Old Madden Ratings Site Reborn Under New Management

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.....

Frank Cooney is the real deal man! He has been on the tour with Madden (the man, himself) in his bus several times. Still has a soft spot for Madden ratings which will eventually carry over to an NCAA site at some point.

We have Bethea at 84, Mathis 85, and Freeney at 93, so we are no where near THAT inflated as opposed to the EA guys. You won't see that dreaded SB Bonus here!

[Kushmir]

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

anytime man...ratings might be the most important part to sports gaming. they determine how players are going to play. too high or inaccurate and the game can be HURT--badly. btw, i wanted to give jackson an 89 as well. 1400 yards last year and a 4 yard average the last 3 seasons swayed me tho...

and i hear you on the "team" rating/stats thing. but there are so many positions where its hard to gauge their impact because they don't have a ton of measurables...prime example. i can look at a MLB's numbers and tell you how good his DTs are. SERIOUSLY. show me a team who stops the run, and a weakside LB with good numbers... i'll show you a 4-3 strongside LB and a strongside end who do their jobs well...even if he doesn't have the same sexy "sack" stats that the 3-4 guys and pure pass rushers get. or a ton of tackles...

an example? pat williams of the vikes...44 tkls, 2 sacks and 2 FF's. not very "standoutish" right? but the vikes were 2nd against the run and allowed the least amount of rushing first downs by a pretty good margin. williams had ALOT to do with that...these are some of the things that can help determine a players rating w/o just relying on the "sexy" stats.

another bad rating that stuck out to me recently? Sidney Rice (pasta told us its a 90) can someone explain to me why? is he a bad receiver? NOPE. Elite? far from it...

last three years numbers?
31 - 396 - 4
15 - 141- 4
83 - 1312- 8

looks alot like robert brooks (former packer) to me. a quality receiver who'll put up numbers as long as the pieces are in place (really good running game, good QB, really good OL) elite receivers do this WITHOUT that stuff....should have the same numbers as Miles Austin 82/83 as they're basically mirror images of each other in terms of one good productive year. i need two more years at that level before we talk 90. because if favre doesn't come back and he goes for 54-852-6, whats his rating then?

in my experience its an 88 (when it should be a 76) because the lack of attention to detail means that bad ratings usually gets fixed too late (if at all) when the real issue is just rating the guys CORRECTLY from the beginning and making sure the ratings stay Current and Correct.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

"I'd love to philosophize ratings with you. You seem like you're really down to earth and critical about these things." anytime man...ratings might be the most important part to sports gaming. they determine how players are going to play. too high or inaccurate and the game can be HURT--badly. btw, i wanted to give jackson an 89 as well. 1400 yards last year and a 4 yard average the last 3 seasons swayed me tho... and i hear you on the "team" rating/stats thing. but there are so many positions where its hard to gauge their impact because they don't have a ton of measurables...prime example. i can look at a MLB's numbers and tell you how good his DTs are. SERIOUSLY. show me a team who stops the run, and a weakside LB with good numbers... i'll show you a 4-3 strongside LB and a strongside end who do their jobs well...even if he doesn't have the same sexy "sack" stats that the 3-4 guys and pure pass rushers get. or a ton of tackles... an example? pat williams of the vikes...44 tkls, 2 sacks and 2 FF's. not very "standoutish" right? but the vikes were 2nd against the run and allowed the least amount of rushing first downs by a pretty good margin. williams had ALOT to do with that...these are some of the things that can help determine a players rating w/o just relying on the "sexy" stats. another bad rating that stuck out to me recently? Sideny Rice (pasta told us its a 90) can someone explain to me why? is he a bad receiver? NOPE. Elite? far from it... last three years numbers? 31 - 396 - 4 15 - 141- 4 83 - 1312- 8 looks alot like robert brooks (former packer) to me. a quality receiver who'll put up numbers as long as the pieces are in place (really good running game, good QB, really good OL) elite receivers do this WITHOUT that stuff....should have the same numbers as Miles Austin 82/83 as they're basically mirror images of each other in terms of one good productive year. i need two more years at that level before we talk 90. because if favre doesn't come back and he goes for 54-852-6, whats his rating then?

