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

# 921 DCEBB2001 @ 11/05/12 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBLover


	The 40 time might show a player's top speed. If he 'plays faster' then that probably means he has good acceleration and ability to maintain his speed during changes of directions, quick start-stop, etc. A player can't go faster than he's physically able to move. He can use his speed more effectively than other players of the same speed or even those of greater speed, but that's not speed, then. A 4.7 player can not move as fast as a 4.4 player, he can get to a spot faster, though, as long as it's not straight line speed depending on other skills. Since there are ratings for these other skills (like AGI, RTE, and ACC) then that's where those efficiencies should show up, imo.

Just looking at the 4.7, think of your team's WR, Boldin. The guy is a below average WR athletically...and even below average for NFL standards in terms of AGI and JMP (68 vs. a normalized 70). However, his route running is near-elite as well as his ability to catch in traffic with a defender draped all over him or near the sideline. That combined with his big frame means he doesn't NEED to be quick, fast, or agile to be productive. He gets just enough separation by running good routes to get a defender even a little out of position. Even at this point he can shield and catch the ball, and then turn a small hitch route into a 20 yard gainer by breaking some weak CB arm tackles. Boldin has near elite ELU and SFA, no matter the position. His TRK rating as well as his SPM and JKM is high as well even though it won't be as effective as that of a player with an AGI of 90.

Keep in mind that these ratings often work in CONJUNCTION with one another. A player with a 90 SPM and 90 ACC will get out of his SPM quicker and thus more effectively than a player with 90 SPM and 70 ACC. High physical skill does not always correlate to high technical skill. I find it laughable, personally, that in Madden every RB needs to be 85+ in AGI when the data shows that if all players are rated equally, a RB is much closer to having an AGI rating of 75 than 85. However, RBs will be much more adept in having higher running-ability-related technical skills like SPM and JKM than a LB, thus making him APPEAR to be more agile.

Just some food for thought.

# 922 jfb33 @ 11/07/12 10:46 PM

I'm very interested to know what the scout have to say about Robert Mathis. I checked his stats and he have really low pass rushing skils (PM: 61, FM: 52) but very high coverage skills (MC: 88, ZC: 89). That seems strange for a ex DE, now playing 3-4 OLB that as always ranked a good amount of sacks since many season.

# 923 DCEBB2001 @ 11/08/12 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfb33


	I'm very interested to know what the scout have to say about Robert Mathis. I checked his stats and he have really low pass rushing skils (PM: 61, FM: 52) but very high coverage skills (MC: 88, ZC: 89). That seems strange for a ex DE, now playing 3-4 OLB that as always ranked a good amount of sacks since many season.

When Mathis came out from Alabama A&M he was originally an OLB. In fact, he posted a sub-4.7 40 time and showed really good agility and ability to move in space. Since he is now officially at OLB for the first time in a long time, he was "projected" to do well in pass coverage. His "pass drop" grade was very high as well as his recognition skills as they projected to his new position. Now the one funny thing is that as a DE, his pass rush skills and pass drop skills were a bit closer together. One of the most difficult things to do is project skill before the start of a new season when a player changes positions. Once more data has accrued over the course of the year, I am sure they will change to better reflect the current assessment of a player's skills.

# 924 at23steelers @ 11/08/12 10:04 PM

@DCEBB: It is higher than a lot of top CB's though, which seems extreme. Idk, I trust your sources though.

# 925 DCEBB2001 @ 11/09/12 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	@DCEBB: It is higher than a lot of top CB's though, which seems extreme. Idk, I trust your sources though.

Don't focus too much on position though. Just because a player is labeled as a WR instead of a FB doesn't mean that he automatically is better at running a route or catching a ball. The same logical fallacy exists in this scenario.

I keep saying this but I will address it again: The ratings are very dynamic and change week to week. I am sure that any marks that seem "too high" will naturally progress toward the population average over time. Same with ratings that are "too low". In Mathis' case, a full year at a new position will change those ratings, I am sure.

