Madden NFL 11 News Post

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

01:46 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

# 1241 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	But would they break it down to the components, assign each one a individual grade and then add them all up? Could you speak to how rigid the grading is? How much variance is there between different scouts? This next question you may not be able or willing to answer, but how much variance is there for the entire data set? How is the distribution? The scale is 0.0 to 5.0 correct? Would you mind providing something of a landmark? Like the typical all pro grades at 3.8, average starter would be what? If I am getting too close to asking for specifics or information that you would rather not share I understand. Sorry if I am asking too many questions.

The only numbers I get are the aggregate for each category, not the components. There are components, so I have been told, but I do not get that specific data. Let me send an email and see if I can find out what they do exactly for each category and get back to you on that one.

What I do know is that the score they do come up with is based on all of the opinions by each scout. However, you must realize that the player personnel department may assign only a scout or two to a region, so there may not even be much overlap on prospects.

The scale is 0.0-5.0 for all categories, yes. You would need to pick a category as giving you an average number amongst all of them wouldn't say much. The entire database includes players from high school on up. The overall grade, however is based on a 0.00-10.00 scale. The highest I have ever seen a player's OVR was 10.0 and that was Aaron Rodgers in 2011. The lowest I have seen is 0.0 but due to an injury (all I will say is that it was a college kid who got hurt really bad in 2011/12). The average score in the database, including all players from all levels is 2.42 as the OVR score.

# 1242 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The only numbers I get are the aggregate for each category, not the components. There are components, so I have been told, but I do not get that specific data. Let me send an email and see if I can find out what they do exactly for each category and get back to you on that one. What I do know is that the score they do come up with is based on all of the opinions by each scout. However, you must realize that the player personnel department may assign only a scout or two to a region, so there may not even be much overlap on prospects. The scale is 0.0-5.0 for all categories, yes. You would need to pick a category as giving you an average number amongst all of them wouldn't say much. The entire database includes players from high school on up. The overall grade, however is based on a 0.00-10.00 scale. The highest I have ever seen a player's OVR was 10.0 and that was Aaron Rodgers in 2011. The lowest I have seen is 0.0 but due to an injury (all I will say is that it was a college kid who got hurt really bad in 2011/12). The average score in the database, including all players from all levels is 2.42 as the OVR score.

Interesting stuff, thank you. I imagine due to encompassing all levels that standard deviation is quite large. Could you perhaps provide a ballpark figure for average OVR for NFL players and the SD? I am wondering how wide the gap is between players. I would guess that it is lower than one would think. This way you don't have to provide anything regarding specific players.

Also in your opinion what position allows for the greatest variance in terms of overall grade and could that be an argument for it being most important? I hope it is not QB but if it is what is second?

Do you ever do some just for the hell of it models? You know, just play with the data?

# 1243 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Interesting stuff, thank you. I imagine due to encompassing all levels that standard deviation is quite large. Could you perhaps provide a ballpark figure for average OVR for NFL players and the SD? I am wondering how wide the gap is between players. I would guess that it is lower than one would think. This way you don't have to provide anything regarding specific players. Also in your opinion what position allows for the greatest variance in terms of overall grade and could that be an argument for it being most important? I hope it is not QB but if it is what is second? Do you ever do some just for the hell of it models? You know, just play with the data?

I am constantly playing with the data (that sounds kinda dirty). The average score for an NFL player on a roster right now is 477. The standard deviation is 100. The widest range is 925 by the WR/TE position group. Keep in mind that injuries play a role in this, so if someone is beat up pretty bad, it will lower his score and increase the range. The K/P range is pretty tight with a range of about 300. That means that the Kicker and Punter competition is pretty close. QBs came in at about 630 for a range.

# 1244 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I am constantly playing with the data (that sounds kinda dirty). The average score for an NFL player on a roster right now is 477. The standard deviation is 100. The widest range is 925 by the WR/TE position group. Keep in mind that injuries play a role in this, so if someone is beat up pretty bad, it will lower his score and increase the range. The K/P range is pretty tight with a range of about 300. That means that the Kicker and Punter competition is pretty close. QBs came in at about 630 for a range.

I bet. Time series data going back what, 15 soon to be 16 years, with thousands of observations? That could lead to many late night "I wonder..." sessions.

Regarding the range, it could be due to a few injuries or something that creates a few ornery outliers? Without those, would you suspect that the WR/TE group still has the largest variability?

