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

# 1041 DCEBB2001 @ 09/05/13 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youALREADYknow


	I'd go the other way and say that it seems that the Madden team has been covering up their inability to use mass/weight in their animation outcomes by using the STR rating as a "weight" modifier in the trenches for things such as blocking/trucking/etc. They have been doing this for years and going the other route (accurately reflecting player strength without weight as a factor) will only serve to expose the game engine's flaws as it pertains to weight/mass and leverage. Your approach is more accurate and objective so I'm not criticizing it at all. I'm simply stating that there are some things that handcuff you from using real world data since the "environment" that you're using isn't close to the real world environment the data is coming from. I'd imagine that some time next-gen, you'll be able to see a huge benefit to your STR ratings in-game.

I get what you are saying. I was just pointing out that the STR rating in Madden (regardless of what it does in-game) correlates more to weight than any other factor. This positive correlation means that the bigger the player, the more STR that player has. My real-world data shows that this correlation is significantly weaker than EA likes to argue. Some of the strongest pure players in the game are not even linemen...according to the data.

But we can only polish a turd so much.

# 1042 caballero @ 09/05/13 05:14 AM

Dan check this out http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/te...player-ratings

It's informative, funny and depressing... if Donny Moore is twitter friends with Dez Bryant, Richard Sherman and other NFL players we'll never get accurate ratings!

Reading on, since you asked to report any rating mistake/overview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXze0cQwD-8
Btw, if you check the vids on the same page, you find why Kerry Rhodes is still unemployed

Just ran some testing with M25.

Mangold (he was at 14THP, I gave him FBG's 13THP and 8/8/8 THA) reached around 40 yards so it's good enough.

Somehow, Rhodes with 62THP only reached around 50 (assuming the vid is real, he reached about 55 yards on the throw). FBG has him at 21THP
http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...php?pyid=54816

# 1043 DCEBB2001 @ 09/05/13 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	Dan check this out http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/te...player-ratings It's informative, funny and depressing... if Donny Moore is twitter friends with Dez Bryant, Richard Sherman and other NFL players we'll never get accurate ratings! Reading on, since you asked to report any rating mistake/overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXze0cQwD-8 Btw, if you check the vids on the same page, you find why Kerry Rhodes is still unemployed Just ran some testing with M25. Mangold (he was at 14THP, I gave him FBG's 13THP and 8/8/8 THA) reached around 40 yards so it's good enough. Somehow, Rhodes with 62THP only reached around 50 (assuming the vid is real, he reached about 55 yards on the throw). FBG has him at 21THP http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...php?pyid=54816

The error reporting applies more to the basic data like name, DOB, height, weight, etc.

# 1044 caballero @ 09/05/13 10:11 AM

lol then there's nothing to report!

Rhodes needs about 72 THP with base sliders in M25 to be realistic.

Doing some 40 yard & 100m testing with a few players, including Teddy Williams (fastest NFLer? ran a 100m dash under 10 sec wind aided), edited to 99SPD 85ACC he was too slow -you got him at 95SPD 88ACC

# 1045 charter04 @ 09/05/13 11:21 AM

# 1046 DCEBB2001 @ 09/05/13 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	lol then there's nothing to report! Rhodes needs about 72 THP with base sliders in M25 to be realistic. Doing some 40 yard & 100m testing with a few players, including Teddy Williams (fastest NFLer? ran a 100m dash under 10 sec wind aided), edited to 99SPD 85ACC he was too slow -you got him at 95SPD 88ACC

Do what you want with your ratings, but I will tell you that messing with the SPD and ACC attributes will go against what the site is meant to do...rate all players equally using the same measures. Too much editing will get you away from what the ratings are intended to do.

# 1047 caballero @ 09/07/13 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Do what you want with your ratings, but I will tell you that messing with the SPD and ACC attributes will go against what the site is meant to do...rate all players equally using the same measures. Too much editing will get you away from what the ratings are intended to do.

my ratings? come on Dan, you can do better than this reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMChrisS


	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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The best part is I don't play favorites with these...I prefer to be ACCURATE* with the ratings*

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	That is the goal, anyway...do what they [guys at Tiburon and EA] do...but better.

Bolded parts.

DISCLAIMER to people who think I might be trolling. I've known about and used FBG since Madden 2003, followed this thread, read all its post and support Dan's project. I've ALREADY played games on ps3 using Blazelore's roster.

