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

# 1341 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggsimmonds


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

I'm agreeing that the scale EA uses is broken in the fact that players can be inflated in some categories. However, you say I'm brainwashed into thinking no NFL player deserves a 40 OVR at a position. According to madden's current scale, no player does deserve a 40 at their position. What constitutes a 40 OVR is way too low compared to how a player would play in a real game. What would constitute as a 40 OVR on a scouting scale, translates to something like a 65 on madden, because that is the formula they use for OVR in order to make that player behave the same. There is no right or wrong number for the OVR of a player. It is just two different ways of interpreting the data, that should not be combined without accounting for the difference.

# 1342 charter04 @ 08/02/14 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	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.

Do rosters and I'll try them

# 1343 charter04 @ 08/02/14 09:56 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 %.

Your wrong. Some of the FB's in the FBG rosters are lower than 40 and at just fine.

# 1344 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Do rosters and I'll try them

I'm not making rosters, especially considering I wouldn't be able to use them in online H2H. I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay. I mean think about it. Jadeveon Clowney having a better catch rating than Steve Smith? He's never caught a pass in a college game, let alone NFL. Smith has 836 receptions in his career. That just doesn't make sense

# 1345 charter04 @ 08/02/14 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	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.

Wrong again. Not different gameplay. Better gameplay. Until you play games with FBG rosters your point of reference is all speculative. You have no video or testing to back your claims. You claim things with no proof. Still haven't answered my question about what you want out of this so you just proving my point that your just arguing to argue.

# 1346 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Your wrong. Some of the FB's in the FBG rosters are lower than 40 and at just fine.

That might be the only position where it works out, since FB ratings don't really translate to the video game. Most FBs aren't fast, aren't good at catching, and aren't good at blocking compared to the players at positions that specialize in those things. They are just a small combination of everything. There is no rating that really reflects blocking the right man other than AWR

# 1347 charter04 @ 08/02/14 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I'm not making rosters, especially considering I wouldn't be able to use them in online H2H. I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay. I mean think about it. Jadeveon Clowney having a better catch rating than Steve Smith? He's never caught a pass in a college game, let alone NFL. Smith has 836 receptions in his career. That just doesn't make sense

Your wrong. You haven't played a game with these so again your basing your opinion on assumption. The gameplay is better than any roster I have tried. Key word tried. I for one am glad Dan won't listen to you because your just saying things with zero actual test results.

So what ever "help" you think your giving is not any help. Get some real test results and prove your right.

# 1348 charter04 @ 08/02/14 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	That might be the only position where it works out, since FB ratings don't really translate to the video game. Most FBs aren't fast, aren't good at catching, and aren't good at blocking compared to the players at positions that specialize in those things. They are just a small combination of everything. There is no rating that really reflects blocking the right man other than AWR

Since there are no players rated lower than 45 in these rosters other than a long snapper or FB so it's pointless to even use hypotheticals as an argument.

Actually I have made players 40 overall by putting awareness, agility, and other ratings at 0 and the players still played as good as much higher rated players. So you really don't even know what ratings do what in madden

# 1349 charter04 @ 08/02/14 10:18 PM

I give up on this Troll. This back and forth is a waist of time. Dan, me and many others love what your doing here. Keep up the good work man.

# 1350 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Wrong again. Not different gameplay. Better gameplay. Until you play games with FBG rosters your point of reference is all speculative. You have no video or testing to back your claims. You claim things with no proof. Still haven't answered my question about what you want out of this so you just proving my point that your just arguing to argue.

If you think better gameplay is one with Larry Fitzgerald being a more effective juker than LeSean McCoy, or Clowney being better at regular catching than Steve Smith, then that's your opinion. To most people, that's not better gameplay.

# 1351 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Since there are no players rated lower than 45 in these rosters other than a long snapper or FB so it's pointless to even use hypotheticals as an argument. Actually I have made players 40 overall by putting awareness, agility, and other ratings at 0 and the players still played as good as much higher rated players. So you really don't even know what ratings do what in madden

Someone else made the 40 OVR/65 OVR brainwashing comment. I don't understand why you are putting that on me. And you say no testing, I don't need testing to know Steve Smith should be better at catching than Clowney. And agility at 0 not making an impact? One of Dan's reasons for having Clowneys so high was his low agility canceling it out.

# 1352 charter04 @ 08/02/14 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	If you think better gameplay is one with Larry Fitzgerald being a more effective juker than LeSean McCoy, or Clowney being better at regular catching than Steve Smith, then that's your opinion. To most people, that's not better gameplay.

