FOF2K4 Volatility Rating. How do you use it now?

[Ben E Lou]

Early on, the prevailing theory was "low volatility in the early rounds, high volatility in the late rounds." The logic behind this was that one should increase their chances of finding a boom in the late rounds by grabbing high volatility guys, and decrease the chances of an early-round bust by avoiding the high volatility guys then. I'm curious how people feel about this theory. On a broader scale, how does everyone look at the volatility rating now that many of you have had the game for several months?

[Ben E Lou]

I'll answer first:

Over time, I know I have moved away from the "low early, high late" theory fairly significantly. In fact, I think the pendulum has swung so far that I virtually ignore the volatility rating. For example, I just used a 1(16) pick in the dynasty I'm chronicling on a guy with volatilty of 95, and realized that I didn't really even give his volatility a second look.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

In case you looked at the link and you're confused about the 1(16) pick comment in my last post, I haven't posted the draft yet fromt he current season (2016). I'm about to make my 2nd round pick right now. FWIW, the 95 volatility guy I picked at 1(16) went from 25/64 to 25/67 right outta the box.

[The_herd]

I really don't use volatility that much and really never did. I played through 2 seasons today and in the 2 drafts I participated in I volatility only played a roll in 2 picks. The 1st was a RB I took in the 4th round with nice combine numbers and high volatility. He turned out to be a decent backup, and a bit better than I expected. The other was QB I taken in the 3rd round. Its my belief that when taking a QB that isn't expected to be anything more than a backup, take the one with the best comination of combine number/high volatility. I have never, ever passed on guy that I really wanted take because of volatility.

[Dutch]

I ran a "Skydog" Styled Study on 14 players in consecutive drafts. I rated their initial potential and their volatility (among everything else) and then ran them through the gauntlet of about 9 years. Nothing significant occured based on volatility.

1st round

Ellis Griffin, QB 77 Vol -- 27/56 overall -- 5 years later 42/42
David Hudson LCB 84 Vol -- 20/72 overall -- 5 years later 72/72

2nd round

Mickey Logan, LG 92 Vol -- 6/55 overall -- 5 years later 15/18 then retired
Harvey Lake, RCB 90 Vol -- 18/55 overall -- 5 years later 28/28

3rd round

Sammy Newman, SS/PR, Vol 19 -- 21/51 overall -- 5 years later 30/30 retired
Leland Bertola, FB, 67 Vol -- 34/75 overall -- 5 years later 68/68

4th round

Byron Jones, RT, 83 Vol -- 10/49 overall -- 5 years - 48/48 overall
Jason Page, C, 13 Vol --   11/57 overall --  5 years later 14/30 (left team)

5th round

Irving Allen, LT, 83 Vol -- 12/48 overall -- 5 years later 34/34 overall
Albert Stitt, QB, 27 Vol -- 16/48 overall -- 5 years later 28/34 (left team)

6th round

Donald Bishop, RDT, 14 Vol -- 12/40 overall -- 5 years later 27/29 overall
Raymond Turner, SS, 53 Vol -- 16/47 overall -- 5 years later 56/56 overall

7th round

Roosevelt McConnell, C, 78 Vol -- 10/46 overall -- 37/37 overall
Sammie Gomez, MLB, 76 Vol -- 8/37 overall -- 15/27 retired

I finally was bored of tracking very uninteresting looking stats. I couldn't see anything of ground breaking value. My only player that did anything truly amazing was my 6th rounder who ammounted to everything and more than our original scouting suggested....and his volatility was 53....go figure!

[cthomer5000]

tiebreaker/border on ignoring it.

[randal7]

I picked tiebreaker as well. I'm too lazy to do a serious study, but my anecdotal observation is that combine scores is the main indicator. I've never had a guy with killer combine scores fall very far short of his projections. I mostly use volatility in later rounds. Guys with above average combine scores but lower (in the green range) ratings are the ones who seem to boom/bust with higher volatilities. Players with low volatilities seem to always wind up very near their original projections, so low volatilities are useful in picking middle round players.

BTW, Skydog, it's about time you continued that dynasty.

[Darkiller]

for me that's answer #2:
" I weigh it pretty much equally with blue bars, combine scores and % developed. "

[gstelmack]

The most I'll ever use it for is a late-round low-rated guy with high combine numbers. I MIGHT use it as a tie-breaker if I find two such guys, where in this case I want a high volatility. But combine scores are a better indicator in this case.

[Ben E Lou]

Bump. The response to this has been pathetic. This should generate some good discussion, and really even for multiplayer "secrecy" issues this should be a non-factor. The opponents in your multiplayer league have all looked at enough drafts to have formed their own impressions, that won't be changed by you saying how you do it.