# 1048 Tomba @ 09/07/13 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	my ratings? come on Dan, you can do better than this reply. Bolded parts. DISCLAIMER to people who think I might be trolling. I've known about and used FBG since Madden 2003, followed this thread, read all its post and support Dan's project. I've ALREADY played games on ps3 using Blazelore's roster.

And blazelore efforts make a huge difference Im just unsure if the ratings are as accurate to 2013 as they were to 2012 I mean MOST fantasy leagues USED 2012 stats and not projected 2013 pre season(who uses pre season anyway unless your baseball!) but in general they play a much better game with them without

# 1049 DCEBB2001 @ 09/07/13 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	my ratings? come on Dan, you can do better than this reply. Bolded parts. DISCLAIMER to people who think I might be trolling. I've known about and used FBG since Madden 2003, followed this thread, read all its post and support Dan's project. I've ALREADY played games on ps3 using Blazelore's roster.

From Ft. Lauderdale, FL:

Like I said before in this thread, I follow the data. The data drives the results. If I edit the results and deviate, then players are no longer uniformly rated. If I do that, then why use it. My ratings system is merely one way of rating players. You can use your imagination to make your own if you like, but my methodology is staying as is. Besides, it sounds like people are really enjoying the gameplay with them. Why mess with something that works?

OK guys i gotta bounce...ship leaves port at noon. I will keep up as much as I can with the thread, but no guarantees. Later!

# 1050 steamboat2302 @ 09/07/13 02:57 PM

Can anyone tell me they have had success with simming with these type of rosters? I'm getting every QB outside of brady, manning and Brees getting 50% comp% with more pics then TD's.

# 1051 caballero @ 09/07/13 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	From Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Like I said before in this thread, I follow the data. The data drives the results. If I edit the results and deviate, then players are no longer uniformly rated. If I do that, then why use it. My ratings system is merely one way of rating players. You can use your imagination to make your own if you like, but my methodology is staying as is. Besides, it sounds like people are really enjoying the gameplay with them. Why mess with something that works? OK guys i gotta bounce...ship leaves port at noon. I will keep up as much as I can with the thread, but no guarantees. Later!

Not satisfied with the answer (I'm not trying to have you redo the methodology... nor did I say I was dissatisfied with the "new" gameplay) but enjoy your vacation bud!

Quote:

Originally Posted by steamboat2302


	Can anyone tell me they have had success with simming with these type of rosters? I'm getting every QB outside of brady, manning and Brees getting 50% comp% with more pics then TD's.

not sure if in this thread but someone posted low AWR= bad sim stats for QB, try raising it 10pts or so see how the top QBs fare?

# 1052 DCEBB2001 @ 09/14/13 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	Not satisfied with the answer (I'm not trying to have you redo the methodology... nor did I say I was dissatisfied with the "new" gameplay) but enjoy your vacation bud!

Sorry, but I do not have another answer for you so my initial response will have to suffice.

# 1053 steamboat2302 @ 09/15/13 01:07 AM

raising the awareness of the QB's helps, but not enough. And it has a drastic effect on defensive sack/INT stats going in the toilet. A team with 0 interceptions, another with 0 sacks.

# 1054 DCEBB2001 @ 09/15/13 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SECElit3


	So DCEBB, I understand you will be re-rating all players with a new formulary. If this is the case, what is the timeline for completion of that project? How different will the ratings be in comparison with the current ratings? Will you be giving us notification on the status of the project? As you know, there are a few rosters out there that have been or are close to completion. Many hours went in to completing them. Will these new ratings make these old ratings obsolete? Thanks for your time?

Well, here is the deal with that.

Now that I have all of the OVR formulas cracked, I have already input them into the database. That means that I can now tweak each attribute within a certain allowable range to get the OVR to match better. Since I was out for a week, the first thing I will do is update all of the rosters and new OVR ratings. Then, I will go position by position through the database. I really want to continue to "audit" some of my other players in the database, however. These are the players with information that is incomplete. I think I currently have about 500 K/Ps left to audit, so I may start with that small position group.

The other option is that I start with all of the players that have already been fully audited. Those are the players that make up all of those currently on rosters. The drawback to starting with those players is that it will change all of the attributes for just about everyone currently in the NFL. For your purposes as roster creators, this will mean you will have to re-edit everyone currently on a team or in your FA pool.

