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

# 1301 michiganfan8620 @ 07/31/14 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I have a few people testing the Equal-Interval ratings method right now so they are producing test rosters. Based on PLAYMAKERS' findings from last year, these may give even better results. They also mimic the scouting data at a perfect 1:1 ratio as the mean-rating has been removed from every rating category. This method allows you to see how the scouts rated the players on a scale that is unbiased toward the mean. PLAYMAKERS posted some results on this last year in this thread with some vids as well. This is as close to the real distribution as I can get within Madden's OVR rating formulas. You will see way fewer 90+ ratings for attributes as originally intended. This is the system we ran last year to great success, albeit much debate.

Gotcha, I understand that, just kind of confused about the few outliers in the data, such as Hali being rated so much higher than everybody else. Also, just wondering, why do so many WR's have 99 juke and 99 spin moves? Not sure if that's an error or done intentionally.

# 1302 DCEBB2001 @ 07/31/14 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Gotcha, I understand that, just kind of confused about the few outliers in the data, such as Hali being rated so much higher than everybody else. Also, just wondering, why do so many WR's have 99 juke and 99 spin moves? Not sure if that's an error or done intentionally.

All of the players are rated on the same scale. An outlier would be three standard deviations about the mean. All players, up to an OVR of 99, are within three standard deviations of that mean.

Once again, you must consider these ratings HOLISTICALLY. What are the SPD, AGI, and ACC ratings for those players with 99 JKM and SPM? Trust me, a player with an AGI of 70 will do a juke move a bit differently than a player with an AGI of 90, even if both have a JKM of 99. Think about the ratings as they work SYMBIOTICALLY for a player.

# 1303 DCEBB2001 @ 07/31/14 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Well then, I'm thrown off big time, I don't understand how somebody like Tamba Hali can be rated 14 points above the next best LB, when some people don't think he is even the best LB on his team. Of his 11 sacks last year, almost half were in two games. Same with Fitzgerald, he is definitely on the decline. He is still a great player, but he isn't 11 points above Green, Marshall, Jones, Jeffery, etc. And about the 99 juke and spin move thing, LeSean McCoy, one of the shiftiest backs in the league, has a 81 agility and 74 juke move. Larry Fitzgerald, not known for making moves after the catch, has 78 agility and 99 juke move. That isn't right, and there is no way around that.

The great thing about Madden is that you can personalize your rosters to how you see fit. If you disagree with something, just change it in the game. Works for you, works for me. I feel like I am on the hamster wheel of hell with you on a lot of this stuff, so from this post forward I will cease continuing to address it. Everything you need to know, as far as an answer, lies on our FAQ page. Please refer to our FAQ page.

# 1304 DCEBB2001 @ 07/31/14 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Another thing, you have Clowney as a 75 in man coverage and a 85 in zone coverage? Based on what? He has never been used in coverage other than an occasional zone blitz used maybe twice in a game. In comparison to that, Joe Haden, one of the best CB's in the league gets a 74 man coverage and 77 zone? How is that even remotely plausible?

Please refer to our FAQ page.

# 1305 DCEBB2001 @ 08/01/14 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I'm just trying to make your ratings site better. I don't see anywhere in the FAQ page where it explains why a DE/OLB who has never played in coverage before should be rated higher in coverage ratings than one of the top cover corners in the league, nor do I see where it explains why the shiftiest back in the league is rated worse at juking, agility, spinning, etc than most WR's, including some older ones who have lost a step over the years. I'm being reasonable here, but you don't want to take the time to explain these things. I am looking at the big picture, and I see glaring errors that I am trying to help you fix. I just don't see how these ratings make sense. However, if you don't want my advice, so be it. I was just trying to help you get the best ratings for realistic gameplay.

The FAQ page states quite clearly that we use data to drive the ratings. If the data doesn't warrant a particular rating, then we don't give it out. You must think big picture as no rating works statically. No attribute in player analysis works independently of other traits. McCoy has a significant edge in both AGI and ACC (both of which are needed for employing sharp SPMs and JKMs). You must consider how ratings affect eachother on they playing field. Search for some of PLAYMAKERS videos to see this. He has a youtube channel dedicated to it.

As for Clowney v. Haden, you must, once again, consider all of the other ratings. There is a direct positive correlation between AGI and MCV ability in the data, so much so, that the R-Squared value is 98%. 98%!!! Look at their agility ratings. Now look at who they have to cover in such positions. It is highly unlikely that Clowney would be used to cover the deep 3rd or be asked to man up against a WR. However, the data suggests that when he WAS asked to drop into coverage (and he will be doing some of that in Houston), he was very effective against the type of players he was asked to cover and the types of zones he was responsible for. If I didn't have data for Clowney's Zone and Man coverage abilities, it would be a 0.0 on the scale, but it isn't. Also keep in mind that much of this, for rookies, is based upon PROJECTION. If he struggles in pass coverage (which he will be asked to do at least a few times this year), then his ratings in those categories will drop.

