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

# 1321 charter04 @ 08/02/14 12:11 AM

There were 182 players rated 90+ on the latest madden 25 official roster. That's crazy.

# 1322 MajorSupreme @ 08/02/14 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	There were 182 players rated 90+ on the latest madden 25 official roster. That's crazy.

In the words of Stephen A Smith, "it's asinine, asi-ten, asi-eleven, and asi-twelve." 90+ is the elite, best of the best tier. To me, not more than 15 should be over 90.

# 1323 charter04 @ 08/02/14 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	My point is, 4.1 doesn't necessarily translate to a 81. Players on that scale probably end up around 2.0 and lower. I don't think any player in the nfl should be rated what a 40 would be in madden. What translates to a 40 would be way lower than what translates to a 2.0. I mean, a 40 in madden at a position is like putting Peyton Manning at WR, and I don't think any WRs in the nfl should be even close to that.

If every player wasn't 80 or higher then a 50 overall wouldn't seem so bad. 2.4-2.99 is a starter caliber in the ratings I'm talking about. That's 47-58 overall. In Maddens systems this is terrible but, in a more realistic system were you have only 5-10 90 overalls and much more 60-79 it makes more sense.

The real question is have you played a game with FBG rated rosters? I have. It's just better. If you haven't then I'm not sure your opinion on this subject (FBG ratings used in Madden) is a good one.

# 1324 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	There were 182 players rated 90+ on the latest madden 25 official roster. That's crazy.

I agree, that probably is too many, however, the formulas for each position are different in order to make it so that there are a few 90s at each position. Guys at different positions can't really be compared by OVR. What classifies as a 90 at different position are different standards. A 92 WR is not necessarily a better player than a 90 CB, but on the scouting scales, a 4.1 WR is most likely better than a 4.0 CB. It doesn't make sense, but it's the way the game was designed.

# 1325 charter04 @ 08/02/14 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I agree, that probably is too many, however, the formulas for each position are different in order to make it so that there are a few 90s at each position. Guys at different positions can't really be compared by OVR. What classifies as a 90 at different position are different standards. A 92 WR is not necessarily a better player than a 90 CB, but on the scouting scales, a 4.1 WR is most likely better than a 4.0 CB. It doesn't make sense, but it's the way the game was designed.

Your problem you seem to think EA's overall system makes since. Maybe that is the issue. They give way too much weight to stuff that doesn't make a player better. They are the ones who start with a desired overall(Sherman being 99) and just raise stuff like awareness or strength to get it.

You can get a 60 overall to be just as good as a 99 as far as play on the field in madden if you know how the ratings are weighted. I have done this. That is a lot of how Dan does it. The overall doesn't matter. It's how they play. The players play more life like with these ratings than that garbage EA gives.

# 1326 charter04 @ 08/02/14 12:32 AM

Do you want good gameplay where ratings mean something or do you want them to be "right" as far as the way EA does it? I personally care more about how the game plays on the virtual field than if player A is rated right as I see it. Playing games with these feel more like a real nfl game even with default sliders. Especially as he has it now using equal interval.

# 1327 DCEBB2001 @ 08/02/14 02:16 AM

Man, this thing really blew up while taking the GF out on date night...

Let me address a few things here.

1. The scale that Lindy's, PFW, Scouts, Inc, and the scouting department that utilize my data all use a similar structure: a linear method to rating players that utilizes equal intervals between each point on the scale. They set the worst of the worst possible to 0.0 and the best of the best possible (perfection, if you will - like Cris Carter's hands) to 5.0, knowing full well that there will be far more 0.0's out there than 5.0's. They draw a line from worst to best and "let the rest fall as it may" along that linear regression between those two points. The guys at 4.50+ are VERY, VERY, RARE.

