FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

Whats up with the website right now? I noticed a bunch of players OVR calculations went way down compared to where they were a week ago, except a few players stayed the same. I'm not expecting 99 OVR guys, but seeing the best player at a position rated at 80 confuses me. I see Calvin Johnson at 97, Fitz at 92, and then AJ Green at 81, whats up with that? Did the OVR calculations change or something? I don't think there is that big of a gap between WR's. Same with LOLB, Tamba Hali is rated 97, the next best is Suggs with a 83. I don't think Hali is even the best LOLB in the league, let alone being 14 OVR higher than the next best guy.

I have a few people testing the Equal-Interval ratings method right now so they are producing test rosters. Based on PLAYMAKERS' findings from last year, these may give even better results. They also mimic the scouting data at a perfect 1:1 ratio as the mean-rating has been removed from every rating category. This method allows you to see how the scouts rated the players on a scale that is unbiased toward the mean. PLAYMAKERS posted some results on this last year in this thread with some vids as well. This is as close to the real distribution as I can get within Madden's OVR rating formulas. You will see way fewer 90+ ratings for attributes as originally intended. This is the system we ran last year to great success, albeit much debate.

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I have a few people testing the Equal-Interval ratings method right now so they are producing test rosters. Based on PLAYMAKERS' findings from last year, these may give even better results. They also mimic the scouting data at a perfect 1:1 ratio as the mean-rating has been removed from every rating category. This method allows you to see how the scouts rated the players on a scale that is unbiased toward the mean. PLAYMAKERS posted some results on this last year in this thread with some vids as well. This is as close to the real distribution as I can get within Madden's OVR rating formulas. You will see way fewer 90+ ratings for attributes as originally intended. This is the system we ran last year to great success, albeit much debate.

Gotcha, I understand that, just kind of confused about the few outliers in the data, such as Hali being rated so much higher than everybody else. Also, just wondering, why do so many WR's have 99 juke and 99 spin moves? Not sure if that's an error or done intentionally.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

Gotcha, I understand that, just kind of confused about the few outliers in the data, such as Hali being rated so much higher than everybody else. Also, just wondering, why do so many WR's have 99 juke and 99 spin moves? Not sure if that's an error or done intentionally.

All of the players are rated on the same scale. An outlier would be three standard deviations about the mean. All players, up to an OVR of 99, are within three standard deviations of that mean.

Once again, you must consider these ratings HOLISTICALLY. What are the SPD, AGI, and ACC ratings for those players with 99 JKM and SPM? Trust me, a player with an AGI of 70 will do a juke move a bit differently than a player with an AGI of 90, even if both have a JKM of 99. Think about the ratings as they work SYMBIOTICALLY for a player.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

Well then, I'm thrown off big time, I don't understand how somebody like Tamba Hali can be rated 14 points above the next best LB, when some people don't think he is even the best LB on his team. Of his 11 sacks last year, almost half were in two games. Same with Fitzgerald, he is definitely on the decline. He is still a great player, but he isn't 11 points above Green, Marshall, Jones, Jeffery, etc. And about the 99 juke and spin move thing, LeSean McCoy, one of the shiftiest backs in the league, has a 81 agility and 74 juke move. Larry Fitzgerald, not known for making moves after the catch, has 78 agility and 99 juke move. That isn't right, and there is no way around that.

The great thing about Madden is that you can personalize your rosters to how you see fit. If you disagree with something, just change it in the game. Works for you, works for me. I feel like I am on the hamster wheel of hell with you on a lot of this stuff, so from this post forward I will cease continuing to address it. Everything you need to know, as far as an answer, lies on our FAQ page. Please refer to our FAQ page.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

Another thing, you have Clowney as a 75 in man coverage and a 85 in zone coverage? Based on what? He has never been used in coverage other than an occasional zone blitz used maybe twice in a game. In comparison to that, Joe Haden, one of the best CB's in the league gets a 74 man coverage and 77 zone? How is that even remotely plausible?

Please refer to our FAQ page.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

I'm just trying to make your ratings site better. I don't see anywhere in the FAQ page where it explains why a DE/OLB who has never played in coverage before should be rated higher in coverage ratings than one of the top cover corners in the league, nor do I see where it explains why the shiftiest back in the league is rated worse at juking, agility, spinning, etc than most WR's, including some older ones who have lost a step over the years. I'm being reasonable here, but you don't want to take the time to explain these things. I am looking at the big picture, and I see glaring errors that I am trying to help you fix. I just don't see how these ratings make sense. However, if you don't want my advice, so be it. I was just trying to help you get the best ratings for realistic gameplay.

The FAQ page states quite clearly that we use data to drive the ratings. If the data doesn't warrant a particular rating, then we don't give it out. You must think big picture as no rating works statically. No attribute in player analysis works independently of other traits. McCoy has a significant edge in both AGI and ACC (both of which are needed for employing sharp SPMs and JKMs). You must consider how ratings affect eachother on they playing field. Search for some of PLAYMAKERS videos to see this. He has a youtube channel dedicated to it.

As for Clowney v. Haden, you must, once again, consider all of the other ratings. There is a direct positive correlation between AGI and MCV ability in the data, so much so, that the R-Squared value is 98%. 98%!!! Look at their agility ratings. Now look at who they have to cover in such positions. It is highly unlikely that Clowney would be used to cover the deep 3rd or be asked to man up against a WR. However, the data suggests that when he WAS asked to drop into coverage (and he will be doing some of that in Houston), he was very effective against the type of players he was asked to cover and the types of zones he was responsible for. If I didn't have data for Clowney's Zone and Man coverage abilities, it would be a 0.0 on the scale, but it isn't. Also keep in mind that much of this, for rookies, is based upon PROJECTION. If he struggles in pass coverage (which he will be asked to do at least a few times this year), then his ratings in those categories will drop.

So in essence, each attribute is relative; relative to other attributes and relative to the competition one is facing on the field. After all, we don't expect Danny Amendola to hold up as well against a NT in run-blocking as he would a CB, would we?

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The FAQ page states quite clearly that we use data to drive the ratings. If the data doesn't warrant a particular rating, then we don't give it out. You must think big picture as no rating works statically. No attribute in player analysis works independently of other traits. McCoy has a significant edge in both AGI and ACC (both of which are needed for employing sharp SPMs and JKMs). You must consider how ratings affect eachother on they playing field. Search for some of PLAYMAKERS videos to see this. He has a youtube channel dedicated to it. As for Clowney v. Haden, you must, once again, consider all of the other ratings. There is a direct positive correlation between AGI and MCV ability in the data, so much so, that the R-Squared value is 98%. 98%!!! Look at their agility ratings. Now look at who they have to cover in such positions. It is highly unlikely that Clowney would be used to cover the deep 3rd or be asked to man up against a WR. However, the data suggests that when he WAS asked to drop into coverage (and he will be doing some of that in Houston), he was very effective against the type of players he was asked to cover and the types of zones he was responsible for. If I didn't have data for Clowney's Zone and Man coverage abilities, it would be a 0.0 on the scale, but it isn't. Also keep in mind that much of this, for rookies, is based upon PROJECTION. If he struggles in pass coverage (which he will be asked to do at least a few times this year), then his ratings in those categories will drop. So in essence, each attribute is relative; relative to other attributes and relative to the competition one is facing on the field. After all, we don't expect Danny Amendola to hold up as well against a NT in run-blocking as he would a CB, would we?

Sorry I asked then. I'm going to just delete my posts from this thread tonight, and we can both move on.

[garret2]

dcebb2001 have you ever heard of anyone doing an in-depth ratings project like this for the NBA? you may have inspired some people to try!