Unmasking 101

[Ben E Lou]

The question below was asked in the OSFL, and as I compose my answer, I realized that it might be worth reading for many newer players. Also, since we use full HTML and WYSIWYG over here, the chart is much easier to post here than over there.

Originally Posted by Heelfan71

We really won't know how they are truly rated until after camp, right ??

Sort of. The great majority of players are "masked" in one direction or the other. If the scouted number in future potential increases, that's usually an indicator that he's better than what you see. If the number decreases, that's usually an indicator that he's worse than what you see.

Here are a some examples from 6.0e (note that it appears right now that the changes won't be as large and often in 6.1-generated players, but that the general mechanism is unchanged). Cur1 and Fut1 represent the "first-look" ratings. Cur2 and Fut2 represent the ratings after the first training camp. MaxCur and MaxFut represent the highest current rating the player would achieve in his career. CurChg and FutChg represent the amount that those ratings appeared to change over the course of the player's career.

Pick	POS	LAST	FIRST	Cur1	Fut1	Cur2	Fut2	MaxCur	MaxFut	CurChg	FutChg
1(30)	DE	Samuels	Bryant	26	55	27	58	71	71	45	16
2(30)	RB	Tautuaa	O.J.	33	53	33	53	57	57	24	4
2(9)	WR	Rivers	Vince	22	30	25	32	33	33	11	3
3(30)	TE	Fitzgerald	Jared	32	47	33	52	63	63	31	16
5(30)	G	Foley	Ray	24	40	26	44	54	54	30	14
6(30)	OLB	Fortier	Donnie	19	29	23	34	45	45	26	16
7(30)	T	Stachelski	Terry	6	17	8	22	29	29	23	12
1(30)	DT	Hutton	Korey	37	83	39	78	64	64	27	-19
2(29)	DE	Lacina	D.J.	29	48	31	48	48	48	19	0
4(29)	RB	Shannon	Oliver	19	35	19	35	31	31	12	-4
5(2)	DE	Pagan	Mario	16	39	16	38	36	36	20	-3
5(30)	CB	Longley	Kevin	7	24	9	30	51	51	44	27
6(29)	DE	Shepard	Perry	21	40	21	37	30	30	9	-10
7(30)	K	El Nino	Damon	23	35	30	44	57	57	34	22
1(22)	WR	Ruhl	Levon	48	66	49	65	68	68	20	2
2(25)	CB	Holmes	B.J.	14	20	16	29	45	45	31	25
3(24)	CB	Rice	Artie	25	39	28	45	55	55	30	16
4(23)	QB	Rayburn	Marc	9	52	9	49	41	41	32	-11
5(22)	T	Tubbs	Cole	16	32	16	27	20	20	4	-12
6(25)	RB	Goowin	Quinn	27	33	27	33	37	37	10	4
7(24)	C	Ramsey	Wesley	16	56	18	56	55	55	39	-1

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM THE CHART
QB Marc Rayburn showed up on the roster as a 9/52, dropped to 9/49 in training camp, and it was slowly revealed that his *real* future potential was 41, not 52. On the other hand, TE Jared Fitzgerald looked like a 32/47 player in the draft, and when he showed up on my roster. At training camp, he was shown to be better than advertised, and was adjusted to 33/52. And over the course of the next few seasons, he was shown to have really had a future potential of 63, not 47. In most cases, the largest amount of "unmasking" after the rookie season takes place at the beginning of FA1 each year (although some younger non-rookies will unmask a bit in training camp.)

"UNMASKING" vs. "BOOMS/BUSTS"
From time to time, you'll see players randomly "boom" or "bust," meaning that their ratings will take a significant jump in both current AND future at one time (booms and busts happen for veterans, and sometimes booms happen for Summer League players). "Booms" and "busts" are changes to the real, under-the-hood ratings. These two types are very rare, though. In the vast majority of cases (and I mean that it appears to be in 95-99% of players in FOF2K7), you see gradual unmasking, referred to as "creeping" by many vets, such as in every case above. Note that *none* of the players in this particular list were of the type that "boomed" or "busted." In other words, these guys were just "unmasked"--revealing who they really were relatively slowly over time.


SUMMER LEAGUE AND "BUSTING"
I've read a few comments that certain players have "busted" at summer league. I'm about 99.9% certain that this doesn't happen. What DOES happen, however is that, as mentioned above...