# 1245 michiganfan8620 @ 07/22/14 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Every player and their situations are different. Mathis is still graded out at 2.8 in his category correlating to the FMV attribute. Jordan is still graded at 1.4 in his. The suspension, injury, or whatever case happens to any player simply modifies the final value by a multiplier. Once he is designated good to go for a return, the multiplier will be adjusted. Keep in mind that we also have to work within the framework of EA's OVR formulas and can't just rate players in an equal-interval method without an OVR value to meet. Last time I did that, people were pissed because guys like Wes Welker were coming in at 75 instead of 90 or whatever, WHICH I CAN SEE as being an issue for contracts, trade values, etc.

That still does not make sense. Both players are in the same situation. Facing the same 4 game suspension for failing a PED test. Mathis is the better player. How come Jordan is a 1.4 yet gets a 76 FMV yet Mathis gets a 2.8 and gets a 63? Where is the logic in that? And once again, you see you rate on ability, not production. A suspension effects a player's production, not his ability. Therefore, lowering the rating of a suspended player is lowering it due to his production, which you say you don't do.

# 1246 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	I bet. Time series data going back what, 15 soon to be 16 years, with thousands of observations? That could lead to many late night "I wonder..." sessions. Regarding the range, it could be due to a few injuries or something that creates a few ornery outliers? Without those, would you suspect that the WR/TE group still has the largest variability?

Well, I would define a statistical outlier as anything that lies beyond 3 SDs of the mean, so if you throw those out, it tightens it back up on the low bound for sure. If you do the entire population with an average of 477, that means that an outlier is 177 and below or 777 and above, of which there are only a few players (Manning, Rodgers, Brady, etc). It seems to me that the WR/TE group still has the widest variance. I would have to do each group individually, but that would be my guess considering that Calvin Johnson is way up there and there are some WRs on rosters who come in at 2.00 without injuries. But if you think of it, that is the largest group, too. Most teams usually carry more WR/TEs than any other position group, so there is an opportunity for a wider variance as well.

# 1247 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	That still does not make sense. Both players are in the same situation. Facing the same 4 game suspension for failing a PED test. Mathis is the better player. How come Jordan is a 1.4 yet gets a 76 FMV yet Mathis gets a 2.8 and gets a 63? Where is the logic in that? And once again, you see you rate on ability, not production. A suspension effects a player's production, not his ability. Therefore, lowering the rating of a suspended player is lowering it due to his production, which you say you don't do.

I am growing pretty tired of addressing you on this topic. What you fail to realize is that the OVR multiplier is lowering Mathis' FMV rating to match the desired OVR. When the OVR goes back up, so will his FMV rating, which will most likely be closer to his original FMV grade of 91. Until that happens, though, I cannot change the rating back. That is not how this works. We have to meet the individual attribute values and the OVR values. If his OVR drops, so too must his attributes.

If you have further questions about this particular topic, I will refer you to the FAQ page.

# 1248 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Well, I would define a statistical outlier as anything that lies beyond 3 SDs of the mean, so if you throw those out, it tightens it back up on the low bound for sure. If you do the entire population with an average of 477, that means that an outlier is 177 and below or 777 and above, of which there are only a few players (Manning, Rodgers, Brady, etc). It seems to me that the WR/TE group still has the widest variance. I would have to do each group individually, but that would be my guess considering that Calvin Johnson is way up there and there are some WRs on rosters who come in at 2.00 without injuries. But if you think of it, that is the largest group, too. Most teams usually carry more WR/TEs than any other position group, so there is an opportunity for a wider variance as well.

Good points. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
One last question though, going back to the earliest year you have data on, have you noticed any trends develop? Besides perhaps mobility in quarterbacks.

# 1249 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Good points. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. One last question though, going back to the earliest year you have data on, have you noticed any trends develop? Besides perhaps mobility in quarterbacks.

Sure have! QBs are a TON faster. The average 40 time for a QB in 1997 was 4.96. In 2014, it was 4.87. And we have 5 times the QBs in the database in 2014 than we do for 1997. That is a HUGE jump.

The average 40 time for a draft-eligible player in 1997 was 4.84
In 2014, the average was also 4.84. So, on a whole, players aren't getting any faster, but some positions are.

In 2014, the average OL had a STR grade of 53.6. In 1997, that number was 56.4. In Madden, that is like going from a STR rating of 83 in 1997 down to 81 in 2014. Maybe it is the crackdown on PEDs?

