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

# 841 DCEBB2001 @ 09/26/12 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	Just curious, how come ratesports can create a roster for APF 2k8 that we can download onto a flash drive? Is the same thing possible on Madden?

I am not sure. If we get to the point where we can create rosters quickly and effectively we will make them available for download. I am not sure how that process will work out exactly, but I think it is possible.

# 842 RogueHominid @ 09/26/12 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	What's your opinion of this DCEBB? "MJD wants his catch rating increased and he needs your help! LIKE if you think MJD's catch rating should go up from a 77 to an 80! If 10K or more of you agree, we'll make the change in the next roster update!"

This is a real proposition on the part of EA? I almost spit out my apple. Tell me this is a hypothetical situation.

# 843 DCEBB2001 @ 09/26/12 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	This is a real proposition on the part of EA? I almost spit out my apple. Tell me this is a hypothetical situation.

AT23 would have to chime in. I thought it was a facebook post or something with the "Like" part. I wouldn't be surprised considering they already held freaking polls for attributes already.

EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

# 844 caballero @ 09/26/12 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The scouts who contributed the information to the site determined that the consensus was that Welker was among the best WRs at blocking.

RECEIVER, not as OVERALL blocker!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The scouts graded and designated those grades based on their effectiveness in blocking scenarios.

they're blocking different type of players!

OL's block DL's
TE's block OLB's and DL's
WR's block DB's

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	the data dictates that he graded out very highly as a blocker regardless of his position.

Gronk's 80 pounds heavier and can block DE/OLB's, where Welker would fall on his butt and/or get injured every play!

Gronk............Welker
IBL 63............74
RBS 63...........75
RBF 63............73
PBS 46............57
PBF 47............58 (Welker PASS BLOCKING...

Please show me a vid, screens don't count)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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?

Obviously... context! Welker might be blocking OLB/S's, he's never blocking 250+lb DE's, not even chips.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	He plays in the slot the majority of the time where he faces OLB/S combinations in addition to nickel and dime CBs.

he plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's. His BLK ratings are too high, contextual, not universal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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.

HAHAHA! there's a reason Welker's a receiver... see your first quote in this post.
Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE; WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

if you want it to be you, you'll have to listen to us more.

# 845 DCEBB2001 @ 09/26/12 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sword1986


	I did not want to constantly go off-topic in the Speed thread so I dug up this thread to post my ideas, because I like what FBGRatings is doing. I just want to share my ideas to the FBG and Madden community. The CATCH rating example. I grabbed two players, a bum and an All Star. David Terrell (i dont know if you guys remember him played for the Bears). and Calvin Johnson the Madden cover athlete. Removing the CATCH IN TRAFFIC and SPECTACULAR CATCH ratings, this is how the players should be rated. I am not ratings expert, but just to give you an idea. David Terrell By reading that little scouting report, I came up with this: SPD (whatever his 40 time is) AGL (whatever his Shuttle time is) STR (whatever he did in the 225 bench press) JMP (vertical leap recorded in the combine) Catch 96 Route Run 68 Awareness 65 Overall: 65-70 range SPD, AGL yadda yadda Catch 85 Route Run 94 Trucking 81 Awareness 90 Overall: 95-99 range definitely

This is good stuff. I do this already for the site, but I have real NFL scouting data for just about every relevent attribute for every position. The scouting info does differentiate between CTH/SPC/CIT with 2 different grades, however. The first is the CTH rating qualified by "mundane use of hands". The second is the SPC/CIT rating qualified by "ability to catch under duress/traffic."

# 846 DCEBB2001 @ 09/26/12 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	RECEIVER, not as OVERALL blocker! they're blocking different type of players! OL's block DL's TE's block OLB's and DL's WR's block DB's Gronk's 80 pounds heavier and can block DE/OLB's, where Welker would fall on his butt and/or get injured every play! Gronk............Welker IBL 63............74 RBS 63...........75 RBF 63............73 PBS 46............57 PBF 47............58 (Welker PASS BLOCKING... Please show me a vid, screens don't count) Obviously... context! Welker might be blocking OLB/S's, he's never blocking 250+lb DE's, not even chips. he plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's. His BLK ratings are too high, contextual, not universal. HAHAHA! there's a reason Welker's a receiver... see your first quote in this post. Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE; WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE. ++ if you want it to be you, you'll have to listen to us more.

