The FOF "Draft Review"

[QuikSand]

A letter grade for every team. Fascinating.

Here's what we get from the in-game help file (after some counter-intuitive digging):

The Post-Draft Analysis Screen shows a list of grades given by league analysts based on each team's performance during the amateur draft.

Teams are graded for how well the selections appear to have improved the team's roster.


I know that I pay practically zero attention to this.

I also know that on occasions when it is brought to my attention (generally in multi-player leagues) I am regularly among the teams getting the very lowest grades for my draft.


Does anyone have a feel for this? Does it seem to reward "by the book" drafting? Does it take into account your addressing your own team needs specifically, rather than taking "best player available" guys? Does it sort of tie into the "Roster Strengths" ratings (another feature I rarely pay any mind to) perhaps? Or to the roster rating on the Franchise Value screen?


I'm not very upset about constantly getting lousy grades here -- but have a degree of idle curiosity what it is that I'm missing out on. Any takers?

[Warhammer]

I think it is a combination of filling needs as well as the quality of players. The few times I have gotten A+'s here, I addressed my needs with absolute studs.

[flere-imsaho]

I agree with Warhammer. It seems likely that it's something as "simple" as taking the before and after for "roster strengths" or "roster rating", and thus you'd see a bigger change (and thus better score) if you address what FOF sees as weaknesses in your team with studs in the draft.

Thus, if you're the kind of player who habitually ignores certain positions (FB, WLB, for instance), you're unlikely to ever do "well".

[WebEwbank]

I too am somewhat mystifed here. Often my best drafts are rated B, and when I check other teams' A+ drafts, the talent level just doesn't appear to be there. I've also had drafts in SP where I have had six really strong picks in the first two rounds and gotten a B+...

I agree that the rating must be need-weighted rather than absolute. It doesn't help me and I tend to ignore it except for curiousity. ALL RIGHT - I check it every time, but then I TRY to ignore it....

[MrBigglesworth]

It definitely rewards you for taking what the game thinks are your needs. I had a couple drafts in MP filled with great players at key positions, but got a low grade because the game thinks I need secondary help.

[Kobeck]

I agree with Warhammer and MrBigglesworth. The MP team I run has CAP issues forcing me to draft for need and my team gets graded well by the game.

[Celeval]

It's definately some sort of an odd rating, too - I've gotten very high scores when not even drafting in the first round.

[Chubby]

I believe it's on a curve as well...

[Darkiller]

I also know that on occasions when it is brought to my attention (generally in multi-player leagues) I am regularly among the teams getting the very lowest grades for my draft.
FWIW, the Paris Musketeers are generally among the teams that have the best draft grades year in and year out...still in the end, the Chitts always have a better record than us :D

[cthomer5000]

I think I got an A- for a single 7th round pick one year in IHOF. I pay zero attention to these grades.

[OldGiants]

I'm almost always in the lower half of the grading in my solo games. I spent some studying what brought the AI teams top grades and I think these are the reasons (most of which have been mentioned above):

1) Absolute stud with the first pick gets you an A+. If there are 2-3 of these, the next two teams will get the A+ also.

Most teams picking 1-3 are terrible, have small rosters, and will benefit immensely from whomever they pick. The A+ is a gimme.

2) the ratings are more based on actual than potential. That is, picking a 35/48 over a 25/71 will get you a higher grade.

3) Needs count more than 'best available'

4) Teams that pick 'sleepers' that pop immediately as they are drafted get credit for that. Training camp popping does not get reflected in the ratings. So if you pick a skills sleeper and he doesn't show until training camp, (or later) your ratings don't reflect this. This hurts me in my ratings.

5) You get a lot of credit for making a late round 'steal'. This makes me think the rounds are weighted, so that if you get, say second round quality in the fifth round, you are rated higher than if you picked the same player in the second round.

6) Extra picks don't help in the rating; lack of picks doesn't hurt. Again, more evidence of a round weighting, IMO.

