (Graham Link) getting selected this past draft, whom had a lowsy run defense bar and a superb agility score. Scouts saw him as a run defender of something in the 10-35 range, while the agility score there screamed that the bar was masked heavily and will end up in the 75-90 range. Look at him now (sadly IRed) and you'll notice he's about 60/60 in run defense, less than 70% developed and thus likely on pace to end up in that expected 75-90 range (barring injury ratings hit).

Just pointing out that there are other examples of heavy masking of single bars. Yet, in the case of your WR, with the masking 9if appliciable) far from obvious, it cmight as well be an extreme example of lucky dice rolls.

[Nogram]

theFOFL.com : Player >> Ernest Browning (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=20873)
Perhaps *current* can be masked much more than I'd ever thought. (He *was* +9 in TC, so I guess if that's true for any player, it might be true for a guy with a big overall mask.)


This.

Nogram

[Dandelion]

Seems as if Browning took most of the 3rd Down targets/receptions away from Your Justin Horn, right? Horn had 49/32 of those in 2024 and didn't make it into the Top20 in 2025.. Browning had 59/33 in 2025 and Your TE gobbled up another 25/24. So maybe You should take a look at those 3rd down situations and Your playcalling there. QB had 145 3rdDAtt and 79 of those were caught.. Thats 61 3rd down plays with someone other than Browning/Hutchins being the target and 32 of those passes getting caught. Sure wasn't Horn, as he would made it into the Top20 if he'd been the target ;)

So I guess it's maybe a lot of 3rd Down Situations with Horn not being on the field - due to whatever reason the gameplan, endurance whatever may give - and Browning taking his place as SE1/FL1

BTW... could You give a note when Browning reaches his max.. his combine ratings seem to be around 75% of the possible maximum for a WR - I'd love to see to what rating he really grows.. With that 39 starting rating, the +9 from the 1st TC he should end up in the 70+ range, if he doesn't hit the volatility wall, right?

[MIJB#19]

Seems as if Browning took most of the 3rd Down targets/receptions away from Your Justin Horn, right? Horn had 49/32 of those in 2024 and didn't make it into the Top20 in 2025.. Browning had 59/33 in 2025 and Your TE gobbled up another 25/24. So maybe You should take a look at those 3rd down situations and Your playcalling there. QB had 145 3rdDAtt and 79 of those were caught.. Thats 61 3rd down plays with someone other than Browning/Hutchins being the target and 32 of those passes getting caught. Sure wasn't Horn, as he would made it into the Top20 if he'd been the target ;)

So I guess it's maybe a lot of 3rd Down Situations with Horn not being on the field - due to whatever reason the gameplan, endurance whatever may give - and Browning taking his place as SE1/FL1Yeah, I thought of 3rd downs too, but Browning's 3rd down bar seems very low, while Horn's appears to be decent enough to get at least the same # of looks on 3rd downs, even if Browning would be very underrated in that skill.

BTW... could You give a note when Browning reaches his max.. his combine ratings seem to be around 75% of the possible maximum for a WR - I'd love to see to what rating he really grows.. With that 39 starting rating, the +9 from the 1st TC he should end up in the 70+ range, if he doesn't hit the volatility wall, right?Maxing out in the 70's? With this guy, I got to see it before I believe it. At the moment I would think the majority of the boost was a once in a lifetime happening. That and I've seen Ben capable of making marginal players post all-world seasons before, and then fall back to earth during the remainder of their career. ;)

[Dandelion]

Yeah, I thought of 3rd downs too, but Browning's 3rd down bar seems very low, while Horn's appears to be decent enough to get at least the same # of looks on 3rd downs, even if Browning would be very underrated in that skill.

That's the reason why I assume that Horn wasn't on the field at the time that Browning made most of hic 3rd Down catches..

Maxing out in the 70's? With this guy, I got to see it before I believe it. At the moment I would think the majority of the boost was a once in a lifetime happening. That and I've seen Ben capable of making marginal players post all-world seasons before, and then fall back to earth during the remainder of their career. ;)

Well... volatility seems a bit overrated, I think *g*
I had a look at a draft again.. took the rookies and sent them through 5 1st TCs. Compared their future rating after TCs.
Of 805 players for 752 (93.42%) the gain was within a +2/-2 range (= a maximum difference of 5 pts between the lowest and the highest gain at 1st TC). For 168 of these 752 the gain was stable for all 5 attempts. Same value gained from the 1st to the 5th run of the 1st TC. Only for 53 (6.58%) players there was a deviation for more than those 5 points. Some of these were obvious volatility hits, with a single rise or drop for 15 pts or more on one of the TC runs, but stable values on the other 4 runs. Others were a bit more subtle, with only 6-9 pts difference. Some were hit only once, others twice in those 5 runs. For those 53 players which I'd assume to be volatility victims, the highest difference was -39 as a drop and +23 as a rise from the value of the other 4 TC runs. Most were in a much lower range though.

So yes, it could be a volatility hit in Brownings case. That's the reason why I'd like to hear from Ben if he - Browning ;) - continues to rise after the first season and where he ends. It was Ben himself who came up with the theory, that the 1st TC gain or loss is an indicator for further gains or losses in a players career - I'm just trying to gather more data for that.
If Ben's theory is true and Browning was not hit by volatility the +9 gain on his first TC would indicate a total gain of 32 points (4 pts for each pt gained at 1st TC, with 8 being the maximum to be used as a muliplier = 32 pts) and that would get him from his 39 pre-TC to a final 71 pts.

