Madden NFL 11 News Post

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

02:46 PM - January 24, 2011 by RaychelSnr

I recentely sat down for a talk with FBGRatings.com's Dan Berens to discuss his site's vision and what's going on over there today. The site is currently working on getting accurate ratings for every player using real hard data converted into the Madden ratings universe. Dan claims that when these numbers are plugged into the game, it plays much better and much closer to real life. Check out the interview below and also check out Dan's website to see what he's got going on!

Interview with Berens on the OS Radio Show on BlogTalkRadio

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 801 DCEBB2001 @ 09/10/12 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC0023


	Hey Dan this would be even better news if we could use these with Madden 13

Well you can for the Play Now mode.

# 802 mr_dukes @ 09/10/12 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HC0023


	Hey Dan this would be even better news if we could use these with Madden 13

I agree!

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

# 803 DCEBB2001 @ 09/10/12 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_dukes


	I agree! Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Well there is little we can do about that until EA either patches editing in or brings it back for M14. If editing does get patched back in, I will update the OVR calculation formulas for the site as well.

# 804 DCEBB2001 @ 09/17/12 10:09 AM

Week 2 updates were posted on 9/14/2012. All player movement and ratings are current as of that date. Also note a new feature on the main page: The Hot and Cold lists. These reflect the top 20 players who have made the biggest increases and decreases in OVR rating since the season began.

So far the top 20 risers are:

+28 - Josh Samuda, Dolphins
+20 - Kyle Miller, Colts
+19 - Joe Sawyer, Free Agent
+17 - Phillipkeith Manley, Falcons
+17 - Jonathan Grimes, Texans
+17 - Nate Menkin, Eagles
+16 - Byron Bell, Panthers
+15 - Ryan Perrilloux, Free Agent
+14 - Jeremy Jones, Bears
+14 - Johnny Hekker, Rams
+14 - Brandian Ross, Packers
+14 - Damaris Johnson, Eagles
+14 - Stephen Gostkowski, Patriots
+13 - Jamize Olawale, Cowboys
+13 - Arthur Moats, Bills
+13 - Patrick Mannelly, Bears
+12 - Bridger Buche, Free Agent
+12 - Justin Houston, Chiefs
+12 - D.J. Young, Browns
+12 - Akeem Dent, Falcons

And the Top 20 Fallers:

-46 - Davin Joseph, Buccaneers
-46 - Shaun Rogers, Giants
-28 - Marcus Thomas, Free Agent
-27 - Bill Nagy, Lions
-27 - Da'Quan Bowers, Buccaneers
-24 - Sunny Harris, Free Agent
-18 - Emanuel Cook, Ravens
-17 - Marc Mariani, Titans
-17 - Jason Hunter, Broncos
-17 - Kendrick Lewis, Chiefs
-16 - Jacob Cutrera, Buccaneers
-16 - Jahvid Best, Lions
-13 - Vincent Brown, Chargers
-13 - Terrell Owens, Free Agent
-10 - Jeff Faine, Bengals
-9 - Garrett Brown, Free Agent
-8 - Michael Brockers, Rams
-8 - Stewart Bradley, Cardinals
-8 - Drayton Florence, Lions
-7 - Terrence McGee, Bills

Once player editing is brought back for franchise/CCM I will produce new OVR formula calculations for the OVR ratings. Until then, enjoy!

# 805 jfb33 @ 09/17/12 11:47 AM

So they have confirmed that they will brought it back? Does they have planned a date to release this? If it's the case, good news!

# 806 DCEBB2001 @ 09/17/12 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfb33


	So they have confirmed that they will brought it back? Does they have planned a date to release this? If it's the case, good news!

I did not say that. I said that once it is brought back, then the OVR calcs will be changed. That could be in a patch, next year, or never.

# 807 Mavmoses07 @ 09/17/12 02:11 PM

I'm impressed with the website and all the ratings. Just briefly looking over the ratings I did notice something odd.

It seems that wr's are better blockers than te's in general. As an example I noticed that Wes Welker is a better blocker than Gronk. While Welker might be a good blocker for a wr, I'd don't think he's better than Gronk or any other te for that matter. Seems like even the worst blocking TE should be a better blocker than the best wr blocker.

