Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Well he had a strong 2008 to put him up there. 6 sacks (t-4th), 13 hits on the QB (3rd), 17 QB pressures (t-12th), 27 solos (t-32nd), 6 assists (t-21st), no missed tackles (t-1st), and 26 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (t-21st). Those ranks are among all DTs that season. Now, in 2009 he had a less productive year. He had 2 sacks (t-20th), 5 QB hits (t-12th), 15 QB pressures (t-10th), 33 solos (t-12th), 3 assists (t-47th), 2 missed tackles (t-44th), and 28 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (9th). Not a stellar year, but 2008 put him up there on the radar. This is enough to justify his low 80 rating, but not any higher IMO.

see that's probably my issue...and those other stats were GREAT (the missed tackles,and stops that resulted in an offensive failure)...where'd you get them? i think those ratings are solid but he really only had ONE YEAR that would be considered good. its like a RB who has a rookie year with 300 yds and 2tds, a second year with 900 yards and 7tds and then a 3rd year where he had 700 yds and 5 tds. you know what I rate this back?

NOT AN 86.

he gets a rating that is barely "better than average" (a 75 the way i rate) the 80 rating for me isn't something i just give anyone. ratings guys too high to fast is what got us into this mess IMO. its for guys who are good (Darren Sproles is a good example). they've shown some semblance of consistency. and i take an 85 seriously...i need to see 3 consistent high levels of play from a VET (think Desmond Mason) or two really good ones from a younger player (Djack is an example) i also need to see someone who changes gameplans. to me Mebane is on a bad defense and he hasn't done anything to change that...no one goes into a game saying "whoah, we're gonna have to account for this mebane guy." i just can't find it in me to give a solid guy on a bad defense a rating i'd reserve for a DT like Shaun Rogers (no longer elite--but has dominant moments)

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

First off, props to you man. It takes a real man to admit when he is wrong...especially here. Now for the issue you bring up: At FBG in the past we had a simple equation to determine a players AWR. Now, if you analyze last year's ratings there was a strong statistical correlation between a player's OVR rating and his AWR rating. This was a positive correlation of nearly .90. To those who are not stat-obsessed that means it was a positive correlation where 90% of the data was correlated. Most people who do stats accademically shoot for about .70 to show a statistically significant correlation between 2 pieces of data. This means that it wasn't just a strong correlation, but a VERY VERY VERY strong correlation. So what does this mean? It means that as a players AWR goes up, his OVR goes up in nearly 90% of the cases. It also means that as a players OVR goes up, his AWR goes up in 90% of the cases. So what can we draw from this? We can conclude that the two are tied into each other very closely. At FBG we used to actually have a formula for determining a player's AWR rating for rookies. We would take his OVR rating, which is pre-determined based upon his other skills including SPD, ACC, JMP, CTH, etc...and subtract 10. Dez Bryant. As a rookie his skill set gives him a 60 OVR. So you subtract 10. His AWR is now 50 as a rookie. So what about players who are not rookies? For them you do the same thing, but instead take the present year and subtract their draft year from it. Then add that to their OVR-10. Randy Moss. Is currently rated a 90. Subtract 10. Now take this year (2010) and subtract his draft year (1998). Now add them. 90-10 = 80 2010-1998 = 12 80+12 = 92 It gives progression for each year a player is in the league, and rightfully so. Peyton Manning 98-10 = 88 2010-1998 = 12 88+12 = 100 (or 99 because it is the maximum.) This doesn't over-inflate the AWR rating and still takes into account experience and the player's OVR rating. Thoughts?

Sounds like a good universal system that corresponds with how many years the player has been in the league for. Good idea!

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

see that's probably my issue...and those other stats were GREAT (the missed tackles,and stops that resulted in an offensive failure)...where'd you get them? i think those ratings are solid but he really only had ONE YEAR that would be considered good. its like a RB who has a rookie year with 300 yds and 2tds, a second year with 900 yards and 7tds and then a 3rd year where he had 700 yds and 5 tds. you know what I rate this back? NOT AN 86. he gets a rating that is barely "better than average" (a 75 the way i rate) the 80 rating for me isn't something i just give anyone. ratings guys too high to fast is what got us into this mess IMO. its for guys who are good (Darren Sproles is a good example). they've shown some semblance of consistency. and i take an 85 seriously...i need to see 3 consistent high levels of play from a VET (think Desmond Mason) or two really good ones from a younger player (Djack is an example) i also need to see someone who changes gameplans. to me Mebane is on a bad defense and he hasn't done anything to change that...no one goes into a game saying "whoah, we're gonna have to account for this mebane guy." i just can't find it in me to give a solid guy on a bad defense a rating i'd reserve for a DT like Shaun Rogers (no longer elite--but has dominant moments)

