FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Shergie51

There is a huge difference between weight room and football field...do you really think foster plays with more strength than gronk? I understand the premise for this roster, as it is why I was intrigued, but football is not a math equation where A=B. Your system is like the old BCS system lol

The rating for strength is static for all players in this system. The 1 rep max in all 3 metrics are key indicators of static strength. There is much academic scholarship to support this. How players utilize that strength is what you see on the field. Technique involving better leverage can make a weaker player seem stronger than a player with better static strength. Our system only measures the static strength for all players. This was the opinion of our expert consultant for this metric. You can read our faq page for more details.

[4thQtrStre5S]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

It doesn't really matter how EA determines a player's STR in Madden. What we do at FBG is rate players' attributes the same way scouts would rate them in real life. The only difference is that we then convert the scouting data into Madden numbers. Madden does not accurately represent Speed and Acceleration in the game (see my thread). However, FBG Ratings still rates players as if Madden did. Think of FBG Ratings as the real-world way of rating Madden players assuming that the game functions as it would in the real world. All we care about is the data and the numbers, not necessarily how they perform in game. That is up to EA to fix, not us.

Essentially, there is no need to use anything but the default rosters by EA then....

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

Essentially, there is no need to use anything but the default rosters by EA then....

If that is what you prefer, then by all means, do so.

[kappe27]

Did I want to ask you according to which parameters you assign spin, juke and elusiveness to Brandon Marshall to 99?
Why in general the man coverage of the cornerbacks is so low, while the zone coverage is high? Why is the catching so high?
Must this roster be combined to the sliders that are found in download?
Congratulations and thanks to Dan, for doing a very good job.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by kappe27

Did I want to ask you according to which parameters you assign spin, juke and elusiveness to Brandon Marshall to 99? Why in general the man coverage of the cornerbacks is so low, while the zone coverage is high? Why is the catching so high? Must this roster be combined to the sliders that are found in download? Congratulations and thanks to Dan, for doing a very good job.

Movement attributes work together, as one, when a player is running on the field. Think of a player with a 0 SPD, 0 ACC, 0 AGI, 0 SPM, and 0 JKM as being the most stiff player possible. Not only can he not get up to speed quickly, maintain a fast top-end speed, or move side to side at speed, but he cannot employ a movement skill (like SPM and JKM) very well. Now think of the opposite end of this spectrum where a player is rated at 99 in all movement categories. He is, in essence, a human joystick who can do any move with ease at full speed. His effectiveness, movement wise is perfect.

Now, the data tells us that there are millions of combinations in between these two extremes. This is where REAL NFL players lie. To date, no player is perfect in all categories. Instead, what you have are players that have varying degrees of movement talents that are measured and quantified. FBG Ratings captures this variance.

For Marshall, he has very good SPM/JKM ratings. However, the effectiveness of this is limited by his SPD/ACC/AGI attributes. He will thus not be as effective at pulling off such moves as a player with better SPD/ACC/AGI attributes, but whom also shares the same JKM/SPM ratings.

The bottom line is that everything works together. You must not look at attributes independently, but rather, look at them as part of a larger whole.


For CBs, having elite MCV attributes is rare. Very rare, according to the data. Since 2012, on a scale of 0.0 to 5.0, the best DB had a MCV score of 3.1/5.0. This was Richard Sherman's MCV rating in May, 2014. The worst was 0.1 shared by many players. The average rating for MCV for a DB was 1.0 amongst over 4000 DBs in the database.

ZCV, in contrast, is rated on the same 0.1 to 5.0 scale, but the max and min were 2.3 and 0.1. Aqib Talib and Ronde Barber were at the top of this scale. The average was 0.9. So actually, the MCV is the higher AVERAGE score for coverage skills amongst all DBs. You are probably looking at only a small portion of the players in the database and are not including every single DB. Otherwise, you would find that the average DB has higher MCV than ZCV.

The same follows for CTH amongst the DB group. The max and min are 2.8 to 0.1. Jairus Byrd is tops according to the data. However, the next best came in at 2.3 and the average was again 1.0. Odds are, you are only looking at a small sample size again.

We do not provide rosters or sliders so check with the community about that.

[kappe27]

When you will be able to see again the skill of each player on the site? How to update the skill?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by kappe27

When you will be able to see again the skill of each player on the site? How to update the skill?

You will be able to see new attributes before training camps open in late July.

[booker21]

Can i download these rosters from Share in game? I´m not going to enter all 1200+ players manually