FOF2004 - Scouting margin of error?

[MIJB#19]

Here's my example that started my wondering.
I play in the IHOF. My team lacks a QB rated above 50 in potential and so I pick one with the #31 overall pick in the 2005 draft, Leonard Lyon. My scout rates him about 25/55 at that moment. When he joins the roster, he goes to ratings of around 25/50. During the 2005 season, Lyon sees an increase of about 10 points in experience.
My scout is average in QBs, good in young talent.
He ranks Lyon 1st in current amongst his class at season end (surpassed the #1 who was backip up an All League caliber QB). He also ranks 3rd in potential.

In the 2006 offseason, I hire the best scout out there with excellent in QBs, very good in young talent. Lyon had just gone to scouted overall rating about 35/55 going into the new season. My new scout comes in and says Lyon is nothing more then a 35/40 guy. Ouch!

I go to the recommend screen and he ranks about 9th in 2005 class QBs in potential, still 1st in experience...

In a wild sense of, "Shit, this guy is a bust!" I trade Lyon to the team that really wanted to pick Lyon about 5 picks later in that 2005 draft. In return, I get their 2005 class QB Mel Atkins, who was ranked at around 15/40 at that moment and just one spot below Lyon in the recommend screen in potential. The owner of that team claims his excellent scout downgraded Atkins significantly after coming onto his team and he calls Atkins a bust. As you can understand, I thought I had an excellent scout at that moment and one who at hat moment seemed to call them almost on par in potential.

So we trade and as soon as the trade is done, Atkins goes to about 15/25 on my roster, while Lyon is back up to 35/55. I'm like "WTF?"

Then, I draft this QB rated about 20/65 in the 2006 draft, called Louie Flannery.

When he enters my roster, Flannery drops to 20/55, making me almost get mad again. This time, I realize my excellent scout has revealed Flannery's true identity and only the potential is inflated. Atkins is all of a sudden a 20/35 guy, Lyon a 30/50 guy.

The freaky part is that my scout increases the ratings of rookie DL players compared to the far away ratings.

Now, the big question arises:
Why are the ratings dropping 10 points when I get a better scout? Does it mean that every young QB has inflated potential ratings and only an excellent scout can reveal it, but only as they enter my roster?
Does it mean I shouldn't read too much to the recommend screen and just add 10 points to my guy in potential to see where he should really rank?

But now comes te strategy question:
Would it be better to have an average scout? That way your scout makes the same mistake as he does with looking to the guys from a distance and yet it seems you know better how your guy compares with players elsewhere.

It also seems poor/fair scouts upgrade players on other teams' rosters compred to my excellent scouts assesment in the same area.

Additionally, it only seems to hit the potential ratings, the current ratings seem to remain as they were before entering the roster.

Any thoughts / feedback / ideas / observations / experiences to share?

[QuikSand]

I'm not sure how much I have to add to all that, but I'll toss up a general comment and a specific one.

General: It seems like a better scout is less liekly to fall for the potential ratings for players who will never really get there. That might help to explain part of what you're seeing with the QBs coming onto and off of your roster here. My best guess is that all of them are pretty phony.

Specific: My IHOF scout isn't all that great, but I didn't much care for either of the rookie QBs Lyon or Flannery, and I'm not surprised that they are both looking a bit tarnished at this point. I realize the upside of getting a highly-rated QB is extremely tempting, but there is certainly a major downside as well.

[gstelmack]

The scouting algorithm definitely rates players differently on your roster vs. off your roster. I think this is part of the "as soon as I make a draft pick, his ratings change" issue, and definitely happens with free agents. I understand a bit of the "you get a more accurate view when you get a closer look", but this doesn't explain why they change back once off your roster or traded to someone else.

To add to all the conspiracy theories: this is one reason why I think FOF2k5/FOF6 may be a likely next target for Jim. With all the multiplayer leagues having slowed down the pace of the game to the point that everyone is now taking highly detailed looks at their players, design decisions made on things like the scouting routines that were based on "nobody is looking THAT closely at these guys as they blow through a season a night" are becoming invalidated.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The scouting algorithm definitely rates players differently on your roster vs. off your roster. I think this is part of the "as soon as I make a draft pick, his ratings change" issue, and definitely happens with free agents. I understand a bit of the "you get a more accurate view when you get a closer look", but this doesn't explain why they change back once off your roster or traded to someone else.

Actually, it does exactly - the scouting algorithm doesn't take history into account. So if Player A is on your team, you get the slightly more accurate (?) view. If Player A is on the other team (or a free agent, or a draftee), you get a slightly less accurate view.

Kevin

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Actually, it does exactly - the scouting algorithm doesn't take history into account. So if Player A is on your team, you get the slightly more accurate (?) view. If Player A is on the other team (or a free agent, or a draftee), you get a slightly less accurate view.

