FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

@DCEBB why couldn't you just have told EA what they wanted to hear in that phone interview "yeah sir, I'll tow the company line" then got in the door and did all the good you could? lol I'm sorta joking and I definitely respect you standing by your principles, it's just disappointing feeling like there is no voice of reason at Tiburon concerning ratings. I apparently just realized it's the year 2013 today and remembered you can rent M25 through Redbox, so I will be interested to hear when anyone(s) actually accomplish creating a FBG Ratings roster. Maybe we could even get which over Mod is running the OS Online Community to use it there for OS online games.

It seemed very obvious in my hour-and-a-half phone interview that they wanted to move Donny up to another position. This took place in the midst of their Madden Exodus, so they had some positions to open. They did want someone to come in and tow the company line though, and lying to get the job, then revealing my "true" intentions would have yielded the same result...aside from my moving costs and lack of employment.

I got the overwhelming impression via the questions they asked me and the answers they gave me to mine, that the suits run the show and that the devs want to make the game better. I think there is more internal conflict going on than what we are privy to knowing at this time (or at least there was).

The advantages that I have in rating players is the source material, understanding of kinematics, and logic. The cool thing is that my results are repeatable, like any scientific experiment and if EA used the most logical methodology, they would get results similar to mine...so long as the sources are congruent.

[Big FN Deal]

Hey DCEBB and anyone else that wants to chime in, I wanted to get your opinion on something I have been advocating for awhile. What's your thoughts on using the INJ rating to represent the more naturally frail positions and players?

What I mean is that I feel like in general QBs, Kickers and Punters should have lower INJ ratings, as well as players of smaller stature, to denote the need to protect them in game. I think the QB/K/P reasoning speaks for itself and for the smaller stature players I oft use the example that Marvin Harrison explained that the way he was able to play so long and avoid major injury was by getting down to avoid the big hits.

Of course there would be some exceptions to this, players like Rothlisberger and Janakwoski come to mind but for the most part I think this would encourage protecting the more vulnerable players/positions. Right now in the game, there is little to no reason to fear injury having a User controlled QB knocked down, sending a string bean receiver over the middle or having 180 pound DB hit stick a FB.

What are some thoughts and opinions on using the INJ rating in a way to change this?

[Pezell04x]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Hey DCEBB and anyone else that wants to chime in, I wanted to get your opinion on something I have been advocating for awhile. What's your thoughts on using the INJ rating to represent the more naturally frail positions and players? What I mean is that I feel like in general QBs, Kickers and Punters should have lower INJ ratings, as well as players of smaller stature, to denote the need to protect them in game. I think the QB/K/P reasoning speaks for itself and for the smaller stature players I oft use the example that Marvin Harrison explained that the way he was able to play so long and avoid major injury was by getting down to avoid the big hits. Of course there would be some exceptions to this, players like Rothlisberger and Janakwoski come to mind but for the most part I think this would encourage protecting the more vulnerable players/positions. Right now in the game, there is little to no reason to fear injury having a User controlled QB knocked down, sending a string bean receiver over the middle or having 180 pound DB hit stick a FB. What are some thoughts and opinions on using the INJ rating in a way to change this?

I think that's very realistic. Go for it. Holding off on starting my CFM until these are done.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Hey DCEBB and anyone else that wants to chime in, I wanted to get your opinion on something I have been advocating for awhile. What's your thoughts on using the INJ rating to represent the more naturally frail positions and players? What I mean is that I feel like in general QBs, Kickers and Punters should have lower INJ ratings, as well as players of smaller stature, to denote the need to protect them in game. I think the QB/K/P reasoning speaks for itself and for the smaller stature players I oft use the example that Marvin Harrison explained that the way he was able to play so long and avoid major injury was by getting down to avoid the big hits. Of course there would be some exceptions to this, players like Rothlisberger and Janakwoski come to mind but for the most part I think this would encourage protecting the more vulnerable players/positions. Right now in the game, there is little to no reason to fear injury having a User controlled QB knocked down, sending a string bean receiver over the middle or having 180 pound DB hit stick a FB. What are some thoughts and opinions on using the INJ rating in a way to change this?

The INJ and TGH ratings on the FBG site are also the result of the scouting data. Basically, if the data says that a players INJ or TGH rating needs to be a 95, then we have to rate them as an 85. These measures, like all other FBG rating attributes, are relative to all players regardless of position. It is what it is, without having to account for the position a player plays.

