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

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

I honestly haven't seen he 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.

Yeah, the whole debate over the speed v. acceleration issues in Madden 11's engine was totally proven by my research with CM Hooe. The SPD and ACC ratings did work symbiotically with one another in the sense that the SPD rating determined the maximum velocity when the acceleration phase was over, and the ACC rating affected how quickly you derived at that maximum velocity. Fast-forward a few years and EA finally states in writing that this was the case.

The way I had done things, knowing of the symbiotic relationship that was later proven in our analysis, was use the 40 to represent the average velocity over time and use the 10yd split as a segment to represent the initial burst. This however, was not the best way to do things, so I sought out some professional advice and basically found that there are two ways to do it:

1. Take the 10yd split and use that the correlate to initial burst (ACC) and use the 40-10yd time to match to the SPD rating.

2. Use the splits to create a cubic function and differentiate.

Option number 2 is by far the most accurate. Option 1 is valid because, and I am paraphrasing the expert I sought on this, "the lack of numerous data points means that using the difference in the times could still be around 95% accurate to accurately reflect the acceleration phase and the top velocity phase." I chose the 2nd option because I wanted to be as accurate as possible.


The issue regarding the MCV/ZCV attributes for LBs was something that had to be fixed, but not without supporting data. It was in my analysis of my source material that I found that many LBs were in possession of ZCV/MCV skills that rivaled even some of the best CBs in the game. As a result, I had to ensure that these ratings were accurately reflected.

[PGaither84]

I really don't want to open up that can of worms about acceleration and speed, and you can make claims to how "accurate" your method is or isn't. The reality is that your speed and acceleration ratings for players were nearly identical while Donny's ratings back then had a lot more diversity. Wes Welker at the time had 99 acceleration and 88 speed, where you had something along the liens of like 93 and 91 each. Honestly, I don't remember your exact numbers and they don't even exits on your site anymore to cross reference... or if they are, they certainly aren't easy to find.

I just know that MOST of your ratings I agreed with, except for Speed/Acceleration, which I agreed with Donny. Also, it made players feel more dynamic, especially on 100 speed threshold... which is another topic in terms of game play.

Once I was shown how 100 speed threshold positively effected game play in Madden 11 and 12, I never went back. 0 threshold made the game play like high school football, where a single point of difference in speed made a world of difference. A 93 speed HB flew around the field leaving elite linebackers like Patrick Willis and his 89/90 in the dust. With 100 speed threshold, those same elite linebackers were tackling machines and only the elite HBs in the game (like Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson) had a chance of outrunning them to the corner.

I don't know what in-game 40 times looked like with 100 speed threshold, but as I admit freely, I don't really care. I care about the quality of the game play more than anything. 100 speed threshold still had break away runs, kick off and punt returs for TDs, and the ability to throw over the top, but they weren't as common as they are on 50 or 0 speed threshold. you have to earn them. You had to get the right blocks, take the right angles, throw against the right coverage.

Also, at least in Madden 11 and 12, I used 100 speed threshold in conjunction with 100 fatigue and custom substitution and injury settings. Fatigue in those games was pretty strong. Players who were tired played worse than their maximum ratings, so wearing out a defense and resting yours had an impact on games and vise versa. The tempo and flow of games felt more fluid and natural. Going three and out in the third quarter could be devastating, while a 12 play drive that settles for a FG can turn the tide in your favor as your rested defense come back out to make a stand.

**All of those aspects of game play, which don't seem to function the same in Madden 25. I don't have Madden 15, though I might get 16 this year.

Maybe I am getting a bit off topic, but all of these things are directly related and tied to the user experience. I play Madden 25 for the offline CCM experience, but I put on Madden 12 every now and again becasue the on-field game play in PLAY NOW is so much more satisfying thanks to my roster overhaul and custom settings.

=============================

I completely agreed with you about LB ratings I don't remember if I influenced you to make those changes, but I certainly started a thread about it before I recall you even posted that you were taking over the FBG project. I certainly know you posted about it and gave great feedback on my thread years ago that helped me make tweaks to my custom rosters.

Line backer coverage skills is an important Madden topic for me anytime I give feedback about Madden. I just wasn't able to sell the idea to Donny while at Community Day for Madden 11.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

I really don't want to open up that can of worms about acceleration and speed, and you can make claims to how "accurate" your method is or isn't. The reality is that your speed and acceleration ratings for players were nearly identical while Donny's ratings back then had a lot more diversity. Wes Welker at the time had 99 acceleration and 88 speed, where you had something along the liens of like 93 and 91 each. Honestly, I don't remember your exact numbers and they don't even exits on your site anymore to cross reference... or if they are, they certainly aren't easy to find.

I can assure that at no point did I ever have Wes Welker at a SPD rating in the 90s.

Ever.

Looking at my archives the closest I had to anything like that for Welker was in 2011 when he had a SPD of 78 and and ACC of 88. Outside of that, since 2012, he has been closer to a 77 SPD and 76 ACC.

You may be referring to some ratings where the 10yd split was used solely as the ACC rating without context of the subsequent splits but that was done away with nearly 4 years ago (which makes sense if you haven't been back to the site in 3-4 years). Things have changed a lot since I started deferring to people with degrees in various fields to help ensure that the methodology is accurate. The method employed now is as accurate is it one can get in defining how fast a player accelerates and how fast he is moving at top speed. I have been assured of that.

[4thQtrStre5S]

I am missing the point on bringing in M11 and M12 and 100 speed threshold...The game is made around 50 threshold, for one thing, and we are headed into M16...

And distance between speed rating and acceleration rating, or closeness, is not important..What matters is the use of consistency and accuracy of data; the best way to do that is through the use of actual scouting grades...

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

I am missing the point on bringing in M11 and M12 and 100 speed threshold...The game is made around 50 threshold, for one thing, and we are headed into M16... And distance between speed rating and acceleration rating, or closeness, is not important..What matters is the use of consistency and accuracy of data; the best way to do that is through the use of actual scouting grades...

The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube".

When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it.

However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would.

Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data.

The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate.

Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part.

Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube". When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it. However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would. Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data. The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate. Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part. Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

Hey man the whole point of having a czar is that you don't need no stinking sources! His word is gospel.

But seriously thank you for all you do. You make madden enjoyable for me as you can feel a real difference between players. Quick question, if they allow global editing in CCM would you release a way for us to use your methods to re-rate rookies? It sucks not being able to use your rosters in CCM bc drafted rookies throw off the balance.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

Hey man the whole point of having a czar is that you don't need no stinking sources! His word is gospel. But seriously thank you for all you do. You make madden enjoyable for me as you can feel a real difference between players. Quick question, if they allow global editing in CCM would you release a way for us to use your methods to re-rate rookies? It sucks not being able to use your rosters in CCM bc drafted rookies throw off the balance.

Thanks man. Make sure you sign the petition.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...en-titles.html

Global editing of rookies and the roster in general would fix everything. I would make a page on how to do this on the site so anyone could make the rookies fit the way that I rate players. Simply opening up the editing would make this game better.

[4thQtrStre5S]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube". When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it. However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would. Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data. The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate. Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part. Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

THat would be the logical course of action...I have been aware of the difficulties of scouting and taking one source of information in one form and accurately transferring it into another form that still represents the original data..

It is similar to translating one language to another....The Bible being a perfect example there....

The result can only be as good as the source, but then a lot can be lost if it isn't translated properly into its new form, such as Madden ratings...

It is a MUST to have everything going in uniform, in the same direction under the same method; makes the difference between having a good football team and a great one, for example..