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

# 1361 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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.

My bad, you have Hali as perfect in almost every technique category, not physical skills. Which still is not right based on the way Hali plays in real life. You have Tamba Hali as the tied for best player in the league, even though he has never been an MVP and never made 1st team all-pro. There is no defensive player within 8 OVR of Hali, and no LB within 14 OVR of Hali, which makes it not even close on your scale.

And you have been too focused on your ratings system to read interviews with the gameplay developers. Here is a quote from the gameplay developers.

"Zone Coverage ratings now have a bigger impact on how quickly defenders break on throws. Defenders with higher ratings in Zone Coverage will react much quicker to throws."

"Man Coverage ratings have also been tweaked to impact how much separation receivers are able to get on cuts in their routes, resulting in improved behavior of the defender."

And like I said, I am including other attributes in the juke thing. Fitzgerald is 7 greater than McCoy at juking. McCoy is 3 greater than Fitzgerald at AGI. Advantage- Fitzgerald, even though in real life, if you actually watch football, it isn't even close.

# 1362 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	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.

Your hypothesis is incorrect. AGI does affect how well a player jukes. Perhaps Charter04 can upload a video as an example. I will even break down the amount of distance covered in the JKM for each by counting the frames.

# 1363 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	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.

This is because his skill-set needed to play that position are different. He needs more emphasis on certain attributes to be an effective MLB. You have to categorize the players as one or the other; either POS A or POS B. The whole point of the OVR system is to see how players of DIFFERENT POSITIONS COMPARE TO ONE ANOTHER AS PLAYERS WHO PLAY DIFFERENT POSITIONS. Bo Jackson was a better athlete than just about anyone else on the field in his day, but that athleticism alone was no guarantee that he would have been a better NT than Russell Maryland would it?

You need to rethink your logic here.

# 1364 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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?

According to this, the guy will drop probably at least 30% of his targets in gameplay, not be able to block literally anyone, fumble way too often, among other issues. The guy is an NFL football player, and like I said earlier, the highest drop rate in the league was 15% last year on guys with 30 targets or more. Did your data tell you he is a better man defender than zone?

# 1365 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Your hypothesis is incorrect. AGI does affect how well a player jukes. Perhaps Charter04 can upload a video as an example. I will even break down the amount of distance covered in the JKM for each by counting the frames.

I know AGI affects it, but so does juke move. What don't you understand about it? And it shouldn't even be remotely close.

# 1366 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	This is because his skill-set needed to play that position are different. He needs more emphasis on certain attributes to be an effective MLB. You have to categorize the players as one or the other; either POS A or POS B. The whole point of the OVR system is to see how players of DIFFERENT POSITIONS COMPARE TO ONE ANOTHER AS PLAYERS WHO PLAY DIFFERENT POSITIONS. Bo Jackson was a better athlete than just about anyone else on the field in his day, but that athleticism alone was no guarantee that he would have been a better NT than Russell Maryland would it? You need to rethink your logic here.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll just let you try to reread it and understand since there is no other way to explain it. It is MLB and OLB, an extremely skillset. If I take the 80 MLB and move him to ROLB, he is a 81. Therefore, a 80 MLB= an 81 ROLB. What more is there to explain? The OVR scale shouldn't be used outside a position.

# 1367 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	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.

So your data says Clowney deserves a higher regular catch rating than Steve Smith? What is that based on? Has Clowney ever even caught a ball in a game? No, he has not.

# 1368 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	My bad, you have Hali as perfect in almost every technique category, not physical skills. Which still is not right based on the way Hali plays in real life. You have Tamba Hali as the tied for best player in the league, even though he has never been an MVP and never made 1st team all-pro. There is no defensive player within 8 OVR of Hali, and no LB within 14 OVR of Hali, which makes it not even close on your scale. And you have been too focused on your ratings system to read interviews with the gameplay developers. Here is a quote from the gameplay developers. "Zone Coverage ratings now have a bigger impact on how quickly defenders break on throws. Defenders with higher ratings in Zone Coverage will react much quicker to throws." "Man Coverage ratings have also been tweaked to impact how much separation receivers are able to get on cuts in their routes, resulting in improved behavior of the defender." And like I said, I am including other attributes in the juke thing. Fitzgerald is 7 greater than McCoy at juking. McCoy is 3 greater than Fitzgerald at AGI. Advantage- Fitzgerald, even though in real life, if you actually watch football, it isn't even close.

