Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

couldn't agree more...opinion and conjecture are what have us in the mess we're in RIGHT NOW.

what i'd give to be a fly on the wall in those "rating meetings" at Tiburon...(if they even have them at all)

gotta say me and me friend go back and forth--i wouldn't have it either way...here's a little game we like to play--i bet you'll be good at it. sooo...rate this WR:

Year 1 - 71 rec, 732 yds, 7 TDs
Year 2 - 81 rec, 1000 yds, 7 TDs
Year 3 - 95 rec, 1100 yds, 6 TDs

some intangibles, WR who went to the playoffs 2 of the last three years, played with a pro bowl QB, played for a division winner too. missed 4 games in 3 years.

Well if it is Hines Ward, then a 90...if a 3 year pro then an 82-86.

[Kushmir]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

lol...yeah its Hines. i gotta find someone who can't look at the numbers and figure out who the player is

i've actually given him an 84 currently. still a GOOD WR, but Derrick Mason (three straight 1,000 yard seasons) is my definition of an 85 rating right now...

[at23steelers]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

lol...yeah its Hines. i gotta find someone who can't look at the numbers and figure out who the player is

i've actually given him an 84 currently. still a GOOD WR, but Derrick Mason (three straight 1,000 yard seasons) is my definition of an 85 rating right now...

Trying not to be a homer, but Hines is the definition of clutch. When we needed the 1st down or late points, he is the go-to-guy. Not to mention he is the best blocking WR in the league. Compared to Holmes, who always dropped key catches except in SB game. And, if it came down to it between Mason and Ward, game on the line, no question I would choose Hines.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

Trying not to be a homer, but Hines is the definition of clutch. When we needed the 1st down or late points, he is the go-to-guy. Not to mention he is the best blocking WR in the league. Compared to Holmes, who always dropped key catches except in SB game. And, if it came down to it between Mason and Ward, game on the line, no question I would choose Hines.

Gotta agree here...Hines is still pretty good for what he does at his age...

[Megatron2k7]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

This whole discussion ties in perfectly with my posts from the other thread ratings thread about OVR, AWR, specific position skill ratlings and stat consistency. Younger players that are "one year wonders" should have their position skill ratings increase because their still developing their skill sets. Their AWR shouldnt take a huge leap but continue on a progression determined more by their consistency. Vets can maintain their OVR by increasing their AWR through consistently good stats despite peeked or declining skill sets. AWR should never decrease but should become stagnant or minimal because of poor statistical performance.

This would allow vets to maintain their OVR while younger players can still have better skill sets. Player knowledge(AWR) is a valued rating in the NFl and allows vets to obtain roster spots.

^ Took the words right out of my mouth bro..... lol...

Well said. I couldn't agree more. I've been hoping to see this type of system in Franchise mode for yrs now.

It would be so nice to see an older vet still be worth keeping on your team (just as it often is in real life) because even though they may have diminishing physical attributes.... they can make up for it with AWR or something like a Position Experience rating.

It should be a tough call during Pre-Season doing roster cut-downs, (which we should have in this game...... sigh) and we'd have to decide between keeping some of the young, more physically gifted players, or the older vets, who may have lost a step, but are assignment sure and dependable.

The way the current system works, with older players (especially older players that are back ups) dropping Awarness points at the end of the season, is so flawed that it makes signing older players to fill in as a solid back up at a position, a useless waste of salary cap space.

It's like you were saying. I'm not expecting an old vet to get better, (unless maybe they had to step in and had an outstanding year), it should be balanced out so the reduction of physicall attributes that come along with age, can be made up for with Awareness increases or a Position Experience rating like I mentioned earler.

[Kushmir]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

oh no doubt...he's definitely clutch. when people used to want an example of a 85 rated player i always used him as an example. if you can't already tell, we hold players rated 85 + with a bit of reverence and respect...

i always keep waiting for someone to replace him as the #1 option at WR and it just never happens...that 700 yard year is the only thing that made me drop him a point as a matter of fact...i've no doubt he'll go for 80 rec 1,000 yds and 6TDs this year and be right back in the 85 range next year...

gotta love consistency...easily my #1 barometer of higher rated players.

Mason's no slouch tho--not as popular, but a guy that just keeps FLAT OUT getting it done.

