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

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I think that it should come down to giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So much is lost in translation on a message board that I myself often have to do that. I take a step back and ask myself what the person is really attempting to convey. To quote him, he said, "I go off tape and PFF..... hard to have any opinion in it really." OK, so now the first thing that comes to mind when I see that is there are a million ways to analyze tape, and not all of them are equal. Some ARE better than others, and I know that from PERSONAL experience. I want to know if he has any formal training that would alleviate any uneasiness I may have about him possibly doing it incorrectly or without formal training from a professional. Then, I want to know where/who he learned it from. Who knows? Maybe we know some of the same people in the business! It's really that simple. However, I even took it a step further to exemplify what I have personally done to illustrate that you can have humble beginnings in a career of scouting (like as a HS football coach or working for a 3rd party website) knowing full well that what matters is where you finish and not where you start. That was not an attempt to toot my own horn, but rather, an attempt to open up a bit in the hopes that he too would open up and be a bit more transparent; something EA devs have lacked often around here. To me, if someone is going to cite their use of film study, I want to know if they know how to properly use it. That's just me though because of my background in that world. It isn't easy. In fact, it sucks. Little pay for lots of work. I also understand that likely, nobody else cares about my inquiry or his background, and that's fine. However, nothing I said in there was a violation of the TOS from what I understand, so it seems as though I am getting beaten up over simply asking a question and framing it because people misunderstood where I am coming from. The bottom line is that before anyone jumps on anyone we all need to do a better job of giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

Dan, I have been against your ratings as you know. Because I don't think a guy should take a 20 point ratings deduction because he got suspended for a stupid reason like deflating footballs or smoking weed.That's just not right, IMO. But I quoted this post because of the bold. But I can see a reason for something like steroids or any other PED.

You say someone should get the benefit of doubt, and to me it seems like you are doing the opposite from your posts. I bet most people in Kane's position wouldn't do to well either. Like has been said he is an equipment guy. And, iirc, Donny left days before the game released so there was little to no time to find an acceptable replacement. Now if EA hired someone who has been doing this stuff that has great experience like you it wouldn't be that hard. But have an average candidate come in days or even weeks before the game is released to the public is not fair to that employee. So I would not expect everything to be perfect with stuff played out this because of this. And I am willing to give Kane or if EA went and hired someone a huge benefit of the doubt for not being up to par.

This isn't an attack on you but more of an observation.

Edit: And if I am misinterpreting some things about you and Kane, I will acknowledge it and take it back.

[jfsolo]

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. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The overall rating still matter a lot in Madden, because of the marketing aspect of course, but also because of how very few ratings contribute to its generation.(I hope the chart shows up.)


So when rating a Cam Newton they have to do something to represent that he has been the key contributor to a team with a great record. With the way the game plays right now(a game that I am playing every day and enjoying the hell out of) boosting his accuracy ratings way too high is the only way to make him effective enough in the game to somewhat mirror the production that he has had in real life. This is especially true when he is controlled by the CPU.

Although it wasn't 100% successful this year, NBA 2K16 took a nice step forward with its Dynamic Decision Points "Who are you? And who am I?" The CPU's ability to "ask" these questions make it a much tougher opponent, and allows players with lower Overalls to still be very effective.

Madden needs to incorporate this into it's game more, the traits are a start, but they need to be greatly expanded. Also the CPU playcalling needs to factor in the individual skills of its players more. Cam's elusiveness, in and out of the pocket, ability to run through DB's and smaller LB's, ability to stay in pocket with defenders closing in and still throw seeds, etc, can't be fully utilized by the CPU right now, so they have to really crank up the accuracy to compensate. Hopefully the Madden team can incorporate some adaptive A.I. modules in to the game to limit the need to boost up the ratings that jack up the Overall ratings for many, many players.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

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.

The scouts rate players in the now, based upon their abilities at present time. It's just that in the present, the scouts believe that Newton is still only grading out at a 7.51, which is still top 3 for his position in the league right now. Is he displaying the skills that put him into that top 10 of the past 20 years? Right now, the scouts say "no". All I am saying is that it would be far better to grade these players given a wider population of data to pull from in attempt to get to the true value for each player that is comparable from year to year. It is just my preferred approach.

