What does "Streatched Ratings" mean to you?

[PGaither84]

A simple question with a complicated answer.

For starters, and please correct me if I am wrong, but every so often I read or hear that most of the players in the NFL have similar physical skill sets. There are freaks of nature and those who play above their measurable skills set, but that most players have comparable measurable at each of their respective positions. So, while we can list exceptions, they are just that... exceptions. Also, people who have been around a lot longer than me that lived their lives in the NFL like former coaches including John Madden himself have aid that the talent level in today's NFL is better than ever, and continues to get better.

There are various measurable aspects of a player. How big and strong are they? How fast and agile are they? How high can they jump? How hard adn how far can they throw the football? To me, these are areas that you can generally plug in and generate ratings off of, but how do you accurately grade a Lineman's footwork on a 12-99 [100] scale? How do you accurately rate a player's play recognition ability? How about their one coverage rating?

Please, don't turn this into a Donny Moore thread. I just want to talk about the ratings themselves and what you want to see with stretched ratings.

With all of that out of the way, here is the nitty gritty to me:

As others have said in the past, Madden tends to have a scale where it treats 90+ as pro-bowl caliber, 80+ as NFL starter level, 70+ as a backup, and 60+ as "You had better improve soon, or it's time to find a new line of work." Am I mistake here? Where does this leave 0-59, or really 12-59? To me, stretching out what a 90 or an 80 or a 70 means matters just as much as the number themselves.

There are many different directions we can go with a thread like this, and I want to see where you take it. What does "Stretched out Ratings" mean to you?

[Broncos86]

I tweeted this to... that guy... a month or two ago, saying the ratings needed to be stretched out again. It feels like everything bunched back up. Since we may get some new passing mechanics, what I say might be outdated. But I think there needs to be greater variance in terms of passing accuracy. I know, back in M10 or so, Ian Cummings spoke at length about increasing the area in which a QB can miss. I think it needs to be further expanded to really highlight why Tom Brady is so valuable. I've played as Tim Tebow, and I don't always see the difference. Heck, sometimes Tebow is better because I can throw on the run better with him! The offensive line also needs to have all their pivotal ratings stretched out, AND we need more variance on how those ratings can result.

Going into what you brought up regarding player skill, the major component is decision-making and anticipation. Great athletes anticipate. Wayne Gretzky was no freak of nature in terms of athletics. He had an average shot, and good speed. But his anticipation for the game and understanding for where the puck will go, along with amazing vision, made him the best in the sport.

That's why I think this new read and react stuff could be huge. Rookies don't come into the league with slower speed. Heck, most will never be faster, outside of some conditioning and training. But the game speed comes from confidence in their decisions and positioning along with anticipation for the play. And right now, in Madden, that doesn't really get represented very well. Ray Lewis is still a monster because of his anticipation. Would he beat Von Miller in a foot race? I doubt it. But Ray Lewis sees plays before they even happen. That needs to be present in Madden.

[carnalnirvana]

in my re rated rosters i stretched out the AWR rating.

streached out to me means that on my once decent colts: freeney and mathis got 90+ AWR then no one else on that D had higher than a 55...

i just believe the difference currently between players is non existent, there are ratings that all NFL players must have just to be drafted but the technique ratings MUST vary 0-99... as it stands it seems its 65-99

i am thinking about using a 5 star strategy where each star is 20 pts ..... there are alot of nfl starters that would get C or D grades in certain techniques such as footwork/coverage etc yet madden has them in solid 80's

we need to see some 40's and 55's

this imo is why progression and free agency is garbage in madden, everyone can be used and are effective at doing their job. in madden you never need to draft .

evey wonder why we dont need to play to team strenghts, i can pick the browns and run an offense similar to green bays offense with Mccoy. his accuracy should be 65 at best.

[Senator Palmer]

There are many ways to go here. You could go to the "I want ratings to matter more" -- but I don't think that's what you're hitting at. We all want them to matter. So, assuming that ratings matter, I want the values scaled down, way, down, or lowered across the board. That's what I though stretched ratings meant.

I remember an old thread where this was discussed, and someone brought up Fifa and noted at the time how the highest rated player in the whole game was like a 93. That's where I thought Madden was going with the stretched ratings. Not just adding nuances like medium/short/deep throwing accuracy or catch in traffic which I thought was a step in the right direction, but lowering the values so that the players performed like actual humans. I thought agility and acceleration would be scaled down across the board so that we could see it take more effort for a receiver to catch a drag and turn up field.


To me a 90 rating or above and we should be talking about Hall of Fame players. If we want to talk about history of the NFL, I'd probably only give maybe 5 players a 99 rating. And I give that mainly to their awareness. Just for reference on my own scale: Troy Aikman, undeniable Hall of Fame quarterback, one of the best of his era. In my opinion, at his peak, I'd have topped him out at 93. I wouldn't have given Emmitt Smith anything higher than a 95.

At his peak, I wouldn't have given Lawrence Taylor a 99. I think Reggie White was a 99 at his peak. Joe Namath, I probably would have topped him out at 88.

So, if there's that great a disparity in overalls among the greatest that ever played the game, then Madden should be the same way. This game should work more in that 70s/80s threshhold. The ratings should be reflective of real world dynamics. A guy who has 99 speed should be an Olympic Gold Medalist. There aren't any of those in the NFL. Right now Chris Johnson is rated 99 speed. You put him in the 100 meter dash against real world class sprinters and he finishes in the bottom half of the pack -- middle of the pack if I'm being kind.