If you don't trust how FBG Ratings rates players, then look at Lindy's, PFW, or Scouts, Inc. Scouts, Inc. used to rate NFL players on ESPN.com. In 2012, the last year they published online grades for NFL players, their top player overall (regardless of position) was Aaron Rodgers at 97, which translates to about 4.85 on the 5.0 scale. Tenth was Gronk at 92 (4.60). The last player over 90 (4.50), or "elite" was Suggs at #19. That means that Scouts, Inc had only 19 players in the entire league over 90. EA Sports, in Madden 25, had 136 players that were 90+. Meanwhile, Big Bad FBG Ratings (who apparently gets everything wrong) has currently only 6 players rated 90+.

Either way, both Scouts Inc and FBG Ratings have a significantly lower percentage of players that are rated highly in comparison to their EA counterparts. Now I pose this; either Scouts, Inc and FBG Ratings (with lower numbers of players who are considered "elite") are wrong, OR EA Sports with well over 6 times as many players rated 90+ are wrong. With such a wide gap, both cannot be correct.

2. The Madden OVR and non-Madden OVR's are exactly the same when you draw a point from worst to best. In Madden that is (for the OVR rating) from 12 to 99. In FBG it is 0.0 to 5.0. Sure the numbers aren't the same, but that is what the data interpolation is for! This way, we can MAKE them the same. You simply set 0.0 = 12 and 5.0 = 99. Now, draw your line and see where players fall on the scale.

This is not the problem, however. The real problem is not the scale itself (as I just solved it rather simply), but where players FALL on the scale. EA says that 136 players fall above 90+ on that scale. FBG says it is 6. Scouts, Inc. says 19. Who is correct? 136 vs. 6 is pretty wide of a variance and 19 falls a hell of a lot closer to 6 than it does to 136. You are asking the wrong question when you ask about the scale. The scale doesn't matter - they can be made equal. What matters is the DISTRIBUTION of the data. THIS is where you determine how evenly or unevenly skewed your population is.

The formulas for ATTAINING the overall scores, ARE different, however. But, when you think of how it pertains to the OVR scores, this also doesn't matter. Why? Because each OVR score no matter what system you use is dependent upon the variables and their sums. They all still use an OVR rating! So, because of this fact, we are still able to compare them equally. It would be one thing if one system didn't use an OVR score, but they all do. That is the point! Scouts use it, so why wouldn't we? Do you remember that leaked scouting report by the Pats on Johnny Manziel this offseason? Even THAT had a final OVR grade on it! People who fail to realize that scouts use OVR grades to compare players from one position to the other are completely ignorant of the true processes behind all of this.

So, on a scale of 0.0 to 5.0 where 0.0 is 12 and 5.0 is 99, then a grade of 4.1 is 83. This scale is unbiased toward any average and the chips are allowed to fall as they may. The only bias is at the max and min, but the slope is equal the whole way. That means that the difference between a player with a grade of 4.0 and a player with grade of 4.1 is the same as the distance between a player with a grade of 3.6 and a player with a grade of 3.7. This is the most realistic way we can determine where each player truly lies on the scale. Think about this: in your stats class in high school or college, did your x and y axis have intervals between 0.0 and 1.0 that varied in distance or were they uniform? They were uniform, of course! Otherwise the distance between 0.0 and 1.0 wouldn't be accurate! It would be something else! The notion that someone can fight this logic is just so far beyond me that I am expecting blood to just start shooting out of my nose at any point of this response.

3. The OVR rating is used to rate players from one position to the other. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! To say that the OVR rating is different from one position to another makes no sense! Of course it does! How else do you determine who the best player in the league is? Since EA Sports has completely brainwashed people into thinking that the best player at each position every year should be 99, it is no wonder why someone would erroneously think this.

If a QB is a 99, no matter what formula used to derive it, is he better than a WR rated 40? According to the phoney logic, the QB wouldn't be any better because we "can't use the OVR to evaluate player across positions". Do you realize how illogical that sounds? If the best WR in the game is an 81 and the best QB in the game is a 99, who do you think will perform better on the field given their position? The QB of course, because he will have higher attributes that gave him the higher OVR in the first place! The OVR is dependent upon the attributes, not separate from it!