Last thing I'm saying. Yes I'm saying that. You clearing don't know how ratings play in a game because you haven't tried it yet. Fitzgerald played just fine. He wasn't juking and jiving everywhere. McCoy plays just as good as he should. You might know these things if you tried and tested actual gameplay instead of just assuming you know.

# 1353 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	Last thing I'm saying. Yes I'm saying that. You clearing don't know how ratings play in a game because you haven't tried it yet. Fitzgerald played just fine. He wasn't juking and jiving everywhere. McCoy plays just as good as he should. You might know these things if you tried and tested actual gameplay instead of just assuming you know.

How? He won't play different from the ratings. A guy with 78 agility and 99 juke will be better at juking than a guy with 81 agility and 92 juke. Ignore names, and think about that.

# 1354 DCEBB2001 @ 08/02/14 11:50 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.

SMH. You totally missed the point on #3. The point is that an ILB rated an 80 OVR is theoretically the same caliber of a player as a OLB rated at 80 OVR. The difference in the formulas while changing positions does not matter. You already have qualified one player as being ILB and another as OLB. If they are both an 80, then they should be the same caliber of player despite that their attributes may differ and their formulas for obtaining the OVR differ.

# 1355 DCEBB2001 @ 08/02/14 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	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.

Is there a "breaking on the ball" attribute in Madden? Nope. If you want to replicate "breaking on the ball" you must use a combination of attributes. Take a CB that is rated 99 in MCV and 99 in AGI and cover a WR. Now take a player that is 99 in MCV and 1 in AGI and cover the same receiver. Let me know if there is a difference.

The point is you cannot focus on one attribute being the be-all, end-all to describing how a player behaves. A CB is not successful based solely on his MCV/ZCV ability! He must have the physical tools as well the proper technique.

You keep ignoring the fact that you must include the other attributes. AGI and ACC affect how well a player will juke and spin. This is proven. Test it out for yourself.

BTW, if Hali was a "perfect" player, why isn't his OVR at 99? Wouldn't that equate to perfection? I think you are off here. What makes a player great is not being great at one thing, but being very good at multiple things used in a combination that allows the player to exploit what the guy opposite of him CANNOT do.

# 1356 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	What constitutes a 40 OVR is way too low compared to how a player would play in a real game. What would constitute as a 40 OVR on a scouting scale, translates to something like a 65 on madden, because that is the formula they use for OVR in order to make that player behave the same. There is no right or wrong number for the OVR of a player. It is just two different ways of interpreting the data, that should not be combined without accounting for the difference.

Please present the data that allows you to make this assumption. This sounds like pure opinion without any empirical evidence to the contrary.

# 1357 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	SMH. You totally missed the point on #3. The point is that an ILB rated an 80 OVR is theoretically the same caliber of a player as a OLB rated at 80 OVR. The difference in the formulas while changing positions does not matter. You already have qualified one player as being ILB and another as OLB. If they are both an 80, then they should be the same caliber of player despite that their attributes may differ and their formulas for obtaining the OVR differ.

Well, if I make the guy at one MLB an 81 in every category, he is now better at every single thing on the football field, making him a better player. However, because he is classified as a MLB and not a ROLB, his OVR is lower, which doesn't make sense, as the MLB is the better player of the two. If I move that MLB to ROLB, he'd be a higher OVR, making him a better player than the ROLB that is an 80 in every category (who was rated higher than the 81 in every category MLB). I'm saying the madden OVR rating scale is not to be used for comparing players at different positions.

# 1358 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I'm not making rosters, especially considering I wouldn't be able to use them in online H2H. I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay. I mean think about it. Jadeveon Clowney having a better catch rating than Steve Smith? He's never caught a pass in a college game, let alone NFL. Smith has 836 receptions in his career. That just doesn't make sense

So because a player has never caught a pass means that he cannot catch? Hmmm....I don't like dealing in absolutes so that again sounds like conjecture. I guess we won't know until Clowney is allowed to catch a pass. So should he have a CTH of 0 then? What would the data, that you must obviously have, state his CTH rating should be? Just curious...

# 1359 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:09 AM

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 %.

Hmm...I have this player rated below 40. Did he run a 40 over 5.00?

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...hp?pyid=130646

Or maybe it was some of his "other" traits that made his OVR so low?

# 1360 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay.

NEWS FLASH:

I am NOT going to change anything about how the players are rated based on your opinion. I only follow the data. Your attempts to "fix" the "glaring errors" are not doing anything in regards to changing the source data.

« Previous 1 2…65 66 676869 70 71…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game