I've tried to look a position bias, but have never found consistant evidence that the ratings favor QB or DE, for example. Each draft seems to have its wierd ratings.

[Cotton]

My scouts are often confused by my occasional 3-4 defense season and insist I primarily or secondarily need a defensive tackle when I have three and only start one. It happens every time I run a 3-4 defense regardless of who my nose tackles are and how good they are.

If I just went by the game scouts advice and ratings and grades, it'd take a lot of the fun out of the game. I like bucking them. Proving them wrong. Underdog complex and all that.

So, I don't really worry about the Draft Grade. But it is interesting to see.

[WebEwbank]

My absolute favorite game element is determining my own team needs, then deciding how to fill 'em: draft, free agents, or defer for a year... The scouts and AI do not seem to take depth, development, aging, or cost-effectiveness into account when calculating need.

[Warhammer]

5) You get a lot of credit for making a late round 'steal'. This makes me think the rounds are weighted, so that if you get, say second round quality in the fifth round, you are rated higher than if you picked the same player in the second round.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. If you get a late round steal, say a 35/60 when everyone else is getting 18/40s you are going to have better players and rate better overall. It's just a more pronounced difference when you do it late in the draft.

[OldGiants]

I wouldn't put it quite that way. If you get a late round steal, say a 35/60 when everyone else is getting 18/40s you are going to have better players and rate better overall. It's just a more pronounced difference when you do it late in the draft.No, its more than simply getting a better player late, thus winding up with better overall talent.

IMO the rounds are weighted by comparing how you do in each round versus how everyone else did in the same round. So a late round pick produces a higher, more favorable ratio.

This comparision factor is how people get great ratings despite having only a few low round picks. They do very well with those picks and their comparisons and the sum of those comparisons is better than a full seven round draft total.

This also explains why most of us get mid-pack ratings. We are usually picking late (mostly 30-32) for our successful teams. Thus we are making late picks and being compared to the average, an unfavorable comparison in almost every round.

In contrast, when we pick, we follow the players immediately after our selection to see if we chose wisely. Often we did choose the better player, and so we (correctly) view ourselves as having done well. But the draft comparison is to the players taken much earlier, so the computer ranks us poorly.

[OldGiants]

Simple example of what I meant above:

First pick in the draft is a 60/80 RB. the other first round picks average out to 40/65. The major rating is current talent, so the first pick team's rating comparison is 60 to 40, or 150%. That gets watered down in later rounds, but is still likely to come in highest.

Round one 150
Rounds 2-7 100

Overall rating index (6*100 + 150)/7 = 107

Team 'Traded all our top picks' chooses in the last three rounds, only. They do average in two, but find the 35/60 gem when others are pulling 18/40's. thus

Round 5 index of 200
rounds 6 & 7 index of 100

overall (200 + 2* 100 0/3) = 133, a sure fire A+

[Kobeck]

I agree with Warhammer and MrBigglesworth. The MP team I run has CAP issues forcing me to draft for need and my team gets graded well by the game.


FWIW

Had 10 picks in 2007 IFL draft, 3 in first 40, pretty much everyone was a need, had a couple of reaches to fill obvious holes. Anyways got graded at 3rd from last in the IFL.

So I have no clue what the criteria is. Mules could have been marked down for more quanity than quality also.

[gstelmack]

Did any of those guys actually turn out okay? If they tank that'll hurt your grade.

[MrBigglesworth]

Maybe the draft grader was a (the?) Willoughby fan.

[Kobeck]

Did any of those guys actually turn out okay? If they tank that'll hurt your grade.

No true busts, one guy was 0/-1. Had 1 mini boom +1/+6 - at least according to the Mule scout

[Kobeck]

Maybe the draft grader was a (the?) Willoughby fan.


Manuel has landed in VooDoo land, unfourtunatly he apparently landed on the starting LT. Willoughby making a good first impression - :cheesy: