FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[Hooe]

I don't have quantified data to give you but my impressions from fully roster editing four teams so far -

- physical traits are more spread out. You'll see some WRs, RBs, and CBs with speed in the 70s, some skill position players with high STR ratings, some players with high SPD and low ACC ratings, and so on. More diverse from a pure physical attributes standpoint. Makes for some interesting player builds.

- generally speaking, mental stats are higher than on the EA roster. Things like AWR, BCV, and PRC come to mind. There's still diversity there, but the range is tighter than on EA's roster. This is especially notable with rookies, as EA's ratings love to slam their mental ratings into the ground. My impression is that this makes for a more even-handed game overall.

- across pretty much every player on the EA roster, ACC is always greater than SPD. This is not the case with FBGratings' roster.

- SPD and ACC for OL and DL is lower and the relationship between each player's SPD and ACC rating is much tighter; you don't see as many OLs with say 60 SPD and 80 ACC (20 point differential)

-fewer players with physical ratings > 90. There may be a half-dozen players with SPD > 90 on the four teams I've edited so far?

That's all I got for now.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

Quick question: Does anyone know how much on average the ratings on Madden are inflated compared to the FBGRatings? I'm creating a bunch of players based on their FBGRatings for my next franchise, but I plan to use them in a regular Madden roster. I plan to raise my created players ratings to match those of players on other teams (to make them competitive). I just wanted to see if anyone has done any work on comparing these ratings to the Madden ratings.

Well, I don't think that FBG Ratings would be a good source for anyone wanting to create players for stock EA rosters. CM Hope hit on a bit of it, but it is actually far more complex than what he alluded to. Basically, every player on the FBG site uses data to determine their ratings. No range in attributes is dictated. Rather, all of the data dictates the range.

According to Donny Moore in 2009, when EA attempted in Madden 10 to spread the ratings distribution (and then choose not to do so for Madden 11), they would set the range for an attribute before rating the players. For instance, Donny said that the range for WR SPD used to be 75-99 but for Madden 10, he adjusted it to 70-99. He did this also for most other attributes.

This is the WRONG approach, however. We know that the usable scale in Madden is 0-99. Since SPD is measured for all players, we can use a metric like maximum velocity to determine every player's SPD REGARDLESS of position. Think about this: If a 300lb OL runs a 40 yard dash in 5.00 seconds and a 180lb QB runs a 40 yard dash in 5.00 seconds, should the QB be faster because he weighs less and plays a different position?

OF COURSE NOT! Mass has no affect on velocity! Velocity is a function of distance and time. If the distances and times are the same, then the average velocity is the same! EA took the Bass Ackward approach of dictating the range for each position before looking at the d*mn data! That is not only TERRIBLE science, but even worse logic.

My next question is, why would you even WANT to use their rosters knowing that they don't use the right data to dictate their results, and instead, dictate their results without using any verifiable metrics?

If you rate all players using the same measures, you will find that OL are slower than QBs (on the average), WRs are more agile than DL, and RBs have higher BCV than CBs without having to dictate the parameters first. All EA had to do was use some of that money, make some REAL connections in an NFL front office, get some REAL scouting data, and rate players how they should REALLY be rated.

The scouting data that drives FBG Ratings makes no assumptions. However, what it does do is tell us a few things about all of the players to play since 1997. Let's assume that ALL PLAYERS are measured equally, regardless of position so I can give you a prime example:

EXAMPLE: STR

STR varies far wider than what EA is letting you believe. In fact, NFL 2K had their STR ratings just about right. My guess is that they used REAL data, unlike their EA counterparts. If you set the weakest player to 1 and the strongest to 99, then, employ a linear regression (so the distance between each point is the same), you find that elite (90+) STR is EXTREMELY RARE. How rare? Well, out of 26,000 players with verifiable data, only 12 would have a STR rating over 90. 12! The average STR rating for a player would be 43. Those numbers are WAY lower than the crap that EA feeds you, but it is true! I have the data to back it up! Instead, EA is trying to convince you that the average STR for a player is 71. Those numbers are WAY off.



So you see, EA is trying to make you think that every player is a massive professional weight lifter who squat 750 and bench 600. This could not be farther from the truth. Any guess as to what the average 1 rep max in the squat is for a DT? EA would let you believe that it is 700 freakin' pounds with all of those DT STR ratings that are 90+.

506.

Wanna know the average 1 rep max in the bench press?

382.

Those are NOT super-human numbers that are deserving of averaging ELITE STR numbers, yet, EA believes that the average DT in the NFL has a STR rating of 87. You know what it should be? 65.

EA has over-inflated all of these ratings when you actually compare them to some real data. The data tells us that EA is not only tightening the actual range, but is also raising the average based on position. It is complete crap. They need to get their collective heads out of their you know wheres and rate these players correctly.