...the largest amount of "unmasking" after the rookie season takes place at the beginning of FA1 each year.

It so happens that this stage is right after players are sent to summer league. So, when your 22/55 2nd-year player comes back from summer league rated 22/51, it's not that he got worse, or that the drop in ratings that you see had *ANYTHING* to do with him going to summer league at all. It's simply that he was "unmasked" a little bit more and you're getting a better picture of who he really is. Now, if your 22/55 2nd-year player comes back from summer league 25/62 or something (very rare, but I've seen it happen twice to players on my teams in the 100-150 seasons I estimate I've played in SP in FOF2K7), I can only assume that's what the help file refers to as "he might become a better player entirely."

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Now, if your 22/55 2nd-year player comes back from summer league 25/62 or something (very rare, but I've seen it happen twice to players on my teams in the 100-150 seasons I estimate I've played in SP in FOF2K7), I can only assume that's what the help file refers to as "he might become a better player entirely."

This is pretty much what happened to Ray Gregg in FOFL. Given his combines though, I'm not convinced that this just wasn't an accelerated unmasking. Can't say for sure, but if the false positives are unmasked faster, the false negatives could be too (in general, seems that camp gives a boost to player experience). But like you say, tough to tell what might be summer movement and what is just regular unmasking. And random booms can't be ruled out either I guess.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

This is pretty much what happened to Ray Gregg in FOFL. Given his combines though, I'm not convinced that this just wasn't an accelerated unmasking. Can't say for sure, but if the false positives are unmasked faster, the false negatives could be too (in general, seems that camp gives a boost to player experience). But like you say, tough to tell what might be summer movement and what is just regular unmasking. And random booms can't be ruled out either I guess.

Well, the numbers I threw out there may have been a little low. Both cases were in now-deleted careers, so I can't say for certain, but I think I remember both guys going up 10-20 points in future--way more than any normal FA1-1 unmasking.

[Subby]

Imagine the reaction of someone drafting a DT at 1.30 and seeing them as 37/83 once they got on the roster, pre-camp. How does a player fall that far? Is the AI really that much better at drafting now?

[Ben E Lou]

Actually, Hutton made decent sense. His combines didn't look like those of an 83, and his adjusted rating was 5.6/6.1. The AI definitely took combines and adjusted ratings into account in 6.0e (and it appears it does in 6.1, too), so Hutton falling to late in the first round didn't raise a red flag. The AI's main problem in drafting in 6.0e is that it didn't seem to have a clue about no-combine guys. It appeared that it only took adjusted rating and maybe bars into account, so it was just a cakewalk easy to grab a no-combine guy like the VU 3.8/3.9 18/39-->61/61 CB I'm looking at right now in the 6th round.

[Warhammer]

And really how much of a bust is Hutton as a 64/64 guy at the end of the first round?

I think we as players need to start to wrap our heads around some of these guys. Just because someone is overrated and has the bars of a 99/99 guy, but he "busts" and winds up a 71/71 guy, that is not a bad player, or a bad pick wherever you get him.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, the numbers I threw out there may have been a little low. Both cases were in now-deleted careers, so I can't say for certain, but I think I remember both guys going up 10-20 points in future--way more than any normal FA1-1 unmasking.

Ok - went back to look at Gregg more closely. He was 33/52 in the file right after being sent to the summer league (same as in the coaching stage, and close to where he was drafted iirc). 3/5/2/2 on exp. In the file right after camp, he was at 52/68, with 3/7/4/3 exp. So no immediate boost, but it sure lead to one heck of a good camp.

[Sgran]

Skydog, What were the volatility ratings on those guys you listed? Is there a direct corellation between volatility and how much they deviate from their potential?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sgran

Skydog, What were the volatility ratings on those guys you listed? Is there a direct corellation between volatility and how much they deviate from their potential?

I stopped tracking volatility after a decade or so. It appears that it's still just part of the boom/bust factor--not part of the creeping equation.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I stopped tracking volatility after a decade or so. It appears that it's still just part of the boom/bust factor--not part of the creeping equation.

If you're right on two counts, that means we have a 1-100 rating for an event that affects 1-5% of the players in the game.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Sgran

If you're right on two counts, that means we have a 1-100 rating for an event that affects 1-5% of the players in the game.

