|
2 Attachment(s)
Scout variance on younger players can be significant. How significant? I just created a test MP league and checked one young player with all 32 teams. Current was virtually the same for all scouts, but the scouting staffs differed greatly on future potential. The variance on future on this player was as high as 23 points. That's meaningful, and of course it's possible that it can be greater than that. This was just one player.
HOUSTON VIEW: 38/78 NYG VIEW: 36/55   On this particular player, once he's on the team, I'm not sure that 23 points makes a huge difference in decision-making. For most squads, he's a likely starter that you're going to want to work into the lineup rather quickly. However, I'm picturing a guy who is really, say, 25/51. Some scouts might see 24/40 while others might see 26/62. That's huge. 24/40 might leave him inactive, while 26/62 starts him in every game of the preseason and signs a mentor to help bring him along. And taking the 24/40 path even further, I could easily see a scenario where he gets little/no playing time, eventually gets cut as a third or fourth year player, and gets picked up and stuck in the starting lineup by someone who scouts him as a 55 future. FWIW, the two teams farthest on each end of the spectrum for this player both had 3 to 4 staff members with pretty bad scouting. I didn't write down the scout view for every team, but it appeared that the mean and the mode would be somewhere about halfway between the two extremes, and that if graphed, the different scout views of the guy would be basically a bell curve distribution. There were maybe 3 to 5 outliers on either end that had him in the 73-78ish and 55-60ish ranges |
I'm curious to see how this is going to play out with MP drafts. If combine accuracy was set at 100 it would be far easier to ignore scouting movement. I'm hoping wolf will really dig into the accuracy error and give us an idea how far things can be off. In the little SP i've done i've noticed more random volatility hits (small sample size). Initially I thought static bars were not longer static but I had quite a few booms and busts.
|
Good heavens... is there some chance that we might actually have to look at... gulp... results? Stats?
My land. |
Heh. Remains to be seen. If the potential delta is that high on at least some players rated in the 40-60 range, then absolutely. I'm going to try to take a look at a player or two like that maybe tomorrow morning.
|
Definitely a nice development if we have to use player performance (stats) and maybe a little trial and error with the depth chart, rather than just being able to plug and play a depth chart based 100% on scout ratings.
|
Quote:
What did the generic scouts have to say about this guy? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ooooh.....which player is this? I gotta know and see how I view him? |
:hand: :hand: :hand:
Quote:
|
Dola:
I suppose you will find out when I make my 25th round pick (after all of my starters and punter and kicker are taken.) ;) |
Quote:
So...he's a long snapper then ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I truly dislike not having actual scouts. I don't like that it adds another element to head coaches etc. In my head coach, I'm already looking for player development, young talent, motivation etc.. Yet I find myself going for the guys with more scouting since that is crucially important to evaluating talent.
Scouting is far too important of a stat to be hamstrung and attached to head coaches and coordinators. I wouldn't mind if they all had a scouting stat, but there should AT LEAST a scouting director that allows you to be better at scouting certain positional talent. In fact, it might just be the thing that I dislike the most. I want to treat scouting as its own important element. Not tact on to head coaches and coordinators. IMO, the Assistant Coach is redundant and should have been a scouting director or the like. Just 1 mans humble opinion though.. |
Quote:
Quote:
The GML just completed draft entry and we're doing FA2:1 on Monday. My staff sees a guy who was your standard 25ish/45ish ratings-dropper as 46/58 in the new game, with a 55/79 in one of the key bars for his position. We had the #1 spot in the staff draft and therefore got guys who were solid or better at everything, including scouting. It'll be interesting to see if others offer him, but for me that's a move from "guy I wouldn't bother with signing even as a backup" to "he starts for me if I sign him." |
Bump. Breaking the scouting discussion off from the general "staff" thread, as I think this deserves its own targeted topic.