I guess what I'm saying is that there should be no Madden ratings. It should be ratings extrapolated from the real world to fit the game. It shouldn't be, we're going to boost this guy's speed to make him stand out. You don't give Emmitt Smith 95 speed to make him great if you're dropping him in the game today. He ran a 4.55. It wasn't speed that made him great. It was speed to the hole (acceleration), AGI, BTK, STA. Dan Marino didn't have 99 throwing power. He did have elite velocity - which isn't represented enough in the game - his accuracy, anticipation, pocket presence and release made him an immortal.

I thought when the team stretched the ratings they were going to take the overalls down, then scaled up in specific areas to separate great players. Adrian Peterson is fast, but he doesn't have 97 speed, 98 agility, 100 elusiveness. He's among the best in all those categories but it is a special combination (in varying degrees) in all those areas that makes him special, but 100 elusiveness is Barry Sanders territory. 99 anything should be once in a generation.

So, to answer the question, I know what I want stretched ratings to mean, but it doesn't seem it's in sync with what's going on.

[RGiles36]

Ratings are always such a controversial and subjective conversation IMO. I don't know that there will ever be a clear consensus.

Stretched ratings means to me that there some players rated in the 60's, majority in the 70's, some in the 80's, and a few in the 90's relative to their position. Of course there are some outliers i.e. players rated in the 40's and 50's, but those guys should come few and far between.

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

As others have said in the past, Madden tends to have a scale where it treats 90+ as pro-bowl caliber, 80+ as NFL starter level, 70+ as a backup, and 60+ as "You had better improve soon, or it's time to find a new line of work." Am I mistake here? Where does this leave 0-59, or really 12-59? To me, stretching out what a 90 or an 80 or a 70 means matters just as much as the number themselves.

I'd probably back that up a notch. I think players rated 70-80 are also capable of being starters in Madden, not just 80+. There's room to upgrade, but they are serviceable depending on what they're asked to do.

Anyway, I'm a bit torn on ratings. Sometimes, I feel like Donny and staff have again been to generous on the increases. I felt like that after a couple years into on of my previous franchises. I wanted to choose a team with a subpar QB -- yet I couldn't find a starter rated less than 80 .

Then it hit me that could be a progression issue, rather than a rating issue. Seems like the rating system is generally much more apt to give increases, and a little more hesitant to decrease ratings.

To my surprise, when I downloaded the most recent roster update, I thought the players were rated pretty well. Cowboys have low 70 rated players on the interior of the offensive line, which is on point.

If there was one change I'd like to make, it would probably be the weekly roster updates. They're way too reactionary, and I think they largely contribute to ratings being inflated.

[Big FN Deal]

Senator Palmer pretty much expressed my POV on this topic but I just wanted to add that it's very easy to convolute stretching ratings with stretching OVR. I really have to wonder does someone at EA/Tiburon believe that Madden thrives on ambiguity and mystery because things that I would think should be standardize to simplify them, are not in Madden.

OVR should not be a calculated average of ratings but instead a team value for the player based on whatever criteria that particular team, staff and/or roster, prioritizes.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

What does "Stretched out Ratings" mean to you?

1. A bell curve structure. As you said, most players are at least average-ish in ability. Of course, what's "average" in an ability also depends on position (linemen, on average, are stronger than wideouts, while wideouts are faster, on average, than linemen or fullbacks). This means each position occupies different places. For example, WO speed might range from 75-99 with 85 as average WO SPD. Meanwhile, 70 for a DE might be average SPD with a range of 50 to 85 for the speed freaks or fast 3-4 OLB types who play with their hand on the ground in a 4-3.

2. Elite and scrubs are significantly above/below average. If average range is 60-70, then elites are 90 and the losers are 40.

3. Use the MAJORITY of the scale. Madden seems scared to use anything below 75, except for areas the players have no skill in. Of course, that brings up the "why show throwing for a DE" questions (which have merit) but that's another topic. The scale should be absolute while positional location on the scale for each ability is where relative ability comes in. So seeing a WR with 50 STR might be average for WR, but in terms of ranking this guy on a pure strength scale, he's pretty bad. However, a 80 STR for a NT might be average - but on an absolute level, he's pretty strong.

4. Stretched out ratings should indicate skill sets even in positional ratings. This goes beyond putting 12s on DTs throwing or pass blocking. It includes differentiating between a Ngata and a Freeny. Ngata is slower and stronger, maybe he has 60 SPD, 90 STR, 75 ACC, 65 AGI, while Freeny is quick and nimble, using positional advantage (due to speed and explosive first step and the ability to run his preffered arc) over raw power - 80 SPD, 70 STR, 95 ACC, 85 AGI.

This goes for OL too - a pass blocking tackle that could hang with Freeny: 75 SPD, 75 STR, 95 ACC, 85 AGI, 75 PBS, 90 PBF, but this guy might get run over by Ngata on run assignments - since his strength will matter more as would his RBS, which should be lower. Likewise this OT would get hampered by a bull rusher, since his STR/PBS aren't that hot. So it would bring up real skill set types that bring strength/weaknesses to rosters and finding matchups a) possible, and b) meaningful, if not crucial)


To me, that's what stretched out ratings could do to really help the game and what they mean to me. None of this, btw, has anything to do with OVR. I couldn't care less what happens to OVR. If there just HAS to be some "OVR" rating, take the average of the position's top 4 or 5 needed skills and be done with it, none of this weighted stuff that sometimes ignores completely various skills that actually matter on the field, or even in simmed results.

[mmorg]

STRETCHED!!!