I believe it's fair to say that by a few months after FOF2K4 was released, adding this rating to the mix, most of the vets had relegated volatility to a "tiebreaker," at the very best, if they didn't just ignore it completely.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I believe it's fair to say that by a few months after FOF2K4 was released, adding this rating to the mix, most of the vets had relegated volatility to a "tiebreaker," at the very best, if they didn't just ignore it completely.

To follow up on this, just to double-check this, I've tracked volatility ratings in my last six draft classes. There are 33 players--not the best sample size, but likely indicative of trends here. I'll just break them up into three roughly-equal-sized groups to represent players that change scouted ratings significantly, players that change moderately, and players that change very little:

GROUP 1: Gained or lost 6 points or more in initial training camp. Group size=10. Average volatility of this group is 44.6.

GROUP 2: Gained or lost 3 to 5 points in initial training camp. Group size=11. Average volatility of this group is 52.9.

GROUP 3: Gained or lost 0 to 2 points in intial training camp. Group size=12. Average volatility of this group is 57.3.

Again, the sample size is very small, given that we have a 0-100 range that appears extremely likely to be evenly distributed. (The standard deviation of the volatility of the full 33-player set is 30.) While I can't state it conclusively yet, I feel pretty confident that given a large enough sample size, we'd find that the average volatility of all three groups would be right around 50--indicating that it is no indicator whatsoever with regard to creeping. I suspect that volatility's use is exactly as it was when Jim first explained it:

Originally Posted by Jim Gindin, 11/14/2003 (the day after the release of FOF2K4, when this rating was new

"Volatility simply indicates how likely the player is to boom or bust. That's all there is to it."

[dj_morton]

What was the highest and lowest vol in each group?

Maybe you could take off the lowest and highest and put up another average. With a average of 44.6 a fluke guy with a 95 vol can really throw that # off.

[dj_morton]

What was the highest and lowest vol in each group?

Maybe you could take off the lowest and highest and put up another average. With a average of 44.6 a fluke guy with a 95 vol can really throw that # off.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dj_morton

What was the highest and lowest vol in each group?

Maybe you could take off the lowest and highest and put up another average. With a average of 44.6 a fluke guy with a 95 vol can really throw that # off.

Maybe I could, if I had any evidence whatsoever that volatility has anything to do with creeping. It was not the case in the beginning, and there's zero indication that it does, so I'm not spending any more time on it. I'm convinced enough of it that I'm no longer bothering to track the volatility of my draftees.

I say again:

Originally Posted by Jim Gindin, 11/14/2003 (the day after the release of FOF2K4, when this rating was new

Volatility simply indicates how likely the player is to boom or bust. That's all there is to it.

I say that statement is just as true nearly four years later as it was then.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yep. I've always kind of felt it was that way. The volatility rating is simply a modifier to the boom/bust roll for each draftee.

[Ben E Lou]

Bumping for an object lesson from WOOF, where FA2:3-5 was just completed.

Perhaps after this thread was originally posted (since it isn't referenced here, I assume this is the case), it was discovered that summer league changes actually show up after FA2:5 is completed. (So again, what you see in FA1:1 has nothing to do with summer league.) We just had two 2nd-year guys in WOOF come back from summer league with lower future, but higher current:

World Order Of Football Forum - View Single Post - FA2: 2021 FA2:3-5 Complete (Summer League Results Inside)

Pos	Player	Team	Cur1	Fut1	Cur2	Fut2	CURchg	FUTchg
RCB	Derrick Grams	Grand Junction Silverbacks	31	44	35	35	4	-9
SE	Ian Bradford	Raleigh Recalcitrants	32	44	33	33	1	-11

They didn't "lose points" in summer league. They just finished up (or nearly finished) their development, and therefore unmasked. The RAL receiver was showing 25/56-->26/49 in his initial TC, and then 32/49-->32/44 in FA1:1. We've seen this movie before. He was never better than ~33 future, just masked. So when he got to 33 current due to his summer league increase in experience, he was pretty much done, so all the green disappeared. He may gain another 2 or 3 current points or so, but that's it unless he gets the Volatility Stick Of Life at some point. But basically, his story is that he's now got full positional experience at both FL and SE, so we know pretty much who he is--a below average player.

The GRJ CB is the same song, different verse: showed 26/59-->28/50 in rookie TC, then 31/50-->31/44 in FA1:1. He got four more current points in summer league to get to full development, so the green went away, and now he's showing 35/35. Again, he might get a couple more points or so, but he's basically done developing.

