Madden 2010 Ratings

[larry linke]

I always wondered why I couldn't find stats for OL. Thanks for the info.

Larry
Minnesota Vikings

[Jared A]

OL's do accumulate stats - you just need to know where to look.

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/findplayer.a ... osition=95

That site has OL stats - not sortable, which makes things a real pain in the arse, but it has them (such as false starts, penalties against, sacks against, etc.). The only other thing, mostly for inside linemen that it doesn't have is how well an OL does against the run, but that can usually be figured out by a team's YPC.

Those are numbers... not actual stats. Those don't inform you how well an offensive lineman actually played.

[Jared A]

LG, RG, C, LT, and RT would all need to be seperated if we were going to consider sacks allowed or penalties. Then we would need to find somewhere that divided the # of snaps per occurance. (not just starting)

Then we'd need to remove excess numbers created by great players... ex: the best RB's don't always have the best offensive lines... sometimes they're just that good!

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/playerstats. ... 08&team=27
http://hosted.stats.com/fb/playerstats. ... 449&team=6

Trueblood and Davis have very similar numbers... but, Davis is a stud, and Trueblood is just a decent starter.

[Goodell]

There is a lot to consider and lots of different perspectives on things... that's why I think it's ideal to have this analysis site that collects a library of EVERYTHING (raw stats, opinions from credible national analysists, context for those stats, etc.) and provides a means for intelligent debate on which players are better than the other (not just by us but by other football fans looking for such evaluation).

The basic foundation at least in the beginning wouldn't be a whole lot different from now where a primary source drives the baseline grades as we do now, but also have those interactive elements for discussion to happen at a position-by-position, player-against-player type basis. There would be a running backs microsite area, for example, and a list of the current grades in the system but also a way to monitor feedback and presented evidence (articles, stats, etc.) for why one guy shouldn't be rated under this other guy. Nothing would be changed automatically by that interaction, but once a wave of evidence got high enough, I could manually update those periodically somewhat like we did the first AFFL year with GMs allowed to make their case for an individual player's grade should be higher.

Each player would have a barrier blocking him from moving up or down in the rankings from his baseline until my control center got an alert about massive tidal wave of opinions or evidence that singles the player out for further examination to move up or down a bit accordingly based upon that supplemental info and analysis provided.

Those positional analysis sites would be more content and project oriented, where say one month it's decided (by me or other contributors) to look at one aspect of a lineman's analysis like sacks given up. They'd make the case in the feature why someone might be under- or over-rated in our current grades by that new evidence explored, and some back-and-fourth debate within that analysis site as to why that's wrong or right, etc. or yeah but you also have to consider this, etc.

The baseline grade would change over time probably from strict madden translation to perhaps a more advanced formula or something that looked at other trusted factors also. And perhaps some slight wiggle room from the baseline (a fraction of a point or two) by some interactive elements. But ultimately the library analysis site would create access to more information for our GMs to research the players more (not just a link to RotoWorld or Google news but much more) to make informed decisions fairest to everyone, as well as getting more involved in sharing opinions and helping find resources that provide a better picture of a player's worth for us to incorporate.

That's not only for getting best grades, but for enhancing the experience overall and giving more interaction for those who want to be involved more in detailed football discussions and attracting other super serious football fans to that kind of analysis and opening a door to them to put their own opinions into action in our game.

[Dan R.]

I don't know if anyone else has found this yet, but Madden '10 has released its rookie ratings.

On first glance, I really don't see any difference between how they rate these rookies and previous ones, so maybe the reported ratings shift is going to affect veterans more...

Anyway, here's a link to the Excell spreadsheet with a bunch of the rookie ratings:
http://insideblog.easports.com/cfs-file ... _Draft.xls

[Ben C.]

Thanks for sharing this!

Actually I think the ratings are much lower than what they would be under the old system. Going along with what we have used to determine the grade here, there would only be 5 players that are given a B rating to start, and only about 33 that get a C+. From there, only the top 91 players would be rated C or better.

[Troy S]

We'll talk more about grade scale this summer and how things should or need to change in translating their grades.... but B really intended for established starters and C+ perhaps a guy who starts because of situation but not a solid starter level (or really good backup who could start perhaps but doesn't). But rookies with clear starting roles and were drafted to start and have elite young talent I could logically see being B-rated even if unproven as rookies and they'd adjust depending upon how they do.

[Ben C.]

It looks like EA is going to release the complete Madden ratings one division per week. This week it is the NFC North. You can download spreadsheets of each team here: http://maddennfl.easports.com/cover.action

It does seem as if we'll have to adjust the conversion scale if we are going to go another season using this method. The range of grades has been expanded, with the average grade a bit lower (based on my first-glance at least).

[soonertf]

It looks to me that the grades are on the same line. If anything they may be more realistic for low level starters or back-ups. At quick glance, I don't see much tweaking that will need to be done.

[Ben C.]

I think some sort of tweaking is absolutely necessary. I've been slowly trying to grade out my team as the ratings come out and here are a few issues I've found:

- DT Gabe Watson, one of the anchors of the Cardinals' line last year, was rated 'B' here at the end of the year. Under the new Madden ratings, he drops to a 'D+'
- CB Zackary Bowman - played in one game last year for the Bears and got an INT after hurting his biceps which put him on IR. Had 7 INTs in the first 10 Bears OTA this year. He was rated as a C, which is likely where he should be. Now he is an F.
- DE Calais Campbell - taking over Antonio Smith's spot on the Cardinals' line this year. Last year was rated C+. Now he is a C.
- RB Justin Forsett - last year was rated a C and fought to land a roster spot. This year he's already landed a spot in the RB committee in Seattle but his rating dropped to a D+.

I could go on. Overall I've been able to grade 26 of my veteran players. Of those, 17 went down in rating, 9 stayed the same in rating, and none went up in rating. Given the fact that the bulk of my roster is young and improving in skills, I would expect at least 1 to have gone up.

Since this is something that will affect the league as a whole, I'm open to waiting until all the ratings are out to see how things compare between teams. I am just very concerned that this will make the "good" teams that have a few superstars have way too much of an advantage with the new ratings and I think we need to consider the possibility of needing to tweak the scale significantly.