{Smacking Head} Volatility (Booms/Busts)

[Ben E Lou]

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

(From Quik) Volatility means the likelihood of departing appreciably from projections in ability. Higher number means more likely. That departure can be to the good or the bad.

(From Quik) If you draft a player with high volatility, there's a higher chance that he will turn out to be a great deal different than what he is currently forecasted to be. Possibly better, possibly worse.

Up to now, to me this explanation was at best, a peculiarity, and, at worst, an area of concern. I was disappointed that we had a "one-time-use" rating (volatility) that would stay with a player his entire career. However, I've realized that I have been thinking more in terms of FOF2K1/2 than in terms of FOF4 and 2K4. In 2K1/2, we saw immediately after the first training camp if a player had greatly improved or severely declined in his potential. A major change in busts/breakouts in 4 was that we didn't know if a player was going to bust immediately. He'd simply not live up to his green ratings. (I didn't play FOF4 enough to see enough breakout players to tell you exactly how that worked.) The more I've played 2K4, and now upon re-reading these statements, I have a hypothesis about the implementation of volatility. I am starting to think it is much more of long-term development-related rating, rather than a likelihood of an immediate bust or breakout--sort of a "random multiplier" in whether or not a player reaches, or even greatly exceeds his green ratings. In FOF4, I saw guys who might get 4-8 points more than their green ratings, which could be attributable to scout error, but in this game, I've already seen a few guys have a rating or two that exceeded their after-first-training-camp green rating by 15+ points. I'm starting to read a high volatility rating as your scout saying this: "Well, by best judgment is that this guy is now a 20 in pass blocking, with potential to be a 50. However, this guy is hard to read. Over time, he has the chance to get a whole lot better."

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. QB Leon Blake was drated 6(11) by Minnesota in 2007, with a volatility rating of 88. At the end of '07, he was rated 25/55 overall and he got no regular-season playing time that year. Here are some of his specific ratings that year:

Accuracy: 22/59
Read Defense: 26/66
Long Passes: 26/65
Avoid Int: 12/30.

He got no PT in '08 either. His end-of-year ratings:
Overall: 31/57 (+2 potential)
Accuracy: 29/62 (+3 potential)
Read Defense: 32/67 (+1 potential)
Long Passes: 31/65 (nc in potential)
Avoid Int: 12/30 (+2 potential)

Modest increases, perhaps due to preseason playing time, or just general development.

AFTER YEAR 3 (play in one regular-season game, threw 17 passes):
Overall: 37/60 (+3 potential)
Accuracy: 38/66 (+4 potential)
Read Defense: 41/70 (+3 potential)
Long Passes: 40/69 (+4 potential)
Avoid Int: 20/34 (+4 potential)
Nice increases in potential.

AFTER YEAR 4 (played in 13 regular season games, started 10)
Overall: 54/61 (+1 potential)
Accuracy: 61/68 (+2 potential)
Read Defense: 67/74 (+4 potential)
Long Passes: 64/70 (+1 potential)
Avoid Int: 34/37 (+3 potential)
Despite significantly more playing time, the increase in potential was less than last year. (Current ratings went way up though.)

AFTER YEAR 5 (16-game starter)
Overall: 54/61 (nc potential)
Accuracy: 61/68 (+2 potential)
Read Defense: 67/73 (-1 potential)
Long Passes: 64/69 (-1 potential)
Avoid Int: 34/37 (nc potential)

Very slight variance in potential this year, attributable to scout variance?

AFTER YEAR 6 TRAINING CAMP
Overall: 72/72 (+11 potential)
Accuracy: 80 (+12 potential)
Read Defense: 95 (+22 potential)
Long Passes: 82 (+13 potential)
Avoid Int: 56 (+19 potential)

HUGE jumps as he enters his prime!

I'm guessing that we saw his "volatility effect" hit between the end of year 5 and the beginning of year 6. Thoughts?

--Ben

[Bee]

Good post SkyDog! We should link this to the sticky thread!



Seriously, I think your example is exactly what volatility is all about (to the positive side).

[cthomer5000]

So volatility essentially matters for the entire "growth period" of a player?

[Maple Leafs]

So, not to oversimplify, but would it stand to reason that you want highly-rated players to have low volatility, and lower-rated players to have high-volatility?

[Sidhe]

Question: does the guy have to play to have this effect? I know you don't know based on this guy, but I'm suggesting people keep an eye out..

[Wasabiak]

My question is......Do Volatility and Mentors work hand in hand? Is a player w/ a high volatility rating going to have a better chance to have a higher multiplier if he has a mentor?