I'm still gathering data to find the correlation between the 1st TC gain and the combine ratings.. right now it all looks pretty random to me :(

[Ben E Lou]

Horn was on the field for 85ish percent of the pass plays. I can't buy that he just happened to be missing on 3rd down a whole bunch, particularly given our 3rd down formation usage. I suspect *that* could be the result of people double-covering the top WR only in the big passing situations.

As far as third down targets, the numbers were 59-32-30. These three guys are getting plenty.

Browning: 30.9% of all targets, 40.1% of 3rd down targets
Horn: 28.5% of all targets, 22.2% of 3rd down targets
Hutchins: 19.1% of all targets, 20.8% of 3rd down targets

So, no, the targets weren't going to the ball-gagged low-RR gimps on third down. This trio actually got a *higher* percentage on third down: 84.0% as opposed to 78.5%.

And really, if we're to believe that this happened because Browning's RR is heavily masked, then why wouldn't we believe that his 3rd down catching might be as well? (Of course, we don't necessarily know that 3rd down catching means higher 3rd down RR...)

[Ben E Lou]

...and as far as the playcalling goes, as I said before, this is pretty much the exact same game plan that I've used in every single MP league every single preseason, regular season, and postseason game. I've made two changes in it in the FOFL, both inconsequential in this regard:

1. Two seasons ago, I got rid of all formation usage that doesn't have Hutchins on the field.
2. For only one game this season, I made a small adjustment in my red zone play calling.

So, that's it. There are only two X-factors here: dice rolls (and again, this just seems like wayyyyy too many dice rolls for that to be the culprit) and Browning. It almost has to be *something* about Browning.

[Dandelion]

As far as third down targets, the numbers were 59-32-30. These three guys are getting plenty.

Browning: 30.9% of all targets, 40.1% of 3rd down targets
Horn: 28.5% of all targets, 22.2% of 3rd down targets
Hutchins: 19.1% of all targets, 20.8% of 3rd down targets

Well.. I had some RR gimps getting even more than 50% of third down catches when they were on the field - but as these were usually injury replacements, they had a very limited number of plays over the season..

Those target-% are afaik all based on the number of plays the player is on the field.
You write that Browning had a total of 59 targets = 40.1% So he should have been on the field for 147 3rd down pass plays.
Horn has 32 = 22.2% = 144 plays. And Hutchins has 30 = 20.8% = 144 plays.
Now the question would be, how many 3rd down pass plays were there in total and in which combinations those three players have been on the field. If the total number is around 150 that would mean those three guys have been on the same plays most of the time with Browning stealing targets from the "better" receivers.
And that would indicate, that the programcode sees him as the better receiver due to whatever reason.. be it double coverage on Horn or masked skills..

hmm.. just had a look at my guys' stats from the last season I played..
my #5 WR (RR 34/56, 3rdD 32/54) managed a stunning 60% (!!!) target-%
He was on the field 5 times (in the whole season - 5WR formation only..) and was targetted 3 times (one of those on 3rd down), managing to catch 2 passes (one on a 3rd down..)
With him on the field on those 5 occasions should (!) have been (in the 5 WR formation): SE1 with RR 71/71 3rdD 36/36, FL1 RR 70/86 3rdD 58/79, TE1 (in the slot) RR 99/99 3rdD 66/66 and SE 2 RR 10/41 3rdD 13/66..

That SE2 is a 15/32 who is supposed to creep up to about 43 - nothing fancy.. and he's usually only in on 4 or 5 WR formation or as a replacement for SE1. Still he managed 55 targets, 34 catches and 23.1 Target-% on the 238 pass plays he participated in.. and he was on with FL1, SE1 and the TE1 most of the time.. who managed to get 27.4% T-% (of 387 pass plays), 29.3% T-% (of 311 pass plays) and 21.1% T-% (of 493 pass plays) - Total pass attempts by my QBs were 473 (+20 Sacks, so 493 total ;) )

In my case I blame it on the short passing offence I run (lots of runs, passes mostly on 3rd down into the 8-15 yard range) and the fact, that my QB is 72 on Read Defense.. Not much place for masking in my case, but still a strangely high number of targets on the lowest skill receiver, if he happens to be on the play..

[MIJB#19]

No offense, but 3 targets in 5 plays tells us nothing at all. If it was 30 in 50, you could be on to something, now, it's just a random lucky occurance.

[MIJB#19]

If Browning was masked (underrated, of course) to begin with and got a lucky volatility roll, then maybe the RR got an additional boost, while the rest just had the unmaksing improvement?

*heavy speculation alert*
Maybe he was bound to be a +4 rookie and gained +5 on the volatility roll, but just for the RR bar, which would probably still result in something of a +50 on the RR bar?

[Ben E Lou]

.. I had some RR gimps getting even more than 50% of third down catches when they were on the field - but as these were usually injury replacements, they had a very limited number of plays over the season.

{snip}


hmm.. just had a look at my guys' stats from the last season I played..
my #5 WR (RR 34/56, 3rdD 32/54) managed a stunning 60% (!!!) target-%
He was on the field 5 times (in the whole season - 5WR formation only..) and was targetted 3 times (one of those on 3rd down), managing to catch 2 passes (one on a 3rd down..)

