Is DPP The Evolution Of Madden Player Ratings?

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Again, I don't see what's nonsensical about that. If a player plays up to his ability and is focused - he has the best hands in the game. 99 CTH. Just like when Desean Jackson "feels like" playing, his is fearsome. When he doesn't...well, just look at the past few weeks. Should DJax be rated for crap despite his raw physical abilities? Or does he just lack mental discipline and is a distraction/gets detracted? If other things creep into his mind, he "doesn't feel up to it", or whatever else, you might get something less than that. It is perfectly logical, imo. A player has a peak level. Whether not he's there depends on other factors, some of which are from the player himself. Sounds like real life, imo. Ratings represent the player at 100% mentally and physically. Hot indicates he might be playing "over his head" for a while, or is psyched up, etc, so he gives 115%. Cold means he's "thinking too much" or just "off" and isn't quite his usual self - maybe 85% If a WR got whacked or one just slipped off his fingertips, maybe it's eating at him. He's not completely focused on the game, but is remembering that last drop. He doesn't have a "short memory" and maybe he's getting antsy or trying to "speed up" instead of "letting the game come to him", so he makes more mistakes. Now he has "Drops Open Passes: Yes" due to this. So maybe he'll catch more like an 80. Until he has success and gets his mojo back. The team see's he's getting down and he gets some easy screens and such to get his confidence back. Then he snatches one for a TD on a nice hitch route. DPP goes up Drops Open Passes: No again, now he's back to 99 CTH. It's like Torrey Smith. He dropped crap all game, team picks up him, Flacco goes to him again, he gets the game winner. If that game went on, I bet Torrey felt a LOT better about himself. To me its dynamic and alive and makes plenty of sense. All of those things you want are still represented by a modifier to the catch rating. Most WR can catch, but not all catch at the same rate, same kinds of balls, etc. I guy who catches with his body is like a 70-75 CTH player - too hard, and his hands can't "catch up". Contact goes through his body to the ball, popping it out, etc. Having a "sense contact" and such would be nice to have DPP modifiers for. But CIT captures that base ability of a WR in this area. DJax always worries about getting whacked, but Megatron doesn't give a rip. Larry Fitzgerald just overpowers defenders, and Andre Johnson is just a man. Same with Boldin - those guys have high CIT at their base. They should. Now if there's a difference in that ability, throw on the DPP. I guess I don't see the need to remove numbers when you think of them as not just numbers but summations of all the things you mention that scouts would indicate (plus...scouts use numbers - they have a grading scale).

I agree with that premise on certain things, like SPD, ACC, JMP, etc but not for CTH. Unlike say having big hands, Catch/hands is not a physical attribute, it's a displayed skill set, imo. So if a player is dropping balls for whatever reason, they are not displaying that skill set. So I think it's nonsensical to rate a player not catching as having 99 CTH.

For example, TO had issues with catching the ball some years ago in Dallas and it wouldn't make sense giving him the same CTH rating he had in SF citing his catch potential.

It's hard for me to articulate through an internet forum sometimes but catch/hands is based on what players do, not what they are potentially capable of doing, imo.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

For example, TO had issues with catching the ball some years ago in Dallas and it wouldn't make sense giving him the same CTH rating he had in SF citing his catch potential. It's hard for me to articulate through an internet forum sometimes but catch/hands is based on what players do, not what they are potentially capable of doing, imo.

All ratings are what the player is capable of doing at 100%. That's the way the game works. That's what the player has with no trait bonuses/penalties, no hot/cold, no DPP effects, no role impacts for/against him.

TO at 100% is not capable of catching like Andre Johnson at 100% so TO has a lower CTH than Johnson.

TO being worse in Dallas/as he got older is progression (or coaching, or both). That just means he has a lower CTH rating, either natural or coaching influenced (SF coaches might have a +CTH modifier, now that's gone in Dallas).

It doesn't change that whatever his CTH rating is, even if it's 55...or 12, it's the natural peak of the player's ability in that area, and any deviation of that come through DPP/Traits/Roles.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

All ratings are what the player is capable of doing at 100%. That's the way the game works. That's what the player has with no trait bonuses/penalties, no hot/cold, no DPP effects, no role impacts for/against him. TO at 100% is not capable of catching like Andre Johnson at 100% so TO has a lower CTH than Johnson. TO being worse in Dallas/as he got older is progression (or coaching, or both). That just means he has a lower CTH rating, either natural or coaching influenced (SF coaches might have a +CTH modifier, now that's gone in Dallas). It doesn't change that whatever his CTH rating is, even if it's 55...or 12, it's the natural peak of the player's ability in that area, and any deviation of that come through DPP/Traits/Roles.