# 926 jfb33 @ 11/09/12 12:02 PM

Thanks DCEBB for the explanation, really appreciated. By the way are you planing to do a global update in the near future? I have noticed the majority of players are updated as of 12 October, and few are from 3 October. I'm really exited to see new rating for player like J.J.Watt, who have a breakout year

# 927 at23steelers @ 11/09/12 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Don't focus too much on position though. Just because a player is labeled as a WR instead of a FB doesn't mean that he automatically is better at running a route or catching a ball. The same logical fallacy exists in this scenario. I keep saying this but I will address it again: The ratings are very dynamic and change week to week. I am sure that any marks that seem "too high" will naturally progress toward the population average over time. Same with ratings that are "too low". In Mathis' case, a full year at a new position will change those ratings, I am sure.

I totally agree with you about universal ratings and all and that his overall will change, but I do agree that I did a head-scratch when a DE / LB has a better man coverage rating than a top end CB. They should all be on the same scale. Just like I would wonder how a FB could have better route running skills than a top end WR, but I guess either is possible.

# 928 DCEBB2001 @ 11/09/12 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfb33


	Thanks DCEBB for the explanation, really appreciated. By the way are you planing to do a global update in the near future? I have noticed the majority of players are updated as of 12 October, and few are from 3 October. I'm really exited to see new rating for player like J.J.Watt, who have a breakout year

I will try to get one out this weekend if I can. I updated a few last week but would like to get a global update this weekend or next. Really depends if I have time. I have been quite busy on the new ratings for next year in regards to some new ways of rating the various attributes for better in-game play. This year was a good test run to see if the site can be updated easily, considering the massive scale. It was a success. Next year I hope to have larger player profile pages including new profile pictures and more information like you find in the game. MAYBE even equipment? I bet that would help out some of the guys who who want to keep track of player equipment changes.

For now, though, I am really trying to focus on the new ways of rating players next year. The AGI, SPD, ACC, STR, JMP, and now STA ratings may be a bit more realistic thanks to some of the people doing the work behind the scenes. Could be a really big deal next year.

# 929 DCEBB2001 @ 11/09/12 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by at23steelers


	I totally agree with you about universal ratings and all and that his overall will change, but I do agree that I did a head-scratch when a DE / LB has a better man coverage rating than a top end CB. They should all be on the same scale. Just like I would wonder how a FB could have better route running skills than a top end WR, but I guess either is possible.

Your statement basically helped my argument because they are all on the same scale, regardless of position. I will look into that further and see what I can find. If it is logically possible, then it should be a possibility in FBG.

# 930 DCEBB2001 @ 11/09/12 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronS444


	Hi Dan. I like your site and what you guys are doing, but start a year-by-year archive before it is too late. It's great the sheer amount of players you have info on, but if I want to build the 2002 Packers roster, it's not gonna do me alot of good to hit your site and see that Brett Favre was a 60 rated player in 2011. What was he rated in 2002? 15+ years of players is great, but there isn't any practical use for that data as it is stored presently. Sorry if that sounds critical, I don't mean it to be. Just a passionate football gamer that thinks an opportunity is being missed. Good success to you and all your co-workers/associates in this venture!!

A year by year archive was never the goal of the site from day 1. The goal, even back in the football-gaming.com days was to provide accurate Madden rosters and ratings at the time of the latest update. Now, the goal is geared even more toward that approach. Player ratings are constantly changing and we do not issue a "start of the season" rating for any player. Instead, the ratings change constantly.

We simply do not have the time to show what every player's ratings would be for past seasons. All attribute data is overwritten when it is updated to reflect the most recent and accurate data provided.

Not sure how having Madden ratings for over 20,000 players, presently rated, is not practical. To me, having ratings for players from 10 years ago is not practical since the game itself has changed so much (adding/removing attributes). Perhaps finding some older files online from past versions of Madden may help you in your search. Other than that, FBG Ratings is not really geared for historical data.