[at23steelers]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

Maybe, DCEBB can explain this better, but thought it was a good discussion question, mainly just to hear others thoughts, because we disagreed a little bit. We were mainly discussing about offensive lineman, and he said that Max Starks should have a better overall rating than Willie Colon because he has the better physical attributes. However, I argued Willie has the better stats to back him up, even though he does usually face worse players. If Starks has the better physical attributes than Colon, than his stats would back that up. Anyhow, even if they did have equal stats, then in the game Max would have better physical attributes than Colon and Colon would have better technique (footwork) than Starks. But Starks shouldn't be higher just because he has better physical attributes, it's just one piece of the puzzle, not an additional piece to the puzzle. Thoughts?

Note: When asking for thoughts, don't compare these two players, but in general, what should be the approach? Sorry, DCEBB, hope you're not mad Im asking others for their opinions. I think the more people pondering about how the ratings can be perfect, the better.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

Maybe, DCEBB can explain this better, but thought it was a good discussion question, mainly just to hear others thoughts, because we disagreed a little bit. We were mainly discussing about offensive lineman, and he said that Max Starks should have a better overall rating than Willie Colon because he has the better physical attributes. However, I argued Willie has the better stats to back him up, even though he does usually face worse players. If Starks has the better physical attributes than Colon, than his stats would back that up. Anyhow, even if they did have equal stats, then in the game Max would have better physical attributes than Colon and Colon would have better technique (footwork) than Starks. But Starks shouldn't be higher just because he has better physical attributes, it's just one piece of the puzzle, not an additional piece to the puzzle. Thoughts?

Note: When asking for thoughts, don't compare these two players, but in general, what should be the approach? Sorry, DCEBB, hope you're not mad Im asking others for their opinions. I think the more people pondering about how the ratings can be perfect, the better.

First of all, you must break attributes up a bit. The first set we use are "Raw" attributes. These attributes include SPD, ACC, AGI, STR, and JMP. They are measurable using combine and pro day data.

The other attributes are simply referred to as "dynamic". Dynamic attributes consist of ratings that involve a bit more conjecture, but can be backed up by scouting reports (qualitative data) and insider statistics (quantitative).

For these two players, Colon and Starks, we must dive into both realms.

To begin, when Starks was drafted in 2004, he was 6-7, 337, ran a 5.56 and had a 30 inch vertical to go with a 4.72 shuttle and 7.88 3-cone time. He had some trouble with rush defenders and was a liability when reaching the second level. He also had some trouble against the speed rush but was a solid 3rd rounder.

Colon came into the league in 2006 at 6-3, 320 with a 5.36. However, he was drafted as an OG, not OT like Starks was. He had many more concerns than Starks did as a rookie and was less polished. He struggled to get to the second level, had below average awareness in pass blocking, and played too high with a stance too narrow. He also had a bit of trouble locating LB rushers and was taken in the 4th round.

This shows that Starks was a bit more polished than Colon coming out.

Now Colon was the starter over Starks at RT for 2007 and 2008 before Starks was moved to the LT position for 2009. In 2007, as a RT Colon was the 49th best OT in the league. He was a solid run blocker but a struggling pass blocker. That year Starks actually out-graded him despite only playing 86 snaps; allowing 0 sacks. In 2008 Starks graded out just behind Colon, but allowed 6 sacks to Colon's 7. However, Colon still was a more solid player at this point. In 2009 Colon made a big jump, still at RT playing against "elephant ends" (LE's). Starks was the starter at LT and graded out as a better run blocker. As we saw in 2008, when the players were both playing RT that Starks did just as good of a job against LE's. In 2009 when Starks moved to LT, playing against the defense's best pass rusher over and over, Starks allowed only 2 more sacks than Colon while having a better run-blocking grade.

So what does this mean for rating the two players? Well the LT is typically your best OT, and he should be considering he will be blocking the QBs blind side (unless you are Michael Vick or some other Southpaw). We know that Colon was a bit more polished and was stronger, but lacked the agility to be effective early in his career. Because of the difficulty Starks had to endure while playing the hardest spot on the OL, this is taken into account when rating the two players. If they were both RT's, then Colon and Starks may be closer to even. Starks was by no means great at a LT, especially in pass protection; giving up 8 sacks, but he was solid in the run game basically due to his strength and drive blocking capabilities. As a result, Starks has more value in the strength attributes (STR, RBS, PBS) while Colon has the edge in AGI, ACC, RBF, and PBF. However, given the positions they play, Starks had to grade out better for doing on OK job at the toughest spot on the OL.

