February 2008 Solecismic Q&A: Drafting Tips

[Ben E Lou]

As always, a big "thank you" to Jim for continuing to do these.

--Ben

1. When examining two players at the same position to draft, what are the most important overall factors in deciding which one to choose? Would you rather have a player with good bars and mediocre combine scores, or good combine scores and mediocre bars?

I look at combine scores first, as they correlate to a wider skill set. There's less chance that a player with a superior skill set will have misleading combine scores. Bars more confirm an assumption about a player. They tell me that good combines might give me a player with a specific individual skill I'm looking for.

I'd rather have the great combine score, all other factors being equal.

I don't as much choose between two players as I examine my roster before the draft and choose specific skills I'd like to improve. For instance, I might look at my offensive line and think that I really need to find someone I can run behind in a couple of years. So then I focus on finding an offensive lineman with good combines whose bars indicate can run block.

I also look for potential affinities and conflicts. I like having a team that gets along well, so it's a bonus for me to find a good player who will like his position leader. In that respect, I'm often looking at two or three players at entirely different positions when it comes time to draft in a specific slot. It seems I'm rarely deciding between two at the same position, as everyone looks so different.

In later rounds, I like to draft players with high volatility.



2. We've read that height and weight matter to some extent. Anything to look for with height and weight when drafting, such as do tall defensive linemen block more passes, or tall wide receivers catch more, or heavy defensive linemen stop the run better but get tired easily?

With weight, a player close to the ideal weight for his position will perform better (100% of his real ratings) in most areas than someone who is too heavy or too light. The difference, however, is very slight, as players can't move to positions they're ill-suited to play because of their weight. This does not affect quarterbacks, punters, kickers and cornerbacks. I honestly don't remember why I excluded cornerbacks specifically.

Same for height, except the cases are much more limited. Height matters most for quarterbacks, and slightly for receivers, defensive linemen, cornerbacks and safeties.

In the future, I hope this mechanism becomes a lot more sophisticated, applying to specific skills rather than simply any area determined to be more a physical skill than an experience skill (I'll leave that particular follow-up for another time).



3. What role does the scout play in identifying players to draft?

The skill bars, as always, are seen through his eyes. The scouting error is larger with potential draftees, so a scout's skill with a position group is very important.



4. What do the "Underrated/Overrated/As Scouted/Hard To Read" tags mean? Are they relative to the bars, the overall bureau rating, or something else?

These relate to the skill bars. A "very underrated" player likely has true ratings that are significantly better than the bars indicate. The better the scout, the more likely this is a correct impression. Now I realize that doesn't necessarily make sense. Why doesn't the scout just change his bars after an interview? I wanted a permanent record of the interview process, so you could go back, see who you looked at, and quickly revisit the thought process behind interviewing. Given the scouting mechanism, anything else would result in a "tell" that other teams could pick up on.

[adubroff]

In later rounds, I like to draft players with high volatility

I find that one interesting since I almost never pay much attention to this Being a single player only guy, I often find later round guys who seem to provide so much value from an athletic/combine standpoint, that I don't really care whether or not they have the volatility to boom.

[StLee]

I've only attempted two single player drafts so far, but the guys I aimed for on second day picks (rounds five through seven, in particular) are guys with high special teams and kick/punt return ratings. Special teams is an integral part of a successful team, and why not look for RBs, WRs, TEs, LBs, and DBs who have good special teams acumen in the late rounds.

[QuikSand]

With weight, a player close to the ideal weight for his position will perform better (100% of his real ratings) in most areas than someone who is too heavy or too light. The difference, however, is very slight, as players can't move to positions they're ill-suited to play because of their weight. This does not affect quarterbacks, punters, kickers and cornerbacks. I honestly don't remember why I excluded cornerbacks specifically.

How 'bout that.

[Ben E Lou]

Ideal weight, and not ideal BMI?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Good point. I pay attention to BMI, but I'm starting to think I shouldn't bother.

Anyways, Great Job Jim. These are the kind of things that some of us are looking for and make the game more enjoyable. For instance, you've included height and weight in the game, but frankly I didn't pay that much attention to it, but now I will more so because I "sort of" know how it works. So, your work on adding that to the game will actually be used and enjoyed by players. And it's an example of nothing that really could ever be tested.

It would be great with any new FOF game or patch, to include the Q&A's you've been doing over the last little bit in the help file, even if you just cut and paste them into a Q&A section in the help file. Something to think about doing anyways.

[Icy]

Good read, i think i have been paying too much atention to the bars when i should do to combine.

[Dunleavy]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

As always, a big "thank you" to Jim for continuing to do these.

--Ben

1. When examining two players at the same position to draft, what are the most important overall factors in deciding which one to choose? Would you rather have a player with good bars and mediocre combine scores, or good combine scores and mediocre bars?

I look at combine scores first, as they correlate to a wider skill set. There's less chance that a player with a superior skill set will have misleading combine scores. Bars more confirm an assumption about a player. They tell me that good combines might give me a player with a specific individual skill I'm looking for.