# 808 DCEBB2001 @ 09/17/12 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavmoses07


	I'm impressed with the website and all the ratings. Just briefly looking over the ratings I did notice something odd. It seems that wr's are better blockers than te's in general. As an example I noticed that Wes Welker is a better blocker than Gronk. While Welker might be a good blocker for a wr, I'd don't think he's better than Gronk or any other te for that matter. Seems like even the worst blocking TE should be a better blocker than the best wr blocker.

The scouting info provided for the site grades WRs and TEs on the same plane in several categories. Most TEs grade out far higher as blockers than WRs as you can imagine. Some TEs even grade out as better blockers than OLmen. The FBG system utilizes ratings that are universal regardless of position.

Think about that for a minute. Does a QB suddenly have less THP because he moves to FS? Does a WR block better just because he lines up as a TE in a formation? Does a FB carry the ball better when he lines up as a single back instead of a HB?

Of course not.

The scouts who contributed the information to the site determined that the consensus was that Welker was among the best WRs at blocking. Gronk graded out fairly average for a TE. If you want to see bad blocking ability for a TE, look at Kellen Winslow:

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/profile.php?pyid=2078

Now THAT is bad blocking ability, considering that most WRs have a higher blocking ability.

The bottom line here is that stating that "Seems like even the worst blocking TE should be a better blocker than the best wr blocker" is merely an opinion, unless you can provide data to back that up. The data I have says otherwise. On the 5-point scale for grading run blocking abilities, for example, WRs averaged a 1.0 while TEs averaged 1.8. So to even say that "It seems that wr's are better blockers than te's in general" is also false given the scouting information provided for the site. There are, however, outliers like Welker and Ward (on the high end for WRs) and Winslow and Gates (on the low end for TEs).

# 809 SloeyEZ @ 09/17/12 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The scouting info provided for the site grades WRs and TEs on the same plane in several categories. Most TEs grade out far higher as blockers than WRs as you can imagine. Some TEs even grade out as better blockers than OLmen. The FBG system utilizes ratings that are universal regardless of position. Think about that for a minute. Does a QB suddenly have less THP because he moves to FS? Does a WR block better just because he lines up as a TE in a formation? Does a FB carry the ball better when he lines up as a single back instead of a HB? Of course not.... .

ah, but now you've opened up the big can of worms, do ratings reflect base physical skill or effectiveness?

Of course a player's blocking ability doesn't change whether he is a WR or lines up at the TE or even OL position, but expectations on what is a good block does change. If a WRs blocking attribute changes from 42 to 14 because I try to line him up as an OL, I don't think, wow, he didn't forget how to block or lose his blocking ability, but what a person has to do to be a "good" blocker on the OL is completely different than what a person has to do to be a good blocker out in the open field as a receiver.

So, I would think ratings do have to change based on where a person lines up and any system that did not do that would be fundamentally flawed if trying to emulate the nuances of talent on the field. There are reasons why some players thrive at LE but can't play RE for beans

# 810 DCEBB2001 @ 09/17/12 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloeyEZ


	ah, but now you've opened up the big can of worms, do ratings reflect base physical skill or effectiveness? Of course a player's blocking ability doesn't change whether he is a WR or lines up at the TE or even OL position, but expectations on what is a good block does change. If a WRs blocking attribute changes from 42 to 14 because I try to line him up as an OL, I don't think, wow, he didn't forget how to block or lose his blocking ability, but what a person has to do to be a "good" blocker on the OL is completely different than what a person has to do to be a good blocker out in the open field as a receiver. So, I would think ratings do have to change based on where a person lines up and any system that did not do that would be fundamentally flawed if trying to emulate the nuances of talent on the field. There are reasons why some players thrive at LE but can't play RE for beans

The expectations for what may be considered to be a "good block" may change upon position, but since all players are rated on the same scale for these attributes, the position has no bearing on the results. All RBs, FBs, WRs, TEs, and OL are rated on the same 0.0-5.0 scale for their blocking abilities. As you can imagine, WRs and RBs are on the 0.0 end of the scale, TEs and FBs are in the middle of the scale, and OL are at the top end of that scale. The scouts graded and designated those grades based on their effectiveness, NOT EXPECTATIONS, in blocking scenarios.

