Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Because a yards rating or a reception rating is far too basic. By using the component attributes it allows for more depth in the game. I don't argue in favor of 100% production. You are correct that no production stat tells us how fast a player is. Indeed you could go further and say using only production would make it impossible to rate rookies! But as I said, I'm not in favor of 100% production. Madden currently uses 40 times for speed (to varying levels it would seem). However the FBG advocates are not pushing for the status quo, they want more reliance on scouting than is already present. The whole 40 time = speed is another thing that needs to be redone. Alas, that is another topic for another thread. I think that the big thing to me is that they need to include real attributes that scouts really look at when rating players, and throw out the ones that they don't use. Find one scouting report with a SPC attribute or a STA attribute please. I posit that the attributes themselves need an overhaul to more closely mimic reality. Quite right about the multitude of variables and it actually points to why I am weary about going full on scouting data. I don't have confidence in Madden to be able to adequately factor in all those variables. Take for example something that scouts grade QBs on: composure. I don't think Madden can properly model that in the game. Ah, but if you have 20 years of data to show how composure varies as a player progresses throughout his career, you can build a data distribution with a probability model that accurately follows the historical data. When a scout qualifies composure, he mentions things like his swagger, his ability to lead, his inability to fold under pressure, to stand into the pocket in the face of the rush to deliver a ball, and to keep his eyes downfield while being rushed out of the pocket. I can think of about a dozen animations that would be GREAT to see affected by a player's "Composure/Poise" grade. However at least in this context production =/= stats. You disapprove of the use of PFF in rating Madden players so this is where we will disagree, but if a WR gets open and the QB fails to get him the ball it will still look upon the WR favorably. Very true, which it must, of course. In the scenario where his QB get's sacked, the WR's production was zero. However, on the tape, his grade would be positive. That's what I want. Let the player's grade be dependent upon his own performance, not the performance of others. I'm not opposed to using scouting data, I just think the argument is all wrong. There should not be a scouting vs production debate. Use them both, but when there is divergence (e.g. scouts say a young player should be performing well but his production lacks) more often than that production should trump what the scouts say. To throw this out there I think we absolutely need something of a "ball locating" attribute for CBs, so that would be something that falls under the scout umbrella. What I don't want is to use scouts and then cover my ears to everything else. What the conversation should really be about is the system. Currently there does not seem to be much of one. Right now how EA rates players it seems like he can watch a game on Sunday and write down notes in his tablet based on what he sees, but if he were to watch the same game on Tuesday when he is in a different mood the notes could be very different. Well Dustin said he has a system: "game tape and PFF" to paraphrase. In contrast take your FBG ratings. You will never publicly reveal your methodology because with that, I could take the same input source (scouts in your case), and create an identical roster set. This is what EA needs. Correct. That is what gives me a leg up on any competition. The NDA to the data, and the methodology with over a half decade of research, trial, and error behind it. I would prefer to use this data for the live updates during the season (for the online and play-now games) but rely on a hybrid of potential, risk, production, and coaching to allow us to reveal a player's fate while in CFM. We only differ in what should be the source of data. Your position is scouting data. Mine is a combination of scouting data and advanced metrics like PFF. Let me be clear in stating that I think PFF does serve a purpose for player evaluation, but it is NOT in the attributes. Rather, PFF would be PERFECT for getting an accurate reading on, and EXPANDING UPON traits. PFF measures abilities that align more with Madden's traits than they do with their attributes, IMO. Let's use PFF for that. BTW, FBG Ratings, if you haven't seen, will be rating traits for next season...and guess what we are using to do it...