A little more info on this. I just posted this at the CCFL: Quote:
MY RESPONSE: Quote:
|
Oh...probably worth highlighting for those who don't pay attention to the Help File. This was added in the latest version:
Quote:
|
Oh, and when you export that data, you get this message:
 |
OK. Now THIS is worth noting, also from the CCFL. Check out this undrafted FA, first, according to the league scout:
So the league scout is showing a big bump. However, my scouts had him at 36/54 pre-camp, 42/63 now. And when I look at the money he was offered to sign and compare that to scouting ratings, I get this breakdown. GBY offered 1.5M and average of HC and OC scout ratings is 80. ATL offered 2.5M and average of HC and OC scout ratings is 76. CLE offered 1.85M and average of HC and OC scout ratings is 61. but then... ARI--1.10M, scout ratings 43 CHI--1.15M, scout ratings 38.5 PIT--1.11M, scout ratings 46 (1.10M is the rookie minimum in the CCFL.) From that, I can't help but guess that the ATL, CLE, and GBY staffs saw this guy as a potential solid starter, while the other three (and perhaps the rest of the league...31 owners submitted exports for FA2, so it's not like it was owner inactivity) had him with much lower potential, like the league scout. (Oh, and all of the offers above were for one year.) |
I really hope this pans out. If your investment in scouting really matters in this game, that could be a pretty interesting new wrinkle.
Of course, the method of acquiring said investment in scouting will, likely, then prove to be all the more frustrating. But for now, I'll focus on the upside. |
I still think that letting the best teams have the best coaches unbalances the game, since scouting means so much more now.
|
Quote:
|
I always thought the scout report was based on an average somehow of the whole staff.
But am I right in reading from the above that the scouted ratings are from the HC all the time, plus only the OC for offense, the DC for defence and the AC for special teams? |
Quote:
Quote:
OFFENSIVE PLAYERS 1. Offensive Coordinator: primary 2. Head Coach: less than OC, but significant 3. Assistant Coach: trivial/nothing 4. Defensive Coordinator: trivial/nothing DEFENSIVE PLAYERS 1. Defensive Coordinator: primary 2. Head Coach: less than DC, but significant 3. Assistant Coach: trivial/nothing 4. Offfensive Coordinator: trivial/nothing SPECIAL TEAMS 1. Assistant Coach: primary 2. Head Coach: less than AC, but significant 3. Offfensive Coordinator: trivial/nothing 4. Defensive Coordinator: trivial/nothing |
Gotcha. Thanks for that, I had picked up on the development of players, but for some reason I can't fathom hadn't connected it through to scouted ratings as well. Will change the way I pick up staff for sure.
|
Quote:
Well... people who pay attention, figure stuff out, and tend to the details have an advantage in every portion of this game. In theory, the staff advantage won't go to the "best teams" due to financial reasons. If that theory ever really manifests, then I think I'd agree with your assessment. But alas, here we are. |
Quote:
|
*fist pump*
Hey, wait a second... |
Following on from the OC/DC/AC scouting effect, is there any evidence that the league scout accuracy is affected by his Primary Focus position?
|
Quote:
Is it possible for a non-developer type to get player name information into the personal scouting data csv? With only player_id the file doesn't provide useful information until a merge of player Name happens. Any help is appreciated. |
Quote:
In IHOF right now, I am torn between my starting QB, who my scout says is decent if not great. And my mid-round rookie QB who has spot started this year based on injury and has put up better numbers, but who my scout says looks like a mid-round rookie QB should look. I am assuming that small sample size has more to do with the rookie's numbers than anything. But there's a small part of me that wonders if I should be paying more attention to how these guys actually play. Basically, if you take the rookie part out of it, this is a Doug Flutie/Rob Johnson situation here. And I admit to being somewhat swayed in my thinking by the general mantra of "when possible, do the opposite of what Wade Phillips did." |
Quote:
This is all generally intended for import into a database. You could possibly use something like Access here. Or load both CSVs into Excel and create a third sheet that handles the merge. What is the specific use-case? If there is a need for a utility that I would find useful, I might do something. |
Before I could write any code whatsoever, I just used Excel and VLOOKUP to view Interrogator data when I wanted to do chemistry searches.
|
Quote:
My thought was to find a way to use my staff scouting data (player_personal) in an Excel spreadsheet with last name, first name, DOB, position, height, weight, and current team etc. Same premise of 'Recommend Player' in-game but, in Excel I could compound my sort criteria. For example, if I wanted to sort within cornerbacks highest rated at BnR and M2M. |
You should be able to do that inside Excel.
|
Quote:
Same. I have a big lookup table with the BDAY (MMDD format) with their sign, their conflict and their two affinities.