Yeah I do not know why EA had Mebane that high in the first place. I had him at barely an 82 on my scale...and that is a best-case scenario for him unless he unloads with 10 sacks this season. That goes to show you that a guy who recorded 6 sacks in 2008 is still only an 82 as a DT...not a 90.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by at23steelers

Sounds like a good universal system that corresponds with how many years the player has been in the league for. Good idea!

I was just going to add the years pro number to the OVR-10. With the 2010-yr drafted you can have a guy who has been out of the league for a few seasons still have a high AWR even though he hasn't been in the game. It doesn't mean that he is any less aware though and his OVR will still play a big part in the rating.

What sounds better?
1) OVR-10+(2010-draft year)

OR

2) OVR-10+(years in the league)

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII

Here's where I think we have a philosophical difference about ratings. To me, ratings should be STRETCHED. And I mean elastic waistband, "don't let go that's really going to hurt" stretched. We have a ratings system that goes from 1-99. The median value in that system is a 50 (actually 49.5 but you get the idea). Therefore, it stands to reason that an AVERAGE rating should be a 50. Therefore, an average NFL player, the JAGs (Just A Guy) would be in the 50s overall. That may seem low, but it's the average here...I'd even say, "Sure let's go to 60 instead." So now we have our average NFL player at 60. 70s? Starter. 80s? Pro-bowler. 90s? Future Hall of Famer. We're talking a handful of 90s. But people would have a fit if they saw players on their favorite teams with overalls in the 60s, or speeds that are much lower than they perceive because they're used to everyone having high 80s or 90s speed...but alas, I'm writing up a blog about this very issue. And from my perspective, being effective, but not dominant, for one year does not equal an 80 rating.

see you and i are pretty close...i've always rated "JAG" veterans from 60-65. i've always had a dislike for people who rate mr. rookie "hasn't done squat in the NFL" anything higher than a 70. and EVEN a 70 would be first pick in the draft franchise changer like Peppers. for the most part i'd like to see 1st round picks from 65-70. 2nd rounders 60-64. third rounders 50-59 and anything past the third round? 40-49. 66-69 is a NFL guy who contributes off the bench...kinda like what Keyaron Fox did for the Steelers last year. average nfl starter? 70-74. solid player who's better than average 75-79 (mike patterson of the eagles for example) GOOD players? 80-84 (i'd rate Miles Austin and Sidney Rice an 82) 85-89 is for pro-bowl level guys or guys just outside the "elite range" (i.e. Djack, kellen winslow and robert mathis) although i max out one-dimensional guys at an 87. Elite? 90-96. ratings over a 97 are reserved for Hall Of Famers. is peyton one? probably...but we'll give him those ratings after he gets a BUST. NOT BEFORE.

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I was just going to add the years pro number to the OVR-10. With the 2010-yr drafted you can have a guy who has been out of the league for a few seasons still have a high AWR even though he hasn't been in the game. It doesn't mean that he is any less aware though and his OVR will still play a big part in the rating. What sounds better? 1) OVR-10+(2010-draft year) OR 2) OVR-10+(years in the league)

If he is out of the league though, he shouldn't gain awareness for the years he was never in the league. So, I like #2 better. Btw, I calculated it, and the lowest overall you can give a player in Madden NFL 10 is a 12 overall with 12 overall attributes for everything.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by at23steelers

If he is out of the league though, he shouldn't gain awareness for the years he was never in the league. So, I like #2 better. Btw, I calculated it, and the lowest overall you can give a player in Madden NFL 10 is a 12 overall with 12 overall attributes for everything.

Thanks for the input. I like #2 as well but want to know what people think first before making a decision. The only problem is a lot of guys still play ball, but in the CFL, IFL, Arena, etc...which isn't to say they are not learning constantly.

Is that low rating of 12 for every position?

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Thanks for the input. I like #2 as well but want to know what people think first before making a decision. The only problem is a lot of guys still play ball, but in the CFL, IFL, Arena, etc...which isn't to say they are not learning constantly. Is that low rating of 12 for every position?

Yes it is. I think those leagues just make the matter more complicated, and a year in the NFL gives you more awareness than a year in those leagues anyhow.