# 931 jfb33 @ 11/09/12 10:35 PM

New way of rating physical data seems very promising, can't wait to see that stuff.

# 932 DCEBB2001 @ 11/11/12 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronS444


	Again, I want to make it clear I do not mean this as criticizm. I think your site is great, as well as the work you have done. But quite obviously there is a draw toward historic players/seasons. EA put legendary players in the game this year, and they have been incorporated with other versions. Also, there are people here and on other sites that are looking to play entire past seasons/franchises. Rosters have been built for every decade, 70's-2000's, basically since the AFL/NFL merger. Since your site boasts having info on 20,000 players, it seems like a logical place one would go to find historic info. .. anyway, just one man's opinion. Again, congrats on your accomplishments, and good success to you and anyone working or associated with your site.

I am sorry but this is not a direction I am interested in taking the project at this time. It is enough work rating 20k+ players currently. I strongly urge you to look at past iterations of the game to get an idea for past player ratings.

# 933 DCEBB2001 @ 11/11/12 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronS444


	Thanks, but no thanks. Past EA rosters are generally garbage, which is really why you are doing what you are doing, by your own admission in the first post you made in this thread.

Sorry I cannot help you with your request. FBG Ratings does not do historical ratings and rosters.

# 934 seels @ 11/24/12 05:23 PM

Those ratings leave a lot to be desired. I don't know how it's possible to have any of the following:

Gronk at 93, when hes playing at probably the highest level a TE has EVER played at
Sanchez at 80 - one of the worst QBs in the league
Peterson at 93 -- Seriously?
Steven Jackson at 91
Marshawn Lynch at 84
Percy Harvin at 85
Griffin at 82, Cam at 88

I could go on and on, but these ratings seem stuck in 2010. You say you have direct feedback from scouts in creating these, well I gaurantee no scout on the planet would evaluate Steven Jackson and say he is better than Marshawn Lynch and close to Peterson. No scout would say Percy is not a top 20 receiver, especially below mediocrities like Pierre Garcon.

# 935 Gritblitzer @ 11/24/12 05:38 PM

What would possess someone to have Hakeem Nicks of the New York Giants sitting at an 81 overall? No offense but that's outrageous to me. Because he's injured a lot? That's all well and fine but that should bump his injury down, not his stats. When he's healthy he is clearly one of the better receivers in the league. His stats aren't quite what they should be with Victor Cruz sitting in the slot every week. However, I would take Nicks over Cruz every single time I had to chose one if I knew they would both be 100% healthy. He's got great hands, he can run any type of route, and he's fast. This is a guy who once made a catch between his legs one handed when he was in college. And a guy who has made numerous catches that most guys would never make. Yet because he is injured more often than most, he is down rated?

This of course is no smashing of you or your ratings, I love a lot of them and think a lot are right (Although I do also agree on the Gronkwoski rating being way too low - the guy is easily the best blocking and receiving tight end in the league.

You guys are doing a great job, keep up the good work. The service you guys do for madden gamers of all sorts is great. Don't let any one question or complaint knock you folks down from doing this stuff! I am interested however in knowing what types of statistics and such you use to get these ratings.

# 936 DCEBB2001 @ 11/24/12 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seels


	Those ratings leave a lot to be desired. I don't know how it's possible to have any of the following: Gronk at 93, when hes playing at probably the highest level a TE has EVER played at Sanchez at 80 - one of the worst QBs in the league Peterson at 93 -- Seriously? Steven Jackson at 91 Marshawn Lynch at 84 Percy Harvin at 85 Griffin at 82, Cam at 88 I could go on and on, but these ratings seem stuck in 2010. You say you have direct feedback from scouts in creating these, well I gaurantee no scout on the planet would evaluate Steven Jackson and say he is better than Marshawn Lynch and close to Peterson. No scout would say Percy is not a top 20 receiver, especially below mediocrities like Pierre Garcon.