The funny thing is that Rodgers is having a "down" year, but the scouts must be seeing something that are not making it entirely attributable to him (his grade would still equate to a 99 right now). Remember, they only look at the ability of the player at the time, not his production. Production has no bearing and the grades only change when consistence exemplification of the skills in question are proven.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

Dan, I have been against your ratings as you know. Because I don't think a guy should take a 20 point ratings deduction because he got suspended for a stupid reason like deflating footballs or smoking weed.That's just not right, IMO. But I quoted this post because of the bold. But I can see a reason for something like steroids or any other PED. You say someone should get the benefit of doubt, and to me it seems like you are doing the opposite from your posts. I bet most people in Kane's position wouldn't do to well either. Like has been said he is an equipment guy. And, iirc, Donny left days before the game released so there was little to no time to find an acceptable replacement. Now if EA hired someone who has been doing this stuff that has great experience like you it wouldn't be that hard. But have an average candidate come in days or even weeks before the game is released to the public is not fair to that employee. So I would not expect everything to be perfect with stuff played out this because of this. And I am willing to give Kane or if EA went and hired someone a huge benefit of the doubt for not being up to par. This isn't an attack on you but more of an observation. Edit: And if I am misinterpreting some things about you and Kane, I will acknowledge it and take it back.

It's fine if you don't like the ratings. They are what they are. I don't control the grades that they are based off of. The way a scout sees it is if a guy can't be on the field, his value is lessened. That is the "hold". They only apply it to the overall grade. In Brady's case, his skills add up to a grade of 9.82. The scouts know that because they have the report to go off of. However, there is another section of the report strictly for character issues, suspensions, injuries, etc. These guys even grade how "stable" of a personality these players have! That is how in depth it is.

The scouts know that Brady's attributes add up to a player that should be a 9.82, because they can see the attribute grades. However, earlier this year he was under a 4 game suspension until his appeal was granted. That made the value of his hold increase, and subsequently dropped his overall grade down to 5.65. It is important to note that his attribute values did NOT change in the report. The OVR grade just dropped because of his lack of ability for the first 4 games. Once the suspension is served, the hold is removed and his OVR goes back to what it originally was. These scouts just use a system that is different from that of the video game.

To them, a player's availability means a lot. Look at guys like Blackmon or Gordon. They are very good talents (Gordon led the league in receiving yards in 2013), but made horrible decisions that placed them both on lengthy suspensions. This caused their value to drop significantly. To a scout, some guys are just not worth the trouble if you know that they won't see the field or have a history of running into legal issues. So while their game attributes may add up to a guy worth a shot (like in the 6.00s or 7.00s) with a team, the suspension holds limit their real value resulting in their OVR grade to drop.

I'm not quite sure how to address the rest of your post, but if I think of something to add, rest assured, I will.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

It's fine if you don't like the ratings. They are what they are. I don't control the grades that they are based off of. The way a scout sees it is if a guy can't be on the field, his value is lessened. That is the "hold". They only apply it to the overall grade. In Brady's case, his skills add up to a grade of 9.82. The scouts know that because they have the report to go off of. However, there is another section of the report strictly for character issues, suspensions, injuries, etc. These guys even grade how "stable" of a personality these players have! That is how in depth it is. The scouts know that Brady's attributes add up to a player that should be a 9.82, because they can see the attribute grades. However, earlier this year he was under a 4 game suspension until his appeal was granted. That made the value of his hold increase, and subsequently dropped his overall grade down to 5.65. It is important to note that his attribute values did NOT change in the report. The OVR grade just dropped because of his lack of ability for the first 4 games. Once the suspension is served, the hold is removed and his OVR goes back to what it originally was. These scouts just use a system that is different from that of the video game. To them, a player's availability means a lot. Look at guys like Blackmon or Gordon. They are very good talents (Gordon led the league in receiving yards in 2013), but made horrible decisions that placed them both on lengthy suspensions. This caused their value to drop significantly. To a scout, some guys are just not worth the trouble if you know that they won't see the field or have a history of running into legal issues. So while their game attributes may add up to a guy worth a shot (like in the 6.00s or 7.00s) with a team, the suspension holds limit their real value resulting in their OVR grade to drop. I'm not quite sure how to address the rest of your post, but if I think of something to add, rest assured, I will.