Sorry, what I meant by "doesn't explain" was more a real-world example. It makes sense that once you get a closer look at a player, you get a better view of his ability, but it does not make sense that once he's gone you have the same less accurate view again. I know the game does not take history into account, I'm just pointing out that that is a weakness that is being magnified by the way players are now playing the game.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not sure how much I have to add to all that, but I'll toss up a general comment and a specific one.

General: It seems like a better scout is less liekly to fall for the potential ratings for players who will never really get there. That might help to explain part of what you're seeing with the QBs coming onto and off of your roster here. My best guess is that all of them are pretty phony.

Specific: My IHOF scout isn't all that great, but I didn't much care for either of the rookie QBs Lyon or Flannery, and I'm not surprised that they are both looking a bit tarnished at this point. I realize the upside of getting a highly-rated QB is extremely tempting, but there is certainly a major downside as well.

I think you're not getting my point in the specific case here, QS.

My point is that it seems to me now, the only time where the skill level of you scout will have a benefit is when the player is already on your team, after you fell for the inflated potentials.

Now, to me a new question arises: Do all young QBs have these +10 inflated potentials, making it easy to just substract 10 points of the overall potential, or is it just a case of bad luck with a small sample?

I mean, what's the benefit of having an excellent scout if you know the player will reach the potential -10 of the "far away" scouted ratings. I haven't checked the difference in off-roster players in ratings changes, though, maybe I should do that first with the IHOF as my simple example.

Sidenote: with my drafting of Flannery I took into account he could see a 10-point hit in potential, the fact that he's not seeming to lose current skills makes clear to me he'll be the QB I needed. I'm not making a case for my mistake, I'm trying to start a discussion on what the benefit is to have an excellent scout if you don't see the effect after you've already been mislead by the off-roster overall ratings.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The scouting algorithm definitely rates players differently on your roster vs. off your roster. I think this is part of the "as soon as I make a draft pick, his ratings change" issue, and definitely happens with free agents. I understand a bit of the "you get a more accurate view when you get a closer look", but this doesn't explain why they change back once off your roster or traded to someone else.

Jim explained this over at the IHOF boards, but to me it still doesn't explain why an excellent scout makes a bigger adjustment then a average scout. Shouldn't the excellent scout see it coming before the guy comes on roster, or is the level of skill of the scout useless until you get the guy on your roster?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Jim explained this over at the IHOF boards,

Anyone want to bring that post over for those of us who don't regularly check the IHOF boards?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Anyone want to bring that post over for those of us who don't regularly check the IHOF boards?

I'll try to dig it up.
Don't be too thrilled though, it was more sort of a vague discription of why the scouting reports change once players enter the roster.

[MIJB#19]

I found the thread: http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1139
Since the discussion starts with pics, it's tough to copy and paste it all.

This discussion is part of my earlier theory that having an excellent scout makes you feel robbed, compared to having an average scout, who gives the same report as other off-roster scouts do.

[Buzzbee]

Just curious. Did the last post by Jim in the linked thread lead anyone else to believe that there might be a bug?

Well, that won't work. His scout is excellent and mine is average in the secondary. But the difference shows up more once the player is on his team.

That's probably backward from what it should be, but that's what we're dealing with for now. This league does help me understand how the game should evolve.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

To add to all the conspiracy theories: this is one reason why I think FOF2k5/FOF6 may be a likely next target for Jim. With all the multiplayer leagues having slowed down the pace of the game to the point that everyone is now taking highly detailed looks at their players, design decisions made on things like the scouting routines that were based on "nobody is looking THAT closely at these guys as they blow through a season a night" are becoming invalidated.

Originally Posted by Buzzbee quoting Jim

This league does help me understand how the game should evolve.

Nice to see evidence backing up my theory

[Subby]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Nice to see evidence backing up my theory

There is no better beta-testing for a sports-based text sim than hyper-competitive multiplayer leagues...

[Goose]

I'm relatively new to the game so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. First of all, the current/future numbers you see at the draft screen often differ from the current/future numbers once the draft pick gets onto your roster. I believe that's where the gray bars come in. I also seem to remember that even the same scout often gives out different future ratings either from season to season or even in the same season. I'm guessing it's because in reality, future success is hard to predict.

The most important factor is the fact that the current ratings did not change. When I see a young player with 35/40 ratings, I see a potential break out player especially when I know the player has had higher future ratings before. With proper development, you'll probably see a 55/55 player in the future perhaps even better. A breakout player has his future ratings increase along with his current abilities and so the future rating can be readjusted.