1. Perhaps I did not make this clear, although I thought I did. ALL OFFENSIVE PLAYERS ASIDE FROM QBs ARE RATED ON THE SAME BLOCKING SCALE FROM 0.0-5.0.
That means that no matter what position you play be it RB/FB or WR/TE or OT/OG/C you are graded on the same scale. Now, in the case of Welker, he graded out around 2.0 for RBK on that scale. Gronk only graded out at 1.8 on that scale. The best OL currently on the list is only at 3.8. The average of all WRs for example was 1.0. No matter how you slice it, the scouts deemed:
Best OL > Welker > Gronk > Average WR
THAT is why I said Welker is among the best WRs at blocking.

2. It is overly simplistic to say that OL only block DL and TEs only block OLBs/DL, etc. There are numerous instances where WRs are asked to block/chip DEs and LBs, especially when they are in the slot or in motion across the formation. TEs also need to be capable to block CBs and Ss on outside stalk/crack blocks such as on WR screen passes. The scouting grades base their grades ONLY if everything is equal and they take the scheme/opportunity to block particular players into account.

3. Look at the STR ratings for Gronk and Welker. Welker may have better "technique" but clearly lacks the STR to sustain a block at the point of attack. Remember, in FBG ratings, they all work together, ESPECIALLY the raw attributes with dynamic attributes.

4. You clearly fail to realize the context of the scouting data and this ratings system. The data takes everything into account, normalizes it, and outputs a grade. This system utilizes UNIVERSAL data that is the result of the normalization of several CONTEXTS.

5. The reason Welker is a WR is because of his great receiving ability and ability to run routes. His STR and size holds him back as a TE. I have no control over how EA creates their OVR calculations. In fact, I strongly disagree with not only WHICH attributes should constitute a grade, but also the weight of each attribute that constitutes it. As a TE, Welker grades out as a 101 because the attributes that he is lowest in (STR, JMP, PBS, and PBF) are only weighted at .14, .06, .06, and .06 of the overall calculation. They are among the lowest weighted attributes for a TE.
Gronk, however, as a WR is only rated an 87. This is primarily due to some of his better attributes (TRK, ELU, SFA, SPC, and CIT) are only weighted at .04, .08, .03, .08 and .14. These attributes are among carrying the least amount of weight for a WR.

6. In fact, the OPPOSITE of your assumption that "Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE" is true. Also, your assumption that "WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE" is also untrue. Welker as a WR is 90. Welker as a TE is a 101. Gronk as a WR is only an 87. Gronk actually DROPS from a 93 to an 87 by moving out to WR whereas Welker actualy INCREASES from a 90 as a WR to 101 as a TE. See #5 for some possible reasons why.

7. I am entirely open to listening. In fact, I realize that my methodology can and does have some holes in it. However, these are constantly being looked at and revised in an effort to make them better. The one thing I WILL DO is discuss my methods openly and with transparency, unlike EA. I do justify my methods, which is a far cry from anything you will get out of Donny Moore at any rate.

# 847 caballero @ 09/26/12 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Here are the averages for RBK for these positions: HB: 28 40 FB: 56 68 TE: 58 60.6 WR: 30 40 OT: 81 82 OG: 81 82 C: 77 80.5

EA's in Red (from default roster)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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) 55 (71) AGI 76 (71)97 (75) SPD 77 (70) 86 (75.5) ACC 87 (71) 98 (79) CTH 88 (64) 98 (73) CAR 79 (57) 75 (68) PBK 53 (57) x (55) RBK 67 (58) x (61) JMP 65 (67) 74 (76) TRK 69 (63) 67 (62) ELU 76 (36) 95 (46) BCV 78 (52) 94 (60) SFA 75 (63) 65 (60) SPM 81 (51) 92 (58) JKM 84 (55) 90 (62) IBL 74 (65) 35 ! (63) RBS 75 (63) 35 ! (x) RBF 73 (64) 35 (x) PBS 57 (57) 17 ! (x) PBF 58 (62) 17 (x) SPC 89 (60) 88 (67.5) CIT 89 (63) 99 (72) RTE 99 (59) 97 (61.5) REL 99 (64) 69 ! (65.5)