Either way, it has to get done. It is just a matter of when.

# 1055 DerekHupp @ 09/19/13 04:20 AM

Looking forward to the big update DCEBB2001

# 1056 DCEBB2001 @ 09/19/13 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerekHupp


	Looking forward to the big update DCEBB2001

If I can get around to it this year. Like I said in the post above, I still have to audit about 2/3 of the players in the database. It takes time. Plus having to do weekly updates takes away from that time. Don't expect anything soon.

# 1057 DerekHupp @ 09/19/13 09:56 AM

maybe most of the player audits can wait until the active rosters are done

that is what we would want most

# 1058 DCEBB2001 @ 09/19/13 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerekHupp


	maybe most of the player audits can wait until the active rosters are done that is what we would want most

I understand that the roster creators out there would like that, but you have to keep in mind that the good people here at OS are not our only subscribers.

It takes a long time to do the edits to get the attributes to match up to the OVRs. It is much easier to do them position-by-position once, than do a group for the guys currently on rosters, then do them again for the guys who are not.

# 1059 caballero @ 09/20/13 02:27 AM

I'll reply here DCEBB, Blazelore's thread (http://www.operationsports.com/forum...rs-ps3-32.html) isn't really appropriate for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I take great offense to be lumped into the same sentence as Donny Moore, who I am sure took no effort to incorporate kinematics and calculus into finding out how fast NFL players really are

huh, did you forget who I am, DCEBB? you DID use SPD=40 time, and only when PGaither and I pointed out to you Donny used that too (at least to a degree), you decided to search other methods, see red part below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	take a new approach to how players are rated. You can thank caballero and PGaither for getting on my case about that. The whole thing that limited it in the first place was the lack of data to show a true acceleration curve and top velocity. However, once I found out that ALL players in Madden regardless of SPD/ACC stop accelerating at 45 yards I found that I was able to use the split times for each player to measure the change in velocity (ACC) and predict the top instantaneous velocity (SPD) at 45 yards using a cubic function. Now it is just a matter of finding an easy way of doing it for some 20000 players, which should take a few weeks to complete

(post 936 page 94 of this thread)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I do NOT use the 40 yard dash time to calculate the SPD rating. The SPD and ACC ratings work together to get the desired outcomes. All players have been rated according to the cubic functions of the runs and compared to the entire population regardless of position. I take great offense to be lumped into the same sentence as Donny Moore, who I am sure took no effort to incorporate kinematics and calculus into finding out how fast NFL players really are. From all of the time I spent this offseason trying to find the best way to get these numbers accurate with the available data, the result you find on the website is the best I can do with only a finite number of data points. I am certain that the methodology, which can be easily repeated, is sound and anyone studying kinematics with the same data would yield the same results. I used my connections from grad school to get the best opinions I could, sometimes using my own funds (time for some of these people was not cheap) to get the most logically valid and sound results I could. If someone can do it better, that's great because it will progress the science behind understanding the game. As for now, however, this seems to be the best we can do with what we presently have. I don't recall ever using Bolt's data to use against the population of NFL players as well. I do recall attempting to figure out how fast he would cover his splits, but I never used that as a comparison against the rest of the NFL population in the ratings. Once Bolt becomes and NFL player and runs a 40 with all of the split times accounted for, then we will see how he matches up. Bolt, however, is a different runner than that of an NFL player. Most NFL players reach their maximum velocity around the 30-35 yard mark of the 40 yard dash. Bolt reaches his maximum velocity around the 60-80m mark of his 100m dash. Football players and 100m sprinters require very different running techniques. For football players, you want to go as fast as you can as quickly as you can. For the 100m, it is about maintaining the top velocity for as long as you can (speed endurance). All I ask is that you ask me first about what I did/didn't/forgot to do before simply assuming that I did/didn't/forgot. It comes off as a tad presumptuous and slightly unfair, in my humble opinion.

I'm just going by what you said to me here, man...

a) you never followed up on the SPD thread so I didn't know you choose cubic functions.

b) you talked yourself of a 1 pt regression in SPD each 4 years:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Using my scale for the 40 and correlating SPD ratings, a player will typically lose 1 SPD point over the course of every 4 seasons after being drafted.

post 66: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2043946314

c) As for Bolt, you remember we calculated his splits and approximate 40 time and he timed at 4.10/4.11.
I would have liked (even though he'll probably never play in the NFL) to have the SPD attribute be ranked based on his cubic function.
Now I understand you won't incorporate him, but could you please let me know if he was a 99 SPD, what would the next NFL player be or follow up on this thread: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-flawed-3.html
?

