Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

I appreciate your point that the guys at PFF aren't trained scouts but in all honesty this isn't as serious an issue as you make it because they aren't attempting to grade players based on techniques etc merely observing win / loss scenarios Did a rushed beat his blocker , did a receiver catch or drop a pass etc They state that most plays result in neutral or zero grades and only a relatively few are marked as wins or losses So whilst a scout may point out a receiver who frequently body catches PFF would not even attempt to As such the site has a use in it offers comparisons of a players success rate but no insight into any individual talents a player may have Even then tho it has flaws in that it doesn't take any account of weight of schedule ( each team will only play 13 of the potential 31 opponents during a NFL season) or if players are carrying known injuries , factors I'm sure scouts consider in their grades I believe it's wise to use as many sources as possible as in this way any errors that slip through the net are more easily identified and corrected It's my opinion that the problem with madden ratings is less to do with the data used and more about how it is used , both the systems used and the fact that popular opinion, marketing etc plays a significant role

I have stated this before, but will do so again.

I think that PFF is great for identifying tendencies, but not for rating attributes. The win/loss should be played out because of the combination of the individual attributes, not because PFF says that it should.

Further, those tendencies could be carried out to individual teams/coordinators to present an accurate depiction of what teams like to do and when with certain players. That is how I think PFF could be utilized. I just believe that it wouldn't be as good of a source compared to what I have.

However, I would love to see someone make their own ratings using PFF and see how that works. I have already researched PFF years ago, and simply found that it didn't carry over as well as other means. PFF will not tell me how agile or fast a player is, so I can't use it for the attributes.

Tendencies, maybe. Attributes, no.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I have stated this before, but will do so again. I think that PFF is great for identifying tendencies, but not for rating attributes. The win/loss should be played out because of the combination of the individual attributes, not because PFF says that it should. Further, those tendencies could be carried out to individual teams/coordinators to present an accurate depiction of what teams like to do and when with certain players. That is how I think PFF could be utilized. I just believe that it wouldn't be as good of a source compared to what I have. However, I would love to see someone make their own ratings using PFF and see how that works. I have already researched PFF years ago, and simply found that it didn't carry over as well as other means. PFF will not tell me how agile or fast a player is, so I can't use it for the attributes. Tendencies, maybe. Attributes, no.

I agree that PFF does not provide any data that would be useful in in assigning attribute ratings as such
However it can be used a a fail check , for example if the scouting data and PFF results differ wildly closer examination could be made. PFF scores on a results based system and unless a player is remarkably *lucky* good results should follow from good technique etc
Neither scouting nor metrics are infallible but cross checking is always good practice

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

I agree that PFF does not provide any data that would be useful in in assigning attribute ratings as such However it can be used a a fail check , for example if the scouting data and PFF results differ wildly closer examination could be made. PFF scores on a results based system and unless a player is remarkably *lucky* good results should follow from good technique etc Neither scouting nor metrics are infallible but cross checking is always good practice

I think that's the key point and why myself and others like the FBG data over the PFF. IMO it's a better indicator over the long run and will lead to more reliable data.

Now what EA does with the data and getting it to translate on the virtual field is a different matter. They (EA) are kind of stuck with their flawed ratings system at this point. Say EA implements a speed ratings system in line with accurate up-to-date 40 times. Fans and players themselves would throw a fit (although the action on the field wouldn't change IF everyone was on the same scale).

Great discussion btw.

[briz1046]

In a idealised world and where data samples where large enough to eliminate normal variances the results based metrics should tally with the scouting reports
Good technique should bring corresponding good results
In reality this will not always occur however comparing the different sources and highlighting any differences for further analysis should produce the best results
No person is infallible no matter their qualifications or pedigree

[4thQtrStre5S]

Regardless of the numbers, the software engine has to process them correctly and then it has to be represented upon the playing field correctly..

[4thQtrStre5S]

Another reason for having ratings like FBG, is that results on the field, what the players do are team based...

Let me try to explain what I mean:

Emmitt Smith, came from big college florida and then went to the Cowboys and ran behind the biggest one on one blockers, and arguably one of the best lines ever..Smith ran a 4.70 40, and some people said he cant go 80 yards..

Barry Sanders, came from Oklahoma State and went to the Detroit Lions, one of the consistently bad teams and also didn't have anything for an offensive line, arguably one of the best runners..He ran a 4.37 40...

Madden would have these players rated high, and maybe equally high, though Barry Sanders may not look as Good in Madden because the offensive line would be rated lower than the Cowboys...

BUt with a solid ratings based system like FBG, Emmitt Smith should be rated well below Sanders and thus require the big line and Sanders would be rated higher and in relation to the other players in the league that he would shine behind even some of the worst lines...

For example, In Madden I would bet they rated Smith's agility about the same as Sander's, which would be wrong..

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

Another reason for having ratings like FBG, is that results on the field, what the players do are team based... Let me try to explain what I mean: Emmitt Smith, came from big college florida and then went to the Cowboys and ran behind the biggest one on one blockers, and arguably one of the best lines ever..Smith ran a 4.70 40, and some people said he cant go 80 yards.. Barry Sanders, came from Oklahoma State and went to the Detroit Lions, one of the consistently bad teams and also didn't have anything for an offensive line, arguably one of the best runners..He ran a 4.37 40... Madden would have these players rated high, and maybe equally high, though Barry Sanders may not look as Good in Madden because the offensive line would be rated lower than the Cowboys... BUt with a solid ratings based system like FBG, Emmitt Smith should be rated well below Sanders and thus require the big line and Sanders would be rated higher and in relation to the other players in the league that he would shine behind even some of the worst lines... For example, In Madden I would bet they rated Smith's agility about the same as Sander's, which would be wrong..

Wow. That is one of the best analogies I have read on here in regards to what I am trying to do. One of the things that the scouting data supplies is individualized data. So much of what we see in terms of production is based on the team effort. The scouting data allows us to break that down player-by-player and attribute-by-attribute.

If a WR is capable of catching 99 of 100 balls you throw to him, but he only gets 10 targets in the season and drops his one ball in those 10 targets, you would think that he only has a catch rate of 90% instead of 99%. PFF is giving you the game-observed 90% and is excluding what would happen if he had infinite opportunity.

The scouting data attempts to rate players under the assumption that all conditions are equal for all players (targets = opportunities). They go beyond what you see in a game and add in what they see from workouts, practices, etc. With this data, you get a more complete image of the player and what his abilities should be if all circumstances are equal.

[PGaither84]

I honestly haven't seen the FBG page in the last 3-4 years. I always fully supported the idea of fan adjusted ratings. In the past DCEBB2001 and I have had disagreements on the results and methodology for arriving at acceleration vs speed numbers and if I recall we also talked about the zone/man coverage ratings for linebackers and defensive ends.

I have had personal success in past iterations of Madden when I sit down and do roster overhauls. They only apply to PLAY NOW, but they do greatly improve that "pick up and play" experience. I have written about it before and wish that it would be applied to the game holistically.

More spread out ratings and an overall lower ratings curve improves game play.