Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

[King Gro23]

^^ I am excited for these ratings, and excellent post Kushmir. Wow is all I can say man, madden may be so much more different,

[Maelstrom-XIII]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

we'd started using intangibles to rate as well...because the ratings of halfback A (900 yards, 6TDs, 4.2 yd average) and B (1000 yards, 8 tds, 3.8 yard average) aren't always what you think. especially if halfback A's team when to the NFC championship and B's went 3-13. players put up empty stats on bad teams ALL the time. they're not the equal of someone contributing during "winning time."

So you're saying Steven Jackson (STL) should be rated lower than Joseph Addai (IND) just because Addai's team goes to the playoffs yearly? I cry foul.

In my opinion, ratings should never take into account what team someone is on...it should be all about individual ability--because that's what it is. Someone's ability. In my opinion, once you start factoring in, "Oh the team's defense was #1 in the NFL last year, so this guy must be good at lots of things" you start inflating ratings (which is what you're opposed to) just for the sake of showing that he's a great defensive player. Is Haloti Ngata a great defensive player? Sure...but is he the sole reason they've got a top 5 defense every year? Nope. Make sure you rate him (strengths AND weaknesses) accordingly, and it's all good. But ratings are about an individual, not a team.

[Kushmir]

crying is unnecessary

i think jackson's numbers and effectiveness speak for themselves...and we'll have to agree to disagree. team is VERY IMPORTANT. running for 100 yards when ur team is getting blown out 48-0 and running for 100 in a game tied at 17 in OT are NOT the same...the defense is lax in the first example...backups are probably in too. the latter? not so much.

jackson is the best player on his team. addai isn't in the top 5 on his. jackson gets his numbers DESPITE 8 in the box because of a poor passing game--addai gets his because defenses focus on so many other weapons. addai shares carries now. jackson still gets the bulk of his.

here are addai's last three years numbers:

2007 Indianapolis 15 261 1072 71.5 4.1 12
2008 Indianapolis 12 155 544 45.3 3.5 5
2009 Indianapolis 15 219 828 55.2 3.8 10

here's jackson:

2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5
2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting**************12 253 1042 2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4

its pretty obvious who the better back is. a 4 yard average DESPITE being the defense's focus? although playing for the league's WORST team does change people's view of him. keep in mind that this is JUST my opinion. but i'd rate jackson a 90 (IMO still an elite back..the TDs and missed games hurt tho) and addai an 81. i've always said instead of looking AT the numbers..you've got to look INTO them.

i have no idea why skype is playing games with jackson's numbers...here they are again:

2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5
2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86.8 4.1 7
2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4

i just emailed my partner to see what his rating would be...i'll edit his in when he send it back to me. now i'm gonna go look and see what Donny gave Addai. this oughta be good.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

preciate it. yeah a friend of mine and i have been doing our own ratings since you guys went down, did i agree with all of your ratings? NOPE. most of them? YESSIR. rating based on the last 3 years (with the most emphasis on the most current year) is usually the most accurate. you guys saw how ratings spiralled out of control in 2005. there were simply too many "popularity guys" who had ratings that were much too high. it showed me that the ratings people weren't being thorough. Roy Williams (safety) was never higher than a 81-83...he was a one-dimensional player--and not a dominant one. hell, atleast Simeon Rice gave you 12 sacks a year. we got to the point where we rated players without looking at the names to "test ourselves" to see if we'd give the player the same rating if we just saw his numbers. we'd started using intangibles to rate as well...because the ratings of halfback A (900 yards, 6TDs, 4.2 yd average) and B (1000 yards, 8 tds, 3.8 yard average) aren't always what you think. especially if halfback A's team when to the NFC championship and B's went 3-13. players put up empty stats on bad teams ALL the time. they're not the equal of someone contributing during "winning time." while Haloti Ngata might never put up great "measurables" like 12 sacks a year...look at how the raven's rank .vs. the run every year to help determine his rating. how many points did they give up? how was their red zone defense? how many 100 yard rushers? this stuff lets you track a players effectiveness. inflated ratings hurt the game badly...they make players too dominant. 200yd games by reggie bush (i'll never forget his rookie 88 in 2006) 5 sack games by peppers, Moss with 300 yards receiving--stuff like that. we even decided to go with a consistent -3 rating for a year lost to injury as well...so a guy like bob sanders who can't stay on the field the last 2 years? 84. do we change the ratings on our players? naaah....the game plays much better now that the ratings have been lowered. it was always more of a "if we did the rosters they'd look like this" kinda thing. and we were big on CONSISTENCY. I wish we could help, we recently devised a way to use macros to take the opinion part out of rating players even more (by letting numbers determine 90% of a rating) that way we could just plug a guys numbers in, let it generate an 85...and then let logic tell us if that's accurate or if we should be SUBTRACTING 8 points or ADDING them. and while we think stats are the most accurate based on a yearly basis, we submit that updates during the year are important. most important thing to understand? most players don't change much. rookies usually change the MOST, and its usually most accurate to rate quarterly (i.e every 4 games) these changes during the year often aren't much...but taking someone's rating up 5 ppoints for a good game usually gets you right back in the inflated ratings mess. worse ratings i've seen?...had to be vick in the 90s from madden 2004 to 2007 (has never been an elite player--at his best he was the best we'll give a one dimensional player:87) bush's rookie 88 or the 90 they gave cleveland LB andra davis. anytime you're giving 90 ratings to "solid" players who's teams never sniff the playoffs (and were literally sieves on defense) you KNOW we're in trouble. lastly, we understood how ludicrous it is for "one guy" to do the ratings. its much too big a job--too much gets lost. you need a TEAM of guys and quite honestly? one person per team. and they have to be people who are knowledgeable and objective. there are waaay too many "OMG! Miles Austin should be a 92!!" homers out there because they want their team to benefit from high ratings. a 92 for one good year? (81 catches, 1300 yds, 11tds) so what do we rate Moss? 115? because those are essentially his "averages". and that's the difference--elite guys put up numbers over a PERIOD of years. anyone can start out the season well, or have a good four game stretch. elite and good guys (rated 85+) put up numbers even after teams start scheming for them. let austin put up numbers like that for three years in a row (like Romo did)--then we'll talk 90's. WOW...rating a guy like Austin in the 90s would mean that a player like Jerry Rice would have been rated somewhere in the 150's... food for thought. and since the ratings just came out? i think its time for another ratings article