[Chubby]

Maple - Yeah, that's how I look at it. I want my 1st round picks to have low volatility abd my late rounds picks to have high volatility (since if they bust who cares, but if they boom...)

[Darkiller]

interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Darkiller
interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp.

well, i would say the "boom" here was small, small, small, BIG. The growth was always there, but he really "turned the corner" in terms of skills between seasons 5 and 6 (most realistic for a QB I would say).

And I think Maple hit the nail on the head. You're going to want stud picks to have a low volatility (less chance of disappointing you), while late round types to have a high volitility (better odds of becoming an impact player somewhere down the road).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Darkiller
interesting study.
So the "boom" and "bust" phenomenon would now appear somewhere between year 5 and year 6...and not anymore right after the player's first NFL training camp.

I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

SkyDog, I assume you didn't change any staff between years 5 and 6 of this player?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
well, i would say the "boom" here was small, small, small, BIG. The growth was always there, but he really "turned the corner" in terms of skills between seasons 5 and 6 (most realistic for a QB I would say).

And I think Maple hit the nail on the head. You're going to want stud picks to have a low volatility (less chance of disappointing you), while late round types to have a high volitility (better odds of becoming an impact player somewhere down the road).

...and then the real fun comes in the 2nd-4th rounds. Do you "play it safe" with that 2(27) pick and get a decent-looking OLB with low volatility who you feel confident won't hurt you, or do you go for broke with the high volatility guy who may do nothing but ride the pine and eat up cap room for five seasons.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
SkyDog, I assume you didn't change any staff between years 5 and 6 of this player?

You're correct. However, I DID change scouts beween year 4 and year 5. That might account for the slight decrease in some ratings that year.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
You're correct. However, I DID change scouts beween year 4 and year 5. That might account for the slight decrease in some ratings that year.

ok, that explains that oddity. But at least we know the ratings explosion between years 5 and 6 was "real."

[Bee]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I wouldn't go so far as to make such a definitive statement yet, because I haven't looked at enough samples of breakouts yet. Consider the following:

1. It is possible that the year of the breakout could vary, either by position group or player-to-player.
2. The smaller increases in potential after each of his first four seasons may or not be indicators that something special was going to happen with him.
3. This guy wasn't on my team, so I don't have preseason box scores to look at. I don't know how much he played in the preseasons of his first three seasons.

I think the biggest factor in revealing the "boom/bust" factor is playing time. You waited to give this player significant playing time, so you didn't find out about his true nature until later. If you had started him from the very beginning, I think his true ratings would have been revealed much sooner.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Bee
I think the biggest factor in revealing the "boom/bust" factor is playing time. You waited to give this player significant playing time, so you didn't find out about his true nature until later. If you had started him from the very beginning, I think his true ratings would have been revealed much sooner.

Well, he wasn't on my team, but the example stands. We don't know that for sure. I just found another breakout who got some pretty good PT from early on. I'm working up the study on him right now.

[TroyF]

I've noticed this as well. I was fearful of posting it without conclusive evidence.

The great thing is breakout/busts still happen after the draft and in the first two years. Last night I got the pleasure of dealing with both. I drafted a DE in the second round. He was a 48 future potential guy with an average V score. After the draft, as I went to sign guys, I saw his future potential was a 9. I thought about not signing him, but didn't feel that was right. He's now on the inactive list making bank until his cap number reaches a point where he can be released. After training camp, he went down to a 7. Nice.

Same draft, sixth round. I take a DT with a low V score. (22) I grab him because he's the strongest player in the draft left, and has ratings indicating he's a decent runs stuffer/play diagnosis. Before the draft, his future looks to be 33. After the draft and training camp, the number is 67 and he's on the green sheet. After a solid rookie season, he's at 75 and still moving up.

The draft and player development is as good as we've ever seen with this game. I'm really enjoying it. IMO, this is Jim's best game ever, with or without multiplayer.

TroyF

[cthomer5000]

I save end of year files every single season. I have had 2 1st round WR's who were "steady decliners." I should check them out and pass some info on tonight, they might be good examples of slow busts.

[Ben E Lou]

OK....Got another example to look at. This guy was a 2nd-rounder, but had some 20+ ratings increases. Gerald Dees was picked 2(2) by the Seahawks in '06, with a volatility rating of 64. He is a CLASSIC example of what I was talking about in my post back to Darkiller. This guy could have been a wasted pick, but also could have been a star. Let's check him out.