EA's Welker and Average TE in Blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Perhaps I did not make this clear, although I thought I did. ALL OFFENSIVE PLAYERS ASIDE FROM QBs ARE RATED ON THE SAME BLOCKING SCALE FROM 0.0-5.0. That means that no matter what position you play be it RB/FB or WR/TE or OT/OG/C you are graded on the same scale. Now, in the case of Welker, he graded out around 2.0 for RBK on that scale. Gronk only graded out at 1.8 on that scale. The best OL currently on the list is only at 3.8. The average of all WRs for example was 1.0. No matter how you slice it, the scouts deemed: Best OL > Welker > Gronk > Average WR

Yelling won't make it true... Gronk & Welker don't block the same type of players, and this scale is 95% contextual.
It would be VERY efficient when comparing players of the same position! but you said the ratings were universal, no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	There are numerous instances where WRs are asked to block/chip DEs and LBs, especially when they are in the slot or in motion across the formation. TEs also need to be capable to block CBs and Ss on outside stalk/crack blocks such as on WR screen passes. The scouting grades base their grades ONLY if everything is equal and they take the scheme/opportunity to block particular players into account.

I'll repeat myself cos this was overlooked: WW plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's.

When he's sent in motion, it's not to chip block, and we both know this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Look at the STR ratings for Gronk and Welker. Welker may have better "technique" but clearly lacks the STR to sustain a block at the point of attack. Remember, in FBG ratings, they all work together, ESPECIALLY the raw attributes with dynamic attributes.

so why does Welker has a higher Run Blocking STRENGTH than Gronk?
Maybe I'm not the one "clearly failing".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	You clearly fail to realize the context of the scouting data and this ratings system. The data takes everything into account, normalizes it, and outputs a grade. This system utilizes UNIVERSAL data that is the result of the normalization of several CONTEXTS.

It's OK being wrong Dan, we're all humans.
Welker is graded (in your system/scouting data) as a better blocker than Gronk because they don't block the same guys.
Gronk would MAUL the guys Welker is asked to block, being, well... he's 80lb heavier and 9 inches taller!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	As a TE, Welker grades out as a 101 because the attributes that he is lowest in (STR, JMP, PBS, and PBF) are only weighted at .14, .06, .06, and .06 of the overall calculation. Gronk, however, as a WR is only rated an 87. This is primarily due to some of his better attributes (TRK, ELU, SFA, SPC, and CIT) are only weighted at .04, .08, .03, .08 and .14. These attributes are among carrying the least amount of weight for a WR.

where did you get these?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	In fact, the OPPOSITE of your assumption that "Gronkowski is a better WR than Welker would be a TE" is true.

I meant in real life, hence the (Welker) "would".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	your assumption that "WW drops to an 80 OVR as TE" is also untrue. Welker as a WR is 90. Welker as a TE is a 101. Gronk as a WR is only an 87. Gronk actually DROPS from a 93 to an 87 by moving out to WR whereas Welker actualy INCREASES from a 90 as a WR to 101 as a TE. See #5 for some possible reasons why.

Not an assumption, it's what I get in M13 depth chart when subbing WW...

# 848 at23steelers @ 09/27/12 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	AT23 would have to chime in. I thought it was a facebook post or something with the "Like" part. I wouldn't be surprised considering they already held freaking polls for attributes already. EA needs to get a clue and bring in a 3rd party to rate players correctly.

Yepp, DCEBB is dead-on with his description. Facebook posts, with that many likes would increase his catch rating. I was about to put, "Can I get 10,000 likes that this marketing scheme is terrible for ratings." haha

# 849 at23steelers @ 09/27/12 02:04 AM

I think what DCEBB is saying is you're totally right that Welker would be a better blocker if run blocking was the only attribute. He'll get eaten alive if he's put at TE due to lack of strength and other attributes. I understand both sides, and DCEBB's might have a few flaws, but it's the best side to go with. Just think about other attributes? DCEBB is trying to make them all universal, so I applaud him for that. The problem I might see is Madden doesn't make a big enough deal out of all the attributes and focuses on a few when dictating outcomes in-game and simming games, but that's not a DCEBB problem.