Relying on stats though will get you in trouble. You can't rely on them. I would think that you should rely more on scouting data. If you want stats though, try to find insider stats. Profootballfocus has some great insider stats. They review every game, player, and snap throughout the year and find out how players do in situations. For your DTs you are so concerned about, they break down how well a DT did against the run. They even rate DE/OLBs different depending on the system they play in! Not a bad source, but I still prefer the scouting data we have, then simply convert those findings into ratings.

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Relying on stats though will get you in trouble. You can't rely on them. I would think that you should rely more on scouting data. If you want stats though, try to find insider stats. Profootballfocus has some great insider stats. They review every game, player, and snap throughout the year and find out how players do in situations. For your DTs you are so concerned about, they break down how well a DT did against the run. They even rate DE/OLBs different depending on the system they play in! Not a bad source, but I still prefer the scouting data we have, then simply convert those findings into ratings.

agreed. stats lie...ALOT. which is why i look INTO them instead of AT them...i 'll definitely check profootballfocus.com though. this is another reason why I think rating players is a 30 man job (one guy for each team) then you can get the insider info from someone laying "eyes" on the team instead of some guy rating Brandon Mebane (DT) an 86 for no measurable reason WHATSOEVER...this rating really bothered me last year, the worst part? it couldn't be backed up by any data WHATSOEVER...especially since seattle has been horrible on defense since he's been there.

maybe someone owes him money or something...

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

agreed. stats lie...ALOT. which is why i look INTO them instead of AT them...i 'll definitely check profootballfocus.com though. this is another reason why I think rating players is a 30 man job (one guy for each team) then you can get the insider info from someone laying "eyes" on the team instead of some guy rating Brandon Mebane (DT) an 86 for no measurable reason WHATSOEVER...this rating really bothered me last year, the worst part? it couldn't be backed up by any data WHATSOEVER...especially since seattle has been horrible on defense since he's been there. maybe someone owes him money or something...

I think PFF had Mebane as the #18 DT overall...30th rushing and 15th against the run. However in 2008 he was 6th overall...6th rushing and 25th against the run.

We have him now at an 82 OVR.

[Kushmir]

ok good...so maybe you can tell me why:

based on what? 1 solid (not good) year in 3? what's all the fuss about mebane?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

ok good...so maybe you can tell me why: based on what? 1 solid (not good) year in 3? what's all the fuss about mebane?

Well he had a strong 2008 to put him up there. 6 sacks (t-4th), 13 hits on the QB (3rd), 17 QB pressures (t-12th), 27 solos (t-32nd), 6 assists (t-21st), no missed tackles (t-1st), and 26 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (t-21st). Those ranks are among all DTs that season.

Now, in 2009 he had a less productive year. He had 2 sacks (t-20th), 5 QB hits (t-12th), 15 QB pressures (t-10th), 33 solos (t-12th), 3 assists (t-47th), 2 missed tackles (t-44th), and 28 stops that resulted in an offensive failure (9th). Not a stellar year, but 2008 put him up there on the radar.

This is enough to justify his low 80 rating, but not any higher IMO.

[Maelstrom-XIII]

Here's where I think we have a philosophical difference about ratings. To me, ratings should be STRETCHED. And I mean elastic waistband, "don't let go that's really going to hurt" stretched. We have a ratings system that goes from 1-99. The median value in that system is a 50 (actually 49.5 but you get the idea). Therefore, it stands to reason that an AVERAGE rating should be a 50. Therefore, an average NFL player, the JAGs (Just A Guy) would be in the 50s overall. That may seem low, but it's the average here...I'd even say, "Sure let's go to 60 instead." So now we have our average NFL player at 60. 70s? Starter. 80s? Pro-bowler. 90s? Future Hall of Famer. We're talking a handful of 90s.

But people would have a fit if they saw players on their favorite teams with overalls in the 60s, or speeds that are much lower than they perceive because they're used to everyone having high 80s or 90s speed...but alas, I'm writing up a blog about this very issue.

And from my perspective, being effective, but not dominant, for one year does not equal an 80 rating.