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

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by SECElit3

Cam Newton stats today: 17/34 with less than 150 passing... What is he rated again in Madden? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Playing Monday morning quarterback is always a lot of fun.

[SECElit3]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Playing Monday morning quarterback is always a lot of fun.

And... Here we see a great example of why we will never see realistic ratings in Madden. Cam Newton is not a Hall of Fame quarterback and shouldn't be rated as one


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by SECElit3

And... Here we see a great example of why we will never see realistic ratings in Madden. Cam Newton is not a Hall of Fame quarterback and shouldn't be rated as one Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Depends on how the ratings work/what they represent. They're a snapshot in time for the most part but aren't a lifetime portrait of their ability.

Most outside of physical characteristics should ebb and flow with coaching, injuries and opportunity.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by SECElit3

And... Here we see a great example of why we will never see realistic ratings in Madden. Cam Newton is not a Hall of Fame quarterback and shouldn't be rated as one Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He is this year and he in the MVP discussion.

[Gman 18]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

Depends on how the ratings work/what they represent. They're a snapshot in time for the most part but aren't a lifetime portrait of their ability. Most outside of physical characteristics should ebb and flow with coaching, injuries and opportunity. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

A player's individual ratings carry far more weigh than their overall rating. The way madden's ratings system is set up, some ratings that don't mean as much when it comes to gameplay or aren't represented very realistically, such as awareness or play recognition, take on more of an impact when forming a player's overall rating.

Speed has almost always been the most/one of the most crucial attributes for skills players, no matter what the rest of that players ratings were. I remember how dominant Brandon Banks was in madden 12 and 13 based purely on his speed rating. The guy occasionally flat out dropped the ball, but pretty much 90% of the time, his speed made him dominant. So when it comes to ratings in madden, it is best to critique a players individual rating first before the overall ratings. That being said, I believe most players attributes are overrated in the game, but people spend too much time complaining about a mostly meaningless overall rating as opposed to individual ratings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Millennium]

So much absolutely disrespect for fellow posters and devs thrown around in here. I'm truly sickened that some of you trot around this community as long time users and expect yourselves to be treated like idols, then when a dev comes in here you fire back with undertones of "Better than thou".

This close to banning the entire lot of you, so tread lightly.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gman 18

A player's individual ratings carry far more weigh than their overall rating. The way madden's ratings system is set up, some ratings that don't mean as much when it comes to gameplay or aren't represented very realistically, such as awareness or play recognition, take on more of an impact when forming a player's overall rating. Speed has almost always been the most/one of the most crucial attributes for skills players, no matter what the rest of that players ratings were. I remember how dominant Brandon Banks was in madden 12 and 13 based purely on his speed rating. The guy occasionally flat out dropped the ball, but pretty much 90% of the time, his speed made him dominant. So when it comes to ratings in madden, it is best to critique a players individual rating first before the overall ratings. That being said, I believe most players attributes are overrated in the game, but people spend too much time complaining about a mostly meaningless overall rating as opposed to individual ratings.

Also bear in mind that the OVR ratings are a positive correlated function of the attribute values. As in, if the OVR ratings are very high, the attributes that lead to that overall are also very high.

What EA really needs to do is pull in some historical empirical data to see EXACTLY where these attributes fall on a scale of say a full generation (20 years) or so. The big problem is that they are constantly setting the best every individual year equal to 99. It makes it impossible to differentiate between players from year to year and see how good, or weak, certain players are.

Physical attributes are a good place to start. Take the highest maximum velocity recorded in the past 20 years and set that to 99. Take the lowest and set it to 1. Use linear regression and 'viola', you have a realistic equal interval distribution of the SPD rating. Then, you can see how fast these players really are compared to a larger, more complete, population. Data distributions seemed to be completely ignored.

If you have a standardized set of historical data that can encompass such a timeline, you can see how good these players really are or aren't based upon that distribution.

