|
Re: What does "Streatched Ratings" mean to you?
To me, stretched ratings is an accurate representation of real scouting of real players in real time. We have so much data that has been used to measure the POTENTIAL for physical attributes, we should be able to determine the distributions of SPD, ACC, AGI, STR, and JMP. From there, we should be able to determine what constitutes "ELITE", "AVERAGE", and "POOR" benchmarks for particular measurements.
Now I know I am going to invoke the ever-constant question of "well how do you quantify TRK, PBF, SAC, etc?"...you know...the data that is qualitative. Well, look at what scouting departments in the NFL do. They use grade scales to rate players at particular attributes using ratings on 0-10 in most cases. This system is not just used for ROOKIE SCOUTING but also for PRO SCOUTING. Most teams employ between 8-12 college scouts and 4-6 professional scouts who grade players on other teams. Now, it is true that the scales differ, but I know that pro scouts do use numerical systems to quantify the qualifiable data.
If EA was to use such real, hard, data, they would find less issues with their ratings. Why? Because the vast majority of players rated by professional scouts lie in the below average range. How so? Because they scout well over 3000 players every off-season for each draft. Add that up, and that is 15000 players over the last 5 years alone, not including players already on NFL rosters. So in essence, while Madden rates players from say 99-50 or so, in actuality, the skill level falls far beyond that lower point. The issue this arises in the game is that Madden only includes the top 2500 in the game...ie: players that make NFL rosters and the top FAs. Does that mean that the bottom is a 50 OVR? Of course not.
EA needs a database to pull information from. They need real scouting data to get the full picture of the data distribution. They need credibility and reliable sources. Not youtube videos and fan-speculation. The eye test only goes so far.
This topic strikes a particular chord with me because I have tried to do what EA has failed to with FBG ratings. I used real scouting info to determine what is elite, average, and poor for many different ratings and attributes. I analyzed the data to see where the outliers are. I interpolated the data into Madden ratings based on that information. Most importantly, I included it all in an online database that has exceeded 17000 players. When EA needs to add a never-heard-of rookie in week 15 to a practice squad, they surely use shabby data (if any at all). It is obvious. How else can you explain a player who was not on a roster for 15 weeks suddenly coming in with a SPD rating of 94 or something absurd like that. Wouldn't you think that anyone worthy of such a rating would have been looked at already?
What EA does lacks any true methodology. In my opinion, it is the equivalent of having the inmates run the asylum. Madden 10s ratings were a step in the right direction, but it is still a deviation from the true data out there. For so much of our hard-earned money that EA takes in every year (well, not my money...I haven't bought a Madden since Madden 08 on PC), you would think they could get the right resources to do things accordingly.
This analysis I have written is no law by any means, but to me, it makes sense. Perhaps someday if I do a good enough job with FBG, EA will consider offering a contract for ratings production to the people who actually get it.
|
03-13-2012, 05:30 PM
