Madden NFL 16 News Post

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

11:28 AM - July 2, 2015 by RaychelSnr

Donny Moore, aka the ‘Madden Ratings Czar’, is leaving Electronic Arts as he will be “pursuing other interests.”

In an official statement on Twitter, Moore said, “After much thought & consideration, I have chosen to step away from @EASports & announce my retirement as the Madden Ratings Czar as I have opted to pursue other interests. I am especially grateful of the opportunity to rate players for some of the greatest fans in video games today. After 16 years, it is finally time to hang up the czar's mouse pad! #Czartirement"

For Moore, this ends a long tenure as the guy running the ratings and updates for Madden. Moore’s tenure spanned 16 years at EA Tiburon, which means he was easily one of the most tenured at that studio. There is no word yet on who will be replacing Moore, but we do expect an announcement soon.

The ratings position occupied by Moore has been a staple of Madden’s internet presence for years. Moore’s ratings oftentimes drew criticism, but the weekly ratings updates were always hugely anticipated by fans, despite what ire they may have drawn.

The ratings this year will likely still come in the same pacing as previous years, and it will be interesting to see if any differences in how much players move up and down the scale happens without Moore at the helm. We’ll certainly be watching it going forward!

Game: Madden NFL 16Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 24 - View All

Madden NFL 16 Videos

Member Comments

# 161 DCEBB2001 @ 07/05/15 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdavis82


	Are you going to be open minded to what he has to say or do you feel like you have a way of doing things that you don't want to budge on? One thing I'd like to see is have the ratings fluctuate under the hood so there's dynamic performance happening each week but people won't really know about it. This would have to be tied to consistency.

I always go into these things with an open mind, but I think they should also consider what I can bring to the table. I have played, scouted, and coached the game at various levels, so I think it gives me a bit of a different perspective than someone coming from a spectator's stance.

I have to find out exactly what they want first, and until I find out, it is hard for me to speculate.

# 162 DCEBB2001 @ 07/05/15 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiantBlue76


	It depends on what those ratings are. Certain physical attributes should not be fluctuating. I'd even argue that certain skills shouldn't either. Just because a guy has a bad game, doesn't mean he is less of an athlete the next week.

I would be more a fan of doing the ratings updates every month instead of every week because you need more time to determine when the changes occur. I said before in some other threads that the grades usually only change when the scouts see enough evidence to change them. That process is a bit more fluid in real life, but it often never changes week to week. The tightest window I see regularly is monthly. Some guys can go an entire season without needing to have a grade change because they are so consistent at whatever level they are playing at. It really is astonishing stuff that should be in the game.

# 163 CaseIH @ 07/05/15 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crenk


	I love it. It could simulate a Kurt Warner like Cardinals comeback season of a few years back or a former elite player showing flashes of his old self while not being able to string them together over a season. It would really give more "personality" to the players and differentiation. Great idea....

I really like that idea, as you see it quite often a player stays around just a little too long, and while he has flashes of his old self he cant do it every week like he use too. I grew up idolizing Dan Marino and that last yr he played was like that, where once a few weeks you would see flashes of greatness, but he wasn't able to do it each week. Sadly Im afraid we might me seeing this with Peyton Manning, where he will start to looking average a awful lot. Obviously its easier for a QB now days to play later in his career due to rule changes where you cant hit them or lock down WR, but still there comes a point when those legs cant avoid any type of rush.

# 164 jerwoods @ 07/05/15 08:19 PM

thanks for liking my Liquid ratings

now here is Jax to show the diff between good and bad teams

and if i was in change i would allow to start a franchise with the low end of the rating or the peak end and this is for offline only

Jax
QB Bortles 66-81 Henne 68-72 Morris 53-60 tuel 57-63
RB Yeldon 70-79 gethart 65-74 Robinson 69-76 pierce 61-68 johnson 64-70
fb Koyack 54-59
WR Lee 72-80 robinson 71-77 blackmon 66-78 hurns 68-79 walters 65-71 sanders 67-74 greene 66-76 doss 58-64
TE J Thomas 82-93 Lewis 70-80 Harbor 64-73 jacobs 61-66
LT Jockel 70-87 young 65-71 williams 60-69
LG Bendles 80-86 cann 64-77
C Bowako 66-73 winisewski 75-88
RG Lindser 69-77 shatley 62-68
RT Parnell 74-83 panzor 66-71 wells 64-69

