FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

This is a real proposition on the part of EA? I almost spit out my apple. Tell me this is a hypothetical situation.

AT23 would have to chime in. I thought it was a facebook post or something with the "Like" part. I wouldn't be surprised considering they already held freaking polls for attributes already.

EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

[sword1986]

I did not want to constantly go off-topic in the Speed thread so I dug up this thread to post my ideas, because I like what FBGRatings is doing. I just want to share my ideas to the FBG and Madden community.

The CATCH rating example. I grabbed two players, a bum and an All Star. David Terrell (i dont know if you guys remember him played for the Bears). and Calvin Johnson the Madden cover athlete.

Removing the CATCH IN TRAFFIC and SPECTACULAR CATCH ratings, this is how the players should be rated. I am not ratings expert, but just to give you an idea.

David Terrell


By reading that little scouting report, I came up with this:

SPD (whatever his 40 time is)
AGL (whatever his Shuttle time is)
STR (whatever he did in the 225 bench press)
JMP (vertical leap recorded in the combine)
Catch 96
Route Run 68
Awareness 65

Overall: 65-70 range



SPD, AGL yadda yadda
Catch 85
Route Run 94
Trucking 81
Awareness 90

Overall: 95-99 range definitely

[caballero]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The scouts who contributed the information to the site determined that the consensus was that Welker was among the best WRs at blocking.

RECEIVER, not as OVERALL blocker!

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The scouts graded and designated those grades based on their effectiveness in blocking scenarios.

they're blocking different type of players!

OL's block DL's
TE's block OLB's and DL's
WR's block DB's

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

the data dictates that he graded out very highly as a blocker regardless of his position.

Gronk's 80 pounds heavier and can block DE/OLB's, where Welker would fall on his butt and/or get injured every play!

Gronk............Welker
IBL 63............74
RBS 63...........75
RBF 63............73
PBS 46............57
PBF 47............58 (Welker PASS BLOCKING... Please show me a vid, screens don't count)

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Would it make more sense to give RBK/PBK different ranges based on actual position (like WR vs. TE) rather than positional grouping (WR/TEs vs. RBs/FBs) like the scouting data designates?

Obviously... context! Welker might be blocking OLB/S's, he's never blocking 250+lb DE's, not even chips.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

He plays in the slot the majority of the time where he faces OLB/S combinations in addition to nickel and dime CBs.

he plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's. His BLK ratings are too high, contextual, not universal.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

As a TE, his rating is over 99 (101 by calculation). This is due, of course, to the high receiving skills and above average blocking ability, even for a TE.

HAHAHA! there's a reason Welker's a receiver... see your first quote in this post.
Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE; WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE.

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

What stands out here is that the ratings aren't universal at all, but contextual; they're based on data gathered mostly in the context of blocking defensive backs or the occasional chip.

++

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

if you want it to be you, you'll have to listen to us more.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by sword1986

I did not want to constantly go off-topic in the Speed thread so I dug up this thread to post my ideas, because I like what FBGRatings is doing. I just want to share my ideas to the FBG and Madden community. The CATCH rating example. I grabbed two players, a bum and an All Star. David Terrell (i dont know if you guys remember him played for the Bears). and Calvin Johnson the Madden cover athlete. Removing the CATCH IN TRAFFIC and SPECTACULAR CATCH ratings, this is how the players should be rated. I am not ratings expert, but just to give you an idea. David Terrell By reading that little scouting report, I came up with this: SPD (whatever his 40 time is) AGL (whatever his Shuttle time is) STR (whatever he did in the 225 bench press) JMP (vertical leap recorded in the combine) Catch 96 Route Run 68 Awareness 65 Overall: 65-70 range SPD, AGL yadda yadda Catch 85 Route Run 94 Trucking 81 Awareness 90 Overall: 95-99 range definitely

This is good stuff. I do this already for the site, but I have real NFL scouting data for just about every relevent attribute for every position. The scouting info does differentiate between CTH/SPC/CIT with 2 different grades, however. The first is the CTH rating qualified by "mundane use of hands". The second is the SPC/CIT rating qualified by "ability to catch under duress/traffic."

