2010 Draft Discussion (File update thru 5.28)

[JesterBlaze]

how does % developed work? I assumed it was simply a calculation based on OVR such as a 40/80 player is 50% developed. However Wally Stanton was drafted in large part to his 67% developed and yet he has a lower current than Vernon Copeland who's 38% developed.

[morellomre]

how does % developed work? I assumed it was simply a calculation based on OVR such as a 40/80 player is 50% developed. However Wally Stanton was drafted in large part to his 67% developed and yet he has a lower current than Vernon Copeland who's 38% developed.

i was come to understand it means % developed at his position.

[Kozure]

Portland trades up to 1-26 and snags what could very well end up being a bust, a 36 future rated player. Ouch.

We'll see ...

Yeah, he could turn it around, but his low volatility and 40 time make it a big questionmark. I think if he increases his future potential, you'll could end up with a mid 50s rated player by the end.

[sovstar]

Portland trades up to 1-26 and snags what could very well end up being a bust, a 36 future rated player. Ouch.

We'll see ...

Yeah, he could turn it around, but his low volatility and 40 time make it a big questionmark. I think if he increases his future potential, you'll could end up with a mid 50s rated player by the end.

So you're of the belief that volatility has an effect on "creepers"? I've always believed it only has an effect on random booms/busts.

[Kozure]

how does % developed work? I assumed it was simply a calculation based on OVR such as a 40/80 player is 50% developed. However Wally Stanton was drafted in large part to his 67% developed and yet he has a lower current than Vernon Copeland who's 38% developed.

i was come to understand it means % developed at his position.

And, i think its goes by a scout's scouting of that player. They could be wrong once you see the player on your roster. Also, all that could change after training camp.

[Kozure]

Portland trades up to 1-26 and snags what could very well end up being a bust, a 36 future rated player. Ouch.

We'll see ...

Yeah, he could turn it around, but his low volatility and 40 time make it a big questionmark. I think if he increases his future potential, you'll could end up with a mid 50s rated player by the end.

So you're of the belief that volatility has an effect on "creepers"? I've always believed it only has an effect on random booms/busts.

I don't think there are any more random booms or busts. I think booms and busts are now built into the player when the draft is created (This is my own personal belief, based on my experience in single player). I think volatility plays a roll in the chances of a player having a large "creeping" upward or downward of ability over several seasons, which i think is the more logical and realistic way of handling booms and busts, don't you think?

[sovstar]

I don't know. Jim added random booms and busts, so anyone could bust/boom at anytime.

Here is what the 2004 draft file generator help file says FWIW:

Column AY: Volatility Rating. From 0-100. This determines the likelihood that a player will suddenly get a lot better, or a lot worse. Players with a high volatility rating are much more likely to have sudden and drastic changes in ability.

[sovstar]

I've played little to no SP, so I won't pretend to know much about anything. Regardless, I'm going to be pretending that Fields is not a bust (I have media stuff to do). 8)

[JesterBlaze]

So post-training camp is basically the new "post-draft" as far as ratings are concerned? And the ratings now mean absolutely nothing or are they accurate for the most part other than a few booms/busts?

[Kozure]

I've played little to no SP, so I won't pretend to know much about anything. Regardless, I'm going to be pretending that Fields is not a bust (I have media stuff to do). 8)

It may be the same, but in all the draft's i've had in multiplayer and single player, I've not seen a immediate large increase or decrease in a player's ratings. I've only seen the creeping upward or downward over the course of several seasons.

I've been in one FOF2007 draft in the RNFL, 2 in the USFL, and 1 in the eNFL so far, and never seen the good old-fashioned boomer/buster.

[Kozure]

So post-training camp is basically the new "post-draft" as far as ratings are concerned? And the ratings now mean absolutely nothing or are they accurate for the most part other than a few booms/busts?

they will begin to fluctuate after training camp.

[sovstar]

Hmmm, well that's a pretty decent sample size I guess. Did anyone else happen to interview Fields by chance? My logic on picking him went like this:

1) Great combine
2) Deemed underrated after an interview, which I thought meant that 3) he should be better than his bureau score indicates.

I didn't put much stock into his bars, except for what individual things he might excel at.

[JesterBlaze]

I didn't scout fields but looking at his non-scouted bars a worse case scenerio seems to be higher than a 36. :?

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think ratings mean much of anything until after a few seasons, and even then I'm not sure that the masking ever really comes off. I thought it was somewhat like that in 2k4, but I know a lot of people even here in this league disagreed with me. I've done some studies, and I think it is much more pronounced though in 2k7.

[MrBigglesworth]

also, it appears I may have hit the jackpot with Nitschke. He's rated 77 right now by my scout, and it shows he will increase to 79 after moving him to SILB. I know that the increase may not end up like that, but its nice to see. More than makes up for Harding's 66 rating.

I was thinking of taking Nitschke at 1.29, but I didn't think he was deserving of a first round pick so I traded out. Looks like I may have been wrong...