I understand that's how the CTH rating most likely works in Madden but I don't think it makes sense for it to. lol

Essentially it's another arbitrary "potential" rating and I don't think there should be arbitrary potential ratings. I explained why back in another thread. http://www.operationsports.com/forum...potential.html

Anyway, we just have a difference of opinion on it and that's cool.

[macbranson]

Hmmmmm...a lot of valid points being made in this thread. I really like Big FN's idea of expanding on DPP for receivers. But, I don't think the Catching attribute should be removed......Unless, well, let's think about this. What does the catching attribute really measure? KB made a good point, most WRs can catch. What really makes WRs good is:
#1.Their ability to get open
#2. Their ability to position themselves to catch the ball.

Some WRs use their size and/ or strength to do this (Calvin Johnson, Jermichael Finley), while some use speed and agility (Wes Welker, Steve Smith). But there are other players who are as big as Megatron and others who are agile as Steve Smith. Why aren't they elite WRs? Because they don't get thrown to. Why don't they get thrown to? Because they're not open as often as the other elite guys. But sometimes, the QB just can't get certain guys the ball because they can't read the field as well or aren't as accurate. You ever notice how elite QBs like Brees, Rodgers and Brady always have receptions to a like 6, 7 or 8 receivers in a game? It's because they can read the field better and aren't locked onto one guy all game. But, basically, if you can get the ball to most WRs, they will make the catch. There are some guys who can catch poor throws or make catches even when they're well covered. Those guys are just really, really good.

And on Madden, you ever notice how if you throw the ball to, say a running back, who is wide open, he'll just drop the ball? That just happens because his catch rating is low. Most players...heck, even most guys in the street can catch a football if they're wide open. That's why I don't like the Catching attribute. It should really be more a combination of the QBs accuracy with the receivers ability to get open or position himself to catch the ball. So, I do think it's possible to eliminate the Catching rating.

Maybe they could get rid of the catching attribute and replace it with an attribute I would like to call Technique. It would encompass body positioning, being able to locate the ball, awareness of where you are relative to the sideline/ endzone/ first down marker. Because, let's face it, most receivers who are open will catch the ball. But how many receivers can catch the ball when they're tightly covered? This attribute could also be used on CBs in the same way.

I know my post is a little all-over-the-place, but I just wanted to get my opinions out regarding this whole discussion. Did I even have one solid, consistent point? I don't know. Ok...get rid of Catching. Replace it with Technique and/ or expand on DPP like Big FN suggested.

[Big FN Deal]

@macbranson, LOL. Seems like you were just thinking out loud with that post but that's cool.

Anyway, you kind of touched on the point I was trying to make. So many things go into a skill like "Catching" that having an arbitrary numerical rating, doesn't make sense, imo. What's the difference between a 92 CTH and a 95 CTH when wide open? Will the 92 CTH catch the ball 92% of the time and the other 95% when wide open? I honestly have no idea.

I think it makes more sense to give every player "receiver" (ie catch) traits/tendencies, which simulates individual technique, coupled with their consistency and confidence to determine their on field actions.

I am against displayed numeric ratings but would have no problem with as many traits and tendencies as they could add every year. Stop having Donny Moore and crew worry about creating and updating ratings. Just use real life data for things like Speed, Acceleration, Jump, etc and have the ratings crew work on traits and tendencies for skill sets. Then an update would be simply EA adjusting those trait/tendencies settings to fit what every player has displayed on the field in real life.

I believe the numeric ratings are there for the outcome "dice rolls"/wins and losses. For example, 88 break tackle beats 85 tackle. However, I think it would be better if there were tackle technique traits/tendencies versus ball carrier traits/tendencies, to decide these type situations.

So, if there were defensive traits/tendencies like:
*yes/no for wraps up
*yes/no for strip ball
*attack all ball carriers/hold for help with big ball carrier/hold for help with medium ball carrier/hold for help with all ball carriers for solo tackle
*good/average/poor for using leverage

Those versus the ball carrier's traits/tendencies, that could account for the various on field outcomes in a more understandable and realistic way, than the current numerical tackle rating, imo.

That's just an example off the top of my head and I can just imagine how successful traits and tendencies could be replacing some ratings, if a team was committed to refining them.