0 rating

[DougWyatt]

Do people develope off a zero ? I've had several players with 0/20, etc. and they never seem to develope in the particular area. Is that always, or is it just due to my small sample size ?

[Ben E Lou]

I can't say definitively, but I've never noticed a player who was 0/x develop beyond 0.

[DougWyatt]

tyvm sir

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I can't say definitively, but I've never noticed a player who was 0/x develop beyond 0.

I've not either. Nor have I seen players as weak as 0/2 develop anything either. 0/20 and beyond? I can't recall.

[wade moore]

Poor Gene Simmons .

[SteveMax58]

Sorry to have my first post be a threadjack...but my question is related to the 0 rating.

This might be a silly question(I hope so)...but I just started playing 2007(awesone....BTW) and I cant seem to understand why on earth any, let alone established starting, OL'man would have a Blocking Strength of 0. I'm using the Giants, and I have guys like Kareem Mckenzie & Luke Petitgout with a 0 in Blocking Strength. As a Giants fan...I'll be the first to tell you their not as stout as I'd like...but 0?? As a comparison...Chris Snee has a 99, Guy Whimper has a 51, & Bob Whitfield has a 10. I know there are scouts in the game...both good & bad...but I'd think you get a 1 just for having a heartbeat.

Default rosters, version 6.0d, & I didnt mess with anything, just started a new SP-game in 2006. Does this make sense? I've been trying to read up on the ratings... do I need to keep reading up on it??

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Think of zero as not really zero. Think of 100 as not really 100. Think that every O-lineman has some strength and that base line strength is zero. Stronger lineman start at 1 and go to 100. This helps as a way to look at it.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Sorry to have my first post be a threadjack...but my question is related to the 0 rating.

This might be a silly question(I hope so)...but I just started playing 2007(awesone....BTW) and I cant seem to understand why on earth any, let alone established starting, OL'man would have a Blocking Strength of 0. I'm using the Giants, and I have guys like Kareem Mckenzie & Luke Petitgout with a 0 in Blocking Strength. As a Giants fan...I'll be the first to tell you their not as stout as I'd like...but 0?? As a comparison...Chris Snee has a 99, Guy Whimper has a 51, & Bob Whitfield has a 10. I know there are scouts in the game...both good & bad...but I'd think you get a 1 just for having a heartbeat.

Default rosters, version 6.0d, & I didnt mess with anything, just started a new SP-game in 2006. Does this make sense? I've been trying to read up on the ratings... do I need to keep reading up on it??

Reminds me of that E-Mail that was supposed to be from the worst rated player on Maddens game.

As far as the ratings they're pretty random. They can be close; but mostly random (for replayability, as well as that no two people will ever agree on how each and every player should be rated). But if it's a big deal for you, you can edit the players.csv file to your liking & convert your mods to an .fdt to use in game.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think Blocking Strength means jack beans anyway.

[SteveMax58]

Thanks for the responses guys.

Yeah...2 things I realized. First, I had the X-factor turned on, which seems to be exactly as you said Doug...random. Great players are at worst, good...good are at worst, mediocre...and mediocre can be, well they can be pretty bad.

Yeah I know ratings are a relative & highly subjective thing, especially in a sport like football. I'm new to FOF in general, so I wasnt sure what to make of ratings like that.

I started checking out the players.csv, and I'll probably go through it and mod it to how I "think" it should look.

[twothree]

If I remember correctly, the program actually use a number from 0-1000 for most ratings. Which is then displayed by your scout as a rating from 0-100. I could be wrong, but I thought I read it somewhere in a help file once. Though, for some reason I also remember the internal ratings being on a scale of 200-800. Maybe that was another program?

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the displayed 0 rating is actually a 0-9 rating out of 1000 or something similar.

[Celeval]

It's a fun mathematical game to play. Let's say nobody was rated zero, and everyone was (like madden) rated 40+.... but then instead of 40-100, we decided to go 0-60. Same problem.

It's not that 0 = no blocking strength whatsoever. It's that 0 = the worst blocking strength of any NFL player. Who is, ya know, a hell of a lot better at blocking strength than most college players, and any joe off the street.

[QuikSand]

For those who have watched thes eplayers a lot...


If a guy has a zero rating in one skill, but normal varied ratings in other things... does the presence of a true void mean that:

(a) he is very unlikely to develop even a few points in that one rating?