[3ric]

Put me in the "equally with blue bars, combine scores and % developed" camp, to see high volatility in combination with very good combine numbers and a high development percentage is to me a sure sign of a great pick. This actually means I spend less time analyzing the bars, since they might as well be misleading considering my scout's ability and the volatility involved. I didn't have a great turnout in the latest draft, but I did pick up an OLB in the fifth round that was a lot better than advertised.

[kcchief19]

Here's something to add to the discussion. To expand the question, how do you use volatility AFTER the draft?

Obviously we all see the immediate boom/busts. On my team right now, I have first round running back who was an 85 future who "busted" to 65 and is a fine back, but not the stud he was projected to be. On the other hand, I have a tackle I took in the sixth round who was 14/36 and immediately went to 21/53. He's progressed nicely and in his third-year I'm going to let him start at RT and he's 37/56.

My question is about QB Barry Hicks. I signed him as an undrafted FA after the draft on an experiment. His blue bars belied a slightly better player than his scouted rating numbers and his volatility was 99. I decided to take a flier on him. He was 8/30 at the time.

Now, my experience has almost always been that young QBs with low ratings play like that. They might get lucky and have a good day here and there, but generally they play very poorly.

In his rookie season, Hicks played most of the last exhibition game after the No. 2 QB played a couple of series. He went 22 of 24 for 185 yards, one TD and one INT. I am working on emulating the Chiefs offense, so high passing percentages are not uncommon. My starter typically averages in the high 60s. He didn't play again last season.

This year, I'm trying to give him a bit more playing time to see what he has. In our first exhibition game, he went 4 of 5 for 40 yards in a mop up roll at the end of the game. In our second game, split time with my No. 2 and went 8 of 13 for 125 yards and two TDs.

In three career exhibition games, he is 34 of 42 for 350 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT. Right now, he is 11/29 and if you look at this bars, he's horrible.

Has anyone else experienced this kind of production predicting a ratings boom? Obviously we've seen players outplay their ratings for periods of time, and I'm not ready to call this guy the next Brett Favre because he looked like Matt Hasselback used to look in Packers exhibition games. But I've never seen a player with ratings this low produced like he has, even in a short period of time.

I'm going to let him start our exhibition game and play a lot. Now that I've mentioned this, he'll probably throw six picks.

[kcchief19]

Well, he didn't do that bad. In our third exhibition game where he started, he went 14-26, 100 yards, one TD and one pick. Not horrible, definitely great. Still probably better than his ratings. In our final exhibition game, he went 18-27, 168 yards, 1 TD, 2 picks. He's a roll-out QB and ran 4 times for 18 yards to boot.

At the end of the exhibition season, he's now 12/29. His bars have ticked a little, but he still looks bad. I'd love to give this guy some playing time to see if he booms, but my team is the defending champs and I have a solid QB in front of him. I wanted to test him out last year, but the wild card from my division went 13-3 and I had to win in week 17 to get to 14-2 to get home field and not end up in the wild card myself. Not exactly the place for young Barry Hicks.

[korme]

I'm pretty much learning from Mike Brown. I just see high volatality on the player I want, cross my fingers, close my eyes, pick him and hope he doesn't bust.

[Coffee Warlord]

High rounds, it's a tiebreaker. All other things being dead ass equal, I'll take a lower volatility player first. Mid-Low rounds, I rarely even pay attention to it. Occaisonally I'll glance, usually I don't care.

Undrafted FA's is pretty much the only place where I'm really looking at volatility (in this case, high volatility.)

[CraigSca]

Wow - interesting story, KCChiefs. Sounds a lot like AJ Feeley - did very well in backup situations but...

[damnMikeBrown]

Originally Posted by Shorty3281

I'm pretty much learning from Mike Brown. I just see high volatality on the player I want, cross my fingers, close my eyes, pick him and hope he doesn't bust.

That's a blatant fabrication. I never crossed my fingers before I closed my eyes.

[DaddyTorgo]

tie-breaker. I have been known to shy away from picking high-volatility players extremely high in the first round, but I would never pick a worse player with lower volatility at the same position, usually I'd just move to the second position on my need list. Later round I tend to go after the guys with more volatility, especially if my team is fairly well stocked, looking for a breakout player. I think combine scores (particularly intelligence) are more important to me than volatility in general.

[Dutch]

Maybe he's Scott Mitchell in a great system?

[flere-imsaho]

I picked Option #2. Here's how I use it:

Fully-Developed Players (all red bars, no green)

Ignore it. I figure just about as much will happen to these turkeys as everyone else, from year to year.

Still-Developing Players with Over 3 Years Experience

I'll use it as a tiebreaker only. For a backup/special teams person I'll pick the guy with high volatility, for a starter person I'll probably pick the guy with the low volatility, depending on how much he's already developed.

Undrafted Rookie FAs, & FAs of under 3 Years Experience

High Volatility where possible. Low risk, high reward.

Draft: 1st-3rd Rounders

Mostly I like to go with lower volatility. But if the guy's a monster, and it's a position of need, I'll cross my fingers and go with it. See my SP dynasty for examples.

