FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

The problem with how EA rates players is that they don't universally rate them. They place "caps" on positions. Moore has even admitted it when he gave an example a couple years back of making the SPD for WRs only within the 99 to 75 point range...no lower or higher. That is wrong. Putting a cap on player attributes because of their position, even when the data says otherwise, is wrong.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by caballero

EA's in Red (from default roster) EA's Welker and Average TE in Blue. 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? 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. so why does Welker has a higher Run Blocking STRENGTH than Gronk? Maybe I'm not the one "clearly failing". 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! where did you get these? I meant in real life, hence the (Welker) "would". Not an assumption, it's what I get in M13 depth chart when subbing WW...

1. EA's RBK ratings are very different from mine, as you can see. FBG uses a universal average for each attribute, like RBK, which can be applied to all players who acquire a RBK grade (RB/FB, WR/TE, OL). Since the scale is from 0.0-5.0 for all players and everything is assumed to be equal, we have to set the results according to the data. That is the fundamental difference in rating players this way. It's just a difference in philosophy. I don't like to say that a WR can ONLY be limited to a range of 19-71 wiht an average of 41 like EA uses. If I was to mimic RBK how Madden 13 has it listed, it would be like this:

2.1 (the highest RBK grade for a WR) = 71 RBK (the highest RBK rating for a WR in M13)
1.0 (the average RBK grade for a WR) = 41 RBK (the avreage RBK rating for a WR in M13)
0.0 (the lowest RBK grade for a WR) = 19 RBK (the lowest RBK rating for a WR in M13)

I can see where the above ^^^ holds true if you go position by position. However, FBG ratings does NOT rate players this way. Instead, all players who share the same attribute are pooled together. Why? Because the scouting data dictates that all players are on the same scale, regardless of position. So in the reality of the data, it looks more like this for all RB/FB, WR/TE, and OL:

5.0 (the highest possible RBK grade for any offensive player) = 99 (the highest possible RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)
1.7 (the average RBK grade for any offensive player) = 61 (the average RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)
0.0 (the lowest possible RBK grade for any offensive player) = 19 (the lowest possible RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)

As you can see here ^^^, the average, and max has changed because other positions are included. The other issue is that EA only includes the top ca. 3000 players in the NFL. It doesn't include all FAs and players in other leagues. FBG ratings does. The database online currently has over 20,000 players. I have data for over 70,000 players. The fundamental goal is to rate all of the players the same, so those players are all rated as well. That also affects the max/min/avg ratings.
The scope of this project is so different from that of EAs, that different methods need to be employed.

2. I understand that Welker and Gronk block different players, but the scouts have already attributed that fact to the grades. After that has been attributed and everyone is on an equal plane, the grade is still the standing result.

3. The RBS skill is a technical skill that relates to how one uses his leverage (that's a term used to qualify the scouting data, nota quote from EA). What really sucks is that EA doesn't have a "leverage" rating. What we DO have is a "strength at the point of attack for run-blocking" grade, which is different from overall strength. That qualification links "best" to RBS.

4. Gronk and Welker are still on the same scale. Although they may block different players, that difference is normalized BEFORE the grade is attributed. This is to allow for the grades on the 0.0-5.0 scale to be universal.

5. I got the OVR ratings calculation from figuring them out one-by-one. It takes time, but it can be done in the game.

6. YOu can't use the depth chart to calculate the OVR ratings. You have to actually change the player's position. If you have the OVR formulas from #5, you can recalculate the OVR. I believe there are some threads around here stating that the OVR in the depth chart does not match that of the OVR rating calculation.

[RogueHominid]

I found a very interesting three-year stat spread on WRs that made me think of this site.

Among the various statistical approaches used by profootballfocus.com to rank WRs, the most shocking to me was the line on the receivers with the highest catch percentage, where catchable balls are defined as passes that receivers got their hands on (either caught or dropped them) and the success/failure rate is defined as the percentage of catches made out of the total number of catchable balls.

That approach seems sensible to me, as it focuses solely on the passes that receivers actually got their mitts on.

Here's the shocker: the highest catch percentage among qualifying players over a three-year spread is Earl Bennet! Other, more popular names are on there, but that one's a shocker. 86 catching in your system, but he drops just 4% of the balls he gets his hands on.

Just thought that was interesting.

Roy Williams, by contrast, drops about 14% of the balls that hit his hands, lol.

[jmacz]

What is the recommended speed threshold to play on using these rosters?

[js3512]

Sorry if this has been asked before but this thread is 90 pages long so I just don't have time to read the whole thing, but is there a downloadable roster with these ratings anywhere or would I have to go through and enter them all in myself. Love this ratings system but it would be ALOT of work to enter them in myself. I work 2 jobs and have a family to it'd be impossible really.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Is there a site like this, but for NCAA football ratings?

[lon515]

to have mike Wallace at an 96 spd then have Antonio brown at 86 spd is a complete joke, mike is faster by far but 10 points, Antonio also is a much better route runner, not even close but you have them tied,

i was reading threw here and i was getting excited until i looked at the ratings them selves

[Zmurkz]

Hi, couple of questions, do I have to input all the ratings of the site manually? and will these ratings work with Madden 12 and Madden 12 franchise mode? Thanks.