People who liked this post
Volatility Rating
General MFN Discussion
Chipped
Re: Volatility Rating
by Chipped @ 9/13/2016 12:04 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
The 'current' rating is reduced if a player is not close to his ideal weight for the position, but the 'future' rating is not (since he will try to gain or lose weight if you change his position). I do intend to change it eventually where not every player migrates toward the mean, but right now they do so the future rating not taking the weight into account is accurate as a predictor (as much as any future rating is accurate).

This doesn't make sense; I always thought future rating was affected as well. Why then do 90+ TEs projected at or near 100 at every WR relevant rating drop to the 75-83 projected range when they're converted?
lellow2011
Re: Volatility Rating
by lellow2011 @ 9/13/2016 12:37 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
The 'current' rating is reduced if a player is not close to his ideal weight for the position, but the 'future' rating is not (since he will try to gain or lose weight if you change his position). I do intend to change it eventually where not every player migrates toward the mean, but right now they do so the future rating not taking the weight into account is accurate as a predictor (as much as any future rating is accurate).

I don't believe this is entirely accurate, try moving a 250 pound TE with his ratings all 100 to RB and his future potential will show as a 90, as he loses weight his future potential shows as a higher number but it doesn't show that he gained anything in the current/future rating gained.
setherick
Re: Volatility Rating
by setherick @ 9/13/2016 7:42 am
lellow2011 wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:
The 'current' rating is reduced if a player is not close to his ideal weight for the position, but the 'future' rating is not (since he will try to gain or lose weight if you change his position). I do intend to change it eventually where not every player migrates toward the mean, but right now they do so the future rating not taking the weight into account is accurate as a predictor (as much as any future rating is accurate).

I don't believe this is entirely accurate, try moving a 250 pound TE with his ratings all 100 to RB and his future potential will show as a 90, as he loses weight his future potential shows as a higher number but it doesn't show that he gained anything in the current/future rating gained.

This is what I have observed as well. Overweight players seem to have a negative applied to potential, but underweight players do not.

I remember there was a TE in 19 that had 90+ actual or potential SP, AC, Route, and Catch (he busted, oh well, I didn't draft him: https://mfn19.myfootballnow.com/player/4901) but he weighed 280 pounds at the time of the draft. In the draft, he was rated as a 68 WR in a set of weights that emphasized route and catch above all other WR skills. Going by just my weights, he should have been in the 80-90 range at the time of the draft. The only thing holding him back was that he was 40% heavier than your average WR.

However, I see FBs and WRs all the time that would make "great!" OL.