# 1250 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Sure have! QBs are a TON faster. The average 40 time for a QB in 1997 was 4.96. In 2014, it was 4.87. And we have 5 times the QBs in the database in 2014 than we do for 1997. That is a HUGE jump. The average 40 time for a draft-eligible player in 1997 was 4.84 In 2014, the average was also 4.84. So, on a whole, players aren't getting any faster, but some positions are. In 2014, the average OL had a STR grade of 53.6. In 1997, that number was 56.4. In Madden, that is like going from a STR rating of 83 in 1997 down to 81 in 2014. Maybe it is the crackdown on PEDs?

Maybe more of an emphasis on an up temp passing game? Could be the increase in popularity of spread based offenses. Probably a combination of a few factors (of which PEDs may be a factor). My initial thought would be an increasing preference for speed but you just pointed out that speed has held constant.

# 1251 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Maybe more of an emphasis on an up temp passing game? Could be the increase in popularity of spread based offenses. Probably a combination of a few factors (of which PEDs may be a factor). My initial thought would be an increasing preference for speed but you just pointed out that speed has held constant.

My PED comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

The fact that the players haven't gotten much faster if measuring average velocity via the 40 time is kind of unexpected. Although, I think that the media plays a large role in making many of us THINK that the athletes today are far superior than those of say 20 years ago. The data seems to make it apparent that is not the case.

# 1252 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	My PED comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. The fact that the players haven't gotten much faster if measuring average velocity via the 40 time is kind of unexpected. Although, I think that the media plays a large role in making many of us THINK that the athletes today are far superior than those of say 20 years ago. The data seems to make it apparent that is not the case.

I think "modern" sports started around the mid 1980s. I would expect a significant change in speed and athleticism in general between players of the past 20 to 30 years and players of what I would call the premodern era of the 60's and 70's. There is only so much the human body is capable of and we may be nearing the limit.

Out of curiosity, have other speed and quickness related measurements held constant? Like the cone and shuttle?

# 1253 friscob @ 07/22/14 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Maybe more of an emphasis on an up temp passing game? Could be the increase in popularity of spread based offenses. Probably a combination of a few factors (of which PEDs may be a factor). My initial thought would be an increasing preference for speed but you just pointed out that speed has held constant.

Overall the speed has held contant but what about restricting it to just o linemen?

# 1254 michiganfan8620 @ 07/22/14 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I am growing pretty tired of addressing you on this topic. What you fail to realize is that the OVR multiplier is lowering Mathis' FMV rating to match the desired OVR. When the OVR goes back up, so will his FMV rating, which will most likely be closer to his original FMV grade of 91. Until that happens, though, I cannot change the rating back. That is not how this works. We have to meet the individual attribute values and the OVR values. If his OVR drops, so too must his attributes. If you have further questions about this particular topic, I will refer you to the FAQ page.

So in other words, you are basically doing what you accuse EA of doing, manipulating ratings to reach a desired OVR. What I'm pointing out is that it makes no sense to have Dion Jordan and Robert Mathis having different "multipliers" for the exact same suspension. And any system that can honestly have guys like Cortland Finnegan (ranked 109/110 CB's last year in the league that took enough snaps), Derek Cox, Shareece Wright, and a bunch of other decent CB's above an elite CB such as Joe Haden is kind of a joke IMO. And don't tell me look at the individual ratings. All of Haden's important ratings are below these guys, which is not right. You can't tell me Tramon Williams is 15 points better than Joe Haden in MCV, or that Derek Cox is 6 points better. Derek Cox was benched midseason last year due to struggles and was cut from his team in the offseason in the middle of a 4 year deal. Haden just got one of the highest CB contracts in the league after being an All-pro.

# 1255 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	I think "modern" sports started around the mid 1980s. I would expect a significant change in speed and athleticism in general between players of the past 20 to 30 years and players of what I would call the premodern era of the 60's and 70's. There is only so much the human body is capable of and we may be nearing the limit. Out of curiosity, have other speed and quickness related measurements held constant? Like the cone and shuttle?

Let me check.

Well, they didn't start doing the cone drill until 1999, so let's start that year.

1999:
Cone 7.48, Shuttle 4.36

2014:
Cone 7.33, Shuttle 4.50

Rotational Agility has improved while lateral agility has not. Very interesting.