(b) he is very unlikely to develop his ratings in any area?

I presume it's (a), which is a useful revelation in itself... just trying to make sure I'm not missing something even bigger.

[Ben E Lou]

It's a, from my experience.

[QuikSand]

Fair enough, that's what I was expecting... but I admit to not having paid any real attention to this so far.

[3ric]

Originally Posted by twothree

If I remember correctly, the program actually use a number from 0-1000 for most ratings. Which is then displayed by your scout as a rating from 0-100. I could be wrong, but I thought I read it somewhere in a help file once. Though, for some reason I also remember the internal ratings being on a scale of 200-800. Maybe that was another program?

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that the displayed 0 rating is actually a 0-9 rating out of 1000 or something similar.

The internal rating in the draft files and roster files are about 375-650, and using the analogy of 375 being the worst blocking strength of any NFL lineman/fullback/tight end, then an ordinary insurance salesman maybe has a blocking strength of 100-150 on this scale. Just about enough from stopping his bookshelf from toppling.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by 3ric

The internal rating in the draft files and roster files are about 375-650, and using the analogy of 375 being the worst blocking strength of any NFL lineman/fullback/tight end, then an ordinary insurance salesman maybe has a blocking strength of 100-150 on this scale. Just about enough from stopping his bookshelf from toppling.

Ah... so maybe that 0 rating reprents something like a 0-350 internal rating. That would be why you usually see no movement in the 0 rating, because there is a large range of internal numbers that are displayed as zero.

And a 100 would be 650-1000 as an internal rating. That would allow the internal ratings of 351-649 to map to 1-99. That would be three internal rating points mapping to one displayed rating point.

Or something similar like 0-300 displayed as a zero, and 700-1000 being displayed as 100. A ratio of 4:1 for the internal ratings mapping to the displayed ratings, 301-699 mapping to 1-99. Or something similar...

Yeah, I think that I read this somewhere before about an earlier version of FOF.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Celeval

It's a fun mathematical game to play. Let's say nobody was rated zero, and everyone was (like madden) rated 40+.... but then instead of 40-100, we decided to go 0-60. Same problem.

It's not that 0 = no blocking strength whatsoever. It's that 0 = the worst blocking strength of any NFL player. Who is, ya know, a hell of a lot better at blocking strength than most college players, and any joe off the street.

Thanks, originally I think I was assuming all players who play a particular position would have ratings specific to the position at some level >0.

But then a question came to mind. If every OL'man is considered at least 0, meaning they are Pro-adequate (not average) to play the position, then what makes it a deterant to move a blocking FB to LT, or how do you quantify OL Blocking Strength for a completely inadequate player, like a WR or QB?? I know you wouldnt want to, but then what seperates (like my example) Luke Petitgout's 0 Blocking Strength, from say, Tony Romo's (presumed) 0 Blocking Strength.

That is why I assumed there must be some minimum above 0 to account for players who are in the league, but do not posess league minimum attributes to play the position. Or perhaps it's accounted for in some other way?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Fair enough, that's what I was expecting... but I admit to not having paid any real attention to this so far.

I've got a couple of good examples on my Merchantmen roster (CB Myron Stevens, OLB Bernie Surry). Surry even was a volatility boom and his 0/x ratings remained 0/something. neither managed to gain even 1 point above the initial scouted 0.

But then, thinking more about it, maybe it's something different. Maybe the real value is so low that it will grow, but not enough to go beyond scouted 0. Assuming scouted 0 is actually 375, maybe the player went from 100 to 300 and the development went by unnoticed. A similar theory can be made about older players who over the years lost all their ratings into 0/0 across the board? It would almost make me believe that there's a built in line at scouted 0, holding players from going from below 0 to above 0. It would explain how players can be 0/0 in put returning and 0/1 in kick returning, or vice versa.

Warning: I'm presuming FOF2007 works the same as FOF2004 in this area.

[Raiders Army]

Nothing on 2k7, but on 2k4 I had two players get to 1 point from 0. One was a Tight End who went from 0 to 1 in his 4th year (2nd as a starter) in Avoid Fumbles.



The other was a MLB who went from 0 to 1 in Man-to-Man Defense in his 2nd year (he didn't start either year).

[MIJB#19]

There goes the conspiracy theory of a built-in ratings barrier.
I suppose that confirms that non-developing 0's must be going from "far too small to be rated 1" to "still too small to be rated 1".