I drafted a T with around a 20/90+ rating. Even in his first season he held onto the future rating. I don't remember whether I changed scouts or not, but all I know is that despite giving him lots of starts and playing time, he didn't really develop and around the next season or so his future dropped to 53. I started him in his 2nd season but he made very little progress. After that he played in every game but played limited minutes as a backup. His current rating is 42/53 and in his 6th season. I assume he'll end up as a 53/53 player if he starts again.

I find that future ratings change but slow progress (even with tons of playing time) is usually more indicative of the direction the player is going. I usually start my high draft picks. Take draft picks with 40s-50s/80 ratings (ie. ready for prime time studs) and high physical numbers. Those who make rapid progress usually reach their original projections. Those who make slower progress usually end up having their original future projections lowered (say from 80 down to high 60s and 70s).

So you probably did give up on your QB too early. If you started him every game and after he gained only a few points in his first season not to mention 2-3 seasons then he'll probably end up being a 40 guy if lucky. But if you started him, he probably would probably be at least in the 30s by the end of his first season which would probably mean that the 55 future rating was more accurate.

[MIJB#19]

Something to add to the discussion.

The scout is in Young talent = very good, receivers = good, defensive linemen = very good.

I have a very good tight end and defensive tackle on the team, who are in their fourth and fifth year respectively. Both are maxed out in overall ratings, yet the scouting report still shows little green areas to improve. Volatility is low (26) and very low (9). This top scout downgraded the defensive tackle when coming on the team by about 10 points, but now that the player reached his potential, his current and potential figure are increasing every second week like the average young player in a developement friendly enviroment.

So, the scout is much better than the old, yet the old scout had a better assesement of how good the player's potential is, so I assume now. It almost makes me think that excellent and poor scouting are reversed.

[jfbbis]

It almost makes me think that excellent and poor scouting are reversed.

It's funny because I have the same gut feeling about coaches injury avoidance rating...

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Something to add to the discussion.

The scout is in Young talent = very good, receivers = good, defensive linemen = very good.

I have a very good tight end and defensive tackle on the team, who are in their fourth and fifth year respectively. Both are maxed out in overall ratings, yet the scouting report still shows little green areas to improve. Volatility is low (26) and very low (9). This top scout downgraded the defensive tackle when coming on the team by about 10 points, but now that the player reached his potential, his current and potential figure are increasing every second week like the average young player in a developement friendly enviroment.

So, the scout is much better than the old, yet the old scout had a better assesement of how good the player's potential is, so I assume now. It almost makes me think that excellent and poor scouting are reversed.

Accoridng to my scout, both the TE and DT have surpassed their initial potential of 68/70 and 77/77 and have hit 78/78 and 82/82 as current/future figures. The TE has no green left anymore, the DT does.

Meanwhile, the QB that was supposed to be rated around 20/55 has reached around 40/55 with a lot of playing time and mentorship of another quarterback. Right now, based on the scouting of the TE and DT, I suspect that the QB will hit around 65/65 at the end of his second season.

To be continued?

[MIJB#19]

Something to add to the mentioned TE and DT:

In the recommend scouting reports, the 4th year TE shows up as 79/79 and between 81/81 and 77/77 rated players on the current value rankings. In the future potential rankings, however, he's showing up as 79/79 between 74/74 and 69/69 rated players.

The 5th year DT is rated 83/83 in current value between 85/87 and 80/81 guys. In the future potential list, he's ranked between a 74/75 and 74/74 guy.


Interesting to say the least...

[MIJB#19]

And then the latest patch, including a fix in the scouting department, makes this whole topic worthless...

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

And then the latest patch, including a fix in the scouting department, makes this whole topic worthless...

MIJB - I was just wondering, did the patch make a big difference in the scouting of your players? Big jumps? Or, did your view of other teams change?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

MIJB - I was just wondering, did the patch make a big difference in the scouting of your players? Big jumps? Or, did your view of other teams change?

Well, the changes on roster are pretty significant, but those to players not on roster didn't change much, if I recall correctly.

Flannery moved from the 45/55 range to 45/65 range. The elite TE Reiser and DT Gomez are now actually recommended just as scouted.
Also, my MLB Cluff went from around 100 to 80 potential in run stopping and my CB Wayne who was listed at 100 potential in zone defense lost about 15 points there and has returned to being best rated in man-to-man defense of the coverage ratings.

Basically, all the big changes due to coming on roster have changed back to how players looked off roster.

Edit: The crucial part I failed to mention is that only the potentials of ratings have changed. That's true for both overall ratings and the seperate skills.

[Buzzbee]

Thanks for sharing that. Sounds as if the 'scout bias' has been corrected.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Thanks for sharing that. Sounds as if the 'scout bias' has been corrected.

That's been my impression as well.
The ultimate test would be to have an excellent scout and then switching to a poor scout and see the differences. (No, not going to test that in the IHOF now that I've got an elite scout... )