[at23steelers]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

First of all, you must break attributes up a bit. The first set we use are "Raw" attributes. These attributes include SPD, ACC, AGI, STR, and JMP. They are measurable using combine and pro day data.

The other attributes are simply referred to as "dynamic". Dynamic attributes consist of ratings that involve a bit more conjecture, but can be backed up by scouting reports (qualitative data) and insider statistics (quantitative).

For these two players, Colon and Starks, we must dive into both realms.

To begin, when Starks was drafted in 2004, he was 6-7, 337, ran a 5.56 and had a 30 inch vertical to go with a 4.72 shuttle and 7.88 3-cone time. He had some trouble with rush defenders and was a liability when reaching the second level. He also had some trouble against the speed rush but was a solid 3rd rounder.

Colon came into the league in 2006 at 6-3, 320 with a 5.36. However, he was drafted as an OG, not OT like Starks was. He had many more concerns than Starks did as a rookie and was less polished. He struggled to get to the second level, had below average awareness in pass blocking, and played too high with a stance too narrow. He also had a bit of trouble locating LB rushers and was taken in the 4th round.

This shows that Starks was a bit more polished than Colon coming out.

Now Colon was the starter over Starks at RT for 2007 and 2008 before Starks was moved to the LT position for 2009. In 2007, as a RT Colon was the 49th best OT in the league. He was a solid run blocker but a struggling pass blocker. That year Starks actually out-graded him despite only playing 86 snaps; allowing 0 sacks. In 2008 Starks graded out just behind Colon, but allowed 6 sacks to Colon's 7. However, Colon still was a more solid player at this point. In 2009 Colon made a big jump, still at RT playing against "elephant ends" (LE's). Starks was the starter at LT and graded out as a better run blocker. As we saw in 2008, when the players were both playing RT that Starks did just as good of a job against LE's. In 2009 when Starks moved to LT, playing against the defense's best pass rusher over and over, Starks allowed only 2 more sacks than Colon while having a better run-blocking grade.

So what does this mean for rating the two players? Well the LT is typically your best OT, and he should be considering he will be blocking the QBs blind side (unless you are Michael Vick or some other Southpaw). We know that Colon was a bit more polished and was stronger, but lacked the agility to be effective early in his career. Because of the difficulty Starks had to endure while playing the hardest spot on the OL, this is taken into account when rating the two players. If they were both RT's, then Colon and Starks may be closer to even. Starks was by no means great at a LT, especially in pass protection; giving up 8 sacks, but he was solid in the run game basically due to his strength and drive blocking capabilities. As a result, Starks has more value in the strength attributes (STR, RBS, PBS) while Colon has the edge in AGI, ACC, RBF, and PBF. However, given the positions they play, Starks had to grade out better for doing on OK job at the toughest spot on the OL.

You make an excellent as Starks and Colon had comparable #'s as RT. But you still cannot discredit that Colon had better stats than Starks the past two seasons. Yes, he played worse DE's, but you could say the same thing about comparing #1 and #2 WR's, #1 and #2 CB's, but at the end of the day, people look at who produced the most, and had the best stats. Having Starks be 6 points higher in overall, while producing worse stats, although against better competition is not warranted.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

You make an excellent as Starks and Colon had comparable #'s as RT. But you still cannot discredit that Colon had better stats than Starks the past two seasons. Yes, he played worse DE's, but you could say the same thing about comparing #1 and #2 WR's, #1 and #2 CB's, but at the end of the day, people look at who produced the most, and had the best stats. Having Starks be 6 points higher in overall, while producing worse stats, although against better competition is not warranted.

The game is not based on stats...if it was, then Troy Polamalu would be rated a 40 because he didn't do anything last season and Asomugha would be rated a 60 because he only had one INT in 2009.

[at23steelers]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

The game is not based on stats...if it was, then Troy Polamalu would be rated a 40 because he didn't do anything last season and Asomugha would be rated a 60 because he only had one INT in 2009.

However, Polamalu played well in the games he played in. He has a history for playing at an all-star level. Starks and Colon however, had identical stats playing the same position, but Starks declined while playing a harder position. Playing that harder position doesn't justify having a 6 point increase. CB's aren't graded by INT's but by yards / catches / % allowed. Asomugha played lights out in 2009. Those are ratings based though and not physical attributes based. Physical attributes help you produce better stats. Physical attributes don't help you in spite of your stats.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

However, Polamalu played well in the games he played in. He has a history for playing at an all-star level. Starks and Colon however, had identical stats playing the same position, but Starks declined while playing a harder position. Playing that harder position doesn't justify having a 6 point increase. CB's aren't graded by INT's but by yards / catches / % allowed. Asomugha played lights out in 2009. Those are stats based though and not physical attributes based. Physical attributes help you produce better stats. Physical attributes don't help you in spite of your stats.