4. I cannot believe the lack of thought process about this sometimes. I utilized professional opinion, data, and logic in all of this. Where have you heard Donny Moore mention any of that? Where have you heard him say anything besides Youtube, Stats, and PFF? Come on. The way he rates players is a JOKE. When Lindy's NFL magazine comes out, count the number of elite players listed in that book. I bet you can count them all on your fingers and toes. Do the same for PFF and Scouts, Inc. You will get results that are a hell of a lot closer to what FBG Ratings offers vs. what EA offers as far as rating the OVR for NFL players.

But don't take my word for any of this...after all, I'm just a guy making this crap up as I go along, right? Woah! A QB just went 20 of 24 for 294 and 2 TDs! He is sooo accurate! I better bump up his SAC, MAC, DAC, and AWR all 10 points to mimic that one awesome game! He is a super star! What is his name again? Oh yeah....

Rob Johnson.

# 1328 charter04 @ 08/02/14 03:54 AM

I got the Cardinals re- rated with the equal interval ratings and I played a half Cardinals v Cardinals. Default AP. The only changes was QB acc for user and CPU at 35.

I now can't wait to get Atlanta rated. The game plays even better with these.

When Atlanta is done I'll play on twitch

# 1329 azdawgpound @ 08/02/14 12:45 PM

hey dc are u guys updating your site or something I was updating my ps4 roster got to the RT's for bengal's then page froze and now all I get is waiting for site.

I can go to any other sites no problem sites load right up sorta through wrench in my plans I was making good process today.

# 1330 DCEBB2001 @ 08/02/14 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azdawgpound


	hey dc are u guys updating your site or something I was updating my ps4 roster got to the RT's for bengal's then page froze and now all I get is waiting for site. I can go to any other sites no problem sites load right up sorta through wrench in my plans I was making good process today.

If you ever see the site say that, it means we are doing updates. Just started about 10 minutes ago. Should be done in a couple hours.

# 1331 DCEBB2001 @ 08/02/14 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sword1986


	Do you think they will let us use your rosters for CCM? I am definitely looking to purchase Madden here, last Madden was the one with Peyton Hillis on the cover and before that was Madden 09. Your rosters are LEGIT, by the way.

Using the rosters in CCM is not the problem. The problem is not being able to import/export/edit draft classes.

# 1332 azdawgpound @ 08/02/14 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	If you ever see the site say that, it means we are doing updates. Just started about 10 minutes ago. Should be done in a couple hours.

ok thanks for heads up just have push it back some guess I can do some more testing of the different teams I got half way updated until then.

# 1333 azdawgpound @ 08/02/14 02:52 PM

just watched the cmp play each other Browns vs Bengals it was a amazing game.

2nd play of game was a pick 6 by gilbert... it was 10-0 browns at end of 1st the bengal's answered back but could only kick fg's until the 4th quarter... where the bengal's rallied to tie 17-17 with 49 secs but manziel lead a late drive to get the game winning fg 20-17.

I saw some great gameplay but then again.... later in the game I saw some crazy stuff where the cmp basically called same pass play 4 times in row... which was a pass to rb who came out the backfield ran to the sideline and NOT one defender for browns even covered him so it was easy free yards with 4th same play resulting in the td to bring bengals 17-15.

then on the 2 point conversion....AGAIN another pass this time to the TE to sideline and not a single defender went with him and he walks in for the 2 points.

I've heard of blown or broken coverage's but with back to back to back to back plays where a wr,te, open ???? every play? that defensive coach be looking for a new gig after the game and so would whoever didn't cover those guys.

I had it up live on twitch... but im not sure how to post things on here like that and I thought u could save it but after I stopped it I clicked on broadcast and said I had none???

