Ratings not Adding up

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Stan Down

hopefully they get the picture............ Example Davis had a 37 inch vert at the combine and look here

If you analyze the scale of this photo correctly, you can say the 6-2 Johnson has about 4 inches of helmet and cleats added to his height (and that is being generous). When I measured this pic, his left foot is on the ground about 1 cm below the bottom edge of the picture (you can see where his left sock begins to roll up near the ankle like on the right foot and estimate from there). Using this, he is about 13.2cm tall. Davis is about 5.6cm above that same mark on the bottom, WITH HIS RIGHT LEG BENT. So if 13.2cm = a generous 76inches, then the 5.6cm above the ground that Davis is, is about 32 inches above the ground. He jumped 37.5 at his pro day from a stand still, so this, once again, does not show that momentum will make you jump higher while in the game.

NOTE: These estimates were VERY generous toward Davis. In reality he is probably only 28inches off of the ground, but I simply needed to show that he is not even close to his vertical height off of the ground (assuming both players are in close planar vicinity).

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by moneal2001

But they should both be able to have similar ratings depending on what you want out of the position. while playing head coach the same player could have multiple overalls ranging from high to very low depending on what play style you wanted out of that position. Neal could range from a 57, in a receiving style, to a 90+, in a blocking style. Adding this, along with a production rating that effected trade and contract value, would make franchise logic more complex and realistic. Certain teams want certain types of players and will pay more or give up more to get them than others. If i am the titans or the vikings i would mortgage the farm to get a great blocking back to lead the way for my HB. while the eagles would rather have a guy they can put in to throw to since they are a more spread the field type of team.

Agreed. I'd still trust my analysis of the individual ratings over the formula EA comes up with because we'll never know how they weigh each rating. But this is better than the simple overall rating available now.

My point is based on what's available now. The current overall is worthless. DaBear23 only knows how good that 57 FB is after looking at his individual ratings. I bet that top 4 FB is a beast blocker with low catch, route running, hands, speed, etc.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

They don't. It has been well documented that they gather data that is open to the public and go from there. During my phone interview with 5 of their devs, including Josh Loomis and Donnie Moore last summer, I got the inherent impression that they just pool a bunch of information together without checking their source data. Furthermore, I came to find out that Moore is actually pressured from above in the chain of command to alter ratings for marketing purposes. He explained directly to me that they often have to change ratings that he may disagree with because he is instructed to from people of higher rank at EA. This is not just a "Ratings Czar" problem, it is an EA problem. Even when your ratings coordinator is instructed to go against evidence, you know you are not going to get a solid product that backs logic and evidence. Disappointing, huh?

Wow!! This is pretty amazing insight. I always get on the "ratings czar" for crap ratings, but I see it isn't really his call most of the time. Man, I don't know how anyone can read this post and not hate EA(the publisher) for at least a lil while lol.