|
Quote:
Same. I have a big lookup table with the BDAY (MMDD format) with their sign, their conflict and their two affinities. Then do a vlookup comparing the leader to the player in an if statement.
|
Heh. Just posted this at WOOF regarding the changes we say during this preseason:
Quote:
For those interested in seeing the big ol' incorrect changes, here ya go: 2014 Preseason Weeks 1-3 Complete |
Ultimately, I think the big takeaway here is this: "if you don't have at least a decent scouting staff, do not trust what they're telling you about younger players."
|
Yep....came to this conclusion a while back in my single player campaign (Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Thoughts on Ratings History). Basically it seems regardless of how bad the scout is, he doesn't have too much variance from a good to great scout for the veteran players (4+ years).
|
With that said, if you see a huge bump in current, though, that may be a good sign (as long as there is a bit of movement upward for future). It is the future that is wobbly for a young player. Heck even for a good to great scouting it can go up and down until it settles later in the career.
|
My working theory of scouting, posted here for the purpose of inviting review and criticism:
1. Each player gets a development curve which guides their development in the absence of other random variables (volatility, injuries, etc.) 2. Every player’s scouting becomes more accurate as the player advances further along the development curve. 3. Scouting involves both accuracy and precision. 4. A good scout has better precision than a bad scout. 5. So even if a bad scout’s ratings might generally get more accurate over time, beware the low precision of the evaluations. 6. My *suspicion* is that good scouts also get an accuracy bonus (in other words, a good scout may see with an accuracy that is one step ahead of where the player actually is on the development curve, or something like that). I don’t know exactly how this works in code, but this observation is meant to address case examples in the nature of Kendall Irizarry (example posted above in this thread). |
A corollary to #2 would be that during the draft, the player's development % tells you something about the level of accuracy you can expect in the bars you are seeing (but it doesn't tell you anything about the precision of those bars).
|
There are not too many "Draft - what did you get" threads going on anymore because it it very hard to tell what you got. Gone are the days of the telling bar/combine combinations, at least from what I've seen.
If I had to review my drafts now it boils down to this statement... "I am pretty sure I got some good players in all 7 rounds, but I'm also pretty sure they suck big balls". |
Okay .... I didn't know FOF7 existed until this weekend. Imagine my excitement when I was scanning around and decided to see what was going on here after a year or two.
All right, I'm still in the experimenting stage of trying the system to see what works and how to scout but can anyone explain to me why this guy outside of 2 years has been a run of the mill QB? These are his ratings in year 13, at his peak I believe he was a 79 or 80 overall. I'm Tampa Bay and he was my first big draft pick. I'm confused as to why he's never played outstanding in his career. After his ridiculous rookie year I was expecting greatness. When he was on my team I rotated through a couple offensive style types and the result was always the same. I thought maybe I was doing something wrong, so I traded him to see what the CPU would do with him, and it was much of the same. Anyway, any idea's? I'm posting this here because if there's an issue that can be seen on these screens, then it becomes a scouting issue to look for.   |
Eli Manning?
|
Actually, going through my games current QB's I've noticed a trend. QB's with the "Long Passes" style don't perform up to their ratings as well as roll out or short passes QB's.
In fact, the guys currently playing in my game (can't see retired guys style) even roll out style QB's in the 40's overall have similar careers as the 2 highly rated long passers. May be abnormal, and it's an extremely small sample size but something I think to keep an eye on. |
Could it be that players aren't utilising QBs with a long passing style properly, and the results of doing so are greater than incorectly utilising a short/rollout passer? Or that it's easier to correctly utilise a short/rollout passer?
|
Unless something has changed- I believe that the QBs style of play just affected the formations he'd learn, or had a better chance to learn.
|
How much has QB Style mattered in the past?
|
I meant to post this a few weeks ago. Here's some strong indication that better scouting gives you a more accurate picture *before* the initial TC/Preseason. These are the numbers of players that appeared to have big gains or losses, and the league scout rating associated with them:
|
Ben - How do you find the league scout rating ?
|
Quote:
|
So when your scout sees a player as lower than the league scout rating, that would usually mean he is under rating the true skills of the player?