OK, um, seriously??? You are bringing this up because...huh?

[Dandelion]

No offense, but 3 targets in 5 plays tells us nothing at all. If it was 30 in 50, you could be on to something, now, it's just a random lucky occurance.

You read what I wrote about that SE2, didn't you?

34/55 on 238 pass plays with all the better boys with him on the field and still getting 23.1% target-%. Means in his case that targetting is about equally split between all of the four receivers on the field. Of which three are a lot better than he is. Which does look a bit weird to me ;)

I mentioned that WR5 mostly to explain that target-% only counts for the occasions the player is on the field. And that even a lousy WR can get a high % if he gets a couple of lucky dice rolls on the rare occasions he is on the field :D

[MIJB#19]

You read what I wrote about that SE2, didn't you?

34/55 on 238 pass plays with all the better boys with him on the field and still getting 23.1% target-%. Means in his case that targetting is about equally split between all of the four receivers on the field. Of which three are a lot better than he is. Which does look a bit weird to me ;)

I mentioned that WR5 mostly to explain that target-% only counts for the occasions the player is on the field. And that even a lousy WR can get a high % if he gets a couple of lucky dice rolls on the rare occasions he is on the field :DSorry, I'm not getting your point on the SE2 here. you're pointing out that your WR4 isn't getting a lot of looks. How is that relevant?

Your SE2 is also going to play downs when SE1 isn't playing because of his endurance and/or the playing time %. The 23% targets isn't really noteworthy, I think.

[Ben E Lou]

If Browning was masked (underrated, of course) to begin with and got a lucky volatility roll, then maybe the RR got an additional boost, while the rest just had the unmaksing improvement?

*heavy speculation alert*
Maybe he was bound to be a +4 rookie and gained +5 on the volatility roll, but just for the RR bar, which would probably still result in something of a +50 on the RR bar?Interesting thought here. To add further fuel to this speculation, neither I nor the other veteran types in FOFL expected a +9 camp from Browning. He wouldn't have fallen all the way to 1(30) had that been the case. Here's his Conscriptor page: Front Office Football League Front Office Football Conscriptor version 1.25.1 (http://www.thefofl.com/draft/conscriptor/show_player.php?player_id=152)

I suppose there's always the other option on him: that he was heavily masked from the start and he also happened to roll combines on the low end of the range of his real talent, and he's really some stud WR who would have gone in the top 10 if his bars and/or combines had given any indication of who he is.

[Dandelion]

Sorry, I'm not getting your point on the SE2 here. you're pointing out that your WR4 isn't getting a lot of looks. How is that relevant?

Quite the opposite.. I'm trying to point out that he gets a lot more looks then I would expect him to, given the fact, that he's on with the big boys usually..

Your SE2 is also going to play downs when SE1 isn't playing because of his endurance and/or the playing time %. The 23% targets isn't really noteworthy, I think.

SE1 has 86 Endurance and is supposed to be on 100% of all plays in which a formation with SE1 in it is used. And even IF SE2 replaces SE1 he still has two players on the field ahead of him with better RR than his. Because as can be read above my TE with RR 99 was on the field on 493 of 493 = 100% of all pass plays my team played in that season.

And, btw, from a pure mathematical point of view it doesn't matter if it's 3 of 5 or 30 of 50.. 60% is 60%. As is the chance for lucky dice rolls.. if You think this chance is higher on less attempts, then You might want to rethink that.. the chance for getting a lucky dice roll is the same, on 5, 50 or 500 opportunities.. And I don't expect Jim to built something into the games' programcode like "hmm.. lookiee... that guy's been on the field only once this season.. guess I'll raise his chance to get targetted for a couple dozen percent so he'll gets a chance to prove his skills.."

[Ben E Lou]

And, btw, from a pure mathematical point of view it doesn't matter if it's 3 of 5 or 30 of 50.. 60% is 60%. As is the chance for lucky dice rolls.. if You think this chance is higher on less attempts, then You might want to rethink that.. the chance for getting a lucky dice roll is the same, on 5, 50 or 500 opportunities..
On each individual trial, sure it is. However, the chance for dice rolls to widely vary from the expected result is much greater in a small trial set than in a large one. Let's take a 50/50 coin flip.

Flip it three times. It comes up heads three times in a row for 100%. There's a 12.5% chance that will happen.

Flip it ten times. It comes up heads ten times in a row, also for 100%.

There's a 0.1% chance of that happening.

Same percentage, far less odds of it happening. As you increase the number of trials tremendously, you increase the odds tremendously that the results will reflect the true odds of an event happening.

[RedKingGold]

And, btw, from a pure mathematical point of view it doesn't matter if it's 3 of 5 or 30 of 50.. 60% is 60%. As is the chance for lucky dice rolls.. if You think this chance is higher on less attempts, then You might want to rethink that.. the chance for getting a lucky dice roll is the same, on 5, 50 or 500 opportunities.. And I don't expect Jim to built something into the games' programcode like "hmm.. lookiee... that guy's been on the field only once this season.. guess I'll raise his chance to get targetted for a couple dozen percent so he'll gets a chance to prove his skills.."