So now you are saying that in order to be tied for being the best player in the league - a league dominated by the forward pass and high passing numbers - you need to have an MVP or DPY on your mantle?

Use my example and go into the game. Cover a WR with a CB who has a 99 MCV and 99 AGI and see how well he covers. Now do it with a CB who has a 99 MCV and 0 AGI. If the only thing that matters is the MCV rating, then the results will be the same and a lesser WR should be blanketed by both players right? Just try it out and let me know what you find.

You are also assuming, incorrectly I will add, that the ratio of AGI to JKM is the same on the overall effectiveness of utilizing a JKM. They are NOT equal. AGI plays a lot larger role than you realize. Do this test: Take a player with 99 JKM and 99 AGI and try to juke a defender. Now take a player with 99 JKM and 96 AGI and try to juke a defender. Then inverse the JKM and AGI ratings for two more tests. Let me know what you find. Let's see if one is more valuable than the other. Something tells me that one outweighs the other...but what would I know? I just make this stuff up as I go, right?

# 1369 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	I know AGI affects it, but so does juke move. What don't you understand about it? And it shouldn't even be remotely close.

What YOU do not understand is that they do not work in a 1:1 ratio of effectiveness in the game! One has more input on the effectiveness of a juke move than the other...and the answer may surprise you!

# 1370 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	You are misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll just let you try to reread it and understand since there is no other way to explain it. It is MLB and OLB, an extremely skillset. If I take the 80 MLB and move him to ROLB, he is a 81. Therefore, a 80 MLB= an 81 ROLB. What more is there to explain? The OVR scale shouldn't be used outside a position.

I know what you were saying the first time you said it. You are still missing my point. The criteria for each position is different. Throw out the attributes. Does 80 = 80? That's all I am asking.

# 1371 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	So your data says Clowney deserves a higher regular catch rating than Steve Smith? What is that based on? Has Clowney ever even caught a ball in a game? No, he has not.

So it only counts if it happens in a game? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is present to hear it, does it still make a sound?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ks-spring-game

Scouts see more than what you see on TV

# 1372 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	According to this, the guy will drop probably at least 30% of his targets in gameplay, not be able to block literally anyone, fumble way too often, among other issues. The guy is an NFL football player, and like I said earlier, the highest drop rate in the league was 15% last year on guys with 30 targets or more. Did your data tell you he is a better man defender than zone?

So now it is a given that because he is on a training camp roster that he is of the same caliber of a player who makes the 45 man game-day active list, is in a position on the depth chart high enough to get playing time, and had at least enough opportunities to catch passes that we can measure his drop rate?

I am going to let you in on a secret. Not everyone that makes an NFL camp is worthy of making the minimum requirements for acquiring such a stat that you quote here.

And yes, the data did say that he is better at MCV than ZCV based on his projection for a position that would require it - with a confidence level of 99%.

# 1373 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	So it only counts if it happens in a game? If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is present to hear it, does it still make a sound? http://espn.go.com/college-football/...ks-spring-game Scouts see more than what you see on TV

Clowney ran off the sideline in a pair of shorts mid play in a scrimmage (when he wasn't even playing in the game), and caught one pass? That equals 836 nfl receptions I guess according to you I guess.

# 1374 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	Clowney ran off the sideline in a pair of shorts mid play in a scrimmage (when he wasn't even playing in the game), and caught one pass? That equals 836 nfl receptions I guess according to you I guess.

Ability does not equate to production. Terrell Owens has a ton of ability at nearly 40 years of age. How many catches did he have last year?

Your CTH rating does not equal how many receptions you have in your career...unless you are EA Sports...then maybe it does....but we all know how we feel about their logic.