In both cases, if they hadn't sent the guy to summer league, the only difference we'd see is that the 33/33 and 35/35 would have taken longer to show up. The guys' true future potentials were approx. 33 and 35 the day they were drafted. They haven't changed. They just unmasked. Hope this helps in understanding this mechanism a bit better.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Keep in mind that 6.3 removed the summer league bug, causing players to get more development in summer league. This also means that you'll see the full unmask happen more often than it used to.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Sgran

If you're right on two counts, that means we have a 1-100 rating for an event that affects 1-5% of the players in the game.

Based on what I know of 2k4 (much more so) and 2k7; I can say with 100% certainty that volatility has nothing to do with creeping.

That said, I actually think the boom/bust thing happens to everyone, just in different ranges. Every training camp, I think everyone (or, almost everyone) has some skill adjustment. We notice the big ones, in both directions, but there's a good bit of smaller levels of movement, sometimes in different directions than the creep. My theory is that there are basically four things that possibly affect overall rating in training camp:

- Gain of experience: Straightforward, % development increasing. Results in an increase in current. Can result in a significant decrease in visible potential when reaching 100% developed (similar to a creep).

- Aging: Straightforward. Starts as early as 5th season. Results in a decrease in current and potential.

- Creeping: It's important to note that this is not a change in actual ability, but a change in how the scouts see the player. Specifically, if you have a guy who is drafted at 30/50 and creeps to 33/55, it's not that he's gotten better, it's that the scouts are saying "Hey, having looked at him a little closer, he's better than we thought." He's still a 33/55 (or, more likely, a 40/60) behind the scenes. Results in either positive or negative movement of both current and potential visible ratings.

- Boom/Bust: This is where volatility comes into play. Higher volatility = higher chance of movement in either direction. Results in either positive or negative movement of both current and potential actual ratings.

[RedKingGold]

Ben & Celeval are the Lewis & Clark of FOF Knowledge.

Anyone who knows not what they are doing should heed their words.

[sawblade300]

This is the 1st I'm seeing of this thread. So my question, as someone new to the game, would be:

How do you determine those MaxCur/MaxFut ratings? Where do they come from and how do you know that's where they'll end up?

Is there any way to know these ratings when drafting a player? Or signing him in FA?

[Ben E Lou]

Those weren't "determined." I simply tracked the players and that's where they ended up.

[sawblade300]

Okay then. That answers my question. You can't know these numbers until a player has reached his potential. Correct?

So would it be safe to say that a player who goes plus/plus in TC year after year, will continue to climb and a player who goes plus/minus or minus/minus will not?

[Julio Riddols]

The plus/plus seen in creepers generally only happens in TC the first year. In subsequent years, the boost will be seen when the draft class is revealed. Sometimes those players still go up or down in TC, but that can be attributed to volatility, not natural progression.

[sawblade300]

Okay...so a guy could go plus/minus in TC, but still be considered a creeper. Yes?

[Julio Riddols]

Well, if he goes plus in his rookie year TC, then the next season when the draft class is revealed he goes up some more, you have a creeper. The only way a creeper goes down in his rookie year TC is if he gets hit with the volatility stick. It is very rare that a guy will take a big negative volatility hit in his rookie camp and rebound to become something useful.

Another pattern with a lot of creepers is they become "fully developed" before they hit their potential. (For example, when a guy who has been creeping starts a season at, say, 44/49 and eventually appears to top off at something like 46/46 - usually this happens in year 3 or later) The key to remember here is that if the guy was creeping prior to this, he will usually still continue to creep the following season.

[sawblade300]

Thanks for the explanation Julio

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by sawblade300

Okay...so a guy could go plus/minus in TC, but still be considered a creeper. Yes?

I guess a small example of this could be found here.

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/...?playerid=8799

This player had 4 red, 1 blue combines. But, if I recall correctly, he was a "fringe red" combiner, which means he wasn't off the charts great, but was good enough to have a red combine, but regardless.

I expected him to have a mega initial Camp, but was disappointed in a -1. But that doesn't mean he'll drop overall. But as you can see, he dipped 1 in TC, then over the years crept a bit.

Not a whole lot to gain from this, but it just illustrates that you can have a guy go neg in intial camp (even though it was only 1), and creep.