# 1334 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Man, this thing really blew up while taking the GF out on date night... Let me address a few things here. 1. The scale that Lindy's, PFW, Scouts, Inc, and the scouting department that utilize my data all use a similar structure: a linear method to rating players that utilizes equal intervals between each point on the scale. They set the worst of the worst possible to 0.0 and the best of the best possible (perfection, if you will - like Cris Carter's hands) to 5.0, knowing full well that there will be far more 0.0's out there than 5.0's. They draw a line from worst to best and "let the rest fall as it may" along that linear regression between those two points. The guys at 4.50+ are VERY, VERY, RARE. If you don't trust how FBG Ratings rates players, then look at Lindy's, PFW, or Scouts, Inc. Scouts, Inc. used to rate NFL players on ESPN.com. In 2012, the last year they published online grades for NFL players, their top player overall (regardless of position) was Aaron Rodgers at 97, which translates to about 4.85 on the 5.0 scale. Tenth was Gronk at 92 (4.60). The last player over 90 (4.50), or "elite" was Suggs at #19. That means that Scouts, Inc had only 19 players in the entire league over 90. EA Sports, in Madden 25, had 136 players that were 90+. Meanwhile, Big Bad FBG Ratings (who apparently gets everything wrong) has currently only 6 players rated 90+. Either way, both Scouts Inc and FBG Ratings have a significantly lower percentage of players that are rated highly in comparison to their EA counterparts. Now I pose this; either Scouts, Inc and FBG Ratings (with lower numbers of players who are considered "elite") are wrong, OR EA Sports with well over 6 times as many players rated 90+ are wrong. With such a wide gap, both cannot be correct. 2. The Madden OVR and non-Madden OVR's are exactly the same when you draw a point from worst to best. In Madden that is (for the OVR rating) from 12 to 99. In FBG it is 0.0 to 5.0. Sure the numbers aren't the same, but that is what the data interpolation is for! This way, we can MAKE them the same. You simply set 0.0 = 12 and 5.0 = 99. Now, draw your line and see where players fall on the scale. This is not the problem, however. The real problem is not the scale itself (as I just solved it rather simply), but where players FALL on the scale. EA says that 136 players fall above 90+ on that scale. FBG says it is 6. Scouts, Inc. says 19. Who is correct? 136 vs. 6 is pretty wide of a variance and 19 falls a hell of a lot closer to 6 than it does to 136. You are asking the wrong question when you ask about the scale. The scale doesn't matter - they can be made equal. What matters is the DISTRIBUTION of the data. THIS is where you determine how evenly or unevenly skewed your population is. The formulas for ATTAINING the overall scores, ARE different, however. But, when you think of how it pertains to the OVR scores, this also doesn't matter. Why? Because each OVR score no matter what system you use is dependent upon the variables and their sums. They all still use an OVR rating! So, because of this fact, we are still able to compare them equally. It would be one thing if one system didn't use an OVR score, but they all do. That is the point! Scouts use it, so why wouldn't we? Do you remember that leaked scouting report by the Pats on Johnny Manziel this offseason? Even THAT had a final OVR grade on it! People who fail to realize that scouts use OVR grades to compare players from one position to the other are completely ignorant of the true processes behind all of this. So, on a scale of 0.0 to 5.0 where 0.0 is 12 and 5.0 is 99, then a grade of 4.1 is 83. This scale is unbiased toward any average and the chips are allowed to fall as they may. The only bias is at the max and min, but the slope is equal the whole way. That means that the difference between a player with a grade of 4.0 and a player with grade of 4.1 is the same as the distance between a player with a grade of 3.6 and a player with a grade of 3.7. This is the most realistic way we can determine where each player truly lies on the scale. Think about this: in your stats class in high school or college, did your x and y axis have intervals between 0.0 and 1.0 that varied in distance or were they uniform? They were uniform, of course! Otherwise the distance between 0.0 and 1.0 wouldn't be accurate! It would be something else! The notion that someone can fight this logic is just so far beyond me that I am expecting blood to just start shooting out of my nose at any point of this response. 3. The OVR rating is used to rate players from one position to the other. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! To say that the OVR rating is different from one position to another makes no sense! Of course it does! How else do you determine who the best player in the league is? Since EA Sports has completely brainwashed people into thinking that the best player at each position every year should be 99, it is no wonder why someone would erroneously think this. If a QB is a 99, no matter what formula used to derive it, is he better than a WR rated 40? According to the phoney logic, the QB wouldn't be any better because we "can't use the OVR to evaluate player across positions". Do you realize how illogical that sounds? If the best WR in the game is an 81 and the best QB in the game is a 99, who do you think will perform better on the field given their position? The QB of course, because he will have higher attributes that gave him the higher OVR in the first place! The OVR is dependent upon the attributes, not separate from it! 4. I cannot believe the lack of thought process about this sometimes. I utilized professional opinion, data, and logic in all of this. Where have you heard Donny Moore mention any of that? Where have you heard him say anything besides Youtube, Stats, and PFF? Come on. The way he rates players is a JOKE. When Lindy's NFL magazine comes out, count the number of elite players listed in that book. I bet you can count them all on your fingers and toes. Do the same for PFF and Scouts, Inc. You will get results that are a hell of a lot closer to what FBG Ratings offers vs. what EA offers as far as rating the OVR for NFL players. But don't take my word for any of this...after all, I'm just a guy making this crap up as I go along, right? Woah! A QB just went 20 of 24 for 294 and 2 TDs! He is sooo accurate! I better bump up his SAC, MAC, DAC, and AWR all 10 points to mimic that one awesome game! He is a super star! What is his name again? Oh yeah.... Rob Johnson.