So in essence, each attribute is relative; relative to other attributes and relative to the competition one is facing on the field. After all, we don't expect Danny Amendola to hold up as well against a NT in run-blocking as he would a CB, would we?

# 1306 michiganfan8620 @ 08/01/14 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The FAQ page states quite clearly that we use data to drive the ratings. If the data doesn't warrant a particular rating, then we don't give it out. You must think big picture as no rating works statically. No attribute in player analysis works independently of other traits. McCoy has a significant edge in both AGI and ACC (both of which are needed for employing sharp SPMs and JKMs). You must consider how ratings affect eachother on they playing field. Search for some of PLAYMAKERS videos to see this. He has a youtube channel dedicated to it. As for Clowney v. Haden, you must, once again, consider all of the other ratings. There is a direct positive correlation between AGI and MCV ability in the data, so much so, that the R-Squared value is 98%. 98%!!! Look at their agility ratings. Now look at who they have to cover in such positions. It is highly unlikely that Clowney would be used to cover the deep 3rd or be asked to man up against a WR. However, the data suggests that when he WAS asked to drop into coverage (and he will be doing some of that in Houston), he was very effective against the type of players he was asked to cover and the types of zones he was responsible for. If I didn't have data for Clowney's Zone and Man coverage abilities, it would be a 0.0 on the scale, but it isn't. Also keep in mind that much of this, for rookies, is based upon PROJECTION. If he struggles in pass coverage (which he will be asked to do at least a few times this year), then his ratings in those categories will drop. So in essence, each attribute is relative; relative to other attributes and relative to the competition one is facing on the field. After all, we don't expect Danny Amendola to hold up as well against a NT in run-blocking as he would a CB, would we?

Sorry I asked then. I'm going to just delete my posts from this thread tonight, and we can both move on.

# 1307 garret2 @ 08/01/14 03:02 PM

dcebb2001 have you ever heard of anyone doing an in-depth ratings project like this for the NBA? you may have inspired some people to try!

# 1308 WingWest36 @ 08/01/14 04:34 PM

I recently adjusted the Bears roster ratings and did a quick mirror match. I enjoy the rating scale FBG has provided. I can clearly tell the difference between Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery. Marshall actually has more yards after contact and Jeffery's speed is noticeable as well. Only downside I see is the time involved adjusting ratings for the teams (obviously lol). I cannot wait to see how M15's gameplay with the FBG rating scale will look and perform!

# 1309 DCEBB2001 @ 08/01/14 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garret2


	dcebb2001 have you ever heard of anyone doing an in-depth ratings project like this for the NBA? you may have inspired some people to try!

Does anyone have real NBA scouting data to rely on??? Keep in mind that data is what drives the ratings, not stats. It may be easier to do in the NBA with the number of games played and stats/etc, but I have not heard of it being done.

# 1310 JerzeyReign @ 08/01/14 06:24 PM

Any videos with these ratings implemented?

# 1311 DCEBB2001 @ 08/01/14 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerzeyReign


	Any videos with these ratings implemented?

Charter04, CM Hooe, and PLAYMAKERS all have videos online. I do not know what their channels are, but they do have some videos out there. I recommend you contact them.

# 1312 huskerfan4life @ 08/01/14 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The site serves as a massive database for Madden ratings for every player that was in the league or draft eligible since 1998. All the players are rated on the same scale using scouting data and empirical data analysis. Players are also rated equally, regardless of position, which gets rid of the "my player runs faster than this player because he plays X position" arguments. That database holds 17000 players that will all have updated OVR ratings (which will be updated monthly) and attributes. This will allow users to create CAPs and edit rosters according to the FBG ratings standard within your game. Because the ratings have also been tested within the game engine, they are assured to behave more realistically than the "out of the box" ratings that EA applies.

so if we were to use this for our madden 15 franchise/dynasty we would have to go in on a monthly basis and tweak the ratings, or am I readin to much into this

# 1313 huskerfan4life @ 08/01/14 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Once the ratings are completed and updated regularly you can simply look up a team or player, click on them, and see how they are rated. Then you can simply copy the attributes one by one in create a player or a roster, giving you a player that is rated using the FBG system. I will also in the future provide files that can be downloaded from the site directly for use in the NextGen consoles.

does madden have a vault like mlb 14 th show does do you could upload them to there and we could download them or is that not possible with madden

# 1314 azdawgpound @ 08/01/14 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huskerfan4life


	does madden have a vault like mlb 14 th show does do you could upload them to there and we could download them or is that not possible with madden

madden has roster share so somebody could d/l them to that and just edit and repost them with new ratings.