[DCEBB2001]

****AN UPDATE FOR ROSTER EDITORS****


I know that there are a few groups making rosters using FBG Ratings. Well, I have made it a bit easier to track player updates on the website.

Each time a player's ratings change, you will notice a + or - sign with an attribute amount next to their name on the roster. EXAMPLE:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/vi...ovr&order=DESC

When you click on the player's ratings page, you can see in the lower right corner (right under the ratings box) two dates. The first is the "Overall Rating Updated" date. This is the date that the OVR rating was last updated. The second is the "Player Attributes Last Updated" date. This is the date that the attributes were last updated. They should always be the same date.

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...php?pyid=54857

All players in the entire database were last updated on 7/9/2014. I highly suggest you edit players to those specifications in your rosters. However, some players have been updated on 7/11/2014. You can tell because the dates on their profile pages say 7/11/2014 for the "Overall Rating Updated" and "Player Attributes Last Updated" dates. Other players will still reflect the last date their ratings changed. EXAMPLE:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...php?pyid=57020

Now, if a player changed positions (and thus his OVR calculation changed) OR his attributes changed but his OVR did not, his dates will be updated on his player profile page, BUT his ratings change on the roster list will say "+0". That means that the player still needs to be edited but his OVR did not change due to the edits. This could be because of the position change or because some attributes changed but not enough to bump the player up or down a full OVR point. EXAMPLE:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/vi...team=Cardinals

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...php?pyid=58077

Basically, if a player has a + or - in the "+/-" column on the roster page, you need to edit them. If they do not, then just leave that player alone. This way, you won't have to be editing entire rosters, but instead, just edit the players that changed.

Let me know if you have any questions. I will post this in the other FBG-Related Roster Threads.

Dan B.

[Argooos]

Thanks for the info. I actually already knew most of that, having been reading this thread pretty much since it started. In any case, hopefully others reading the thread will find that info enlightening

I guess I was hoping for a general rule of thumb for converting the ratings, but I should have known better. I'll just have to adjust based on positional averages like I have done in the past.

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

My next question is, why would you even WANT to use their rosters knowing that they don't use the right data to dictate their results, and instead, dictate their results without using any verifiable metrics?

I would love to use a roster made entirely with your ratings, but I'm not aware of one for Madden 12 with the rosters updated for the 2014-15 season. I don't have time to edit the entire roster myself either. Plus, even if I had such a roster, I plan to play a franchise, so every rookie who came into the league in future seasons would likely have some ridiculous game-breaking attributes and not fit in with the rest of the players in the league.

[ranta21]

Good stuff Dan. One observation though. I understand that all the data comes from the scouts, but how come we see so many raises (+) but hardly any cuts (-)? Or so it seems on the "RECENT RATING CHANGES" page. Is it countered by injuries or retirements perhaps? If you could give us some insight, it would be highly appreciated.

[jwagner82]

Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does Ryan Mallett get boosted to a 76 with his only game tape being sub-par, yet Logan Ryan who was actually helping our defense, is at like a 66. Also, how in god's name is Casey Hayward a 67..

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by ranta21

Good stuff Dan. One observation though. I understand that all the data comes from the scouts, but how come we see so many raises (+) but hardly any cuts (-)? Or so it seems on the "RECENT RATING CHANGES" page. Is it countered by injuries or retirements perhaps? If you could give us some insight, it would be highly appreciated.

The raises are just for the updates I did yesterday. Over the course of a season, there will be far more (-) than (+) designations due to injury. The recent ratings changes page only shows some of the recent changes. You will see more of them by either searching by player name or by looking at the active rosters. Look up injured players and retired players. You will note that they all have significant (-) drops in OVR.

I only report what the data shows and the scouts only change the data when a change is warranted.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by jwagner82

Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does Ryan Mallett get boosted to a 76 with his only game tape being sub-par, yet Logan Ryan who was actually helping our defense, is at like a 66. Also, how in god's name is Casey Hayward a 67..

Keep in mind that I only report the data as it is interpolated from the scouting source to Madden ratings. The scouts obviously saw something to give me a +3 point OVR boost. Keep in mind that everything is based on TRAITS, not stats/vids/etc. Mallett just completed another year as a QB in a very good system behind a very good coach and starting QB. That alone, I would think, would perhaps allow him to gain a few AWR points at a minimum.

For Logan Ryan, once again, look at his traits, not his production. Madden does not have an attribute called "actually helped NE's defense because someone on OS said he did". His SPD for a CB is subpar. His hands, tackling ability, and ZCV skills are below average for his position. He had a handful of starts. Obviously, he needs to acquire more time so we can see how he develops.

Casey Heyward was injured the whole season from mini-camp onward in 2013. Look at our FAQ section - injuries affect the OVR. Try playing up to your potential with a pulled hamstring so bad that it lands you on IR. He is healthy this year, however, and he led all rookies with 6 INTs in 2012. I guess the scouts think he is nearing his level from that season where he topped out at a 71.