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr160/shebowski/whut.jpg

[Dandelion]

I rather stick to what I see..
Pittsburgh: Five-Receiver Spread formation, strength is left. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
2-10-CLE19 (1Q: 01:36) Al Mulitalo pass was dropped by WR Orlando Pak. The quarterback threw away from the double coverage.
Pittsburgh: Five-Receiver Spread formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, expecting the pass.
2-10-PIT30 (2Q: 08:30) Al Mulitalo pass completed to WR Orlando Pak for 6 yards. Tackled by CB Tom McGregor. The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field.
Pittsburgh: Five-Receiver Spread formation, strength is right. The defense is in a 43 with nickel personnel and 2-deep bump-and-run coverage, keying aggressively on the pass.
3-10-PIT39 (3Q: 06:09) Al Mulitalo pass completed to WR Orlando Pak for 10 yards. Tackled by OLB Doug Baxter. The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field

He was in the game for one more play - another 5 WR Spread, where SE1 caught the ball.

So I still say gameplan - y'all say lucky dice... *shrugs*
If I am right gameplanning takes priority above pure RR skills.. if not, FOF's more a game of chance then I would think or hope it to be ;)

[Ben E Lou]

my soul

[Tasan]

FOF's more a game of chance then I would think or hope it to be ;)


This.

Just search for any of the many researches done by Ben and the gang. They usually come down to dice rolls and the bars. Gameplanning can set the big guys apart from the newbies, but it usually comes down to rolls and who has the bigger bars. It looks like in this case the dice are hiding who has the bigger bars. ;- )

[NiteMaestro]

Dandelion, reading this, it seems you've forgotten about standard deviations and standard distribution as it relates to the number of trials.

60% is always 60%, true.
But 60% is more likely to occur with fewer trials than more. 3/5 is odd, but much more probable than 30/50, or 300/500.

[NiteMaestro]

This.

Just search for any of the many researches done by Ben and the gang. They usually come down to dice rolls and the bars. Gameplanning can set the big guys apart from the newbies, but it usually comes down to rolls and who has the bigger bars. It looks like in this case the dice are hiding who has the bigger bars. ;- )

Agreed

[RedKingGold]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

[Kodos]

HELL NO!

[Celeval]

Another way to say it... on Opening Day this year, Ian Kinsler went 3-5. He's now batting .251 on the season.

[Dandelion]

Ok, please just go along.. nothing to see here...

Just Y'all get back to the case on hand which is: Ben's strangely successfull rookie.
My solution: wait until the next season is on the way and see how he plays then. As nobody here seems to have any facts about what is happening to him right now, we could guess all day, week, month long and not find an answer..

[adubroff]

So, not only was Browning's current RR quite a bit lower than the other two guys, most of his highest-target games were in the early part of the year, when his RR was allegedly in the upper 20s/low 30s, and our WR1 and TE1 were already in the upper 60s.



The one thing I wonder about explaining the early better than late phenomena might be that he is unmasking to the defenses as the season goes on as well. In the beginning of the year he looks like a 20 to the defenses and he's really a 70 something in RR. Perhaps defenders take a diff approach against a guy they think to be a good RR, and since they don't see your guy as such, he toasts them with crisp tight routes. As the year wears on, he gets unmasked to everybody and they take a different approach and can't destroy them as easily.

[Dandelion]

The one thing I wonder about explaining the early better than late phenomena might be that he is unmasking to the defenses as the season goes on as well. In the beginning of the year he looks like a 20 to the defenses and he's really a 70 something in RR. Perhaps defenders take a diff approach against a guy they think to be a good RR, and since they don't see your guy as such, he toasts them with crisp tight routes. As the year wears on, he gets unmasked to everybody and they take a different approach and can't destroy them as easily.

Well, how would Rex see this guy? If he was on a different team that is.. or when setting up a rexxed Depth Chart.. does he put him in as a starter, above the other WRs? Or is Rex blind to masked skills? If Rex is, how about the Scouts of the other Teams? Will he be immune to double coverage, as nobody knows he is better than he looks?
Does a player with masked skills play on his unmasked level from the beginning? Or only on his unmasked skill level? Or on the experience % of his masked/unmasked skill?
So many questions.. so little answers with reproducable data behind them..

[Yoda]

And, btw, from a pure mathematical point of view it doesn't matter if it's 3 of 5 or 30 of 50.. 60% is 60%. As is the chance for lucky dice rolls.. if You think this chance is higher on less attempts, then You might want to rethink that.. the chance for getting a lucky dice roll is the same, on 5, 50 or 500 opportunities.. And I don't expect Jim to built something into the games' programcode like "hmm.. lookiee... that guy's been on the field only once this season.. guess I'll raise his chance to get targetted for a couple dozen percent so he'll gets a chance to prove his skills.."

Actually, from a mathmatical point of view, it does matter.

Here's a good link to get started.
Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation)

[NiteMaestro]

Actually, from a mathmatical point of view, it does matter.

Here's a good link to get started.
Standard deviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation)

+1

I could have sworn I already made a post referencing this, but hey... Yoda took care of it.

The odds of 3/5 are...
50% * 50% * 50% * 50% * 50%
(1/1) (2/2) (3/3) (3/4) (3/5)

Versus 30/50
(50%) ^ 50...

Or something similar, I don't remember exactly...
But the point is... much harder (statistically) to obtain the latter.

[Dandelion]

Astoundingly those statistics absolutely fail me in WOW - I usually only go once into any (dungeon) instance.. and like never anything special drops for me. But those guys farming the dungeons three times a day or more all get the shiny stuff.. often multiple times.. don't they know their chances to find something should be way smaller than mine? Does WOW cheat me?