# 811 SloeyEZ @ 09/17/12 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The expectations for what may be considered to be a "good block" may change upon position, but since all players are rated on the same scale for these attributes, the position has no bearing on the results. All RBs, FBs, WRs, TEs, and OL are rated on the same 0.0-5.0 scale for their blocking abilities. As you can imagine, WRs and RBs are on the 0.0 end of the scale, TEs and FBs are in the middle of the scale, and OL are at the top end of that scale. The scouts graded and designated those grades based on their effectiveness, NOT EXPECTATIONS, in blocking scenarios.

I need some clarification, (and I must say, I've never been to your site or know what you're trying to do so don't take anything personally, I'm just speaking to attributes in general in a game like Madden) because it doesn't seem like you can base attributes on effectiveness and "not expectations" as you said because the effectiveness of a WR blocking a LB or DB on the outside is just to impede the path of the D to allow that split-second of timing for the RB to get around, but the "effectiveness" of that same WR trying to block a DT on the OL to create a hole would not be nearly as effective, because of the expectations, so again, don't see how you can have a static attribute that measures effectiveness as you said without the expectations of the position he is in at that moment.

Do I just not get it? Because that is always a likely possibility with me

# 812 DCEBB2001 @ 09/17/12 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SloeyEZ


	I need some clarification, (and I must say, I've never been to your site or know what you're trying to do so don't take anything personally, I'm just speaking to attributes in general in a game like Madden) because it doesn't seem like you can base attributes on effectiveness and "not expectations" as you said because the effectiveness of a WR blocking a LB or DB on the outside is just to impede the path of the D to allow that split-second of timing for the RB to get around, but the "effectiveness" of that same WR trying to block a DT on the OL to create a hole would not be nearly as effective, because of the expectations, so again, don't see how you can have a static attribute that measures effectiveness as you said without the expectations of the position he is in at that moment. Do I just not get it? Because that is always a likely possibility with me

The expectations are different for each position. For a WR, you may only need to get in the way of a defender or take him where he wants to go like in stalk blocking or mirroring. However, the effectiveness as a blocker can be different from player to player. In all reality for a WR on any given run play you may only need a RBK rating of say 30 which is the average RBK rating for a WR in the FBG system. The average BSH rating for a CB in the FBG system is 46, however. So as you can see, it is far more important for the CB to be able to shed that block than it is for the WR to acutally impose it upon the CB, assuming that RBK and BSH are the opposing forces within the battle taking place.

Now, since a WR with average RBK would only have a RBK of 30, you would satisfied with that. After all, the WR's ability to RBK is average. Anything above that is a bonus to an average expectation. However, 30 is also the average ABILITY for an given WR in the system. Not all players are created equal, however, which allows for the Wes Welkers and Hines Wards to exceed what is expected of them. But that expectation does not cap the player's ability. How do we know this? Because if it did, the scouting data would cap out at 1.0 for a WR's RBK on the scouting scale. This is not the case. Welker is at 2.1. His ability in RBK is above the average of a WR on scouting scale (2.1 compared to the average of 1.0). Therefore, he should be rated as such.

The same goes the other way for a TE. If the average RBK for a TE in the scouting scale is 1.8 (far above that of a WR) and Gronk grades out as a 1.8, then he should be rated accordingly. Gronk would exceed the expectations for RBK if he was a WR, but since he is a TE, he is merely average for what he is expected to do at his position. The average RBK for a TE, BTW, is 58, the same as Gronk's rating on the site.

Since all the offensive players aside from QBs are rated using the same scale of 5.0 to 0.0 for RBK, we can normalize and standardize the RBK ability, regardless of a player's position. Here are the averages for RBK for these positions:

HB: 28
FB: 56
TE: 58
WR: 30
OT: 81
OG: 81
C: 77

The expectations for each position may change since "average" is qualified, but not every player meets those averages/expectations at certain positions. Gronk would be a great blocker as a WR compared to the average WR and would exceed those expectations, but may lack in other areas as a WR such as AGI, SPD, and ACC. Welker would be a great blocker if lined up tight as well, but he lacks STR to hold the point of attack in-line to make it as a TE regularly.