Please see my responses in bold above.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I think you are off the mark here. Avoid the temptation to phrase everything in a sim vs arcade argument. You remind me of politicians during campaign season! I also dislike the overreactions we see with the weekly roster updates, but that is a separate issue. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am definitely not supporting player ratings derived from box scores. An illustrative scenario from an NFL game: WR A: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 11 targets. Makes 8 catches for 122 yards. WR B: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 5 targets. Makes 3 catches for 44 yards. Both players get open the same number of times, but for whatever reason WR B doesn't get as many targets. From this game both players should be rated identically. At this point Dan you may be thinking, "but gg that sounds an awfully lot like what I am arguing for with FBG ratings." Maybe so, but there are subtle differences. Scouts: Grades things like hips, crisp cuts in running routes, attacks the ball at its highest point,etc. Scouts ask "does he show these characteristics? From each of these component grades scouts conclude he is a skilled WR who should be able to produce in the NFL (production follows talent). In this sense it is predictive in nature. alternatively: Does not look at technique so much as the result. Did he get open? Did he run a clean route? Did he get off the line cleanly? Thus it is not predictive but rather it is results driven. Dan I think you know exactly what I am talking about. When a trained scout watches film they ask things like did he get off the line quickly and immediately attack the corner or did he waste time with a useless shimmy? How many steps did he take in his breakdown? In this case even if the Wr got open the scout may see that his technique was sloppy so would not expect this to be a long term trend. Then watch film with a guy who grades players for PFF. What does this guy ask? "Did he get open." Much simpler in comparison. In terms of overall knowledge and credibility the trained scout will be superior. But Madden does not have things like a "fluid hips" rating. It has a "route running" rating that determines whether or not a WR gets open. So the simplistic "did he get open?" works for Madden.

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic.

What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better.

Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in.

He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever.

Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data.

How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I think you are off the mark here. Avoid the temptation to phrase everything in a sim vs arcade argument. You remind me of politicians during campaign season! I also dislike the overreactions we see with the weekly roster updates, but that is a separate issue. I have stated several times around here that the most often I have ever seen one player get updated, either positively or negatively in the data is monthly. Now, they aren't regrading every player every week either because the scouts know that one week is too short of a period to draw major conclusions upon, ie: change the grades. They only change the grades when enough evidence is present to change them. In other words, they aren't looking for the RB to gain 200+ yards to change his grade. Instead, they are looking to see if any of his abilities during that 200+ yard game improved to validate the changing of the grade. Production is thrown right out the window. I cannot speak for everyone, but I am definitely not supporting player ratings derived from box scores. An illustrative scenario from an NFL game: WR A: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 11 targets. Makes 8 catches for 122 yards. WR B: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 5 targets. Makes 3 catches for 44 yards. Both players get open the same number of times, but for whatever reason WR B doesn't get as many targets. From this game both players should be rated identically. At this point Dan you may be thinking, "but gg that sounds an awfully lot like what I am arguing for with FBG ratings." Maybe so, but there are subtle differences. Yup, and at this point while reading I was thinking "and I know exactly where he is going with this: the result of the play, ie: PFF" For those who don't know, PFF only looks at the outcome of the play. More about that later. Scouts: Grades things like hips, crisp cuts in running routes, attacks the ball at its highest point,etc. Scouts ask "does he show these characteristics? From each of these component grades scouts conclude he is a skilled WR who should be able to produce in the NFL (production follows talent). In this sense it is predictive in nature. Spot on! alternatively: Does not look at technique so much as the result. Did he get open? Did he run a clean route? Did he get off the line cleanly? Thus it is not predictive but rather it is results driven. PFF! Dan I think you know exactly what I am talking about. When a trained scout watches film they ask things like did he get off the line quickly and immediately attack the corner or did he waste time with a useless shimmy? How many steps did he take in his breakdown? In this case even if the Wr got open the scout may see that his technique was sloppy so would not expect this to be a long term trend. Then watch film with a guy who grades players for PFF. What does this guy ask? "Did he get open." Much simpler in comparison. Indeed. In terms of overall knowledge and credibility the trained scout will be superior. But Madden does not have things like a "fluid hips" rating. It has a "route running" rating that determines whether or not a WR gets open. So the simplistic "did he get open?" works for Madden. Scouts also do not have a "fluid hips" grade for grading WRs. They have a Route/Patterns grade that is based upon a myriad of qualities summed up into one overarching grade. To me, a next-gen game should be able to have animations tied into those ratings. In your example, using PFF, both players would have the same route-running grade because they both got open the same amount of times. However, they may have done it in different ways that can be expounded upon in the animations. If WR A is 6'4", 225 he likely got a good release because he out muscled the DB. If WR B is 5'9", 185 he likely beat a jam because he out maneuvered the DB. The results say that they did the same thing, but reality can show that they both incorporated different techniques/animations to do it. The other thing you have to factor in is the quality of the defender. Did both players do this against Richard Sherman or Morris Claiborne (sorry Charter!)? The quality of the defender also has bearing upon the success rate. What I would prefer to see is a series of attributes reliant upon predictive measures, not reactionary ones. Then, have variance built into the effectiveness of those attributes BEFORE the players even touch the video-game-field. Stack those individual player variances up on top of one another in a game with an infinite number of possibilities and you have a pretty wide range of possible results.