# 1256 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by friscob


	Overall the speed has held contant but what about restricting it to just o linemen?

OL 1997:
Average 40: 5.30

OL 2014:
Average 40: 5.32

Pretty constant there as well.

# 1257 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	So in other words, you are basically doing what you accuse EA of doing, manipulating ratings to reach a desired OVR. What I'm pointing out is that it makes no sense to have Dion Jordan and Robert Mathis having different "multipliers" for the exact same suspension. And any system that can honestly have guys like Cortland Finnegan (ranked 109/110 CB's last year in the league that took enough snaps), Derek Cox, Shareece Wright, and a bunch of other decent CB's above an elite CB such as Joe Haden is kind of a joke IMO. And don't tell me look at the individual ratings. All of Haden's important ratings are below these guys, which is not right. You can't tell me Tramon Williams is 15 points better than Joe Haden in MCV, or that Derek Cox is 6 points better. Derek Cox was benched midseason last year due to struggles and was cut from his team in the offseason in the middle of a 4 year deal. Haden just got one of the highest CB contracts in the league after being an All-pro.

In the case of injury, yes. When a player is improving or regressing based on performance, we simply look at the data. No manipulation involved. If I had it my way, I would not include OVR ratings, but once again, when I did that 2 years ago people freaked out.

Once again, look at the whole, not the individual score. Hayden was a bright spot on a bad team, but before he got injured at the end of last season, he gave up 4 TDs in 4 consecutive games. That isn't what ELITE CBs do. Odds are, the scouts saw that, reevaluated him, and gave him the grade he has now. His OVR grade has not changed since May, so it could have been higher/lower before that.

I will explain this for the final time again. No player has the same result on their ratings than any other player, no matter the injury, suspension, whatever. Every case is different.

Haden is a better athlete than both Williams and Cox, but his technical skills are still a bit behind, especially in the AWR category. So yes, I am telling you that.

# 1258 charter04 @ 07/22/14 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	So in other words, you are basically doing what you accuse EA of doing, manipulating ratings to reach a desired OVR. What I'm pointing out is that it makes no sense to have Dion Jordan and Robert Mathis having different "multipliers" for the exact same suspension. And any system that can honestly have guys like Cortland Finnegan (ranked 109/110 CB's last year in the league that took enough snaps), Derek Cox, Shareece Wright, and a bunch of other decent CB's above an elite CB such as Joe Haden is kind of a joke IMO. And don't tell me look at the individual ratings. All of Haden's important ratings are below these guys, which is not right. You can't tell me Tramon Williams is 15 points better than Joe Haden in MCV, or that Derek Cox is 6 points better. Derek Cox was benched midseason last year due to struggles and was cut from his team in the offseason in the middle of a 4 year deal. Haden just got one of the highest CB contracts in the league after being an All-pro.

I can't understand why there is so much negative passion about this. You can't compare what Dan does to EA anyway. He does it for free. LOL They charge us $60. So really if you don't like it so much why spend so much time commenting on something that won't change. You either like it or don't. Make your own site and rate guys how you want to.

# 1259 ggsimmonds @ 07/22/14 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Let me check. Well, they didn't start doing the cone drill until 1999, so let's start that year. 1999: Cone 7.48, Shuttle 4.36 2014: Cone 7.33, Shuttle 4.50 Rotational Agility has improved while lateral agility has not. Very interesting.

To be honest I expected both numbers to show improvement.

I am not that knowledgeable in blocking schemes so maybe someone more qualified than I can answer this, but has zone blocking become more popular within the specified years? That was my original thought behind the strength numbers along with other spread concepts, but if it does provide a explanation I would expect OL shuttle drill numbers to improve.

For the entire population's drill times, has it been a consistent trend in the appropriate direction or does it fluctuate?

# 1260 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/14 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	To be honest I expected both numbers to show improvement. I am not that knowledgeable in blocking schemes so maybe someone more qualified than I can answer this, but has zone blocking become more popular within the specified years? That was my original thought behind the strength numbers along with other spread concepts, but if it does provide a explanation I would expect OL shuttle drill numbers to improve. For the entire population's drill times, has it been a consistent trend in the appropriate direction or does it fluctuate?

It fluctuates by draft class typically. This year's class was actually a bit less athletic as compared to other years. Otherwise, the rate of change is pretty small or constant.

« Previous 1 2…60 61 626364 65 66…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game