END OF '06
Playing Time: 16 games, 315 snaps
Overall: 29/64
Avoid Drops: 6/41
Getting Downfield: 60/74
Route Running: 10/93 (talk about a crap-shoot!)
3rd-Down Catching: 59/74

END OF '07
Playing Time: 16 games, 4 starts, 443 snaps
Overall: 36/66 (+2)
Avoid Drops: 14/44 (+3)
Getting Downfield: 66/78 (+4)
Route Running: 23/94 (+1)
3rd-Down Catching: 65/79 (+5)

END OF '08
Playing Time: 16 starts, 719 snaps
Overall: 49/67 (+1)
Avoid Drops: 30/48 (+4)
Getting Downfield: 78/82 (+4)
Route Running: 47/94 (nc)
3rd-Down Catching: 76/81 (+2)

END OF '09
Playing Time: 16 starts, 729 snaps
Overall: 58/68 (+1)
Avoid Drops: 41/50 (+2)
Getting Downfield: 85 (+3)
Route Running: 63/93 (-1)
3rd-Down Catching: 83/84 (+3)

END OF '10
Playing Time: 15 games, 14 starts, 689 snaps
Overall: 73/73 (+5)
Avoid Drops: 60 (+10)
Getting Downfield: 100 (+15)
Route Running: 90/92 (-1)
3rd-Down Catching: 96 (+12)

END OF '11
Playing Time: 16 games, 14 starts, 699 offensive snaps
Overall: 73/73 (nc)
Avoid Drops: 60 (nc)
Getting Downfield: 99 (-1)
Route Running: 91/92 (nc)
3rd-Down Catching: 97 (+1)

So, his big jump in stats happened at some point DURING year 5. (I don't know if it was after training camp, or during the season. End-of-year data is all that I have.)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I save end of year files every single season. I have had 2 1st round WR's who were "steady decliners." I should check them out and pass some info on tonight, they might be good examples of slow busts.

That would be GREAT! (Obviously, I save a year-end file as well, which is what allows me to this "after-the-fact" study.) All I'm doing is looking at each position group under "current rosters" and seeing which, if any, of the Top 20 guys at each position are non first-rounders.

--Ben

[QuikSand]

Back with FOF 4, someone did some research into the phenomenon of player development, and found a number of things:

-Player development (notably the growth of the red ratings) is very highly connected to playing time

-The classic "bust" of FOF 2001 (where a player was revealed to be worthless right after his first training camp) was largely absent from the game, and replaced with a widespread number of players who simply never reached any measure of their apparent potential -- this actually may include, to some degree, the majority of players in a given rookie draft.

-The decline in potential ratings (greens) seems irreversible. If your young player drops from 75 to 70 after his first season -- he's on his way down a slippery slope, and his real potential might be far, far lower than it appears. He's a bust, you just don't realize quite how bad yet.

-"Boom" players take different forms, but many become evident right away, sometimes even before training camp. Often, these players will develop both current and potential ratings with playing time, and will evolve into players far better than they were originally forecasted to be.

...and most on point for this immediate discussion...

-There is a new phenomenon where a veteran player whose ratings seem to have stabilized will make a one-time "jump" during training camp -- and the bump may be pretty significant. I've seen this happen for the better (boom) several times, and for the worse (bust) only once, but it certainly can happen. My first few experiences seeing this were all with (exactly) 5th year players, but a few people reported this with 6th and 7th year players as well -- but it seems to happen right about that period.


As nearly as I can tell, the player development functions of FOF 2004 are essentially the same as those in the underappreciated FOF 4. (You remember, the game that didn't have anything new to offer?)

[Bee]

I think both of your examples are "classic" examples of what Quiksand mentions. They both have steady improvement with the exception of a big bump in reds after their 1st season of starting and then later in the career they have another nice little bump in both red and green.

Edit: I think the volatility rating comes in to play in determining the amount of change we are talking about. Both of these players had pretty large changes to their original ratings which is suggested as a possibility by the high volatility ratings.

[TroyF]

QS,

Good dig on those who bashed FOF4, I agree. I think this game is better, for a variety of reasons though.

The big bust after the first training camp is back. It may be very rare for it to happen, but it did last night in my game. I'll see if I can dig up a screen shot for proof.

TroyF

[QuikSand]

I reised my statement from above to say "largely absent" instead of absent. There may well be a wholesale bust from time to time... but certanly not on the magnitude that we saw them in FOF 2001 (where a player either busted right away, or he would develop right according to plan for the rest of his career - nothing in between).