I am of the opinion that you can change a player's expectations by moving him from position to position, but you cannot change his ability. Look at the QB/FS comparision I made earlier. A QB may not be expected to have a THP of 80 as a FS, but that doesn't mean he does not possess the ability to throw a ball at that velocity/distance just because he changes his position, especially on a short-term basis.

# 813 Mavmoses07 @ 09/18/12 11:12 AM

In response to your first point, no one's ability is not governed by their position, but odds are a player will play a position best suited to their ratings. You're not going to have someone with P Manning's ability playing DT, or someone with Ngata's ability playing FS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Welker would be a great blocker if lined up tight as well, but he lacks STR to hold the point of attack in-line to make it as a TE regularly.

How much does STR determine a successful block? I guess I've always been a little unclear what the STR rating does, if its really that important in determining a success block. I always assumed that the blocking rating is much more important in determining a success block than the STR, but I could be wrong. Would Welker indeed get run over if he lined up as a TE because he has a low STR value? My main point is that if Gronk and Welker were lined up on the line and asked to block a LB, Gronk should have a much higher success rate.

Looking at Welker's ratings, I'd say he fits the mold of a TE better than a WR. He's not fast, just quick. Great receiver in the short passing game and is a good blocker for a TE. His only downside is his STR rating, which again I'm not sure how much this rating matters. If he'd make such a good TE, why hasn't NE switched him to TE yet, let him and Hernandez trade positions?

# 814 DCEBB2001 @ 09/18/12 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavmoses07


	In response to your first point, no one's ability is not governed by their position, but odds are a player will play a position best suited to their ratings. You're not going to have someone with P Manning's ability playing DT, or someone with Ngata's ability playing FS. How much does STR determine a successful block? I guess I've always been a little unclear what the STR rating does, if its really that important in determining a success block. I always assumed that the blocking rating is much more important in determining a success block than the STR, but I could be wrong. Would Welker indeed get run over if he lined up as a TE because he has a low STR value? My main point is that if Gronk and Welker were lined up on the line and asked to block a LB, Gronk should have a much higher success rate. Looking at Welker's ratings, I'd say he fits the mold of a TE better than a WR. He's not fast, just quick. Great receiver in the short passing game and is a good blocker for a TE. His only downside is his STR rating, which again I'm not sure how much this rating matters. If he'd make such a good TE, why hasn't NE switched him to TE yet, let him and Hernandez trade positions?

A player may or may not be placed into a spot that best suits his abilities. Sometimes, coaches and scouts get it wrong. Sometimes they get it correct.

The fact of the matter here is that the ratings are what they are. Since everything is equal, Welker graded out better than Gronk as a blocker. He graded out better than the average TE and far better than the average WR. The numbers of WRs with this designation and grade are few. Welker is one in that said example.

Welker would fit the role of TE pretty well given his ratings. Here are his ratings compared to that of the average for a TE ().

STR 56 (71)
AGI 76 (71)
SPD 77 (70)
ACC 87 (71)
CTH 88 (64)
CAR 79 (57)
PBK 53 (57)
RBK 67 (58)
JMP 65 (67)
TRK 69 (63)
ELU 76 (36)
BCV 78 (52)
SFA 75 (63)
SPM 81 (51)
JKM 84 (55)
IBL 74 (65)
RBS 75 (63)
RBF 73 (64)
PBS 57 (57)
PBF 58 (62)
SPC 89 (60)
CIT 89 (63)
RTE 99 (59)
REL 99 (64)

As you can see, Welker excels as a TE compared to the averages for the position. His rating as a WR is 90. As a TE, his rating is over 99 (101 by calculation). This is due, of course, to the high receiving skills and above average blocking ability, even for a TE.

Like I said earlier, the data dictates that he graded out very highly as a blocker regardless of his position. If you feel that no TE should be below that of a WR for blocking, that's fine. The scouts who derrived the data disagree. Personally, I tend to side with the scouts, but anyone can feel free to disagree. For this project, however, opinion and speculation is minimized and only real data is utilized.

# 815 RogueHominid @ 09/18/12 12:48 PM

I think the Welker discussion is an interesting one. He has better run blocking and impact blocking ratings than your average tight end.

Do those ratings reflect the fact that Welker is most often blocking corners and safeties, whereas tight ends are most often blocking linebackers and defensive ends?