Draft: 4th-7th Rounders

Mostly high volatility, based on the low risk, high reward mindset. However, if I'm looking for a single-faceted player (say a DT who's great at Run D but sucks everywhere else), I'll go for low volatility, so that the one rating I need from him has a high chance of staying there. I consider these rounds more-or-less a crapshoot anyway....

[jetpunk2000]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Well, he didn't do that bad. In our third exhibition game where he started, he went 14-26, 100 yards, one TD and one pick. Not horrible, definitely great. Still probably better than his ratings. In our final exhibition game, he went 18-27, 168 yards, 1 TD, 2 picks. He's a roll-out QB and ran 4 times for 18 yards to boot.

At the end of the exhibition season, he's now 12/29. His bars have ticked a little, but he still looks bad. I'd love to give this guy some playing time to see if he booms, but my team is the defending champs and I have a solid QB in front of him. I wanted to test him out last year, but the wild card from my division went 13-3 and I had to win in week 17 to get to 14-2 to get home field and not end up in the wild card myself. Not exactly the place for young Barry Hicks.

I had 2 QB's on my roster recently. One a first round pick Thurman Huxtable, the other a fourth rounder, Geoff Bennet. Huxtable was a stud. Ratings all the way up, almost everything maxed out. Bennett was average. I'd say he was a 50-60 max when drafted. Well, I had both guys ride the bench for a couple of years because I had a very good, but aging and almost free agent QB. When he left via free agency, I gave the starting job to Huxtable, and he was having a good, but not great year. He was 6-6, 20 TD's, 17 INT's, 88.3 QB rating, 3405 yards, 63.6 comp %. He got hurt, and Bennet went 3-1, 9 TD's, 3 INT's, 110.9 QB rating, 1042 yards, 70.2 comp %.Again, his ratings were middling, but his volitility was high, a 70.

The next season, because of the nice end run Bennett had, I had the two battle it out in preaseason, giving both QB's equal time. They were almost even through 3 games, and in the 4th game, Bennett did very well, but Huxtable was 15-15 passing with a couple of TD's, so I had to give the job to him based on that last game. Bennett had an overall more consistent preseason (Huxtable had a lousy first game), but I gave the guy with the higher ratings the benefit of the doubt. In the back of my mind, I wanted Bennett to win the job for some reason. Anyway, first game of the season, Huxtable goes 16-28, 246, 1 TD, 2 INT in a 30-14 loss. So, I made a decision to yank the guy after one game. Bennett proceeds to go 11-4, breaking the league TD mark with 49 TD's, 13 INT's, 118.2 QB rating, 4177 yards, 65.7 comp %. The kick in the teeth? He wasn't even the first team QB for the season.

Anyway, Bennett's ratings skyrocketed after that. His overall rating is an 86 now, and although he hasn't come close to matching that season, he's a damn good QB. In 12 seasons (113 starts), he's 82-42, 216 TD's, 85 INT's, 100.9 QB rating, 65.3 comp %, 29,062 yards. Meanwhile, Huxtable, who I traded in the offseason, is now rated 58(I think he got injured). In 11 seasons (106 starts), his record is 70-43, 213 TD's, 119 INT's, 92.6 QB rating, 61.1 comp %, 29,231 yards.

So, anyway, I do use the volitility in later rounds. I've especially noticed (in my expericences anyway...I haven't done any studies) the volitility with QB's and LB's seems to have a larger effect than on other positions.

[albionmoonlight]

I care more about % developed than volatility.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

At the end of the exhibition season, he's now 12/29. His bars have ticked a little, but he still looks bad. I'd love to give this guy some playing time to see if he booms, but my team is the defending champs and I have a solid QB in front of him. I wanted to test him out last year, but the wild card from my division went 13-3 and I had to win in week 17 to get to 14-2 to get home field and not end up in the wild card myself. Not exactly the place for young Barry Hicks.

I'm in a similar situation in the eNFL. I've got a 5th-year backup QB rated 15/29 who has played in 10 games (started 2) with a 92.5 rating. He's also done well in preseason games. He has a volatility of 92. But I've had him for 3 seasons and his ratings haven't budged. It makes for interesting roster decisions: do I get a more highly rated backup, or stick with this guy who's rated like crap, but has performed well. So long as his play stays at that level, I plan to stick with him...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by jetpunk2000

I had 2 QB's on my roster recently. One a first round pick Thurman Huxtable, ...

You should re-name him "Theo."

[Buzzbee]

One thing I noticed in the past IHOF draft is that most, if not all, of the players that SkyDog would classify as AAA or even AA players (Meaning they were significantly better than other players at there position in 2 or 3 combine categories) had a volatility >50. As a result, I began looking for guys with good combine numbers and high volatility. % developed also played a factor. We'll see how things pan out.