First of all, Polamalu, in the games he played was the 49th best S in the league...granted that was only 242 snaps. Starks held serve as a run blocker and actually performed better than the incumbent Colon in that aspect and only allowed 2 more sack despite lining up against better pass rushers. The rating is also based on potential due to the raw attributes, which rarely change except for the decline due to age. Playing a harder position against better competition does in fact allow for a better rating in this regard.

CBs are graded on several things...not just comp % and YPC...but turnover ratio and defensive stops, tackles (remember they play defense so they have to tackle), and defended passes.

They key piece of logic here that stats do not always equate to ratings and ratings do not always equate to stats, so please try to separate stats and ratings.

[Kushmir]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

I LOVE FOOTBALL.

good subject...in my experience i've learned to throw combine numbers out of the window. they say how good of an athlete a player is. THATS IT. now don't get me wrong--sometimes a lack of athletic ability can prevent a player from performing--but i don't think we're talking about those guys...

tons of athletes in the NFL--being able to get on the field and produce? now that another story...me and a good friend (he no longer doubts me) go back to the examples of the 2005 draft frequently...best athlete at QB? Alex Smith...best player at the position?

Aaron Rodgers (who i watched basically beat USC twice with an inferior Cal team in college) and it wasn't even close. i told him rodgers would be the best QB in that draft and that the niners should draft him but he and niners went with general opinion and the "experts"...and Rodgers fell....much to the delight of Green Bay.

while stats are not the BE ALL/END ALL...they're good measurables for rating players if you know how to look AT/INTO them...i believe in compiling as much data as possible and then making an assessment...usually its a mixture of scouting data and stats and whatever else i can find...and it can't be that "off" , DCEB and i go about it in different ways at times--but its amazing how we usually have most players rated within 2 points of each other...

in the end? how a player PERFORMS is the ultimate test.

as far as the polamalu and nnamdi examples...i firmly believe in lowering a player's rating due to injury (in my mind if they miss 8 games or more i usually subtract 3 points from their rating) with troy being a 96--he's still a 93. asomugha is a different animal--the best CBs are usually targted dramatically less after they establish themselves as elite (and rightfully so). you can usually throw INTs out the window and refer instead to how many times they were targeted in addition to what % of passes were completed against them, ect...

as far as Starks and Colon...its close, Colon's STELLAR 2009 WINS it for him tho (in my opinion) check out how they were graded here: http://www.profootballfocus.com/home.php?tab=home

i basically threw out Starks' 2007 as 86 snaps/4 starts just didn't supply enough DATA.

looking at the numbers it basically shows you that while Colon "may" have faced worse players (i'd need to see the matchups to verify this) he routinely graded out better...less pressures (only allowed 5 in 2009?..WOW) hits on the Qb, and sacks although he does have a much higher penalty count.

and while you have to consider Colon's 1.2 run blocking grade in 2007, his other 2 grades are 9.9 and 3.3. what tips the scales in my opinion? pass blocking grades of 23.1 in 2009 and 14.1 in 2008. especially since the best grades starks can offer in comparison are 12.9 and 3.8 (by no means bad stats of course) but thats DOMINATION by Colon wouldn't you say?

lastly there's the issue of starks missing 17 starts in those three years, while Colon didn't miss ANY.

i'd rate Colon an 87, and Starks an 82. but again--that's just my opinion. i will submit tho...thats Starks plays a more difficult position.

[Mo_Magic]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

53 players per team x 32 teams = 1696 players on the 32 NFL teams in Madden 11

+300 free agent players in the game....grand total of 1996 players in Madden 11.

According to your calculations, there are 121 90+ OVR players in Madden 11 (6%). 121 / 1996 = 6%

So 6% of all players in Madden 11 being 90+ OVR is ludicrous to everyone?

What would you like to see that % be?

I believe if you went back to Madden 09, the number was something like 250+ players over 90+ OVR. I will have to dig that up to make sure my facts are accurate... So at the very least, significant improvements have been made (over last few iterations of Madden) to make sure we weren't handing 90+ OVR's out to every single guy who made a Pro Bowl in his career. Now to be honest, 6% of the entire league at 90+ does not sound insane in the least bit to me. Seems somewhat reasonable.