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by caballero

RECEIVER, not as OVERALL blocker! they're blocking different type of players! OL's block DL's TE's block OLB's and DL's WR's block DB's Gronk's 80 pounds heavier and can block DE/OLB's, where Welker would fall on his butt and/or get injured every play! Gronk............Welker IBL 63............74 RBS 63...........75 RBF 63............73 PBS 46............57 PBF 47............58 (Welker PASS BLOCKING... Please show me a vid, screens don't count) Obviously... context! Welker might be blocking OLB/S's, he's never blocking 250+lb DE's, not even chips. he plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's. His BLK ratings are too high, contextual, not universal. HAHAHA! there's a reason Welker's a receiver... see your first quote in this post. Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE; WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE. ++ if you want it to be you, you'll have to listen to us more.

1. Perhaps I did not make this clear, although I thought I did. ALL OFFENSIVE PLAYERS ASIDE FROM QBs ARE RATED ON THE SAME BLOCKING SCALE FROM 0.0-5.0.
That means that no matter what position you play be it RB/FB or WR/TE or OT/OG/C you are graded on the same scale. Now, in the case of Welker, he graded out around 2.0 for RBK on that scale. Gronk only graded out at 1.8 on that scale. The best OL currently on the list is only at 3.8. The average of all WRs for example was 1.0. No matter how you slice it, the scouts deemed:
Best OL > Welker > Gronk > Average WR
THAT is why I said Welker is among the best WRs at blocking.

2. It is overly simplistic to say that OL only block DL and TEs only block OLBs/DL, etc. There are numerous instances where WRs are asked to block/chip DEs and LBs, especially when they are in the slot or in motion across the formation. TEs also need to be capable to block CBs and Ss on outside stalk/crack blocks such as on WR screen passes. The scouting grades base their grades ONLY if everything is equal and they take the scheme/opportunity to block particular players into account.

3. Look at the STR ratings for Gronk and Welker. Welker may have better "technique" but clearly lacks the STR to sustain a block at the point of attack. Remember, in FBG ratings, they all work together, ESPECIALLY the raw attributes with dynamic attributes.

4. You clearly fail to realize the context of the scouting data and this ratings system. The data takes everything into account, normalizes it, and outputs a grade. This system utilizes UNIVERSAL data that is the result of the normalization of several CONTEXTS.

5. The reason Welker is a WR is because of his great receiving ability and ability to run routes. His STR and size holds him back as a TE. I have no control over how EA creates their OVR calculations. In fact, I strongly disagree with not only WHICH attributes should constitute a grade, but also the weight of each attribute that constitutes it. As a TE, Welker grades out as a 101 because the attributes that he is lowest in (STR, JMP, PBS, and PBF) are only weighted at .14, .06, .06, and .06 of the overall calculation. They are among the lowest weighted attributes for a TE.
Gronk, however, as a WR is only rated an 87. This is primarily due to some of his better attributes (TRK, ELU, SFA, SPC, and CIT) are only weighted at .04, .08, .03, .08 and .14. These attributes are among carrying the least amount of weight for a WR.

6. In fact, the OPPOSITE of your assumption that "Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE" is true. Also, your assumption that "WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE" is also untrue. Welker as a WR is 90. Welker as a TE is a 101. Gronk as a WR is only an 87. Gronk actually DROPS from a 93 to an 87 by moving out to WR whereas Welker actualy INCREASES from a 90 as a WR to 101 as a TE. See #5 for some possible reasons why.

7. I am entirely open to listening. In fact, I realize that my methodology can and does have some holes in it. However, these are constantly being looked at and revised in an effort to make them better. The one thing I WILL DO is discuss my methods openly and with transparency, unlike EA. I do justify my methods, which is a far cry from anything you will get out of Donny Moore at any rate.

[caballero]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Here are the averages for RBK for these positions: HB: 28 40 FB: 56 68 TE: 58 60.6 WR: 30 40 OT: 81 82 OG: 81 82 C: 77 80.5

EA's in Red (from default roster)

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Welker would fit the role of TE pretty well given his ratings. Here are his ratings compared to that of the average for a TE (). STR 56 (71) 55 (71) AGI 76 (71)97 (75) SPD 77 (70) 86 (75.5) ACC 87 (71) 98 (79) CTH 88 (64) 98 (73) CAR 79 (57) 75 (68) PBK 53 (57) x (55) RBK 67 (58) x (61) JMP 65 (67) 74 (76) TRK 69 (63) 67 (62) ELU 76 (36) 95 (46) BCV 78 (52) 94 (60) SFA 75 (63) 65 (60) SPM 81 (51) 92 (58) JKM 84 (55) 90 (62) IBL 74 (65) 35 ! (63) RBS 75 (63) 35 ! (x) RBF 73 (64) 35 (x) PBS 57 (57) 17 ! (x) PBF 58 (62) 17 (x) SPC 89 (60) 88 (67.5) CIT 89 (63) 99 (72) RTE 99 (59) 97 (61.5) REL 99 (64) 69 ! (65.5)

