IDEAL WAY OF RATING PLAYERS

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Obnoxious

The only thing I hated was Clay Matthews. Just because he had a FF in the Super Bowl doesn't make him 99. I mean yeah he was 4th in the league with sacks but any decent OLB in a 3-4 D can get 13 sacks. He barely had over 50 tackles and only 1 interception. I wouldn't even put him above 90. C'mon man.

I don't believe in stats equating to ratings. I believe in scouting data equating to ratings. Just because a receiver has 110 catches for 1400 yds and 10 TDs on a season doesn't mean he instantly went from an 88 SPD to a 98 SPD does it?

[sputney23]

I agree with the poster that said make it more like Head Coach..
I loved how schemes could affect a players overall(No way Dwight Freeney should have a 90+ rating as a 3-4 defensive end..

Also with the playbook it... Everyone can't know ALL of the plays

[Obnoxious]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I don't believe in stats equating to ratings. I believe in scouting data equating to ratings. Just because a receiver has 110 catches for 1400 yds and 10 TDs on a season doesn't mean he instantly went from an 88 SPD to a 98 SPD does it?

I'm talking about the Madden Ratings. Their mostly based off of stats.

[macbranson]

@ DCEBB,

1) I totally agree that the bench press is a poor measure of strength. But it has been used in the NFL for years and I only included it because that's how it's measured in real life and all the Physical Attributes are measureables. I think the Squat or Clean would be a much better measure of overall strength. Anyone who understands weight lifting would know that either of these is a much better measure of total strength than bench press. I'm very surprised that all of the strength and conditioning experts in the NFL continue to use it.

2) I agree that CAR and BCV are separate skills. But the thing is that I don't really like the whole rating just for Carrying. Most fumbles are dependent on when the player gets hit and from what angle and what he was trying to do. I don't really believe that we should have an attribute just for that. Most running backs will fumble the ball every once in a while. Even players who are "fumble prone" will have one season where they fumble a lot and no more after that. I think it's kind of like giving a QB an Interception rating. It's a combination of other factors combined with the player's skill, so I don't think the player should be rated for it.
And on top of that, Madden is very weird about the way they rate Carrying. Peyton Hillis fumbled A LOT last season but his carrying is in the 90s. There are several other backs who had less fumbles than he did, but have a lower CAR rating. But, I definitely understand the opinion that it should be a separate attribute. Also, I wanted to keep it to 6 attributes so adding something like CAR would have ruined my plan.

[macbranson]

@ Big FN Deal,

That idea is very intriguing and I've thought about it myself a few times. I do the like the idea of player ratings being more broad and open to interpretation. Maybe in the system that I propose, we could keep the same letter grade ratings, but the ratings are all determined by your scouts. So if you're looking for a player in free agency, they won't have a rating until you select them and your scouts will rate them.

It's good for making the game more realistic, but the problem is that it would make the game substantially harder. It would be more difficult and time consuming to determine who the good players are. A lot of people would be averse to something like that. I do like the idea and think it could be merged with my idea to create a great simulation of the real NFL. How about you post a way that EA could implement it?

[KBLover]

I probably don't get it - but I think a game devoid of numbers would remove immersion to me.

Scouts use numbers. They have a grading scale from 1 to 9 where 5.0 is an average NFL ability at that skill. It's similar to the 20-80 system used by baseball scouts.

I'd rather see something like what OOTP does: Break up the scale into equal(ish) pieces and assign them a number. Avoids any "hinting" (you know a B+ only has a tight range, etc).

9 = 89 - 99
8 = 78 - 88
7 = 67 - 77
6 = 54 - 66
5 = 43 - 55
4 = 32 - 44
3 = 21 - 33
2 = 12 - 22
1 = 1 - 11

This has an innate advantage of always having a fog of war and a range for consistency to work. A 5 consistency is whatever the internal rating is. A 4 can be anywhere within the "number range". 3 can be anywhere -1 number range (a 5 rating might be anything from 66 to 43 in a given week..or play!) 2 can be anywhere -2 ranges and 1 can be anywhere from -3 ranges to the the high end of the actual number range.

I suppose I just don't get why numbers are considered "bad" in sports games. Sports runs on numbers. Seeing number grades like scouts use instead of letter grades is more realistic, imo.

Combine results are numbers. A player's 40 time isn't "Fast", "Slow", or "B", it's "4.25", "5.4" it's a quantifiable, objective result. "Fast" is an opinion. 4.3 is an objective measure of time. Players don't jump "high" they jump X inches. They don't bench press "a lot", they performed Y reps. What's "a lot" or "a little" is relative to everyone else's performance - all in numbers. Stats, production - quantified in numbers. We don't just have to settle for "good" runner - we can see he runs 4.9 ypc week after week and is top 5 in rushing yards and rushing TDs. The QB is sacked less frequently (sacked once per 15 pass plays instead of once per 13 pass plays) when he's in protection, etc.

The ideal way of rating players, imo, is to have it no longer be 100% correct instantly. There should be a fog of war around the ratings. Scouting should be more important in sports games. Madden's scouting system goes too far in leaving you completely clueless about a player until certain "stages" (never mind the "you can only have X individual work outs or pro days" that's never alterable based on my scouting agency or any other factor - why can't I hire more scouting? Put more $$$$ into player development/training facilities?), when in reality, you're never clueless about a player - you're just more degrees of correct with more information.

Some of that information should come from your scheme (because you want certain stuff from guys in various systems), the scheme he came from (did he run a pro-style offense? was he good, but in a run-first offense and we're a pass-first team? He performed well but wasn't asked to do things we ask our LBs to do in our system - he's a blitzer and we're a Cover 2 team) and just by putting him on the field and seeing how he performs in a multitude of situations.

Not to mention putting the decision in you head of "do we change the scheme or pass on this kid or try him and see if he can still perform at a high level?"

Traits and DPP are great - keep them in and expand and develop them as they definitely impact a player's production on the field in reality. They also should not be immediately accurate/available. I shouldn't know the rookie QB I just drafted will be clutch in the NFL. He might have been clutch in college, but college <> NFL. It should be Clutch: Yes? Not Clutch: Absolutely definitely Yes for a kid like that, imo. Same for confidence, consistency, all of that.

I just don't see why removing any and all traces of numbers, even for quantified physical traits.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by sputney23

I agree with the poster that said make it more like Head Coach.. I loved how schemes could affect a players overall(No way Dwight Freeney should have a 90+ rating as a 3-4 defensive end.. Also with the playbook it... Everyone can't know ALL of the plays

Yep...one of the best parts of HC for me. Loved the challenge of making a new playbook and then trying to teach it to my guys with preseason (talk about making preseason matter...)

And physical skills should impact his performance in different assignments. Especially routes. RTE is a "global" skill - why not have per-route ratings, even if "hidden" and averaged into the displayed RTE?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Obnoxious

I'm talking about the Madden Ratings. Their mostly based off of stats.

And that, is the primary fallacy with how EA rates players.