# 850 DCEBB2001 @ 09/27/12 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	I think what DCEBB is saying is you're totally right that Welker would be a better blocker if run blocking was the only attribute. He'll get eaten alive if he's put at TE due to lack of strength and other attributes. I understand both sides, and DCEBB's might have a few flaws, but it's the best side to go with. Just think about other attributes? DCEBB is trying to make them all universal, so I applaud him for that. The problem I might see is Madden doesn't make a big enough deal out of all the attributes and focuses on a few when dictating outcomes in-game and simming games, but that's not a DCEBB problem.

The problem with how EA rates players is that they don't universally rate them. They place "caps" on positions. Moore has even admitted it when he gave an example a couple years back of making the SPD for WRs only within the 99 to 75 point range...no lower or higher. That is wrong. Putting a cap on player attributes because of their position, even when the data says otherwise, is wrong.

# 851 DCEBB2001 @ 09/27/12 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	EA's in Red (from default roster) EA's Welker and Average TE in Blue. Yelling won't make it true... Gronk & Welker don't block the same type of players, and this scale is 95% contextual. It would be VERY efficient when comparing players of the same position! but you said the ratings were universal, no? I'll repeat myself cos this was overlooked: WW plays in the slot in 3 receiver sets, which the Pats use less and less, he's therefore mostly blocking CB's. When he's sent in motion, it's not to chip block, and we both know this. so why does Welker has a higher Run Blocking STRENGTH than Gronk? Maybe I'm not the one "clearly failing". It's OK being wrong Dan, we're all humans. Welker is graded (in your system/scouting data) as a better blocker than Gronk because they don't block the same guys. Gronk would MAUL the guys Welker is asked to block, being, well... he's 80lb heavier and 9 inches taller! where did you get these? I meant in real life, hence the (Welker) "would". Not an assumption, it's what I get in M13 depth chart when subbing WW...

1. EA's RBK ratings are very different from mine, as you can see. FBG uses a universal average for each attribute, like RBK, which can be applied to all players who acquire a RBK grade (RB/FB, WR/TE, OL). Since the scale is from 0.0-5.0 for all players and everything is assumed to be equal, we have to set the results according to the data. That is the fundamental difference in rating players this way. It's just a difference in philosophy. I don't like to say that a WR can ONLY be limited to a range of 19-71 wiht an average of 41 like EA uses. If I was to mimic RBK how Madden 13 has it listed, it would be like this:

2.1 (the highest RBK grade for a WR) = 71 RBK (the highest RBK rating for a WR in M13)
1.0 (the average RBK grade for a WR) = 41 RBK (the avreage RBK rating for a WR in M13)
0.0 (the lowest RBK grade for a WR) = 19 RBK (the lowest RBK rating for a WR in M13)

I can see where the above ^^^ holds true if you go position by position. However, FBG ratings does NOT rate players this way. Instead, all players who share the same attribute are pooled together. Why? Because the scouting data dictates that all players are on the same scale, regardless of position. So in the reality of the data, it looks more like this for all RB/FB, WR/TE, and OL:

5.0 (the highest possible RBK grade for any offensive player) = 99 (the highest possible RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)
1.7 (the average RBK grade for any offensive player) = 61 (the average RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)
0.0 (the lowest possible RBK grade for any offensive player) = 19 (the lowest possible RBK rating for any offensive player in M13)

As you can see here ^^^, the average, and max has changed because other positions are included. The other issue is that EA only includes the top ca. 3000 players in the NFL. It doesn't include all FAs and players in other leagues. FBG ratings does. The database online currently has over 20,000 players. I have data for over 70,000 players. The fundamental goal is to rate all of the players the same, so those players are all rated as well. That also affects the max/min/avg ratings.
The scope of this project is so different from that of EAs, that different methods need to be employed.

2. I understand that Welker and Gronk block different players, but the scouts have already attributed that fact to the grades. After that has been attributed and everyone is on an equal plane, the grade is still the standing result.

3. The RBS skill is a technical skill that relates to how one uses his leverage (that's a term used to qualify the scouting data, nota quote from EA). What really sucks is that EA doesn't have a "leverage" rating. What we DO have is a "strength at the point of attack for run-blocking" grade, which is different from overall strength. That qualification links "best" to RBS.

4. Gronk and Welker are still on the same scale. Although they may block different players, that difference is normalized BEFORE the grade is attributed. This is to allow for the grades on the 0.0-5.0 scale to be universal.