|
So MalcPow and I have done a bit of digging into the draft, and I can make a few more definitive statements and one pretty fair assumption:
MP's staff had his endurance bar in the 21<--->45 range. Mine had him in the 59<--->94 range. So we're not just talking about a little difference. We're talking about two entirely different ranges for a bar that is very important and one that in this case wasn't really revealed by his fairly average (somewhat on the upper end in the black range) combine: 121. My average scout rating is 93, his is 44. If you want more detail about the staff members involved... LEAGUE SCOUTING INFO: IHOF Forums - View Single Post - 2043 Staff Draft Complete TUC (links to staff pages at top): IHOF: Tucker Tigers 2043 CPC (links to staff pages at top): IHOF: Capital City Blues 2043 (My team is TUC; MP's is CPC.) NOTE: All of these comparisons were done well after the draft and preseason had passed. For the sake of competitiveness, I agree with the in-game warning that it isn't a good idea to share this information--at least until it's no longer actionable. |
Quote:
That said, it depends. Check that chart above. The IHOF league scout has a 73 scout rating. A lot of teams aren't going to have combined scout ratings that good. I don't know it for sure, but my guess would be that the league scout might be more trustworthy than some team scouts on some players. But at the WOOF, with a league scouting rating of 16, it's probably best to just ignore that guy entirely. |
Quote:
This might be a good education opportunity: what was the specific masked-guy bar signature here? I never was really good at all the masked bar combos, and I don't recognize this here. |
Quote:
this is a bit confusing to me. how did your scouts, who you said are in the 90's, not pick up this pattern, but MP's, in the 40's, did? |
The masking signature in this case was more esoteric than "masked pairs." It's the sort of thing that people who played a lot of single player in the previous version would see but the great majority of players completely overlooked. Basically, there were a fair number of players that I could look at in the old game and say "he just looks masked" and not really explain why.
But because I have good scouts, I did not see him with the masking signature. Instead, I saw him much closer to who he really is, which is something that I was not used to seeing. Basically, if you have good scouts, you can rely on the bars you see better is what I am thinking here. |
My bad scouts showed me a "pattern" that experience led me to believe might mean that the player was masked. Ben's good scouts showed him the much better set of bars that more closely match who the player actually is. My scouts were far more "wrong" about who the player was, but they were wrong in a way that looked like masking to me.
Is that more clear? It really is a little confusing. Edit to add: Also, what Ben just said. |
so what the player looked like pre-boom was a totally different bar shape than after. ben's good scouts were seeing the after shape, while mp's saw the pre-boom/masked shape. i think.
|
Quote:
Yep, that's it. |
I understood that, I was hoping for a little more insight into what made MP's bars look like classic masking.
|
Quote:
 ...are often masked. In this case, I guess you'd call it a "stair-step" pattern, but I'll bet there are at least 2 or 3 other common patterns for OL. I don't have any of them documented and couldn't even describe most of them to you until I saw a player that had one. But for some players, I can just look at a bar pattern and say "that's very likely masking" without seeing combines at all, and I'm usually right. The whole "masked pairs" thing covers some (most?) of them, but not all. It's the sort of thing that takes so long to start seeing that it may not even be intentionally in the game. I hope that makes sense. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thanks Ben. One of these days I'll collect a ton of career data again and try running some regression algorithms again to see what patterns it can turn up. I'd really love to apply some machine learning to Draft Analyzer.
One guy I'm keeping an eye on in WOOF who may go the other way is RT Santiago Borick. The crappy league scout thinks he just unmasked, with a huge jump in Endurance (and smaller jumps in other bars). My improved scouting staff doesn't see much of a jump at all, and still has him with very low Endurance. I'll be curious to see what he does over the next season or two. |
Quote:
So, is it better to have a good scout, or a bad scout? That's interesting. Are the masking pairs and tells still the same as before, or do you guys mean something differently when you say..."That player looks masked." If they're the same, it almost seems to make sense to have bad scouts, and therefore be able to draft better. Which is funny. |
Quote:
|
Yeah, one of the tricks to WOOF is there is a 25 combine correlations, so they mean much less. They MIGHT be showing you something, or they MIGHT be hiding you something. So get a good scout, interview, put more weight on bars in the past, and keep your fingers crossed.
