Importance Of Each Staff Rating: Correlations Of Staff Attributes To Suitability

[Ben E Lou]

Note that this is looking at correlations to the Suitability Rating, not necessarily the performance of the staff members. That said, the AI appears to make its staff draft picks based heavily (if not completely) on suitability, and a stated goal of FOF7 was to make a tougher AI, so it would stand to reason that Jim put at least some effort into making the Suitability rating based on the relative importance of the attributes. The sample size may grow, but for now, here's an examination of a staff file containing approximately 3800 staff members, 2800 HC/AC guys, 1600 OCs, 1200 DCs, and 1000 SCs.

ROLE	PlayerDev	YoungPlayerDev	Motivation	Discipline	PlayCall	Strength	Conditioning	Intelligence	Scouting	Interviewing
HC	0.5284	0.4187	0.7254	0.4808	0.3177	0.0000	0.0000	0.0341	0.4162	0.3852
OC	0.7206	0.7839	0.0458	0.0301	0.5700	0.0000	0.0000	0.1388	0.7258	0.1189
DC	0.7583	0.7821	0.0555	0.1069	0.5775	0.0000	0.0000	0.0918	0.7444	0.0981
AC	0.6926	0.9057	0.0611	0.0934	0.3466	0.0000	0.0000	0.1523	0.6273	0.1695
SC	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.7541	0.8232	0.0557	0.0000	0.0000

Some immediate observations:

• It may have to do with FOF simply generating "good coaches" and "bad coaches," but it's at least interesting to note that playcalling comes up with a decent correlation for HC and AC.
• Motivation is clearly the strongest factor in the HC suitability rating.
• This makes it appear that HC is the only role where interviewing is important.
• I can't help but notice how low scouting comes up for HC.
• Not surprisingly, OC and DC appear to be identical.
• Player dev and young player dev come up quite high for OC/DC/AC--higher than play calling and very close to scouting.
• Overall, I get the sense from this that the intended effect is that coordinators scout rookies, and head coaches interview them.

[aston217]

Is scouting very low for HCs? It seems more like HCs have a lot of factors. There's motivation up top, but the rest aren't very far from each other.

I think we recently decided that your coordinators' interview abilities decide the width of the rookie bars (Scouting Bar Question - Front Office Football Central. Does that need to be looked at again, or...? That seems pretty solid. "Suitability rating not necessarily performance" is probably something to bear in mind here. And maybe the width of those bars is not something Jim considers a big deal, at least relative to in-game effects. Personally I am much more comfortable with narrow bars and figure that players are all going to develop eventually, anyway...

Looks like not even the Suitability Rating can really distinguish between "player development" and "young player development" :-)

[garion333]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

[*]Overall, I get the sense from this that the intended effect is that coordinators scout rookies, and head coaches interview them.

Which is fantastic to know and explains why my rookie bars tend to be more obscured than I would expect as I focus a bit more on play calling with them.

[Dutch]

Seeing a few questions on this. Bumping this as I hope this is still valuable info to have for FOF9.

[Gallifrey]

Good finds. I had been looking at this but get distracted by the overwhelming abundance of talent in the draft pools.

[OmniActual]

Ancient post I realize, but wanted to thank OP for this chart. Super helpful.