[Ben E Lou]

Another one. Back in 2005, KC drafted T Matthew Flynn with the 7(17) pick. He had high volatility (76). Check out this development:

END 2005
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 144 offensive snaps
Overall: 25/44
Run Blk: 19/42
Pass Blk: 17/42
Blk Str: 64
End: 19/21

END 2006
Playing Time: 6 games, 24 offensive snaps
Overall: 36/48 (+4)
Run Blk: 33/48 (+6)
Pass Blk: 30/47 (+5)
Blk Str: 65 (+1)
End: 22/23 (+2)

END 2007
Playing Time: 4 games, 17 snaps
Overall: 46/51 (+3)
Run Blk: 48/52 (+4)
Pass Blk: 42/50 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 26 (+3)

END 2008
Playing Time: 7 games, 2 starts, 187 snaps
Overall: 50/53 (+2)
Run Blk: 54/56 (+4)
Pass Blk: 46/52 (+2)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 28 (+2)

END 2009
Playing Time: 5 games, 1 start, 88 snaps
Overall: 52/55 (+2)
Run Blk: 56/57 (+1)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 66 (+1)
End: 28 (nc)

END 2010
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 929 snaps
Overall: 51/53 (-2)
Run Blk: 54/55 (-2)
Pass Blk: 49/55 (+3)
Blk Str: 65 (-1)
End: 26 (-2)

END 2011
Playing Time: 16 games, 16 starts, 976 snaps
Overall: 52/54 (+1)
Run Blk: 57/58 (+3)
Pass Blk: 50/54 (-1)
Blk Str: 64 (-1)
End: 26 (nc)

At this point, after two seasons of playing full time with very little growth and almost complete red lines, and being finished with his 6th year in the league, I would have thought this guy was done developing. WRONG!!! Look what happened at the beginning of year 7.

2012 AFTER TRAINING CAMP
Overall: 71/73 (+19)
Run Blk: 77/78 (+20)
Pass Blk: 63/68 (+15)
Blk Str: 85 (+21)
End: 60 (+34)

This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

Wow, that one would have me waiting for the year 8 drug suspension.

[Ben E Lou]

What is interesting to me about Flynn is that for his first five seasons, he got virtually very little regular season playing time, yet had still developed beyond his projected level by that point. Perhaps that is a hint.

[Ben E Lou]

Here's a confirmation that Year 1 booms still occur. The 'Skins took RDE Buddy Bennnit with the 5(14) pick in 2006. By the end of that year (in which he started all 16 games, and was in on 590 snaps), he was rated 36/64 overall, and developed to 62/62 by year 7.

[primelord]

So have we seen anyone take a turn for the worse yet down the road? All the examples so far have all been huge jumps up in ratings. But have we seen anyone with ratings that looked solid that just fell off the table 5 years down the road?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by SkyDog
This is a classic example of what Quik mentioned in his penultimate paragraph--a year 7 boom, and one of VERY significant magnitude.

Moe Williams style?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by primelord
So have we seen anyone take a turn for the worse yet down the road? All the examples so far have all been huge jumps up in ratings. But have we seen anyone with ratings that looked solid that just fell off the table 5 years down the road?

Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

primelord -- documented cases? Not a one, since I'm playing instead of studying it at the moment.

anecdotal stuff? Yeah, I believe I've had numerous players that had (potential) small drop/small drop/small drop/cliff diving.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
primelord -- documented cases? Not a one, since I'm playing instead of studying it at the moment.

Yeah, this is definitely an "after-the-fact" study. I'd *REALLY* like to see what these guys looked like on draft day. I'm wondering if there might be any other subtle predictive factors for booms.

[primelord]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

I didn't ask to hear you whine about how hard it would be find that information. I asked you to find it!

Seriously though that makes sense. Just the way the discussion was going it started to sound like volatility was only having a major impact towards the positive. I don't think that is what we would want.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Those are gonna be harder to find. It is easy to do a search for the Top 20 players at a position group, cycle through until you get to a late-round draft choice, then track his career. I haven't seen that happen on my team yet, and probably the only way I'd be able to find that happening would be if it happened to a guy on my team.

how to find potential "late-wilters":

Go to the roster view, select "free agents"
Sort by years in the leauge
find a few high picks in thr 7-5 year range who look like crap
check to see if any of them received significant playing time in the past
once you have a few candidates, check older saved games


EDIT: further throwing a wrench into the ability to find these guys is the potential that injury caused their ratings drops.

[Ben E Lou]

...and just in case anyone is wondering, when looking at late-round draftees who are now among the Top 20 players at their position group, I see a much higher instance of high-volatility players, but there ARE a few low volatility guys in there as well. That's good to see.

To go back to the original premise of the thread, I am officially doing a 180 on my view of the "volatility" rating. I think it is a GREAT thing, and it adds another layer of strategy, particularly for picks from late in the first round to the early parts of the 4th round, when you can choose to play it safe with a decent starter/solid backup pick with low volatility, or go for broke with a high volatility guy who might end up eating cap room for several years. Well done.