LE alaualu 70-74 branch 67-75 ike 58-65
RE Clemons 74-82 davis 65-71 smith 69-74
DT Marks 85-95 odrick 78-86 hood 67-73 jones 69-75 miller 70-73 bennett 63-77
LB skula 68-74 reyonlds 66-72 fortt 65-73
MLB Poslusky 81-89 george 59-65
LB smith 67-80 lotulet 60-66
LCB Mccray 66-75 colvin 69-77 harris 68-74 thompson 61-69
RCB Gratz 69-80 campbell 67-73 reynolds 62-70 marshall 54-67
House 76-90
FS brown 72-77 evans 68-74
SS Cyprien 73-86 samele 58-68 lotlon 65-69 danels 63-70

K Scobee 87-96
P Anger 71-79

# 165 ThatMichiganFan @ 07/05/15 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerwoods


	thanks for liking my Liquid ratings now here is Jax to show the diff between good and bad teams and if i was in change i would allow to start a franchise with the low end of the rating or the peak end and this is for offline only Jax QB Bortles 66-81 Henne 68-72 Morris 53-60 tuel 57-63 RB Yeldon 70-79 gethart 65-74 Robinson 69-76 pierce 61-68 johnson 64-70 fb Koyack 54-59 WR Lee 72-80 robinson 71-77 blackmon 66-78 hurns 68-79 walters 65-71 sanders 67-74 greene 66-76 doss 58-64 TE J Thomas 82-93 Lewis 70-80 Harbor 64-73 jacobs 61-66 LT Jockel 70-87 young 65-71 williams 60-69 LG Bendles 80-86 cann 64-77 C Bowako 66-73 winisewski 75-88 RG Lindser 69-77 shatley 62-68 RT Parnell 74-83 panzor 66-71 wells 64-69 LE alaualu 70-74 branch 67-75 ike 58-65 RE Clemons 74-82 davis 65-71 smith 69-74 DT Marks 85-95 odrick 78-86 hood 67-73 jones 69-75 miller 70-73 bennett 63-77 LB skula 68-74 reyonlds 66-72 fortt 65-73 MLB Poslusky 81-89 george 59-65 LB smith 67-80 lotulet 60-66 LCB Mccray 66-75 colvin 69-77 harris 68-74 thompson 61-69 RCB Gratz 69-80 campbell 67-73 reynolds 62-70 marshall 54-67 House 76-90 FS brown 72-77 evans 68-74 SS Cyprien 73-86 samele 58-68 lotlon 65-69 danels 63-70 K Scobee 87-96 P Anger 71-79

I like this, but I think there should be a smaller deviation than what you are suggesting, perhaps only ± 3

# 166 jpdavis82 @ 07/05/15 09:41 PM

Dan,
Do you know if you'll be able to have any say about the progression system as part of working on the ratings, if you are asked to do so? I'm not sure what the best solution would be, but I would like to see some type of progression system for CFM that is not focused solely around XP.

# 167 jerwoods @ 07/05/15 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdavis82


	Dan, Do you know if you'll be able to have any say about the progression system as part of working on the ratings, if you are asked to do so? I'm not sure what the best solution would be, but I would like to see some type of progression system for CFM that is not focused solely around XP.

yeah JP it should have to do with playing time and how good your coach is a deloping players

and i do like XP its just should be more easier to turn a 79 ovr and progress him to a 90 ovr within 3-5 seasons if u use him right

# 168 jerwoods @ 07/05/15 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatMichiganFan


	I like this, but I think there should be a smaller deviation than what you are suggesting, perhaps only ± 3

that is good for vets but rookies and young players every year sometimes make a huge jump

CJ Anderson at the end of madden 25 was a 67 or a 71 ovr
but at the end of madden 15 was a 85 ovr was that a reuit of playing with manning or his hard work in the off season

# 169 jpdavis82 @ 07/05/15 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverBornAndBred


	Hopefully Josh Looman is next...

Kolbe and John White are in charge of CFM now. I don't think most people will get a good idea of the direction they're headed until next year though. I think a full cycle with them in charge of CFM will make a big difference. Lets not put all the blame on Looman, he delivered HC09 which is what we all would like to see added into CFM.

# 170 DCEBB2001 @ 07/05/15 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdavis82


	Dan, Do you know if you'll be able to have any say about the progression system as part of working on the ratings, if you are asked to do so? I'm not sure what the best solution would be, but I would like to see some type of progression system for CFM that is not focused solely around XP.