And furthermore, how does this discussion help Ben with his player? Any statistics about that?

[NiteMaestro]

Astoundingly those statistics absolutely fail me in WOW - I usually only go once into any (dungeon) instance.. and like never anything special drops for me. But those guys farming the dungeons three times a day or more all get the shiny stuff.. often multiple times.. don't they know their chances to find something should be way smaller than mine? Does WOW cheat me?

And furthermore, how does this discussion help Ben with his player? Any statistics about that?

The odds of something nice dropping (i assume, based on general RPG knowledge) is low.
But it resets every time you go in.
So...
1/10 getting something nice if you go in once.
1/10 going in again
1/10 going in again...

Statistically, you're gonna get something EVENTUALLY.
And if you keep going, you're odds of getting it more than once are higher.


We're saying that the situation with the targets is statistically illogical.
Something is going on beyond our sight.

Or in mathematical terms, the z-factor is too close to 0.
Z-factor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-factor)


(correct me if I'm wrong guys... I never really studied this, just helped my sis with her highschool senior research project last year...)

[Ben E Lou]

+5 overall in FA1:1 of his second year. Up to 53/53, +2 cut test, still some green showing, and C/B positional experience at FL/SE. RR is up to 66 with a cut test to 69. There's obviously more unmasking to be done here. At this point, it looks like a given that the guy will unmask enough in TC this year to be WR1.

Back to MIJB's original comment about a RR volatility hit, I'm now thinking that wasn't the case, but that this was just a case of a guy who rolled combines that were quite low for a guy of his talent level *and* he also happened to be on the high end of the masking scale, so his bars were low as well. Just pulled up his rookie precamp and postcamp info...

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningprecamp.png

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningpostcamp.png


And his info now...

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningnow.png

Those bars now don't look like an odd single-category improvement. He didn't at first, but now he just looks like lots of other guys who get to "full development" and then continue to unmask with several bars moving in concert. The difference here is that this particular guy didn't have the combines or bar tells to make it obvious as it usually is, unless I (and several other guys who know FOF fairly well) really missed something about him. I also double-checked his original adjusted rating: only 4.8.

Going back to the original question I posed, all I can think here is that his current RR was heavily masked...along with everything else.

[NiteMaestro]

Just for clarification, what is 'cut test'?

[MIJB#19]

Interesting. I still believe that there was no evidence that this player was going to be that good in RR, as he does look like he's headed for maxing at 75+.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting. I still believe that there was no evidence that this player was going to be that good in RR, as he does look like he's headed for maxing at 75+.
He's my own player, and even I'm not that optimistic. :p

But yeah, I agree with what you're saying in general: neither the combines, the bars, nor the adjusted rating really gave a strong clue as to what I was getting here.

[Ben E Lou]

Just for clarification, what is 'cut test'?Cut a player and don't export. Creepers who still have creeping to do will usually go up a point or two on the cut. It doesn't tell you much that you don't already know, but it can help confirm what all the other signs are pointing to.

[gstelmack]

I'd like to point out that every single one of his current bars still falls within the range of the blue bars from that pre-TC look.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd like to point out that every single one of his current bars still falls within the range of the blue bars from that pre-TC look.I don't think Avoid Drops and RR do...

[TheMeat]

I think Stelmack is right, it's close at least, it looks like his current RR and AD are right at the max of what the blue was. Quite interesting.

When all of a guy's bars go up like this I tend to think it's a volatility boost. The V-boost seems to affect all bars at once. I also think that the RR was masked on this guy and I think the game engine uses unmasked ratings, I've always assumed this and my observations have backed it up over the seasons, never done any real testing on it tho.

[Ben E Lou]

I think Stelmack is right, it's close at least, it looks like his current RR and AD are right at the max of what the blue was. Quite interesting.
I'm not seeing that. It looks like less than half way between 50 and 75 for both of those--around 60, and both are now in the mid-60s and rising.

[gstelmack]

Run Extractor on a save from when he was pre-TC and it will tell you exactly...

[gstelmack]

But yes, courage and route running look like they are a bit beyond.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure I still have the Extractor run. I specifically remember finding this guy in Analyzer, because it was a rare time that I went quite a bit down the list from the top guy it was giving me.

[Ben E Lou]

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 1056pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1408"><col style="width: 48pt;" span="22" width="64"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" height="17" width="64">33</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">64</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">20</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">51</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">33</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">64</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">39</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">70</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">55</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">86</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">37</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">68</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">25</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">56</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">0</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">31</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">0</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">31</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">39</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">71</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">32</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" x:num="" align="right" width="64">63</td> </tr></tbody></table>

Yeah, so RR and COUR are over the max, GD and BPR near middle of ranges, all others close to max but not over it yet. At least a couple more should go over in TC.

[MIJB#19]

He's my own player, and even I'm not that optimistic. :p

But yeah, I agree with what you're saying in general: neither the combines, the bars, nor the adjusted rating really gave a strong clue as to what I was getting here.Hey, I'm not saying he's headed for 90-100, but from what we've seen now, I'm not going to be surprised if he maxes at something between 75 and 80 for RR. ;)

Edit: in case that wasn't clear, I meant just he RR, not the overall ratings. To be a 75+, he'd have to be at least 85 across the board.