I like it. |
Heck, I'd even adjust what I said about "50 or higher." IHOF is at 50 and MalcPow's bad scouts completely missed on that RB's endurance mentioned above. That one is probably worth highlighting again:
Quote:
|
Just trying to remember off the cuff about when I drafted Maese. His dash and agility were excellent, and that came through in his post EX bars. Strength and long jump were high black, not quite blue, and I thought they might yield around 60s in bars, but the post EX product blew that away. Position halfway better than str and LJ, halfway worse than dash and agil.
He was grade at 6.4 but is now high 70s. I interviewed him which helped a lot, but I dont recall what his bars looked like during the draft. I had RB Luchey as one notch higher than him, but they seem to be pretty close in talent after their first seasons. I remember going nuts though about Maese being 5 foot 7 inches.. Ive got a back in ccfl at 5 foot 6, mid 50s guy, and he had had an awful first season. In retrospect it was just lower development than I had him scouted at/rookie jitters, but at the time I kept thinking maybe size does matter for RBs in the new version... Question about scouting and new talent ratings -- How do they relate to the bars we see during the draft? Is scouting the basic call as to where the bar lies, while young talent determines range? The idea that young talent determines range seems weird to me. I just did a draft in NAFL with an off coordinator who has a full bar in scouting, while the defensive coordinator has a 3/4 scouting bar, but both have the same young talent rating (high). The range on offensive players was somewhere around 16 while on defensive players it was around 32. |
Pretty sure it is interview, not young talent, that determines the range.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
An update here - league scout starting to come back to earth, my scout still thinks he sucks. The bars shown in the roster window haven't moved much for me, but the league scout pattern is interesting to me:  |
From the GML...
League scout Deron Zepeda is horrific. (Scouting ability = 14). My 3rd round kicker by my scouts: 57/89-->59/87 My 3rd round kicker by Zepeda's estimation: 58/89-->54/61 All of my staff members are rated 50 or better in Scouting, with an average of 70. |
Quote:
Update on this player: Both my scouts and the league scout now have him at 100 endurance. |
From WOOF today. League scout = 36.
Here are all of the guys the league scout said changed by 15 pts either way from my team. This is a comparison to my scouts, whose average rating for scouting is 80. (League scout listed first in all cases) And here's a guy that was "only" a -14 per the league scout. This one is really interesting to see. |
Now here's a guy to watch:
QB J.B. Harding Player Details He was 8/48-->14/42 by the league scout in his first preseason. The league scout has a scouting rating of 27: Britt Fulcher GML Staff Page My staff members have scout ratings roughly in the 50-75 range: HC (57): C.J. Wingard GML Staff Page OC (66): Marlon Wayne GML Staff Page DC (73): Isaac Godfrey GML Staff Page AC (48): Broderick Griffin GML Staff Page He was 8/41-->13/46 according to my guys:  Should be an interesting case to follow. |
Ben I'm curious to know if you are just watching to see if his ratings increase or also to see if he plays well too?
I'm only asking because I thought a low Sol score would not be a very good thing at all. |
Now HERE is an interesting case.
SE Barry Hotchkiss Player Details He looked like this when I drafted him (with an interview):  Here's what I saw post-draft:  His bars, immediately after TC, per league scout:  Immediate after TC per my scouts:  Some others in FOOL weighed in on him here: Heh. Scouting check on this guy. What I find most notable are the *massive* discrepancies in Avoid Drops, Route Running, and Endurance. Even Yoda (ATL)--with very solid scouting--has an 8-point differential in all three of those categories. I've suspected it before now, and this is further evidence that there's now an appropriate scouting bonus for a player being on your roster, as opposed to the "cut test" silliness in FOF2K7. |
Quote:
What's the latest on this guy? I noticed he never started a full season for you but looked very promising in limited play? I couldn't figure out what happened though because he's not on your roster? |
Looks like Harding is playing 2nd fiddle to this guy:
http://www.fof-gml.com/playercard.php?playerid=5654 |
Yeah, won't know about Harding until Centers hangs up his cleats. It's a truly interesting case now because Harding's future has disappeared. I expect he'll still move up as his did this past TC/Ex2, but was his future truly put in jeopardy because he sat on the bench?
|
I always feel pressure to get a guy who appears to be talented onto the field as much as possible for fear of them losing their potential after sitting for several seasons.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