[QuikSand]

A couple of times in FOF 4, I signed free agent players in the 5-7 year window, and saw their ratings take a significant dive right after their first training camp with my team. With no injuries to help explain it, I have tallied them up as the "late bust" type, complementing the "late boom" types that we're mostly talking about here.

Again, my working assumption is that FOF 2004 works the same way - and I still have no reason to doubt that. It seems rarer, but I suspect it does indeed happen.

[wishbone]

Could booms be related to contract status, changes in a coaches skill or other factors? Or is what you guys are seeing pure player development?

[Eilim]

Originally posted by wishbone
Could booms be related to contract status, changes in a coaches skill or other factors? Or is what you guys are seeing pure player development?

I was thinking somewhat along the same lines with the late "boom' players. Not sure how to check, but could it be possible that the late surge is brought on by gaining a mentor for the players position on his team?

[Eilim]

Dola...

Hmmm, perhaps if you have a mentor at a certain position it would lessen the chance of a high volitality player at the same position going bust and strengthen his chances to go beyond his original potential.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Eilim
I was thinking somewhat along the same lines with the late "boom' players. Not sure how to check, but could it be possible that the late surge is brought on by gaining a mentor for the players position on his team?

Unlikely since it was present in FOF4 prior to the addition of the mentors.

Edit: That's not to say that mentors do not factor into player development, only that the late boom phenomenon is unlikely to be related directly to bringing in a mentor.

[wbonnell]

wouldn't it be nice if....

...there was a/an(your preference) historical graph for each skill?

As a programmer myself, I would love to embellish this game with a myriad of bells and whistles. Next on my list? Multiple document interface (ie M-V-C).

[OldGiants]

Here's an amazing case from my Dallas career. I'm not sure it's a great thing that this happened.

SE Jack Horn was taken 2/12 by Denver in the 2004 draft. He's now the 7th best WR in football according to scouts as a 68/68. He started out as a 36/53 with vol of 11. He's now the best WR, by far, of the first year's draft.

He's only started on year, last season, 2008. He missed 6 games in 2005, missed all of 2007 with a torn rotator cuff, and missed the last 3 games of 2008 with another torn rotator cuff. He will miss the first 8 weeks of 2009 with this injury.

So in what should have been a 5 year, 80 game career, he's appeared in 53, started 13, and caught 140 for a very nice 17.2 average.

And become the best WR of his class.

Obviously, injuries and PT did not impact him at all.

[Ufer]

Does your scout's ability at the draftee's position and 'young talent' interact with the volatility rating? In other words, if your scout is excellent at offensive line, are you more likely to find the late round guard who booms?

[cthomer5000]

The Depressing tale of Mitch Paddock, Slow-wilting 1st round bust

[cthomer5000]

dola. What's interesting is the fact that his "getting downfield" rating hangs steady while the bottom drops out on everything else.

EDIT: by that 7th year, he was playing elsewhere. by year 8 he was in the FA pool. I'm not sure if he's still around (i'm in what would be his 10th year at this point)

"So, not to oversimplify, but would it stand to reason that you want highly-rated players to have low volatility, and lower-rated players to have high-volatility?"


THis is why I am not in love with this new rating. I'd rather it remain more of a mystery, or perhaps allow combine scores to play more of a role in whether or not a player may or may not break out or bust. I think you could keep a players potential to boom or bust a little more shrouded this way.

[Ben E Lou]

So, what should I make of my third-year cornerback, T.J. Wayne??? I picked him up in the 5(19) slot in 2010.

END OF 2010
Playing Time: 16 games, 9 starts, 609 defensive snaps
Overall: 28/46
M2M: 30/53
Zone: 15/25
Bump/Run: 25/51
Diagnosis: 26/60

END OF 2011:
Playing Time: 16 games, 7 starts, 431 defensive snaps
Overall: 35/48 (+2 pot.)
M2M: 38/55 (+2 pot.)
Zone: 20/26 (+1 pot.)
Bump/Run: 30/49 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 37/64 (+4 pot.)

POST TRAINING CAMP 2012:
Overall: 39/50(+2 pot.)
M2M: 49/62 (+7 pot.)
Zone: 22/27 (+1 pot.)
Bump/Run: 32/47 (-2 pot.)
Diagnosis: 42/63 (-1 pot.)

He is (so far) steadily increasing in a few categories, but is consistently DECREASING in bump and run. What do y'all think is going to happen with him?

[rexallllsc]

How do you guys track their Current/Future year-to-year? Write it down?

[Easy Mac]

I think they have a million save files.