FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[charter04]

It's not that strange to have pretty big gaps in overall when using real scouting data. With a 0.0-5.0 scale you could have a player that is 4.85 and a guy that's 4.50. That's pretty close but if you if you make that a Madden overall it's a 96 and 89.

I get the Pro Football Weekly (it's called Pro Football Now this year) NFL preview and they use a scouting data lead 0.0-5.0 scale. I actually did a scale transfer sheet to see what there player grades would be if it was and overall. The top player is Payton Manning with a 4.90. This is 97 overall. The number 50 player is Mario Williams with a 4.10. This is a 81 overall. In their scale anything 4.00 and up is a Blue Chip. So 79 and up if it were Madden.

My point is that Dan is not the one doing something crazy, EA is. EA is the one who has brain washed everyone into believing their ratings reflect real overalls and real NFL data. It's not.

Pro Football Now has 11 players rated 4.55 overall or higher. 4.55 would be 90 overall. 11 players 90 overall or higher! We've been brain washed by EA to believe their should be way more 90 overalls. It's just not right and it doesn't produce realistic gameplay.

I don't agree with every rating in FBG but, I'm no scout. I think their system gets it so much better than Madden. This current set is my favorite. The one I'm going to test soon.

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

It's not that strange to have pretty big gaps in overall when using real scouting data. With a 0.0-5.0 scale you could have a player that is 4.85 and a guy that's 4.50. That's pretty close but if you if you make that a Madden overall it's a 96 and 89. I get the Pro Football Weekly (it's called Pro Football Now this year) NFL preview and they use a scouting data lead 0.0-5.0 scale. I actually did a scale transfer sheet to see what there player grades would be if it was and overall. The top player is Payton Manning with a 4.90. This is 97 overall. The number 50 player is Mario Williams with a 4.10. This is a 81 overall. In their scale anything 4.00 and up is a Blue Chip. So 79 and up if it were Madden. My point is that Dan is not the one doing something crazy, EA is. EA is the one who has brain washed everyone into believing their ratings reflect real overalls and real NFL data. It's not. Pro Football Now has 11 players rated 4.55 overall or higher. 4.55 would be 90 overall. 11 players 90 overall or higher! We've been brain washed by EA to believe their should be way more 90 overalls. It's just not right and it doesn't produce realistic gameplay. I don't agree with every rating in FBG but, I'm no scout. I think their system gets it so much better than Madden. This current set is my favorite. The one I'm going to test soon.

The thing is, the madden overall and the overall on the pro football weekly are not on the same scale or formula. A 4.55 may not necessarily translate to a 90 by madden standards. The OVR scale changes over time. The individual attributes that equal a 99 OVR might not have been the same in Madden 07 or some other older game. Even though a player would play the same since their attributes, the OVR might be different, which is why adjusting individual ratings to reach a desired overall doesn't make sense.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

The thing is, the madden overall and the overall on the pro football weekly are not on the same scale or formula. A 4.55 may not necessarily translate to a 90 by madden standards. The OVR scale changes over time. The individual attributes that equal a 99 OVR might not have been the same in Madden 07 or some other older game. Even though a player would play the same since their attributes, the OVR might be different, which is why adjusting individual ratings to reach a desired overall doesn't make sense.

None of that was my point. Dan doesn't try and get a certain overall. My point is Madden ratings aren't good. FBG is trying something else.

Your so oddly passionate about something you clearly don't like. It's getting trollish and weird.

Who cares what a websites rated players. Why do you can so much? I can make a website and claim Tony Romo is 99 overall. Who cares?

[charter04]

Actually it's fine. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Just don't really know what your bringing to the table other than constant criticism.

Now back to the thread

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

None of that was my point. Dan doesn't try and get a certain overall. My point is Madden ratings aren't good. FBG is trying something else. Your so oddly passionate about something you clearly don't like. It's getting trollish and weird. Who cares what a websites rated players. Why do you can so much? I can make a website and claim Tony Romo is 99 overall. Who cares?

My point is, 4.1 doesn't necessarily translate to a 81. Players on that scale probably end up around 2.0 and lower. I don't think any player in the nfl should be rated what a 40 would be in madden. What translates to a 40 would be way lower than what translates to a 2.0. I mean, a 40 in madden at a position is like putting Peyton Manning at WR, and I don't think any WRs in the nfl should be even close to that.

[charter04]

There were 182 players rated 90+ on the latest madden 25 official roster. That's crazy.

[MajorSupreme]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

There were 182 players rated 90+ on the latest madden 25 official roster. That's crazy.

In the words of Stephen A Smith, "it's asinine, asi-ten, asi-eleven, and asi-twelve." 90+ is the elite, best of the best tier. To me, not more than 15 should be over 90.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

My point is, 4.1 doesn't necessarily translate to a 81. Players on that scale probably end up around 2.0 and lower. I don't think any player in the nfl should be rated what a 40 would be in madden. What translates to a 40 would be way lower than what translates to a 2.0. I mean, a 40 in madden at a position is like putting Peyton Manning at WR, and I don't think any WRs in the nfl should be even close to that.

If every player wasn't 80 or higher then a 50 overall wouldn't seem so bad. 2.4-2.99 is a starter caliber in the ratings I'm talking about. That's 47-58 overall. In Maddens systems this is terrible but, in a more realistic system were you have only 5-10 90 overalls and much more 60-79 it makes more sense.

The real question is have you played a game with FBG rated rosters? I have. It's just better. If you haven't then I'm not sure your opinion on this subject (FBG ratings used in Madden) is a good one.