# 1315 DCEBB2001 @ 08/01/14 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huskerfan4life


	so if we were to use this for our madden 15 franchise/dynasty we would have to go in on a monthly basis and tweak the ratings, or am I readin to much into this

We actually update more quickly now than back in 2009. Updates are done almost daily. You can DL a file from a roster maker for use in your Franchise Mode, but the incoming rookies will always throw your rosters off after the first season.

# 1316 charter04 @ 08/01/14 10:13 PM

It's not that strange to have pretty big gaps in overall when using real scouting data. With a 0.0-5.0 scale you could have a player that is 4.85 and a guy that's 4.50. That's pretty close but if you if you make that a Madden overall it's a 96 and 89.

I get the Pro Football Weekly (it's called Pro Football Now this year) NFL preview and they use a scouting data lead 0.0-5.0 scale. I actually did a scale transfer sheet to see what there player grades would be if it was and overall. The top player is Payton Manning with a 4.90. This is 97 overall. The number 50 player is Mario Williams with a 4.10. This is a 81 overall. In their scale anything 4.00 and up is a Blue Chip. So 79 and up if it were Madden.

My point is that Dan is not the one doing something crazy, EA is. EA is the one who has brain washed everyone into believing their ratings reflect real overalls and real NFL data. It's not.

Pro Football Now has 11 players rated 4.55 overall or higher. 4.55 would be 90 overall. 11 players 90 overall or higher! We've been brain washed by EA to believe their should be way more 90 overalls. It's just not right and it doesn't produce realistic gameplay.

I don't agree with every rating in FBG but, I'm no scout. I think their system gets it so much better than Madden. This current set is my favorite. The one I'm going to test soon.

# 1317 michiganfan8620 @ 08/01/14 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	It's not that strange to have pretty big gaps in overall when using real scouting data. With a 0.0-5.0 scale you could have a player that is 4.85 and a guy that's 4.50. That's pretty close but if you if you make that a Madden overall it's a 96 and 89. I get the Pro Football Weekly (it's called Pro Football Now this year) NFL preview and they use a scouting data lead 0.0-5.0 scale. I actually did a scale transfer sheet to see what there player grades would be if it was and overall. The top player is Payton Manning with a 4.90. This is 97 overall. The number 50 player is Mario Williams with a 4.10. This is a 81 overall. In their scale anything 4.00 and up is a Blue Chip. So 79 and up if it were Madden. My point is that Dan is not the one doing something crazy, EA is. EA is the one who has brain washed everyone into believing their ratings reflect real overalls and real NFL data. It's not. Pro Football Now has 11 players rated 4.55 overall or higher. 4.55 would be 90 overall. 11 players 90 overall or higher! We've been brain washed by EA to believe their should be way more 90 overalls. It's just not right and it doesn't produce realistic gameplay. I don't agree with every rating in FBG but, I'm no scout. I think their system gets it so much better than Madden. This current set is my favorite. The one I'm going to test soon.

The thing is, the madden overall and the overall on the pro football weekly are not on the same scale or formula. A 4.55 may not necessarily translate to a 90 by madden standards. The OVR scale changes over time. The individual attributes that equal a 99 OVR might not have been the same in Madden 07 or some other older game. Even though a player would play the same since their attributes, the OVR might be different, which is why adjusting individual ratings to reach a desired overall doesn't make sense.

# 1318 charter04 @ 08/01/14 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	The thing is, the madden overall and the overall on the pro football weekly are not on the same scale or formula. A 4.55 may not necessarily translate to a 90 by madden standards. The OVR scale changes over time. The individual attributes that equal a 99 OVR might not have been the same in Madden 07 or some other older game. Even though a player would play the same since their attributes, the OVR might be different, which is why adjusting individual ratings to reach a desired overall doesn't make sense.

None of that was my point. Dan doesn't try and get a certain overall. My point is Madden ratings aren't good. FBG is trying something else.

Your so oddly passionate about something you clearly don't like. It's getting trollish and weird.

Who cares what a websites rated players. Why do you can so much? I can make a website and claim Tony Romo is 99 overall. Who cares?

# 1319 charter04 @ 08/01/14 11:53 PM

Actually it's fine. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Just don't really know what your bringing to the table other than constant criticism.

Now back to the thread

# 1320 michiganfan8620 @ 08/02/14 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charter04


	None of that was my point. Dan doesn't try and get a certain overall. My point is Madden ratings aren't good. FBG is trying something else. Your so oddly passionate about something you clearly don't like. It's getting trollish and weird. Who cares what a websites rated players. Why do you can so much? I can make a website and claim Tony Romo is 99 overall. Who cares?

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.

« Previous 1 2…63 64 656667 68 69…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game