M16 v. FBG: The Ratings Release Discussion Thread

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by D81SKINS

I may be wrong, but scouting reports are based off on-field production/film, right? So w/o any on-field production(NFL, college, or HS) they wouldn't have much of a report besides, physical attributes. Another good question! What would the top 5 draft picks say if they were rated an avg of 65!? I could see them crying about this and EA would appease them by raising their ratings. Tweeter feeds would be exploding on how they are the lowest rated top 5 in Madden history lol

I'm pretty sure part of the scouting data he gets is on the field stuff. A THP or different accuracy rating would be rated based on film study

[BreakingBad2013]

Quote: Originally Posted by D81SKINS

I may be wrong, but scouting reports are based off on-field production/film, right? So w/o any on-field production(NFL, college, or HS) they wouldn't have much of a report besides, physical attributes. Another good question! What would the top 5 draft picks say if they were rated an avg of 65!? I could see them crying about this and EA would appease them by raising their ratings. Tweeter feeds would be exploding on how they are the lowest rated top 5 in Madden history lol

He's saying the ratings aren't based off of how many yards they got in a game, or season. It's about HOW they got those yards. See, Madden 's issue is that they look at stats, and form ratings to make that player a higher overall.

Where FBG is looking at their actual technique and skill, then forming a rating based on those, not the number for their season.

What would the top 5 drafted players in the NFL say about being rated "low" hopefully "heck it's a video game, I'm in the NFL and a millionaire."

If Madden created the expectation that there would be a 0-100 scale, and someone has to fall somewhere on that spectrum, everyone isn't going to expect to be a 95.

[D81SKINS]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

FBG isn't a lowered scale. It's just rated as the data says. It's not just lowered for the sake of lower. It's just using the full 1-100 scale. It matters because right now their is not much difference in a 3rd stringer from a all pro on the field based on EA's ratings because they only use about 40 points of the scale. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get the point,
EA could achieve this just by rating backups lower w/o having to rescale the whole system.
Like I said, what would top players and draft picks say if they saw how they were rated 65ovr?
EA would have to make the OVR look high but all the other attributes would be what matters during gameplay, so the OVR rating would just be like a name brand lol

[BreakingBad2013]

Quote: Originally Posted by D81SKINS

I get the point, EA could achieve this just by rating backups lower w/o having to rescale the whole system. Like I said, what would top players and draft picks say if they saw how they were rated 65ovr? EA would have to make the OVR look high but all the other attributes would be what matters during gameplay, so the OVR rating would just be like a name brand lol

There are different levels of starters in the NFL, each starting WR has a different level. So you want to feel a difference between Calvin Johnson and Brian Hartline, Bradley Fletcher and Darrell Revis etc. So no, re-rating.backups don't do it either.

Again, overall shouldn't be the marketing hot button. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by D81SKINS

I get the point, EA could achieve this just by rating backups lower w/o having to rescale the whole system. Like I said, what would top players and draft picks say if they saw how they were rated 65ovr? EA would have to make the OVR look high but all the other attributes would be what matters during gameplay, so the OVR rating would just be like a name brand lol

They could just stop with all the rediculous ratings reveals. That's a start. I know guys would complain but, EA could just do what they want. The players don't have a say. EA worries to much about that kind of stuff anyway

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

This is interesting. You mentioned Jamarcus Russell in another thread and how the scouting information you had graded him out as a 4th rounder, while everything coming out about him put his skill set (which is what you're saying the grades are based on) at the top of the draft. Could you explain that dichotomy a little more? How is it that the scouts you get your info from had him as a 4th rounder based on his abilities, but everyone knew he would be the top pick, also based on his abilities?

This is very easy to explain:

QBs are way overvalued in the draft and teams fall in love with players and particular attributes. Scouts don't make the picks. If they did, Russell would have been taken on day 2 according to the scouts that did his grade in 2007.

Where you are drafted has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good of a player you are. A lot of teams "bet on the come", or what the future potential will be. Why do you think there is overwhelming evidence to support that faster, more athletic, but more raw prospects are taken earlier? Teams are taking the most athletic players and hoping they can mold that athleticism into something great.

I don't see any dichotomy in grading a player as a third rounder and a bonehead GM/owner taking the guy in the first. Happens all the time.

[DerkontheOS]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

This is very easy to explain: QBs are way overvalued in the draft and teams fall in love with players and particular attributes. Scouts don't make the picks. If they did, Russell would have been taken on day 2 according to the scouts that did his grade in 2007. Where you are drafted has absolutely NOTHING to do with how good of a player you are. A lot of teams "bet on the come", or what the future potential will be. Why do you think there is overwhelming evidence to support that faster, more athletic, but more raw prospects are taken earlier? Teams are taking the most athletic players and hoping they can mold that athleticism into something great. I don't see any dichotomy in grading a player as a third rounder and a bonehead GM/owner taking the guy in the first. Happens all the time.

So how do you rate rookies?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I don't think that the game specifically is taken into account when Dan is producing these ratings using his tools. The idea being if it turns out a player in Madden NFL 16 with SPD 99 / ACC 99 runs a 3.8 40 time in the game, that's the game's fault and not the ratings. This mindset allows him to remain unbiased and stay as true to his data set as possible. All that said, when I was helping Dan out with some timing stuff using Madden NFL 25 on XBOX One, we determined that a player with SPD 99 / ACC 99 on default game settings ran a 4.24 40-yard dash with a 10-yard split of 1.37, both of which are within hundredths of seconds of the fastest 40-yard / 10-yard times ever recorded at the Scouting Combine.

That is correct. However, I already have a plan to make the 40 times more true to life in the game, and it is a pretty simple formula in order to do so.