[RedKingGold]

2.4?

[Ben E Lou]

2.4?note to self about how much the 4th contract option would cost me, just in case i decided to skim up against the cap. i use the nickname field as a temporary notepad from time to time

[Ben E Lou]

+5 overall in FA1:1 of his second year. Up to 53/53, +2 cut test, still some green showing, and C/B positional experience at FL/SE. RR is up to 66 with a cut test to 69. There's obviously more unmasking to be done here. At this point, it looks like a given that the guy will unmask enough in TC this year to be WR1.

Back to MIJB's original comment about a RR volatility hit, I'm now thinking that wasn't the case, but that this was just a case of a guy who rolled combines that were quite low for a guy of his talent level *and* he also happened to be on the high end of the masking scale, so his bars were low as well. Just pulled up his rookie precamp and postcamp info...

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningprecamp.png

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningpostcamp.png


And his info now...

http://younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofl/browningnow.png

Those bars now don't look like an odd single-category improvement. He didn't at first, but now he just looks like lots of other guys who get to "full development" and then continue to unmask with several bars moving in concert. The difference here is that this particular guy didn't have the combines or bar tells to make it obvious as it usually is, unless I (and several other guys who know FOF fairly well) really missed something about him. I also double-checked his original adjusted rating: only 4.8.

Going back to the original question I posed, all I can think here is that his current RR was heavily masked...along with everything else.

..and now we finish FA2, and the summer league results are in, he gets another +3/+3 overall and still has a +2 cut test. No green showing, but only "C" (8/80) positional experience at FL. RR unmasked another +5 in summer league to 71, with a cut test to 74.

So, yeah, this is looking more and more like his RR was simply heavily masked, along with several other bars.

[Yoda]

How did this guy end up?

[QuikSand]

theFOFL.com : Player >> Ernest Browning (http://www.thefofl.com/players/player.php?player=20873)

[Ben E Lou]

Doubt he's done creeping, but he continues to suck up targets disproportionate to the revealed RR numbers.

[Ben E Lou]

Doubt he's done creeping, but he continues to suck up targets disproportionate to the revealed RR numbers.

..and still does. Season is halfway done. Through 8 games...

108 targets, 68 catches, 1057 yards.

And that's with me having picked up a third good WR in the offseason. I've never seen anything like this with a >90 RR guy on team with mediocre RR guys surrounding him, let alone on a team with medium-to-high RR guys all over the place. Quite odd.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola...by bars that are showing right now, Browning has 72 RR, and he's out there with...

WR Horn: 68
TE Hutchins: 68
WR Fulton: 40/58 (also a masked player..cut test shows RR of 43/60)
FB Herrick: 60

Now granted, I don't throw short enough for even a 100-RR FB to get in the way too much. Herrick has only 9 targets in 164 pass plays. But still, the WRs and TE would be expected to take more targets from Browning than they are, but we're at a season and a half of this now--way past "sample size" as a viable explanation.

[Ben E Lou]

Pretty big unmask in FA1:1 of year 3. He shoots up to 63/63 (+7). RR goes to 82. 171 targets in year 2.

[Ben E Lou]

As year 4 begins, he is showing 84 RR, 65/65 overall. Very lucky find, he is. In his first 6.3b game, which was also the first game of the season, he had 6 catches for 151 yards and 2 TDs.

[Ben E Lou]

Hey, I'm not saying he's headed for 90-100, but from what we've seen now, I'm not going to be surprised if he maxes at something between 75 and 80 for RR. Heh. Yeah, even higher than that.

Oh, and he's not done, evidently. +2 overall cut test, and +3 RR to 87. My soul.

[Dandelion]

As year 4 begins, he is showing 84 RR, 65/65 overall...
... Oh, and he's not done, evidently. +2 overall cut test, and +3 RR to 87. My soul.

*coughs*
So that "If Ben's theory is true and Browning was not hit by volatility the +9 gain on his first TC would indicate a total gain of 32 points (4 pts for each pt gained at 1st TC, with 8 being the maximum to be used as a muliplier = 32 pts) and that would get him from his 39 pre-TC to a final 71 pts." I wrote in post #9 wasn't that far away from how he turns out now?
Why didn't You believe Your own theory, Ben? ;)
*coughs*

[Ben E Lou]

*coughs*
So that "If Ben's theory is true and Browning was not hit by volatility the +9 gain on his first TC would indicate a total gain of 32 points (4 pts for each pt gained at 1st TC, with 8 being the maximum to be used as a muliplier = 32 pts) and that would get him from his 39 pre-TC to a final 71 pts." I wrote in post #9 wasn't that far away from how he turns out now?
Why didn't You believe Your own theory, Ben? ;)
*coughs*Because, as many have already said, there was absolutely *NO* reason to believe he would be a +9, and therefore absolutely every reason to believe that part (if not all) of that +9 was volatility-related. The multiplier does not apply to players hit by the VSOL (like this guy (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ihof/ben/playercard.php?playerid=17668), for example). And a big part of me still thinks that's what happened here. This guy got past Subby, cuervo, QuikSand, RKG, MalcPow and I without getting picked. Unless Celeval weighs in and tells us differently, I'm going with VSOL.

[Celeval]

If it was VSOL, it was first TC, and possible. When was he signed? TC stage, or before?