Donny, consider this...

There have been over 21,000 players to play in the NFL.

Only 240+ have been selected for the NFL Hall of Fame. That's 1.14%...

Now, not all 90 overalls stay 90 overall because of injuries(Merriman would have been a HoF'er if he continued his two or three season stretch of being an absolute monster), off the field issues(Ricky Williams), etc... so I'd say 2.5-3.5% is the number everybody here is looking for.

Obviously, 90 overall doesn't determine whether a player is actually even Hall of Fame worthy statwise, but there are no real intangibles that the game can take into account like clutch play, superbowls, conference championships, etc... so I'm okay with the percentage being a wee bit higher... but not THAT much.

2.5% of 1696 is 42.4 players..

3% of 1696 is 50.88 players.

3.5% of 1696 is 59.36 players.

Each of these numbers would be more than acceptable to the majority of the community, I'd be willing to wager.

The thing that EA needs to peg to get any of this to work is progression/regression/injury rehab.

What player breaks his leg and returns to the exact same level of play/productivity immediately?

There needs to be more *serious* injuries that alter player productivity for at least 1-2 years if they are young(relative to position) and may be a seasoned vets deathnail as far as his "elite" status goes.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Player Attribute Inflation...AGAIN!

I LOVE FOOTBALL.

good subject...in my experience i've learned to throw combine numbers out of the window. they say how good of an athlete a player is. THATS IT. now don't get me wrong--sometimes a lack of athletic ability can prevent a player from performing--but i don't think we're talking about those guys...

tons of athletes in the NFL--being able to get on the field and produce? now that another story...me and a good friend (he no longer doubts me) go back to the examples of the 2005 draft frequently...best athlete at QB? Alex Smith...best player at the position?

Aaron Rodgers (who i watched basically beat USC twice with an inferior Cal team in college) and it wasn't even close. i told him rodgers would be the best QB in that draft and that the niners should draft him but he and niners went with general opinion and the "experts"...and Rodgers fell....much to the delight of Green Bay.

while stats are not the BE ALL/END ALL...they're good measurables for rating players if you know how to look AT/INTO them...i believe in compiling as much data as possible and then making an assessment...usually its a mixture of scouting data and stats and whatever else i can find...and it can't be that "off" , DCEB and i go about it in different ways at times--but its amazing how we usually have most players rated within 2 points of each other...

in the end? how a player PERFORMS is the ultimate test.

as far as the polamalu and nnamdi examples...i firmly believe in lowering a player's rating due to injury (in my mind if they miss 8 games or more i usually subtract 3 points from their rating) with troy being a 96--he's still a 93. asomugha is a different animal--the best CBs are usually targted dramatically less after they establish themselves as elite (and rightfully so). you can usually throw INTs out the window and refer instead to how many times they were targeted in addition to what % of passes were completed against them, ect...

as far as Starks and Colon...its close, Colon's STELLAR 2009 WINS it for him tho (in my opinion) check out how they were graded here: http://www.profootballfocus.com/home.php?tab=home

i basically threw out Starks' 2007 as 86 snaps/4 starts just didn't supply enough DATA.

looking at the numbers it basically shows you that while Colon "may" have faced worse players (i'd need to see the matchups to verify this) he routinely graded out better...less pressures (only allowed 5 in 2009?..WOW) hits on the Qb, and sacks although he does have a much higher penalty count.

and while you have to consider Colon's 1.2 run blocking grade in 2007, his other 2 grades are 9.9 and 3.3. what tips the scales in my opinion? pass blocking grades of 23.1 in 2009 and 14.1 in 2008. especially since the best grades starks can offer in comparison are 12.9 and 3.8 (by no means bad stats of course) but thats DOMINATION by Colon wouldn't you say?

lastly there's the issue of starks missing 17 starts in those three years, while Colon didn't miss ANY.

i'd rate Colon an 87, and Starks an 82. but again--that's just my opinion. i will submit tho...thats Starks plays a more difficult position.

Based upon the physical advantage that Starks has as an OT (and considering that RAW Attributes contribute to 6 of the 12 ratings that determine the OVR of an OT) I would still have to give the nod to Starks. This of course is in combination with his task of playing on the left side. I would like to see how Colon would do against the Robaire Smith's, Scott Fujita's, Antuan Odom's, Terrell Suggs', and Holati Ngata's of the AFC North twice a year...