Let me point something out to you on your number 3 section that will make you change your mind. Go into madden and create a player and give him an 80 in every category. The guy should be the same OVR at every position no matter what. However, this is not the case. The player is no better at any one thing, yet he has different OVR ratings. The OVR rating for MLB is even different from OLB. Therefore, you can't compare OVR of players at different positions in the game.

# 1335 charter04 @ 08/02/14 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Let me point something out to you on your number 3 section that will make you change your mind. Go into madden and create a player and give him an 80 in every category. The guy should be the same OVR at every position no matter what. However, this is not the case. The player is no better at any one thing, yet he has different OVR ratings. The OVR rating for MLB is even different from OLB. Therefore, you can't compare OVR of players at different positions in the game.

I know you weren't talking to me but, you still haven't actually stated what your point in all this is. At this point you seem Hell bent on being right.

Do you want a roster that provides great gameplay or one that is rated "right" in your mind? You still haven't answered this.

I don't care what you say about how things should be. The EA rosters work more as you say. The gameplay they produce is unrealistic and Arcady IMO.

The rosters produced by FBG ratings give me the best authentic gameplay. It's been proven for me and others. So I don't give a care how the ratings look. I want gameplay.

Your way is unproven so at this point unless you put in the work and bring something better to the table your just being a Troll. Dan and others are actually bringing something to the table other than talk. So let's see what you got and come up with. Make a roster. I'll try it to see if it's better.

# 1336 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	I know you weren't talking to me but, you still haven't actually stated what your point in all this is. At this point you seem Hell bent on being right. Do you want a roster that provides great gameplay or one that is rated "right" in your mind? You still haven't answered this. I don't care what you say about how things should be. The EA rosters work more as you say. The gameplay they produce is unrealistic and Arcady IMO. The rosters produced by FBG ratings give me the best authentic gameplay. It's been proven for me and others. So I don't give a care how the ratings look. I want gameplay. Your way is unproven so at this point unless you put in the work and bring something better to the table your just being a Troll. Dan and others are actually bringing something to the table other than talk. So let's see what you got and come up with. Make a roster. I'll try it to see if it's better.