Alright that makes sense. But how would incorporate something like in Madden then? I'm actually intrigued to how that would work because the NFL or the NFLPA, more importantly do not want something like a "character" rating to be put into the game.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

Alright that makes sense. But how would incorporate something like in Madden then? I'm actually intrigued to how that would work because the NFL or the NFLPA, more importantly do not want something like a "character" rating to be put into the game.

The "character" rating would not be in the game as it is not used for my site currently.

As for dealing with the holds, if a player is injured, suspended, etc., the attributes just stay the same and the overall rating drops. You could then build an icon next to their overall grade in red or something saying "IR", "SUS", "PUP", etc. Then, once the player is healthy, off suspension, active, the hold disappears and the OVR grade goes back up to what it should be. The status of the hold tells the user that the player has an issue affecting his overall grade and to look at his attributes and weigh out whether or not to sign/trade/cut him.

The other option is to just throw it out all together and rate players only on the value of the attributes and not on how they are affected by injury/suspension/etc. The only issue is that doing it that way is less in-line with the way that scouts really evaluate players (less valid according to the data set) and lessens the amount of true-to-the-NFL-realism.

Either option is fine with me. FBG Ratings right now is a hybrid where players attributes are lowered to match the desired OVR until the hold is removed. Then, the players attribute return to normal. This is to deter "players" from signing good players who may actually be suspended or injured in the roster set.

Hope that makes sense.

EDIT: BTW, how much of your stance as "Dan, I have been against your ratings as you know." is due to the fact that Brady (who you mentioned in your example) was hit hardest by the hold this year? I see that you are in Boston, so perhaps that bias toward the Pats (and Brady) is affecting a fair analysis on your part and is preventing you from giving these a chance. Would you have reacted the same had you brought up Gordon or Blackmon? If that isn't the crux of the issue, then I apologize, but yet, would appreciate a PM discussing why you are "against" such a ratings system. I look forward to the feedback.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The "character" rating would not be in the game as it is not used for my site currently. As for dealing with the holds, if a player is injured, suspended, etc., the attributes just stay the same and the overall rating drops. You could then build an icon next to their overall grade in red or something saying "IR", "SUS", "PUP", etc. Then, once the player is healthy, off suspension, active, the hold disappears and the OVR grade goes back up to what it should be. The status of the hold tells the user that the player has an issue affecting his overall grade and to look at his attributes and weigh out whether or not to sign/trade/cut him. The other option is to just throw it out all together and rate players only on the value of the attributes and not on how they are affected by injury/suspension/etc. The only issue is that doing it that way is less in-line with the way that scouts really evaluate players (less valid according to the data set) and lessens the amount of true-to-the-NFL-realism. Either option is fine with me. FBG Ratings right now is a hybrid where players attributes are lowered to match the desired OVR until the hold is removed. Then, the players attribute return to normal. This is to deter "players" from signing good players who may actually be suspended or injured in the roster set. Hope that makes sense.

Yea that makes sense and thanks for the response.

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The scouts rate players in the now, based upon their abilities at present time. It's just that in the present, the scouts believe that Newton is still only grading out at a 7.51, which is still top 3 for his position in the league right now. Is he displaying the skills that put him into that top 10 of the past 20 years? Right now, the scouts say "no". All I am saying is that it would be far better to grade these players given a wider population of data to pull from in attempt to get to the true value for each player that is comparable from year to year. It is just my preferred approach. The funny thing is that Rodgers is having a "down" year, but the scouts must be seeing something that are not making it entirely attributable to him (his grade would still equate to a 99 right now). Remember, they only look at the ability of the player at the time, not his production. Production has no bearing and the grades only change when consistence exemplification of the skills in question are proven.

Ok, I understand, I just don't agree with not grading on production at the moment. Rodgers is off this year, not just that his WR's can't get separation, plus, he is holding onto the ball too long.

I can see that and I'm not a scout. lol