First of all the ratings were last updated on a large scale back in mid October. Second, injuries always affect the OVR rating. Check the injury report before looking at a player's rating. It will be in the newswire on the bottom of the player's page. Third, the ratings are based on CONSISTENT effort at the rating level. Fourth, they are derived from scouting data, not production. High production does not lead to high attributes that calculate the sum of a player's skills. The reverse of that also does not follow. A RB, according to the Madden formula for calculating the OVR rating, is also evaluated on pass blocking and run blocking skills. In Peterson's case, he is not a strong blocker in any form. He doesn't even play on 3rd downs. That will undoubtedly bring down his OVR. Fifth, a rating of a 90 is considered to be elite. A 99 is nearly unheard of (think Rodgers in 2011, LT in 2006, etc..).

When looking at these ratings, look at the PARTS, not the sum, as they are far more important in evaluating talent...especially in an NFL that is becoming more and more specialized. Also, consider that 70 is average for all the physical attributes, and the entire ratings scale is used. I haven't updated the entire site in a while because we are experimenting with a few changes, but most of the ratings you see above have changed.

Here is how they are rated in the offline database as of 11/16/12, as well as my rebuttle to your assessment. I don't usually offer explanations for players in particular since everyone has an opinion, but I will do it to provide a brief sample of what I would say:

Gronk: 92 (evaluated before injury). I would argue that Gronk is playing very well...but with possibly the best QB/coach combination in NFL history. Would he be as great if he played for the Browns? Guys rated 95+ would be great on any team in any era. Obviously, the scouts don't think he is quite at this level. He is not quite there yet, but is getting close with that current rating.

Sanchez: 80. He is not a great QB. Nowhere near elite. As it stands, however, he isn't rated as such. He is tied for the 25th best in the league. As you can see, this matches your assessment as one of the worst QBs in the league, as a starter, however.

Peterson: 93. AD is still getting stronger coming off of a serious injury that he miraculously rushed back from. Once he is back to form and 100%, I'm sure he will be pushing 95+. However, like I mentioned above, his blocking skills do calculate to his OVR rating, and those most certainly do not help him, overall.

Jackson: 91. He is a consistent player who does everything well. He grades out highly as a ball carrier, receiver, and blocker. The other fact is that he does it consistently for the Rams, and has been for a while. What he lacks in elusiveness or open field moves he makes up for in other more technical areas. He may not be as explosive as a guy like Peterson with the ball in his hands, but he may be considered a more complete back.

Lynch: 84. One-trick pony here. Not a willing blocker...and not great at it when he does. Good at moving the pile though and cranking out yards after contact. Average receiver at best out of the backfield. Look at the parts...not their sum.

Harvin: 89. Made a big jump this year. He is explosive and has average hands. Not going to wow you with a great sideline grab or catch in the trash, but is great in space. Only going to get better.

RGIII: 82. Plays in a scripted offense, but has elite downfield accuracy as we have seen in recent weeks. His mid ball is questionable at best on 15 yard digs and out routes. Great on the run and elusive as hell. Only going to get better. Will be pushing 90 by the end of the season. Once we get more data and a larger body of work his rating will go up. Remember...we only rate guys on consistent effort illustrated over longer periods of time.

Newton: 88. He has all the physical ability as he showed last year. He is RGIII but bigger, less athletic, more arm strength, and less downfield accuracy. No doubt his down year will affect his OVR eventually, but are all of the ills of this season his fault? That line looks pretty darn shaky.

If you have ESPN insider, you know that Scouts, Inc offers some insights into evaluating players. They don't give the formula for how they do so, but every scouting agency rates players based on the attributes and weights they see fit. This is the take on ratings based off of my insiders and their information. Scouts are never in full agreement, but I tried to focus more on the parts than the sum because Madden forces us into this "OVR Box" that really doesn't matter in-game. I would encourage you to use the ratings in a couple play-now games and write up a report on what you find vs. how EA rates players. Maybe you like it, maybe you won't. It's cool either way. What I do know, however, is that this system relies on stuff that EA doesn't incorporate fully, if at all. Some people like this system, so this is for them. I don't aim to please everyone, but I do appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Cheers!