I can provide you with a breakdown of the average ratings by position, however, to illustrate the numbers if you like:

INJ by position:
K: 81
P: 79
C: 71
QB: 70
WR: 70
DE: 70
CB: 70
OT: 69
OG: 69
DT: 67
FB: 67
S: 67
RB: 66
TE: 66
OLB: 64
ILB: 64
LS: 62

TGH by position:
QB: 74
TE: 69
LS: 69
DT: 68
RB: 67
FB: 67
C: 67
ILB: 67
S: 67
OT: 66
OG: 66
DE: 66
OLB: 66
CB: 65
P: 63
K: 62
WR: 61

When you compare both lists you can make a few assumptions:

1. Ks and Ps are by far the least likely to be injured. This likely has to do with the number of plays they play on the field and their proximity to the ball and the battle in the trenches.

2. Positions that utilize a lot of contact at speed are more susceptible to injury. It is the combination of SPD and contact that results in this correlation. The LBs, TEs, and RBs are the most vulnerable to this combination. LSs appear to be the lowest because of their vulnerability while snapping and sprinting down to cover punts.

3. WRs and CBs, because of their proximity to the trenches also are less likely to be injured. The fact that most WRs are facing defenders of comparable size (CBs and Ss) most of the time helps this.

4. QBs are less likely to be injured than all other offensive backs. Perhaps the new rules on the QBs has something to do with this.

5. QBs are TOUGH. They are above and beyond the toughest players on the field. They always have the ball in their hands on offensive plays (aside from the Wildcat and direct snaps) so the amount of contact they are susceptible to is high. However, they show more resiliency to injury than any other position group. QBs are a different breed. They are expected to stand tall, step up into a pocket bravely, deliver a pass, get hit, and get back up. Enough said.

6. All interior offensive backs (TEs, RBs, FBs,) are comparably tough to their interior defensive counterparts (DEs, DTs, ILBs, OLBs).

7. Ks, Ps, and WRs are the least tough of all positions, despite being less susceptible to injury. This is likely due to their proximity to the ball and tendency to shy away from contact on the outside. CBs also fit this group, but are required to engage in contact rather than avoid it.

[Blazelore]

With the rate of injuries in the game this year and FBG's ratings you are really going to have to focus on adding depth to your squad. This makes it even better.

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Keep in mind that blocking is part of the OVR calculation for a RB...

Not in Madden though. They don't use blocking for RBs in their overall formula.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Not in Madden though. They don't use blocking for RBs in their overall formula.

When you go to edit a player in Madden, you are only able to edit (in the game, without the use of an external editor) the traits that EA considers to be position-specific. For RBs, this includes STR, AGI, SPD, ACC, AWR, CTH, CAR, PBK, RBK, JMP, RET, TRK, ELU, BCV, SFA, SPM, JKM, IBL, RBS, RBF, PBS, PBF, SPC, CIT, RTE, REL, INJ, STA, TGH.

However, PBK, RBK, JMP, RET, IBL, RBS, RBF, PBS, PBF, SPC, CIT, REL, INJ, STA, and TGH do not affect the OVR rating in Madden.

This, to me, is a major flaw. The scouting data I have insists that ratings like the ones left out in Madden are included in evaluating the OVR rating of a RB. Therefore, according to my source material, those attributes SHOULD affect the OVR rating of a player. Guys like Adrian Peterson will be capped out at their OVR rating for this reason, and those attributes that may not affect the OVR rating in Madden will be equally adjusted as if they did affect the OVR rating.

EA needs to adjust how they realistically qualify a position. Leaving things related at pass blocking, catching, return skills, leaping, and overall health/shape is asinine and purely unacceptable for someone wanting a realistic video game. Look to the NFL for real-world examples. Green Bay just cut Alex Green in favor of the oft-injured James Starks yesterday because of his ability to perform well in pass protection. If they were really confident in Lacy and Franklin as blockers in the backfield, I doubt they would have kept Starks, especially since there were trying to trade him earlier this offseason. If you don't think that blocking skills can affect a RBs player grade, you haven't seen enough of the NFL.

[rudyjuly2]

I completely agree. I was just pointing out how Madden is broken in the ratings. I've broken them down myself in SPSS.

What drives me nuts most of all is how weight is meaningless in Madden. We've seen those videos of 150 pound OTs stone walling JJ Watt. I HATE seeing that my 240 pound OLB is a better DE than my starter. He'd never last there. Without a weight affect there is no difference from an undersized OLB playing DE, a light 4-3 pass rusher or a big 3-4 DE. It's not realistic or accurate.