# 1375 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	So now you are saying that in order to be tied for being the best player in the league - a league dominated by the forward pass and high passing numbers - you need to have an MVP or DPY on your mantle? Use my example and go into the game. Cover a WR with a CB who has a 99 MCV and 99 AGI and see how well he covers. Now do it with a CB who has a 99 MCV and 0 AGI. If the only thing that matters is the MCV rating, then the results will be the same and a lesser WR should be blanketed by both players right? Just try it out and let me know what you find. You are also assuming, incorrectly I will add, that the ratio of AGI to JKM is the same on the overall effectiveness of utilizing a JKM. They are NOT equal. AGI plays a lot larger role than you realize. Do this test: Take a player with 99 JKM and 99 AGI and try to juke a defender. Now take a player with 99 JKM and 96 AGI and try to juke a defender. Then inverse the JKM and AGI ratings for two more tests. Let me know what you find. Let's see if one is more valuable than the other. Something tells me that one outweighs the other...but what would I know? I just make this stuff up as I go, right?

If he's 8 OVR above any other guy on defense, yes, he should have a DPOY. But he doesn't. Hmm that's odd, isn't it? Maybe Hali isn't better than every other defensive player by a landslide. And i know AGI impacts things, but still. Clowney shouldn't be better at breaking on a ball than a CB like Haden. Fitzgerald shouldn't be close to McCoy at juking either. And if juke means nothing, why give Fitz a 99 then?

# 1376 michiganfan8620 @ 08/03/14 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Ability does not equate to production. Terrell Owens has a ton of ability at nearly 40 years of age. How many catches did he have last year? Your CTH rating does not equal how many receptions you have in your career...unless you are EA Sports...then maybe it does....but we all know how we feel about their logic.

No it doesn't. However, a guy who caught 836 passes is going to be better at catching than some guy who has caught 0 and is not a WR. Steve Smith is a professional pass catcher. Clowney is not. What has Clowney done to warrant a 74 catch? Caught the ball? Of wait, he hasn't. You are the one making things up not using data on that.

# 1377 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	If he's 8 OVR above any other guy on defense, yes, he should have a DPOY. But he doesn't. Hmm that's odd, isn't it? Maybe Hali isn't better than every other defensive player by a landslide. And i know AGI impacts things, but still. Clowney shouldn't be better at breaking on a ball than a CB like Haden. Fitzgerald shouldn't be close to McCoy at juking either. And if juke means nothing, why give Fitz a 99 then?

Stating that he should have the DPOY award is your opinion, not a fact. That award often goes along with defensive production, not ability. Once again, production is not the same thing as ability. Madden rates players based on their abilities (attributes) not production (stats).

And, Clowney won't be better in coverage. Try it in a game. Compare their other attributes like AGI and ACC, both of which control the ability to break on a ball along with the MCV/ZCV ratings...which all work symbiotically.

Fitz has a 99 JKM rating because the data says he does when paired with his other attributes, just the same as it does for any other player...holistically.

# 1378 Hooe @ 08/03/14 12:52 AM

I'm going to repeat myself from 100 posts ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CM Hooe


	Okay guys, it's clear there's an irreconcilable disagreement here. Drop it and move on from this discussion. Thanks.

Once again, guys: let's move on.

# 1379 DCEBB2001 @ 08/03/14 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michiganfan8620


	No it doesn't. However, a guy who caught 836 passes is going to be better at catching than some guy who has caught 0 and is not a WR. Steve Smith is a professional pass catcher. Clowney is not. What has Clowney done to warrant a 74 catch? Caught the ball? Of wait, he hasn't. You are the one making things up not using data on that.

Prove it. Prove that he is going to be worse at catching a ball right now. I want proof. Until you prove it, I will take what you say as merely opinion. And yes, I imagine that he has caught enough balls during practices/scrimmages/workouts (you know, stuff seen by scouts) to warrant that rating. Otherwise, he wouldn't have it. I make NOTHING UP on this website. It is all data driven. All of it. The scouting data and its validity is more than you can offer at this time, I am sure of that.

# 1380 charter04 @ 08/03/14 12:55 AM

Dan, it's a waist of time. He isn't here to help, just to pick things a part and criticize. If he truly wanted to help he would be giving his ideas on how he would rate players. Would he use actual data like 40 time? Only stats? PFF data? YouTube or NFL.com rewind watching/scouting? Nothing like that has been said. Only complaints and saying what your doing is wrong.

Usually, because I'm not a troll, if I don't like the way something is done and it's with in my power to do it myself, I do it my self. That's just me though. Lol

« Previous 1 2…66 67 686970 71 72…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game