# 937 DCEBB2001 @ 11/24/12 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liqui15


	What would possess someone to have Hakeem Nicks of the New York Giants sitting at an 81 overall? No offense but that's outrageous to me. Because he's injured a lot? That's all well and fine but that should bump his injury down, not his stats. When he's healthy he is clearly one of the better receivers in the league. His stats aren't quite what they should be with Victor Cruz sitting in the slot every week. However, I would take Nicks over Cruz every single time I had to chose one if I knew they would both be 100% healthy. He's got great hands, he can run any type of route, and he's fast. This is a guy who once made a catch between his legs one handed when he was in college. And a guy who has made numerous catches that most guys would never make. Yet because he is injured more often than most, he is down rated? This of course is no smashing of you or your ratings, I love a lot of them and think a lot are right (Although I do also agree on the Gronkwoski rating being way too low - the guy is easily the best blocking and receiving tight end in the league. You guys are doing a great job, keep up the good work. The service you guys do for madden gamers of all sorts is great. Don't let any one question or complaint knock you folks down from doing this stuff! I am interested however in knowing what types of statistics and such you use to get these ratings.

The injury debate is always on-going. The reason we make injuries affect the OVR and other attributes is because injuries do affect in-game performance. If I play Nicks with all his ratings at 100% of his ability but with his INJ rating of say 50, he will still play at 100% in game, but will just have a higher likelihood of getting hurt. Now, I don't know if you watched NFL Network's NFC Playbook this week, but Sterling Sharpe and Donovan McNabb pointed out that Nicks is not getting his usual separation in pass routes BECAUSE OF HIS INJURY. That means that the injury IS affecting the other ratings. Think about that. If I get a high ankle sprain, thus lowering my evaluation of injury proneness, does that mean I will still be expected to cut while running routes at full speed? Of course not! My coaches would sit me out because I would not be able to physically function at a level high enough to run a crisp, fast, route. They would shut me down. I appreciate Nicks' toughness for sticking it out while injured, but even the analysts can break down how his injuries are physically affecting him.

The other side of this is that once Nicks is recovered from this injury, his ratings will go back up. I update them every single Thursday. They are very dynamic and change often based on the most recent data. That is why I always disclaimer anyone who views the site to first check the injury report. Otherwise having Ray Lewis rated a 40 would appear insane.

EDIT:
I want to add that Nicks was rated a 90 before the injury...definitely elite at full strength.

# 938 DCEBB2001 @ 11/24/12 11:35 PM

Good question BIG. The great thing about the scouting info is I have a record of every single injury suffered by every player during their career, and it's severity. We keep very close tabs on injuries with FBG. If it was on an injury report, we have a record of it. That includes going back to high school for most players.

# 939 EAGLESFAN10 @ 11/25/12 12:37 AM

If I remember correctly you know someone who works close with madden and was wondering if you ever threw ideas to him/her to tell the devs ????

# 940 DCEBB2001 @ 11/25/12 10:29 AM

I'll explain my link to Madden:

FBG Ratings is powered by The SportsXChange (TSX as we call it). TSX also powers NFLDraftScout.com, which supplies scouting info to all 32 teams, CBS Sports, and a bunch of other clients. Now the owner of TSX is a guy by the name of Frank Cooney. Frank is very good friends with John Madden himself, and has been a guest of Mr. Madden's personally on his tour bus during the NFL season. Now many of you may or may not know that it is John Madden's DAUGHTER who sees over the Madden NFL video game series, not John himself. Basically, John delegated to his daughter to handle the licensing of his name and likeness and does not manage it himself.

So my link to EA is that my webspace is owned by a guy who is very close friends with John Madden, which is the entire reason the site is in existence in the first place. Other than that the only link I have to EA was via my interview for a position with them last year when the exodus at Madden happened (willingly or not) and they were looking to promote guys like Donny Moore to higher positions at Tiburon-Orlando.

« Previous 1 2…44 45 464748 49 50…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game