5. I got the OVR ratings calculation from figuring them out one-by-one. It takes time, but it can be done in the game.

6. YOu can't use the depth chart to calculate the OVR ratings. You have to actually change the player's position. If you have the OVR formulas from #5, you can recalculate the OVR. I believe there are some threads around here stating that the OVR in the depth chart does not match that of the OVR rating calculation.

# 852 RogueHominid @ 10/06/12 01:35 PM

I found a very interesting three-year stat spread on WRs that made me think of this site.

Among the various statistical approaches used by profootballfocus.com to rank WRs, the most shocking to me was the line on the receivers with the highest catch percentage, where catchable balls are defined as passes that receivers got their hands on (either caught or dropped them) and the success/failure rate is defined as the percentage of catches made out of the total number of catchable balls.

That approach seems sensible to me, as it focuses solely on the passes that receivers actually got their mitts on.

Here's the shocker: the highest catch percentage among qualifying players over a three-year spread is Earl Bennet! Other, more popular names are on there, but that one's a shocker. 86 catching in your system, but he drops just 4% of the balls he gets his hands on.

Just thought that was interesting.

Roy Williams, by contrast, drops about 14% of the balls that hit his hands, lol.

# 853 jmacz @ 10/07/12 01:08 AM

What is the recommended speed threshold to play on using these rosters?

# 854 AussieChiefsFan @ 10/07/12 02:52 AM

Is there a site like this, but for NCAA football ratings?

# 855 lon515 @ 10/07/12 03:15 AM

to have mike Wallace at an 96 spd then have Antonio brown at 86 spd is a complete joke, mike is faster by far but 10 points, Antonio also is a much better route runner, not even close but you have them tied,

i was reading threw here and i was getting excited until i looked at the ratings them selves

# 856 Zmurkz @ 10/07/12 10:36 AM

Hi, couple of questions, do I have to input all the ratings of the site manually? and will these ratings work with Madden 12 and Madden 12 franchise mode? Thanks.

# 857 DCEBB2001 @ 10/07/12 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	I found a very interesting three-year stat spread on WRs that made me think of this site. Among the various statistical approaches used by profootballfocus.com to rank WRs, the most shocking to me was the line on the receivers with the highest catch percentage, where catchable balls are defined as passes that receivers got their hands on (either caught or dropped them) and the success/failure rate is defined as the percentage of catches made out of the total number of catchable balls. That approach seems sensible to me, as it focuses solely on the passes that receivers actually got their mitts on. Here's the shocker: the highest catch percentage among qualifying players over a three-year spread is Earl Bennet! Other, more popular names are on there, but that one's a shocker. 86 catching in your system, but he drops just 4% of the balls he gets his hands on. Just thought that was interesting. Roy Williams, by contrast, drops about 14% of the balls that hit his hands, lol.

PFF does a decent job but I don't like how they lack some other things that contribute to the statistics like scheme. One thing with the catching is that you can get a percentage for drops but they don't qualify the difficulty of the catch. Was the ball placed right on the receiver? Was he in traffic? Was the receiver under duress by a defender? These things are taken into account in this system. The CTH rating is qualified by the mundane use of hands in a vacuum. So that is to say that if there is no defender and a receiver is getting a throw from a "perfect" thrower, how reliable are his hands. The SPC and CIT ratings apply when the receiver is under duress.

# 858 DCEBB2001 @ 10/07/12 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmacz


	What is the recommended speed threshold to play on using these rosters?

One has not been formulated yet, but we are working on it.

# 859 DCEBB2001 @ 10/07/12 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by js3512


	Sorry if this has been asked before but this thread is 90 pages long so I just don't have time to read the whole thing, but is there a downloadable roster with these ratings anywhere or would I have to go through and enter them all in myself. Love this ratings system but it would be ALOT of work to enter them in myself. I work 2 jobs and have a family to it'd be impossible really.

No there is not a roster available for download. We are in negotiations with a team to produce roster files for next year.

# 860 DCEBB2001 @ 10/07/12 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan


	Is there a site like this, but for NCAA football ratings?

Presently, no. But we are looking into doing one for NCAA. We have all of the data for every player (our database consists of over 70,000 players but only 20,000 are on the NFL site). I wouldn't anticipate it happening until the ability to export/import rosters is back.

« Previous 1 2…40 41 424344 45 46…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game