M16 v. FBG: The Ratings Release Discussion Thread

[msdm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The example you cite for Hali having a 99 in PMV and FMV is a good one but not for the reasons you are thinking. Hali graded out the highest of all players in the data for his PMV/FMV in the data. Those attributes weren't manipulated one iota. Among all LBs, the maximum grades that correlate to the PMV and FMV areas was a 4.0. Hali is the player that graded out at the 4.0! Since the highest grade is set to the value of 99, his rating is accurate. Those attributes were not manipulated. Oh, and the highest grade that correlates to the AWR rating....he had that as well. A 4.1, tied with Suggs among all LBs. He wasn't just given that rating. Those are grades that he earned that correlate 100% to the data. I didn't increase those at all. He was already at the top grade before the OVR ratings were calculated. As for your posts, I am finding little if anything as "constructive". Where are you suggestions on how I might do things better? Isn't that what usually follows when giving "constructive criticism"? I haven't read any yet. We all know that EA needs to change their OVR formulas. We also know that unless they have reason to do so (like bringing in a new ratings system) they won't do it. So my choices are to either ignore the OVR formulas and just keep the attributes where they are based on the data, or attempt to reach the overalls by slightly changing some attributes by one or two points so that the OVR grades can match the OVRs calculated in the game. That is the compromise that in my view, has to be made if people want to have the OVRs match, which they deeply expressed in several emails going back to the beginning of this project some 6+ years ago. I know that I cannot make everyone happy, but the fact that some people find these to better their gameplay means that I am on the right tract. Simply stating that the users are the people I am targeting in this regard does not mean that I have attitude. Perhaps you are misreading my comments and are not getting an accurate picture of what I am trying to convey. Many people around here are emotionally tied to what is said on here, and need to take it with a huge grain of salt. I take no slight to what someone says so long as they back it up with something other than conjecture. You obviously didn't have all of the fact in this whole "Hali" debate, because if you had, you would have realized that the scouts already graded him at the maximum grade in the categories you were selectively discussing. If you are confusing my rather dismissive stance as "attitude" then so be it. It is dismissive because I do not think you have all of the facts, so to me, your opinion is more akin to the rest of them floating around in the ether. Now, if you truly wish to be constructive, let's see what YOU would do differently and make some real suggestions around here, because as it stands now it simply comes off as complaining with little fact to back anything up.

It is constructive because (and you'd know this if you go back and see my earlier posts in this very thread) I've already said I think you have a good method, at least better than EA's, but that your data cannot properly translate into ratings and gameplay until/unless EA adopts the same variables you have in the data you receive from scouts. So I've basically been in agreement with many of the things you've said: if EA doesn't change their scale, then we cannot see the whole extent to how your ratings would/could affect gameplay.

Another constructive comment I've made in this very thread: I've stated that a sample of 12 scouts is very limited to draw conclusions in the whole NFL population and that a set of 12 other scouts could produce COMPLETELY different evaluations to those you get... So I said EA Might actually have the chance (resources) to get more scouts to collect data from different teams/sources... On that topic you and I had a good back and forth where you pointed out that it might not be feasible to get many more scouts because of their time constraints and lack of interest on their part.

My last few posts were referring to that, I do not believe (based on my gameplay experience) that your ratings properly transfer to gameplay. If others feel as if they do, that's cool, but as you've seen through this thread, there are some that don't, and them expressing that opinion is not complaining.

As you can see, I'm not complaining... I've been posting my opinions/experiences and giving arguments as to why I feel that way.

Thanks for clarifying the Hali example, but my rebuttal to that would be my earlier argument for a need of a broader group of scouts... Now this is purely opinion, but I find it hard to believe a separate group of scouts would find Hali as the highest graded pass rusher, but again that is my personal take.

I have also said that a good addition to the OVR ratings formula would be the "production" rating in order to make OVR "match" public perception and production itself without affecting the core ratings ( if the overall becomes a reason for arguing against your set)

So I believe I've been constructive enough through this thread, I only happen not to experience better gameplay with your ratings, and that might be due to the differences in your system and EA's system, or maybe my honest opinion does not agree with some of the individual ratings (but again, a different group of experienced eyes might also not agree)

To summarize (lol sorry for the long post)
- lack of compatibility with EA's current system
- limited pool of source data (12 scouts from the same team)

Those are my two biggest qualms with your method as it is now. The first only needs EA buying into you; the second seems more insurmountable and I believe is the biggest why EA might not go with your system as they'd probably try to find sources (whether they are scouts or not) that match public perception to a bigger degree.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

I've seen you mention countless times about your interview with Donny and how you'd never sacrifice the integrity of the ratings for "suits", so that brings up the question of why would you sacrifice it because of random people complaining about low OVR's? Isn't the entire premise of the ratings that it is completely reliant and based upon real world data provided by the scouts? If the data says Tamba Hali has a grade that rates out at 90 for FMV (completely hypothetical), what does it matter what Joe Schmo thinks of his OVR?

Fitting attributes into the OVR was to benefit the users, not me personally. I have expressed several times that I would rather have the OVR done away with, or have it editable so it can better fit the formulas in the scouting data. People weren't complaining about the low OVRs, they were complaining about the OVRs that were posted not matching the actual OVRs in the game. If a player is graded at a 90 in the data because of the difference in attribute weights, or different attributes being used, his grade may only come out to an 85 in Madden. People were very interested in seeing the OVRs match, so making what I deem to be a very small concession (by raising or lowering some attributes by at most a few points) I was able to achieve a better balance between how EA calculates the value of an OVR and how the scouts do it. It wasn't that big of a deal and was done almost 6 years ago.

This process was established well before EA came into the picture. What EA was insisting upon was taking whatever ratings I had and then manually changing them based on what they wanted them to be (the suits). I wasn't down with that. Instead, I would have preferred that EA implement my grading system more true to the actual data instead of taking another step at deviating further.

Both situations are entirely unrelated.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

------ So which is it?

I believe I was referring to the fact that I had to alter some attribute values, minimally, to attain the desired OVR. That was more of a tongue in cheek comment hinting at the idea that I am somewhat limited in determining the overall value of a player in EA's system. When I look at the actual grades, Hali is already tops for his position group in a few categories like PMV, FMV, and AWR (tied with Suggs).

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

What I'm finding very concerning is this...many who do not use or have limited use of these rosters are extremely "hard line" in their belief...and in doing so prevent outside thinking to a possible chance to change ratings as a whole...most appear to agree that ratings as they stand from EA are over inflated...Dan's ratings bring us something different and also bring with it evidence to back the ratings. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I have is a different approach with some real thought behind it. Striking a balance between what EA allows us to do and what I ideally WANT to do is tough, but I think I have a decent balance right now. It isn't perfect, but it can't be unless the stuff gets implemented 100% or we are allowed to edit OVR calculations, attributes, etc.