[Ben E Lou]

If it was VSOL, it was first TC, and possible. When was he signed? TC stage, or before?TC

[Celeval]

Big long rambling post with lots of content but nothing actually decided:

My guess is that it's a combination of things, but no initial TC jump. So basically, we have this... using overall rating as an example.

We have a guy who has a 50 potential, is 20% developed, and has a mask of 60% (meaning that he'll show as 60% of what he actually is). So in reality, this guy is 10/50, but he shows up as 6/30. TC comes and he moves to 30% developed, and the mask shortens to 70%. That gives movement that looks like this:

Player A
Pre-camp actual: 10/50
Pre-camp shown: 6/30
Post-camp actual: 15/50
Post-camp shown: 11/35
Movement: +5/+5

This is pretty typical of a creeper. Now let's compare it to a guy who is 20% developed, has a mask of 100% (meaning he's not a creeper and is shown accurate), but gets a volatility bump. Moves to 30% developed, but gets a bump of +10 to potential.

Player B
Pre-camp actual: 6/30
Pre-camp shown: 6/30
Post-camp actual: 12/40
Post-camp shown: 12/40
Movement: +6/+10

The movement is even more different if you look at what happens with a guy who is more developed - let's take Player A and B and make them both be 60% developed, moving to 70%.

Player A
Pre-camp actual: 30/50
Pre-camp shown: 18/30
Post-camp actual: 35/50
Post-camp shown: 25/35
Movement: +7/+5

Player B
Pre-camp actual: 18/30
Pre-camp shown: 18/30
Post-camp actual: 28/40
Post-camp shown: 28/40
Movement: +10/+10

Then there's Player C, who is both - gets a volatility bump and is masked. Let's say Player C starts at 40 potential, is 60% masked, and is bumped to 50 potential.

Player C (20% developed)
Pre-camp actual: 8/40
Pre-camp shown: 5/24
Post-camp actual: 15/50
Post-camp shown: 11/35
Movement: +6/+9

Player C (60% developed)
Pre-camp actual: 24/40
Pre-camp shown: 14/24
Post-camp actual: 35/50
Post-camp shown: 25/35
Movement: +11/+11


So looking at Players A, B, and C that look like this:
Player A: 18/30 -> 25/35 (+7/+5)
Player B: 18/30 -> 28/40 (+10/+10)
Player C: 14/24 -> 25/35 (+11/+11)

The fun and interesting thing here is that Player A and Player C are the same under the hood, and Player B is worse... but their TC movement is all jumbled. Looking at the next season, though, gives some more away... Players A and C will continue to creep while Player B will stay stagnant.

Now let's look at Browning. His first training camp was good:
TC1: 23/39
TC2: 30/48 (+7/+9)

But if I'm reading this right, he didn't move during his second TC, but moved on his way into it:
CH: 49/49
TC1: 58/58
TC2: 58/58

This reads to me like it should be a scouting effect. There was a change in the lead scout of Charleston during that coach hiring; and I don't think there's anything else (other than Summer league, but Browning WAS SUMMER LEAGUE). Ok.

So, this reads as EITHER him getting the Summer League bump up, or picking up experience in Summer League. At the time, this was on 6.2, so the summer league bug was not fixed - he shouldn't have gotten much experience (if any) at SE, so it's not an experience bump... my guess is pure unmasking, he's 100% developed, and didn't then unmask any more in TC.

The next year, we've got the movement between EY and FA2, but not TC.
EY: 58/58
FA2: 65/65
TC2: 65/65

I'm not sure when the EY was taken. It's possible there could have been end of season unmasking in the bowl game, but that's a lot. Again there was a scout change, though, so conceivably there could be scout effect there - but that's is a huge swing for scouts to be the culprit.


So all that aside, let's look back at that first TC. For the purposes of this discussion, let's call him 59% developed, as that's the percentage of his current/future rating and that's what we have to work with. He then jumped up +7/+9.

Option 1: All Masking
Pre-camp shown: 23/39
Post-camp shown: 30/49
Pre-camp with post-camp masking: anywhere from 28/49 to 30/49

Ok, what did I do here? Basically, I assumed that the actual behind-the-scenes in pre-camp was /49, and calculated out what that same 23/39 percentage ends up. It's a range, because that 23 could be anywhere from 22.5 to 23.49, same with the 39, same with the 49. So basically, if there was no masking, he's have gone up +0/+1/+2 in TC due to development. Ok.

Option 2: All Bump
Pre-camp shown: 23/39
Post-camp shown: 30/49
Post-camp without bump: anywhere from 23/39 to 25/39

Doesn't help. Could have gone up +0/+1/+2, same deal. We need to see more about what happens in the second and third years.

Last note - is this where he'll stay? Visibly, I think so. I'm reasonably sure that masking stops moving at a particular point... I don't know if that's age-related, or percentage of mask, but if a guy is 60% masked and reaches 90% masked at his 4th year (both #s are examples), I don't think he continues to unmask... basically creeping stops, but the underlying ratings are the same. So if you have a guy who is heavily masked and doesn't fully unmask for whatever reason (playing time, luck, whatever), then he'll be under-"rated" for his whole career. That may be happening here, although I don't know why he wouldn't unmask.

[Celeval]

Editing the lat post because he WAS Summer league.

[azjoe_02]

That gave me a headache Celeval...