# 1060 DCEBB2001 @ 09/20/13 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caballero


	I'll reply here DCEBB, Blazelore's thread (http://www.operationsports.com/forum...rs-ps3-32.html) isn't really appropriate for that. huh, did you forget who I am, DCEBB? you DID use SPD=40 time, and only when PGaither and I pointed out to you Donny used that too (at least to a degree), you decided to search other methods, see red part below. (post 936 page 94 of this thread) I'm just going by what you said to me here, man... a) you never followed up on the SPD thread so I didn't know you choose cubic functions. b) you talked yourself of a 1 pt regression in SPD each 4 years: post 66: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2043946314 c) As for Bolt, you remember we calculated his splits and approximate 40 time and he timed at 4.10/4.11. I would have liked (even though he'll probably never play in the NFL) to have the SPD attribute be ranked based on his cubic function. Now I understand you won't incorporate him, but could you please let me know if he was a 99 SPD, what would the next NFL player be or follow up on this thread: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-flawed-3.html ?

1. Donny Moore uses 40 times to calculate the SPD and ACC rating. The correlation between both is around 0.97 when you graph it. I used the 40 to determine the overall SPD rating and the 10 yd split to determine ACC. I did this because in the game the SPD and ACC ratings work symbiotically with one another. What that means is that, for instance, if Player A has an ACC of 90 and a SPD of 90, he will reach the 10 yd split in, for example, 1.50s. Now, let's say that Player B has the same ACC of 90 but has a SPD of 50. He will reach the 10 yd split in 1.70s. That means that although both players have the same ACC rating, which you would THINK would accurately determine who has the better 10yd split time, the player with the fastest SPD still gets to the 10yd mark first. That is what I was trying to work around. For some reason the SPD rating is a "modifier" of the ACC rating in the game itself. You can test this out in practice mode if you like, which I referenced several times by stating that the relationship between SPD and ACC is symbiotic within the coding of the game. That means that it is impossible to take the 10 yard split of a player who ran 1.50 and 4.40 and have them reach the 10 yard mark at the same time as a player who ran 1.50 and 4.80. The player with the 4.80, although having the same 10 yard split, would still get to the 10 yard mark SLOWER than his 4.40 counterpart. What I did was use the 40 time to determine the average velocity over the distance and then use the split time as a "segment" to determine the ACC. That way two players with the same 40 time and thus, the same SPD ratings, would reach the splits at the same time compared to one another should their 10 yard splits also be equal.

I did this until just saying "screw it", and actually determining the maximum velocity and acceleration for each player. The problem is that I do not know if this will replicate accurately in the game. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you want to see, go ahead and mess around with it, but I really don't have the time to beta-test how SPD and ACC works in Madden. Instead, think of every rating on the FBG site as applying Madden ratings to the "real" world outside of Madden. Whether everything is accurate in the game itself is yet to be fully documented due to the fact that the code for the game is so messed up regarding running mechanics, acceleration, speed, ect.

There is no evidence that Moore used the 10 yard splits like I did initially because the correlation between the ACC rating and the 10 yard split for all of the players is only around 0.84...significantly less than the correlation between the EA SPD rating and the 40 time of a player. Ultimately, the method used now is accurate in the real world, but may still be "off" in the game due to the restrictions of the game itself.

2. I did decide on cubic functions back in January.

3. I did state the a 1 point decrease in speed every 4 years after the combine/pro day would be an accurate representation, but using the injury factor to determine a loss of speed is less reliable because injuries vary greatly and their effects on speed vary from player to player.

4. If I get some time, I will do Bolt's SPD and ACC in that thread. Let me work it out mathematically first and then I will post something to see how he compares to the fastest players with the most burst in the NFL. I wanted to keep the population of data the same, so I chose to only use football players who were tested in the 40 as the qualifying measure to determine SPD and ACC ratings. You can also do this yourself by measuring Bolt's ACC and SPD from his splits (cubic function, differentiate, etc).

« Previous 1 2…50 51 525354 55 56…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game