In other words, would you really want Welker in your goal line sets instead of a TE for blocking purposes?

If the answer is yes, then I wonder why the Patriots, who excel at designing special roles to fit particular players' strengths, don't seem to value him over their tight ends in clear running situations as a more dominant blocker.

Interesting stuff.

# 816 DCEBB2001 @ 09/18/12 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	I think the Welker discussion is an interesting one. He has better run blocking and impact blocking ratings than your average tight end. Do those ratings reflect the fact that Welker is most often blocking corners and safeties, whereas tight ends are most often blocking linebackers and defensive ends? In other words, would you really want Welker in your goal line sets instead of a TE for blocking purposes? If the answer is yes, then I wonder why the Patriots, who excel at designing special roles to fit particular players' strengths, don't seem to value him over their tight ends in clear running situations as a more dominant blocker. Interesting stuff.

That is a very good question. Perhaps a call to Darth Hoodie himself is in order?

# 817 DCEBB2001 @ 09/18/12 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	To jump in here about blocking ratings, if Welker was being used as a blocker, according to his ratings it would need to be as a chip or help blocker in the pass game like most TE but like most TEs in the run game, he shouldn't be effective against higher rating defenders. I guess what I am saying is, with this universal approach, Welker being as good or a little better run blocker than most TEs, ain't really a big deal because relative to the ratings of the defenders they would block at TE, neither should be that good at it.

The reasoning I use, and I know for a fact that you would prefer, is that the data dictates the rating. He won't be as effective against an OLB with a BSH of 75+, but you are correct in saying that neither would an average TE with a RBK of 58.

Feel free to chime in on this, BIG, since I value your opinion so much. Would it make sense if WR1 and TE1 graded out at 2.0/5.0 and 1.8/5.0 for RBK and we automatically gave the TE a 65 and the WR a 40 simply because the WR is a WR and not a TE? Should the TE warrant a higher RBK rating just because he is a TE even though the data dictates that his RBK should be lower than that of the WR? Is that logically sound?

To me, if the grading criteria are the same and a WR grades out higher than a TE in a category, then the WR should be higher, regardless of the attribute.

# 818 SonOfEd @ 09/18/12 02:58 PM

There's another key attribute missing in this RBK discussion that plays a role: strength.
I think you have Welker at 56. It's important to consider this when comparing positions. His lower STR rating help keep the balance, and shows that he is good at blocking, but definately not going to be pancaking the D all over the field.

# 819 RogueHominid @ 09/18/12 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	So I guess the universal element of ratings would easily apply to measurable ratings, like speed but for skill ratings it would need to be more position, size based, to be closer to accurate.

Darth Hoodie! I love it.

What stands out here is that the ratings aren't universal at all, but contextual; they're based on data gathered mostly in the context of blocking defensive backs or the occasional chip.

I'd think that'd make a difference, since no statistics and no data are produced in a vacuum.

In any case, I'm proud of Wes, who has proven to be objectively valuable at multiple positions. There's no good reason for him to be rotting on the bench as he is now.

# 820 DCEBB2001 @ 09/18/12 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	The whole issue I think people would have with Welker being a better blocker than the average TE is size and strength. I guess Madden accounts for that variable by causing players that are out of position, ie editing Wes Welker to a TE, by having their skill set lowered at that position. This actually makes sense because even with scouts grading Wes Welker as a blocker, they are doing so based on him blocking as a WR against mostly CB, not more skilled block shedding defenders. So I guess the universal element of ratings would easily apply to measurable ratings, like speed but for skill ratings it would need to be more position, size based, to be closer to accurate.

Welker is not always blocking CBs though. He plays in the slot the majority of the time where he faces OLB/S combinations in addition to nickel and dime CBs. I guess the biggest factor for me is that since all WRs and TEs are graded on the same scale using the same factors for ability (not expectation) then those abilities should be reflected in the ratings. If Welker shows the ability to be better at RBK than a TE, then so be it. Or am I missing something here? Would it make more sense to give RBK/PBK different ranges based on actual position (like WR vs. TE) rather than positional grouping (WR/TEs vs. RBs/FBs) like the scouting data designates?

« Previous 1 2…38 39 404142 43 44…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game