Speed is...well...speed!

[shttymcgee]

How do you know what is squat is? Also, the squat is one of the lost inconsistent lifts when it comes to what counts as a good lift. What you call a good squat, I may not, or vice versa.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

How do you know what is squat is? Also, the squat is one of the lost inconsistent lifts when it comes to what counts as a good lift. What you call a good squat, I may not, or vice versa.

I have scouting data for over 70,000 players in the NFL, college, and high school. This can include lifting data, particularly the 1RM for bench and squats. Not every player has a full data sheet with all the possible information, but most of the NFL players do have this info.

You can also search for college player lifting maxes on team websites and other sources like scout.com.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I have scouting data for over 70,000 players in the NFL, college, and high school. This can include lifting data, particularly the 1RM for bench and squats. Not every player has a full data sheet with all the possible information, but most of the NFL players do have this info. You can also search for college player lifting maxes on team websites and other sources like scout.com.

But you can't trust them. Even strength coaches in the NFL do not agree as to what constitues a good squat.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

But you can't trust them. Even strength coaches in the NFL do not agree as to what constitues a good squat.

So long as the data is collected by the same scouts using the same standards of measure I take no issue with the reported squat and bench numbers.

So yes...I can, and do, trust them.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

So long as the data is collected by the same scouts using the same standards of measure I take no issue with the reported squat and bench numbers. So yes...I can, and do, trust them.

scout.com does not use lifts that were necessarily verified. College strength programs differ from school to school and strength coach to strength coach. As I have already mentioned, not all NFL strength coaches call squats the same. I also doubt that one scout has compiled all the 1 rep maximal lifts for all 70,000+ players in your database.

Having said all that, why should the squat and bench be the determinates for strength ratings? Why not Power Clean and Deadlift? Why not any other combination of lifts?

Even if every player has done a maximal lift test in front of the same pair of eyes (something I have never heard of), how do you account for variances in strength level in years after the demonstration?

I am not questioning the strength level of Gronkowski, or his rating (or any other player), I just don't buy into the idea that every athletic rating (strength, speed, agility, etc.) can somehow be objectively given through a database of measurables (even the combine 40's are not truly accurately measured) due to variances in performance after the tests are given and the fact that the tests involve specific techniques to the tests that are not represented in play (ie 5-10-5 "pro" shuttle).

You mentioned earlier that players' speed deteriorate over time, even in their first few years in the league. This, in itself, is something that I definitely take issue with; since it is the job of the strength and conditioning staff to improve the speed (strength, agility, flexibility, etc.) of the athletes and unless they are fudging the results of their measurements, practical experience shows me otherwise (as well as common sense).

I certainly am not calling BS on your statements. I admire your undertaking, but I think it would be a good idea to not put so much credence into the measurables that you have access to. Sometimes, you just need to use the eye test and use the measurables to verify (or contradict) your personal observations.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

scout.com does not use lifts that were necessarily verified. College strength programs differ from school to school and strength coach to strength coach. As I have already mentioned, not all NFL strength coaches call squats the same. I also doubt that one scout has compiled all the 1 rep maximal lifts for all 70,000+ players in your database. Having said all that, why should the squat and bench be the determinates for strength ratings? Why not Power Clean and Deadlift? Why not any other combination of lifts? Even if every player has done a maximal lift test in front of the same pair of eyes (something I have never heard of), how do you account for variances in strength level in years after the demonstration? I am not questioning the strength level of Gronkowski, or his rating (or any other player), I just don't buy into the idea that every athletic rating (strength, speed, agility, etc.) can somehow be objectively given through a database of measurables (even the combine 40's are not truly accurately measured) due to variances in performance after the tests are given and the fact that the tests involve specific techniques to the tests that are not represented in play (ie 5-10-5 "pro" shuttle). You mentioned earlier that players' speed deteriorate over time, even in their first few years in the league. This, in itself, is something that I definitely take issue with; since it is the job of the strength and conditioning staff to improve the speed (strength, agility, flexibility, etc.) of the athletes and unless they are fudging the results of their measurements, practical experience shows me otherwise (as well as common sense). I certainly am not calling BS on your statements. I admire your undertaking, but I think it would be a good idea to not put so much credence into the measurables that you have access to. Sometimes, you just need to use the eye test and use the measurables to verify (or contradict) your personal observations.

I am a broken record at this point, so i will just quote myself.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Also, it's not really the point to get an exact measurement but a verifiable baseline for balance. Could someone in fact be faster than their 40 time demonstrates? of course it's possible but we have no verifiable evidence in a controlled setting, so for the integrity of a balanced ratings system it's best to just stick with the verifiable data. That said, the "eye test" does have it's place in a video game, so those verifiable data based ratings are not the end all be all for in-game on-field player performance. Using the "eye test" from watching game film or whatever should determine the type of animations or technique each player utilizes/accesses in-game. So a player with less than superior physical ratings based on the verifiable data, ie Jerry Rice, would still be capable of superior feats due to his skill ratings dictating the type of animations/techniques he could utilize/access in-game, ie superb route running, catch technique and AWR/concentration. It would probably take me pages to get out all that is in my mind about this but the point is, individual ratings are the building blocks for replicating NFL players in Madden, not an island unto themselves. So the most important thing is getting them as individually balanced as possible, then bringing them together for a solid replication of each NFL player in Madden. Without that balance, you get what we have now, which seems to be very little rhyme or reason to player ratings.

The objective aspect is using the verifiable data or a verified as possible, as the baseline, not some absolute, instead of personal conjecture. Individual ratings are only one piece to the game play puzzle for each player in-game, when put all together along with animations and DPP create a complete picture.

[gamerk2]

This whole discussion kinda proves my argument that APF 2k8 had the right idea when it comes to ratings: What makes a player better (or worse) then a generic 75 rated guy at that position?

I mean, really, do we REALLY need to keep using the somewhat dated 1-100 ratings scale? Worked great back in the dark days of the genesis, where the catch rating was the percentage of making a catch, but lets face it, its gotten too complicated. Just give me a -3 to +3 catch rating, and you'll probably end up with a more realistic game in the end.

[shttymcgee]

Quote: Originally Posted by gamerk2

This whole discussion kinda proves my argument that APF 2k8 had the right idea when it comes to ratings: What makes a player better (or worse) then a generic 75 rated guy at that position? I mean, really, do we REALLY need to keep using the somewhat dated 1-100 ratings scale? Worked great back in the dark days of the genesis, where the catch rating was the percentage of making a catch, but lets face it, its gotten too complicated. Just give me a -3 to +3 catch rating, and you'll probably end up with a more realistic game in the end.

I am not sure, but I would think that the 1-100 scale would be important for sim stats, especially sim stats over the course of an entire season.

Also, wouldn't the expanded ratings be needed in terms of the athletic areas such as speed? There's way more than just six speeds a player is.