Please see the BOLD above.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic. What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better. Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in. He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever. Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data. How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better?

I already have the data ready to go. I could do the modelling one week, and have them write the code the next.

Let's use the updates of the real data to update the rosters every week for online and play-now games. Then, let's use the historical data to build a model for player progression within CFM based upon a combination of risk, probability, production, and coaching.

It can be done. Will it though? That is another question.

[khaliib]

Without getting too detailed about Madden's coding, which I would be getting into trouble here doing so, much of the methodology to achieve the noted aspects you wrote in response to my post...

well, lets just say that too much focus might be put on what's being done on the "macro" level (i.e. Rating changes in roster updates), because there would be no disagreements about what's going on at the "micro" level, and the only real issue here is "Sourcing and Credit".

I'll bow out of the conversation with this, who's to say that "data and production" methodology aren't being utilized right now!!!

I have a feeling Rex & Co are going to give some "$2 haircuts" to all their critics with Madden 17.
Heads going to be all messed up!!!

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Please see my responses in bold above.

On the subject of 40 time and speed, I'm aware of your position and agree with it. But that aside, even in the current "system" they manage to double down on being wrong. They tie speed to the final 40 time, but then if the player performs better he often becomes faster according to EA. I don't think the entire attribute system needs an overhaul. Perhaps an expansion and some tuning, but I am fine with things like SPC. It is much easier for the game to model that.

Regarding something like composure and matching animations, here we encounter a problem. We don't even get different animations for the varying levels of route running skill. This is why I'm not on board with FBG in Madden. It would require a massive increase in animations and underlying code. I don't think it is realistic, the best you may get is a watered down version. Maybe that is a defeatist attitude. I do think that animations are Rex's "5th pillar" though so maybe my mind will be changed on that front.

We seem to be on the same page as far as traits go. I too think they should be expanded. For many of them I do not like having them as dichotomous. Make it a 0-99 scale that just doesn't affect overall calculations.

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic. What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better. Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in. He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever. Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data. How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We want the same thing as far as wanting a sim game goes. The difference appears to be that I believe a sim experience can be arrived at using a rating system that is not much different from the current one. FBG can also give a sim experience, but I don't think FBg is necessary for the sim experience.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Please see the BOLD above.

I fully agree on the frequency of ratings changes being an issue, and one that is larger under a production based rating system. But while using scouts is a solution, it is not the only one. EA could just show a little bit of restraint in this area.

I knew that scouts didn't have "fluid hips" (thats a 3 AM phrase btw lol) but I thought most of them broke down route running into multiple attributes.

But we return to the issue of animations. If EA shows a commitment to improving and expanding the number of animations I may change my stance. Right now my opposition to FBG ratings has little to do with FBG itself but instead what I feel is EA's mindset. I think they view it as too much work for not enough payoff. My suspicion is that if your ratings get into the game it will be done so in a half-assed manner. I'd rather keep the current system instead of that.

[ggsimmonds]

I want to clarify something, when I speak of a production/results driven ratings system I am not referring to progression or potential! I do not want progression to be controlled by in game production; the last thing I want to see is guys cheesing the AI in order to build a team of 90+ stars.

I am only referring to the front end roster ratings for current NFL players.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

If EA shows a commitment to improving and expanding the number of animations I may change my stance. Right now my opposition to FBG ratings has little to do with FBG itself but instead what I feel is EA's mindset. I think they view it as too much work for not enough payoff. My suspicion is that if your ratings get into the game it will be done so in a half-assed manner. I'd rather keep the current system instead of that.

I am dying to comment on this above...but I don't think I can yet...on the record that is.

The expectation is that if FBG contributors are involved with EA, there are a certain set of circumstances that have to be met. Having a voice into the implementation of the ratings on actual gameplay is one of them. Simply changing the ratings is not sufficient. That is a "half-assed", as you put it, way to do it. I am not interested in "half-assing" these ratings into the game.

We all know that plugging and playing the ratings works for some people, and doesn't for others. To those who enjoyed the rosters we did this year, you are welcome. My team and I are glad you enjoy them. To those who didn't and are skeptical until they see more, just be patient. The onus is on EA. They have to see the benefit versus the cost. Yes, it may not be worth the cost to overhaul this game, but they are exploring it.

More on that at a later date.