The example of Cam Newton was brought up so let's use him as an example. The scouting data that I have goes back to 1996, so I basically have 20 seasons worth of scouting data to rely on. On that scale, Newton currently grades in at an 7.51 OVR grade. That's pretty darn good. To put that into context, only 14 QBs have had a grade that high or higher since 1996:

Peyton Manning (2000) 10.00
Tom Brady (2008) 10.00
Brett Favre (2001) 9.99
Aaron Rodgers (2011) 9.99
Kurt Warner (2001) 9.33
Drew Bledsoe (2000) 8.95
Drew Brees (2011) 8.66
Rich Gannon (2003) 8.22
Philip Rivers (2010) 8.21
Eli Manning (2009) 8.10
Donovan McNabb (2003) 8.02
Jeff Garcia (2002) 7.95
Mark Brunell (2000) 7.82
Steve McNair (2003) 7.76
Daunte Culpepper (2004) 7.50

There is no doubt, that this year he is performing among the best in the NFL at his position. However, when you place him on a historical scale per the scouts, it wouldn't even be top 100 in the last 20 years (the guys above have their best season listed, not including the multiple times they were above 7.51 in other seasons).

Once again, I think EA needs to pull from a more broad context instead of just one year at a time so we can really see how these players rate compared to the all-time greats of this generation. That in itself would help alleviate the issue of over-inflation of the attributes, and consequently, the OVR ratings.

You can't have high OVRs without high attributes. Both need to be rectified.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Also bear in mind that the OVR ratings are a positive correlated function of the attribute values. As in, if the OVR ratings are very high, the attributes that lead to that overall are also very high. What EA really needs to do is pull in some historical empirical data to see EXACTLY where these attributes fall on a scale of say a full generation (20 years) or so. The big problem is that they are constantly setting the best every individual year equal to 99. It makes it impossible to differentiate between players from year to year and see how good, or weak, certain players are. Physical attributes are a good place to start. Take the highest maximum velocity recorded in the past 20 years and set that to 99. Take the lowest and set it to 1. Use linear regression and 'viola', you have a realistic equal interval distribution of the SPD rating. Then, you can see how fast these players really are compared to a larger, more complete, population. Data distributions seemed to be completely ignored. If you have a standardized set of historical data that can encompass such a timeline, you can see how good these players really are or aren't based upon that distribution. The example of Cam Newton was brought up so let's use him as an example. The scouting data that I have goes back to 1996, so I basically have 20 seasons worth of scouting data to rely on. On that scale, Newton currently grades in at an 7.51 OVR grade. That's pretty darn good. To put that into context, only 14 QBs have had a grade that high or higher since 1996: Peyton Manning (2000) 10.00 Tom Brady (2008) 10.00 Brett Favre (2001) 9.99 Aaron Rodgers (2011) 9.99 Kurt Warner (2001) 9.33 Drew Bledsoe (2000) 8.95 Drew Brees (2011) 8.66 Rich Gannon (2003) 8.22 Philip Rivers (2010) 8.21 Eli Manning (2009) 8.10 Donovan McNabb (2003) 8.02 Jeff Garcia (2002) 7.95 Mark Brunell (2000) 7.82 Steve McNair (2003) 7.76 Daunte Culpepper (2004) 7.50 There is no doubt, that this year he is performing among the best in the NFL at his position. However, when you place him on a historical scale per the scouts, it wouldn't even be top 100 in the last 20 years (the guys above have their best season listed, not including the multiple times they were above 7.51 in other seasons). Once again, I think EA needs to pull from a more broad context instead of just one year at a time so we can really see how these players rate compared to the all-time greats of this generation. That in itself would help alleviate the issue of over-inflation of the attributes, and consequently, the OVR ratings. You can't have high OVRs without high attributes. Both need to be rectified.

I get what you are saying DCEBB, but when I play Madden, (been playing since early 90's) I am just like the rest of the buying public.

I am playing in the now, at the moment, I don't care what Aaron Rodgers did for the last several years, I only care about what he is doing now. Over the last several years, he would belong in the hall and deserves a 99, but this year, he's not having HOF numbers. I don't care what Culpepper and McNair did 20 yrs ago, I'm playing Madden 16.

And as far as Cam Newton is concerned, his threat of running should be in the equation as well.

So, I don't feel Rodgers should be a 99 just because historically he's been there before. And his numbers should go down this week too.

I hope that makes sense.