I'd rather have the great combine score, all other factors being equal.

i always wondered this with the combine. say an OL has a 31 Strg, thats a "blue" score, the next OL has a 30 Strg, thats a "black" score. what's the significance of that one bench press between the two players. is it simply 1v1 with the latter player unlucky to be right at the cut off or does the color system speak to a significant, or semi significant bump in talent

[MrDNA]

So if Player A and Player B have nearly identical combines and scout impressions, but Player A has better bars, does this give him a leg up on being a better pro, or are the bars essentially a no-count in this situation?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ideal weight, and not ideal BMI?

Yeah, I'm confused about that also.

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ideal weight, and not ideal BMI?

The way I am reading this is:

QB - Height
RB - Weight
FB - Weight
Offensive Linemen - Weight
Defensive Linemen - BMI
CB - Height
S - BMI
P - Doesn't matter
K - Doesn't matter

Yet he is saying it is only slightly affects if they reach their potential rating.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

The way I am reading this is:

QB - Height
RB - Weight
FB - Weight
Offensive Linemen - Weight
Defensive Linemen - BMI
CB - Height
S - BMI
P - Doesn't matter
K - Doesn't matter

Yet he is saying it is only slightly affects if they reach their potential rating.

...but that would at least suggest that an under-weight and under-height player at, say, DE, would be fine, since his BMI might work out to pretty close to ideal for the position. That's a very different thing than saying that weight matters and height matters (which is how I read things, as they stand).

[Antmeister]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

...but that would at least suggest that an under-weight and under-height player at, say, DE, would be fine, since his BMI might work out to pretty close to ideal for the position. That's a very different thing than saying that weight matters and height matters (which is how I read things, as they stand).

Oops, yep you're right. So actually it should read weight/height and not BMI. Will change that.

[Antmeister]

So I guess it should read more like this

QB - Ideal Height
RB - Ideal Weight
FB - Ideal Weight
Offensive Linemen - Ideal Weight
Defensive Linemen - Ideal Weight/Height
LB - Ideal Weight
CB - Ideal Height
S - Ideal Weight/Height
P - Doesn't matter
K - Doesn't matter

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by MrDNA

So if Player A and Player B have nearly identical combines and scout impressions, but Player A has better bars, does this give him a leg up on being a better pro, or are the bars essentially a no-count in this situation?

If you get the same combines and scout impressions then that suggests the guy with the better bars is more likely to pan out better. For example if the scout thinks both players are "as scouted" then you'd want the guy who is scouted as better (ie has better bars). [standard proviso] Although you want to look at the combines and compare it with what the bars are telling you[/standard proviso]

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

If you get the same combines and scout impressions then that suggests the guy with the better bars is more likely to pan out better. For example if the scout thinks both players are "as scouted" then you'd want the guy who is scouted as better (ie has better bars). [standard proviso] Although you want to look at the combines and compare it with what the bars are telling you[/standard proviso]

I'm not sure how you could logically argue it was the otherway around...so I agree!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Antmeister

So I guess it should read more like this

QB - Ideal Height
RB - Ideal Weight
FB - Ideal Weight
Offensive Linemen - Ideal Weight
Defensive Linemen - Ideal Weight/Height
LB - Ideal Weight
CB - Ideal Height
S - Ideal Weight/Height
P - Doesn't matter
K - Doesn't matter

If this is the case, then why even have a BMI?

[QuikSand]

Let's say that you buy the general concept that, for example, an underweight DL will get pushed around a bit, and will be less effective against the run. Seems to me, there are two ways to deal with that in a game like this (specifically, a game that has result-oriented ratings like “run defense” rather than component ratings like strength and agility, etc.

#1 – generate the player’s weight (and height) early in the player creation process, and have those variables play some role in governing what the player’s eventual rating will be for something like “run defense”

#2 – use things like height and weight to add an extra modifier on top of the apparent rating for something like “run defense” – meaning that of two DEs each with an identical “run defense” rating of 80, the guy weighing 290 will actually be better against the run then the other guy weighting 255

It certainly seems like FOF has gone with approach #2 above… which I philosophically dislike. I don’t like the fact that, in this case, the rating labeled “run defense” doesn’t mean run defense, it means more like “run defense for a guy of his size.” Even if these effects are small (which it appears they are, but absent much testing, it’s hard to reach any firm conclusion) it’s still disconcerting that the ratings we see, with names that really suggest that they are the distillation of all the relevant component skills… are instead themselves just a component and it’s up to us to sort out how good the player really is at various things.

[Hammer]

How do the historical guys fit into this? Are 250 lbs lineman like Randy White or Dwight Stephenson having their weight count against them?

[Dutch]

If I'm not mistaken, it used to be #1. I am almost certain I remember reading feedback from Jim quite a while ago that suggested the reason height and weight didn't matter was because the scout ratings were absolute and if they were different at all, it was relative to what position a player played.

That's now changed somewhat and probably due to the additional complexity of FOF2k7 over earlier versions. The game asks for us to do weight gain/loss...it should have some effect...and having the absolute ratings change would give too much away as to what effect the weight gain/loss really had.

[Subby]

I like how this is a puzzle we get to solve piece by piece over the course of years!

SUCK IT, EASY-TO-SOLVE GAMES!