We have simply tried to do away with the inflated ratings. The site has always been a 1-man job, but an unbiased one at that. The data for the ratings is actually calculated and compiled from our scout data. At TSX, we employ hundreds of scouts and scouting interns who provide the best information. This isn't speculative stuff; its the real deal. The best players don't change much from year to year, but we still employ a wider range in the ratings, albeit the guys at the top in the 90s are fewer in numbers.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Maelstrom-XIII

So you're saying Steven Jackson (STL) should be rated lower than Joseph Addai (IND) just because Addai's team goes to the playoffs yearly? I cry foul. In my opinion, ratings should never take into account what team someone is on...it should be all about individual ability--because that's what it is. Someone's ability. In my opinion, once you start factoring in, "Oh the team's defense was #1 in the NFL last year, so this guy must be good at lots of things" you start inflating ratings (which is what you're opposed to) just for the sake of showing that he's a great defensive player. Is Haloti Ngata a great defensive player? Sure...but is he the sole reason they've got a top 5 defense every year? Nope. Make sure you rate him (strengths AND weaknesses) accordingly, and it's all good. But ratings are about an individual, not a team.

Have to agree with you here. There are far better ways to rate individual players than by just using stats though. However, we do not use team stuff very much. The individual rating is far more important because that is how Madden is set up.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

crying is unnecessary i think jackson's numbers and effectiveness speak for themselves...and we'll have to agree to disagree. team is VERY IMPORTANT. running for 100 yards when ur team is getting blown out 48-0 and running for 100 in a game tied at 17 in OT are NOT the same...the defense is lax in the first example...backups are probably in too. the latter? not so much. jackson is the best player on his team. addai isn't in the top 5 on his. jackson gets his numbers DESPITE 8 in the box because of a poor passing game--addai gets his because defenses focus on so many other weapons. addai shares carries now. jackson still gets the bulk of his. here are addai's last three years numbers: 2007 Indianapolis 15 261 1072 71.5 4.1 12 2008 Indianapolis 12 155 544 45.3 3.5 5 2009 Indianapolis 15 219 828 55.2 3.8 10 here's jackson: 2007 St. Louis 12 237 1002 83.5 4.2 5 2008 St. Louis 12 253 1042 86.8 4.1 7 2009 St. Louis 15 324 1416 94.4 4.4 4 its pretty obvious who the better back is. a 4 yard average DESPITE being the defense's focus? although playing for the league's WORST team does change people's view of him. keep in mind that this is JUST my opinion. but i'd rate jackson a 90 (IMO still an elite back..the TDs and missed games hurt tho) and addai an 81. i just emailed my partner to see what his rating would be...i'll edit his in when he send it back to me. now i'm gonna go look and see what Donny gave Addai. this oughta be good.

I think we have Jackson at 89 and Addai at 86 as of right now...which is likely to change before the season when the weekly updates start.

[Maelstrom-XIII]

Kushmir, I'd love to philosophize ratings with you. You seem like you're really down to earth and critical about these things.

And I agree that stats in garbage time don't mean much...but I still think that involving the team itself into ratings does more harm than good. Looking into how often a player faced backups because of a blowout would be fine, but just taking the team at face value and saying "this team was bad, so this player isn't as good as player x from this playoff team" is the wrong way to go about things. Individual ability should matter more than what team they're on...my opinion. Steven Jackson is a great RB playing on a terrible team...Joseph Addai is (in my opinion) a mediocre RB on a great team...they should be rated as such (great vs mediocre). But I agree (mostly) with your ratings...Jackson should be a high 80s (I'm categorically opposed to giving out a 90+ unless they are the best at their position), Addai a low 80s.

[Kushmir]

yup...Donny had Addai at an 86 as well. can't say i agree but again just my humble opinion...to me Madden ratings are still about 5 points too high.

a few Colts ratings stood out to me tho:

Antoine Bethea a 95? WOW...must be that +13 super bowl bonus i've heard so much about.
Robert Mathis a 95? YIKES...a good end? SURE...one dimensional as HELL tho..87.

the others are about 5 points too high as usual...not too bad tho. Freeney's a 94 IMO. (thats with 96 being the max of course)

yeah DCEB, your guys at TSX are top-notch. i did an article a few years back for Madden Nation after the ratings were really starting to tick me off, and i got to interview Frank over email. dude's a GEM. gave me more history on the ratings process than i knew was possible. STAND UP GUY.

he's the person that made me say ""this is total BS" the ratings should look like this.....