I have so much progression data already built into my model that it would have to at least be discussed. I literally can do an analysis to tell you how much players increase or decrease on the average. I can break it down any way I want to and get the 30,000 foot level or go player-specific, but it just depends on what they want and what they want me to do.

Honestly, most of the change happens at the year-end evals. That is where the steepest changes are seen. Weekly is rare (maybe 100 players at most on a given week and rarely a player has a change two consecutive weeks), and those are never really drastic.

# 171 SolidSquid @ 07/05/15 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I have so much progression data already built into my model that it would have to at least be discussed. I literally can do an analysis to tell you how much players increase or decrease on the average. I can break it down any way I want to and get the 30,000 foot level or go player-specific, but it just depends on what they want and what they want me to do. Honestly, most of the change happens at the year-end evals. That is where the steepest changes are seen. Weekly is rare (maybe 100 players at most on a given week and rarely a player has a change two consecutive weeks), and those are never really drastic.

I really hope they hire you lol

# 172 Skyboxer @ 07/06/15 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datdoodiemane


	Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Jesus...some of the ratings over the years... I often wondered if he can properly watch football and how much time he spent doing so. There is a reason Odell Beckham Jr.'s Spectacular Catch rating went up so high and it's because Donny Moore didn't have a clue the first time. Without pro football focus he would be lost. Even with them it doesn't negate the fact that I don't think he understands the athleticism of a 300 pound lineman or NFL players in general besides "OMG sick 1 handed catch #top10 @ESPN"

Classy.....

And

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	You're not the first to say this so I'm not singling you out but this is the last time in this thread something like this will be said about Donny.

# 173 kehlis @ 07/06/15 08:43 AM

And in case anyone was wondering it was not an idle threat.

# 174 DCEBB2001 @ 07/06/15 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky60


	Scouts should only be changing the perception of a players abilities. They should never be changing a players actual abilities. Player's ability changes -> Scout reevaluates and grades Scout reevaluation -> Players ability changes -- is backwards. Scouts should never be changing a players actual abilities (in Madden - Ratings).

This is the whole "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument.

The scouting data is the confirmation of a player's ability. Of course the player changes his ability at the time of or just prior to it being recognized (and subsequently recorded), but that is not how the data works in scouting. There is always time passage between the evaluations. I believe you are confusing the scouts actually changing their abilities with my previous statements of the scouts changing the GRADES to mimic observed changes in ability.

Example:

1. On July 1st, a player leaves minicamp and has been given a pass blocking grade of 1.9 by the team scouts.

2. Player works out on his own to improve his pass blocking abilities during his month off between mini-camps and training camp, which for the sake of this example, opens on August 1st.

3. Player actually improves his pass blocking abilities to a level that is greater than the 1.9 grade he received when he left mini-camp on July 1st.

4. The scouts do not yet know he has improved his pass blocking abilities, so there is no evidence yet to support that the player actually has until he is re-evaluated when training camp opens on August 1st.

5. The player arrives to training camp on August 1st and is re-evaluated by the scouting staff. The staff finds during this evaluation that the player has indeed gotten better as a pass blocker during his time off, and there is evidence to support the assumption.

6. The scouting team discusses how much of an improvement he made and assign a new value to his abilities as a pass blocker. In this example, he went from a 1.9 on July 1st, the last time he was evaluated, to a 2.0 on August 1st.

7. The record now shows that the player has a pass blocking ability of 2.0 on August 1st.

8. Training camp continues and the player continues to improve as a pass blocker.

9. The scouting team re-evaluates the player before final cuts on September 1st and finds that there is enough evidence to support that he has improved again.

10. This time, the scouting team finds that although the player has improved his pass blocking abilities, it was not enough of an improvement to warrant a grade that is the next interval up from the 2.0 grade he achieved on August 1st.

11. The scouts agree that since the improvement was not enough to move him up a tenth of a point, they keep his grade at 2.0 until they receive further evidence (likely from a future evaluation) that his pass blocking abilities are now worthy of a 2.1 grade or beyond.

You see, it is all about the observation points. The scouts don't control the abilities, but they do control the grading. It's like taking a test in college. You can tell your calculus professor that you are getting better at calculus, and in fact you may be, but until you are evaluated via a test or assignment, you cannot PROVE that you have indeed improved.

Scouting is about observation and recording much like the sciences. They use trained observation to draw assumptions, then test those assumptions, mostly by evaluating film.

The big thing to take away from all of this is that the scouts will not change a grade for a player until they see evidence to support the change. If the player doesn't exhibit the signs of a change, then the scouts have no reason to change it. Changing grades for the sake of changing grades does them no service. These guys are trying to be as accurate as possible.