EA's Welker and Average TE in Blue.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Perhaps I did not make this clear, although I thought I did. ALL OFFENSIVE PLAYERS ASIDE FROM QBs ARE RATED ON THE SAME BLOCKING SCALE FROM 0.0-5.0. That means that no matter what position you play be it RB/FB or WR/TE or OT/OG/C you are graded on the same scale. Now, in the case of Welker, he graded out around 2.0 for RBK on that scale. Gronk only graded out at 1.8 on that scale. The best OL currently on the list is only at 3.8. The average of all WRs for example was 1.0. No matter how you slice it, the scouts deemed: Best OL > Welker > Gronk > Average WR

Yelling won't make it true... Gronk & Welker don't block the same type of players, and this scale is 95% contextual.
It would be VERY efficient when comparing players of the same position! but you said the ratings were universal, no?

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

There are numerous instances where WRs are asked to block/chip DEs and LBs, especially when they are in the slot or in motion across the formation. TEs also need to be capable to block CBs and Ss on outside stalk/crack blocks such as on WR screen passes. The scouting grades base their grades ONLY if everything is equal and they take the scheme/opportunity to block particular players into account.

I'll repeat myself cos this was overlooked: WW plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's.

When he's sent in motion, it's not to chip block, and we both know this.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Look at the STR ratings for Gronk and Welker. Welker may have better "technique" but clearly lacks the STR to sustain a block at the point of attack. Remember, in FBG ratings, they all work together, ESPECIALLY the raw attributes with dynamic attributes.

so why does Welker has a higher Run Blocking STRENGTH than Gronk?
Maybe I'm not the one "clearly failing".

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

You clearly fail to realize the context of the scouting data and this ratings system. The data takes everything into account, normalizes it, and outputs a grade. This system utilizes UNIVERSAL data that is the result of the normalization of several CONTEXTS.

It's OK being wrong Dan, we're all humans.
Welker is graded (in your system/scouting data) as a better blocker than Gronk because they don't block the same guys.
Gronk would MAUL the guys Welker is asked to block, being, well... he's 80lb heavier and 9 inches taller!

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

As a TE, Welker grades out as a 101 because the attributes that he is lowest in (STR, JMP, PBS, and PBF) are only weighted at .14, .06, .06, and .06 of the overall calculation. Gronk, however, as a WR is only rated an 87. This is primarily due to some of his better attributes (TRK, ELU, SFA, SPC, and CIT) are only weighted at .04, .08, .03, .08 and .14. These attributes are among carrying the least amount of weight for a WR.

where did you get these?

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

In fact, the OPPOSITE of your assumption that "Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE" is true.

I meant in real life, hence the (Welker) "would".

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

your assumption that "WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE" is also untrue. Welker as a WR is 90. Welker as a TE is a 101. Gronk as a WR is only an 87. Gronk actually DROPS from a 93 to an 87 by moving out to WR whereas Welker actualy INCREASES from a 90 as a WR to 101 as a TE. See #5 for some possible reasons why.

Not an assumption, it's what I get in M13 depth chart when subbing WW...

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

AT23 would have to chime in. I thought it was a facebook post or something with the "Like" part. I wouldn't be surprised considering they already held freaking polls for attributes already. EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

Yepp, DCEBB is dead-on with his description. Facebook posts, with that many likes would increase his catch rating. I was about to put, "Can I get 10,000 likes that this marketing scheme is terrible for ratings." haha

[at23steelers]

I think what DCEBB is saying is you're totally right that Welker would be a better blocker if run blocking was the only attribute. He'll get eaten alive if he's put at TE due to lack of strength and other attributes. I understand both sides, and DCEBB's might have a few flaws, but it's the best side to go with. Just think about other attributes? DCEBB is trying to make them all universal, so I applaud him for that. The problem I might see is Madden doesn't make a big enough deal out of all the attributes and focuses on a few when dictating outcomes in-game and simming games, but that's not a DCEBB problem.