This might provide different gameplay, but there are still issues. You don't find a problem that Jadeveon Clowney, somebody who has never played more than a couple plays a game, should have better coverage ratings than Joe Haden and better at catching than Steve Smith? I know agility plays a part in how well a guy does in stopping routes, but Clowney shouldn't be better at breaking on the ball than Haden. Or that Larry Fitzgerald is better at juking than Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, and Jamaal Charles? And don't give me the agility comment, as Fitzgerald has higher AGI than Peterson and 3 less than McCoy despite being 7 points higher in juke. Or that Tamba Hali is a perfect player? With 99 AWR, 99 power move, 99 finesse move, 99 pursuit, 99 play recognition, and 99 hit power? Especially when JJ Watt, a year away from a 20.5 sack season has 69 power move and 71 finesse move? I can go on and on with examples like this, where random players are better at things than the best players at the position that actually uses the skill.

# 1337 ggsimmonds @ 08/02/14 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Let me point something out to you on your number 3 section that will make you change your mind. Go into madden and create a player and give him an 80 in every category. The guy should be the same OVR at every position no matter what. However, this is not the case. The player is no better at any one thing, yet he has different OVR ratings. The OVR rating for MLB is even different from OLB. Therefore, you can't compare OVR of players at different positions in the game.

Overall is the least important rating in the game.

Anyway, looking back over your posts it seems as if your true problem is with the range that EA uses in rating players. You mentioned that no player should be rated a 40, why not? It is because you have been trained by EA to think every NFL player should be rated at least a 65.

also, the other posters are confused and impatient because you seem to be jumping from one thing to another. There is seemingly no direction or large point to your posts anymore.

# 1338 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Overall is the least important rating in the game. Anyway, looking back over your posts it seems as if your true problem is with the range that EA uses in rating players. You mentioned that no player should be rated a 40, why not? It is because you have been trained by EA to think every NFL player should be rated at least a 65.

No, because according to EA's scale, in order to get a 40 OVR at a position like WR, the player in gameplay would run a 40 time over 5 and would probably drop 25%-30% of his passes. No player in the NFL, no matter how poorly they compare to the rest of the league at their position, even comes close to what that would be. The worst at a position are faster and better at catching than that, the worst speed would probably be around a 4.7 or so at WR, maybe a bit lower in some extreme example, and the highest drop percentage for a player with more than 30 targets was 14.3%, which was a RB. The lowest for a WR over 30 targets was 12.5 %.

# 1339 ggsimmonds @ 08/02/14 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	No, because according to EA's scale, in order to get a 40 OVR at a position like WR, the player in gameplay would run a 40 time over 5 and would probably drop 25%-30% of his passes. No player in the NFL, no matter how poorly they compare to the rest of the league at their position, even comes close to what that would be. The worst at a position are faster and better at catching than that, the worst speed would probably be around a 4.7 or so at WR, maybe a bit lower in some extreme example, and the highest drop percentage for a player with more than 30 targets was 14.3%, which was a RB. The lowest for a WR over 30 targets was 12.5 %.

Regarding the bolded, that is what I just said. The problem lies with the scale EA uses. You just echoed my post.

# 1340 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


	Overall is the least important rating in the game. Anyway, looking back over your posts it seems as if your true problem is with the range that EA uses in rating players. You mentioned that no player should be rated a 40, why not? It is because you have been trained by EA to think every NFL player should be rated at least a 65. also, the other posters are confused and impatient because you seem to be jumping from one thing to another. There is seemingly no direction or large point to your posts anymore.

And my points are varied. Some players are rated all over the place in random categories, such as WR's who aren't known for their after the catch moves being better than RB's at juking, pass rushing OLB's being better at breaking on the ball (man and zone coverage ratings) than corners, and an OLB having a higher catch rating than WR's. I also see an issue in going from the madden scale to the scouting scale, as they don't follow each other 1 to 1 when it comes to gameplay.

« Previous 1 2…64 65 666768 69 70…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game