[MalcPow]

For what it's worth, he looks like a guy that fits within the combine ranges for the kind of player he became, and the big play receiving bar was obviously a positive tell. He's the sort of guy that once he booms, you know he's the real deal (and not a VSOL). But he's not a lock down, take it to the bank stud when you look at him with the information you have during a draft. His profile is basically a gamble, and it definitely paid off here.

[Dandelion]

Celeval, You mentioned several coaching changes during Browning's first years - is there any data about the highest/lowest margin of scouting error in dependence on the scout's position skills?
I mean something like: "if the scout is excellent on QBs he will be accurate within +2/-2 rating points, if he's only fair he might be off +10/-10 points"

[Ben E Lou]

Year 2 change was not scout-related. Standard year 2 1:1 uptick for major creepers(+5), and a summer league bump in 2:5.

[Celeval]

Celeval, You mentioned several coaching changes during Browning's first years - is there any data about the highest/lowest margin of scouting error in dependence on the scout's position skills?
I mean something like: "if the scout is excellent on QBs he will be accurate within +2/-2 rating points, if he's only fair he might be off +10/-10 points"

Nope. No clue.

Not only that, based on 2k4 (I'm assuming it hasn't changed), there's also a specific scout/player mix where a particular scout with an Excellent (say, 90) in rating QBs will be more accurate overall than a particular scout with a Very Good (say, 75) in QBs; but for a particular player, the VG scout might be closer to being right.

[Celeval]

Year 2 change was not scout-related. Standard year 2 1:1 uptick for major creepers(+5), and a summer league bump in 2:5.

Yeah, when I wrote that the first time, I thought he wasn't summer league for some reason.

[Dandelion]

Not only that, based on 2k4 (I'm assuming it hasn't changed), there's also a specific scout/player mix where a particular scout with an Excellent (say, 90) in rating QBs will be more accurate overall than a particular scout with a Very Good (say, 75) in QBs; but for a particular player, the VG scout might be closer to being right.

Pure guesswork here, but if the ratings of each scout fall into a +x to -x range and are applied on certain occasions (draft, TC etc..) there might be those differences in what a player looks like to different scouts.
Lets assume an Excellent means the scout sticks to the true rating for QBs but with a possible deviation of 3 points up or down.
Lets assume a Very Good scout sees them within a +5/-5 margin..
Comes training camp.
Scout A (excellent) tells us the QB has a 70 rating. So.. including possible Scouting Error that QB could be in reality anything between 67 and 73
Scout B (very good) tells his coach that the QB is a 66 giving us possible ratings from 61 to 71
In fact the QB is a 67, lowest possible rating for the excellent scout, who was way off and saw him better than he is.. and quite close to the worse scout, who saw him only one point below his real skill..

Another possible solution would be, that scouts always see players within a small margin around their real rating, but the scouts position skill defines the percentage for scouting error and it's maximum effect to happen.
Like, an excellent scout would normally be within +2/-2 points of the real rating, and has a 5% chance for scouting error to happen and to get him off target for another 2 points up or down, while a good scout would also be in the +2/-2 range most of the time, unless in 25% of the skill checks, when he would be off target for another +5/-5 points..

Both theories would work with what you wrote about the better scout being more off target occasionally than a worse scout..
I'm not sure if there's a way to find out more about how scouts and scouting error really work, though.. Cross checking the ratings for many players over a couple of seasons through the eyes of all scouts might do the job, but seems like a lot of paperwork..

And I'm not sure if it would help with Ben's "problem" with Browning ;)

[Celeval]

Pure guesswork here, but if the ratings of each scout fall into a +x to -x range and are applied on certain occasions (draft, TC etc..) there might be those differences in what a player looks like to different scouts.

...

I'm not sure if there's a way to find out more about how scouts and scouting error really work, though.. Cross checking the ratings for many players over a couple of seasons through the eyes of all scouts might do the job, but seems like a lot of paperwork..

To be more specific :)

In some earlier versions, when these items weren't encrypted in the data file, there were a couple of specific values that were related to scouting; that if changed, would change what a particular scout thought of a particular player for better or for worse. It may be essentially in that same sort of range - but the overall mask sits on top of that, so that while all scouts in the league may be clustered within 10 points of a particular value, if that player is 70% masked, they're all going to be clustered around that 70% mark.

[Ben E Lou]

As year 4 begins, he is showing 84 RR, 65/65 overall. Still climbing. 86 RR and 67/67 overall as FA1 begins in year 5. Cut test to 69/69 and 90 RR. Yowza.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting. I still believe that there was no evidence that this player was going to be that good in RR, as he does look like he's headed for maxing at 75+.

He's my own player, and even I'm not that optimistic. :p
heh

[MIJB#19]

With this bump, I decided to take a look at the combine scores of Browning and where they would rank in a set of about 850 rookie WR from 10 FOF2007 drafts. Below are percentages of the number of players that scored worse in that area. I averaged it for some, because Browning would sit inside a large group 40some players. Behind the perecentages I listed where the player would sit according to the player file creator:

Solec 46% - replacement-level starter
40-yd 91% - excellent starter
Bench 87% - very good starter
Agilt 87% - very good starter
Broad 47% - replacement-level starter
Drill 98% - near superstar

Dunno what it's worth, but the combine basically told us that Browning could be a quality player... The missing link still is a sign that his RR would be as high as it is. With an 11 for intelligence vs a middle of the pack Sole score (20), maybe it was there in fromt of us afterall?