What I propose the Madden team does is make in-season player evaluation take place after every 4 games, or a month of competition. During this evaluation, the "scouts" on your team evaluate the performance of players who have improved (played beyond their current rating values) or regressed (playing under their current ratings values) for various position-specific attributes. Think of it like how back in the Madden 05 days, when you had a WR that was an 80 overall and after a few games of catching passes and TDs, the player progression would update his ratings to match his performance and bump him up to an 83 or something based on him out-playing his older ratings.

That time between player progression periods in the game would be the same things as the time between evaluations in the scouting world.

# 175 Gman 18 @ 07/06/15 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I have so much progression data already built into my model that it would have to at least be discussed. I literally can do an analysis to tell you how much players increase or decrease on the average. I can break it down any way I want to and get the 30,000 foot level or go player-specific, but it just depends on what they want and what they want me to do. Honestly, most of the change happens at the year-end evals. That is where the steepest changes are seen. Weekly is rare (maybe 100 players at most on a given week and rarely a player has a change two consecutive weeks), and those are never really drastic.

It would be a breath of fresh air to have someone who uses actual PLAYER DATA to determine player progression/regression in CFM. Progression determined by XP is certainly not the way to go and I hope Dan's suggestions make EA think otherwise and hopefully they decide to implement his ideas

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 176 Skyflame21 @ 07/06/15 12:08 PM

Not sure that this isn't a positive move for the game. Unless they get someone even worse. Rating players is a huge undertaking and obviously not an easy task to do. However over the years it seems ratings for players were based on the ESPN and fan hype and less about their actual on-field abilities. Sometimes tough live is needed to players all can't be great. I wish him all the best on his new endeavors.

# 177 DeuceDouglas @ 07/06/15 12:31 PM

Yeah, Madden 05 had some of the worst progression I'd ever seen. I remember one season I had Gary Stills go up like 15 OVR in one postseason and basically go from a special teamer to pro bowler because he recovered a couple fumbles and returned one for a TD. IMO progression should be based on a combination of potential and coaching. There are certainly other factors but I think at its most basic form you could create a very good progression model based on those two elements.

# 178 DCEBB2001 @ 07/06/15 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky60


	With progression In Madden, what observed changes in ability are you talking about that the scouts see? Stats? Stats should never drive progression for a realistic progression model. Allowing a scouting dept in madden to drive progression is unrealistic. Other factors should be determining progression/regression. Realistic factors. Scouts should ONLY be evaluating a players perceived abilities. I think your progression system confuses re-rating with progression. When you are defining a roster for a Madden release, I agree with your method. But not for progressing players. It's unrealistic to use stats for progression. It's unrealistic to use scouting evals for progression.

No, not stats. I would create a progression model based on the amount of progression we see for players in the historical scouting data. I addressed this on post #185 in this thread. I am not a big fan of basic stats at all. I think we can debate HOW it should be implemented, and believe me I am all ears on that, but I think that the data can give a reasonable control for the level of progression we would see in the model. Find the average amount of progression we see in both the negative and positive directions, find your standard deviations, and make it fit in a bell curve. That could be a solution to make sure that things don't get out of hand within the model.

I would think that we would have to tie it something that the user does, however, instead of making it random. Win/Loss record? Coaching? Efficiency? I don't really know what, but I think we at least need to put some of it in the users hands.

# 179 DCEBB2001 @ 07/06/15 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky60


	I happen to disagree with using player stats to drive progression. It's unrealistic. I personally think it would be a breath of fresh air to use a realistic model of progression.

What is your idea of a "realistic model"? You posted something to this effect in two consecutive posts so I am wondering if you already have an idea outlined.

# 180 DCEBB2001 @ 07/06/15 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas


	Yeah, Madden 05 had some of the worst progression I'd ever seen. I remember one season I had Gary Stills go up like 15 OVR in one postseason and basically go from a special teamer to pro bowler because he recovered a couple fumbles and returned one for a TD. IMO progression should be based on a combination of potential and coaching. There are certainly other factors but I think at its most basic form you could create a very good progression model based on those two elements.

I totally forgot about the potential grade to this. That may be a good idea considering that it is up to the user to find players with high potential. The higher the potential, the higher the likelihood that the player will positively progress. Throw confidence into that and you may have a nice combination there.

« Previous 1 2…6 7 8910 11 12…26 27 Next »

More Links

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA