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

[4thQtrStre5S]

A huge issue I have had with ratings is how "pursuit" is rated..Obviously it is too high, but when a DT with 55 speed and 90 pursuit can chase down a WR with 90 speed just because, as it appears, the pursuit takes over when chasing anyone with the ball...

Also, if pursuit works as I mention above, then DT's are going after a QB with something like 90 speed, yes?

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

A huge issue I have had with ratings is how "pursuit" is rated..Obviously it is too high, but when a DT with 55 speed and 90 pursuit can chase down a WR with 90 speed just because, as it appears, the pursuit takes over when chasing anyone with the ball... Also, if pursuit works as I mention above, then DT's are going after a QB with something like 90 speed, yes?

It's contextual depending on the play. I've seen some more athletic DT's chase down WR screens on the weak-side when the WR is forced to cut inside and/or wait to set up his blocks. Flat-line rundown though, yeah that's a no-no.

[4thQtrStre5S]

Quote: Originally Posted by KG

It's contextual depending on the play. I've seen some more athletic DT's chase down WR screens on the weak-side when the WR is forced to cut inside and/or wait to set up his blocks. Flat-line rundown though, yeah that's a no-no.

Screens is one thing, but in Madden it can be any play...And it won't be a 34 DT who chases most people down...

[Beelzebot44]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I have considered using PFF in the past and found, in my opinion, that the data they provide is less reliable than other sources. Like I said before, they would be good for tracking tendencies, but I do not believe they would be good for assigning values to the actual ratings. My reasoning for discrediting them is because actual scouts are trained observers. Viewing and recording is what they are paid to do. Like police testimony, their opinions hold a more weight. If I have 6 police officers tell me that they saw two planes fly into WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11/2001 and three hot dog stand operators say that they saw giant pterodactyls hit those buildings instead, I would be more apt to believe the trained observers in their version of the events. In rating these players, if you really want validity and accuracy, you have to go with sources you trust. I use scouting data at FBG because I have been on that side of the business before and I believe that it offers a certain level of reliability. You could just as well start your own ratings site using PFF as your source material and you may reach different conclusions (ratings) or you may reach the same ones. What matters is that as the author you trust the data you are using. So long as you use data that you believe is valid, you really can't go wrong. In this case, I am highly skeptical of the stuff PFF publishes because of things like the Brad Jones = Secret Superstar article.

Where your position falls flat is the issue is not comparing the scouting ability of scouts to the scouting ability of statisticians. The real comparison is the ability of scouting to determine player value vs the ability of metrics and numbers to do so. Personally I think you need a mix of both, but to disregard a stat based system because they aren't trained scouts would make your analogy more like eating lunch from the squad car instead of the hot dog cart because the cops are trained observers.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beelzebot44

Where your position falls flat is the issue is not comparing the scouting ability of scouts to the scouting ability of statisticians. The real comparison is the ability of scouting to determine player value vs the ability of metrics and numbers to do so. Personally I think you need a mix of both, but to disregard a stat based system because they aren't trained scouts would make your analogy more like eating lunch from the squad car instead of the hot dog cart because the cops are trained observers.

PFF uses the same three people to observe every down BEFORE they run their metrics. The data I have access to utilizes over a dozen people who are trained to professionally observe football players and their abilities. It's not that I don't trust the mathematics involved at getting their results, I don't trust their ability to OBSERVE as keenly as what I would trust a dozen professional scouts. Like I said a million times before in threads like these, if the source data lacks validity, as I posit PFF does in comparison to data derived by professional scouts, then your results will lack validity. I believe that is the "transitive property" of logic.

Nothing anyone says here is going to make me change my mind about this. Especially when PFF gives you crap like this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ar-brad-jones/

To me, the guy doing the FBG Ratings, scouting data from professional scouts in an actual NFL front office > PFF. That's my opinion and I will not deviate from that. You can take that one to the bank.

[Bull_Dozer]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S

A huge issue I have had with ratings is how "pursuit" is rated..Obviously it is too high, but when a DT with 55 speed and 90 pursuit can chase down a WR with 90 speed just because, as it appears, the pursuit takes over when chasing anyone with the ball... Also, if pursuit works as I mention above, then DT's are going after a QB with something like 90 speed, yes?

Yeah, the whole Speed vs Pursuit thing is very weird to me. Like a slow DT just suddenly becomes fast because he's chasing the ball carrier. It makes no sense.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bull_Dozer

Yeah, the whole Speed vs Pursuit thing is very weird to me. Like a slow DT just suddenly becomes fast because he's chasing the ball carrier. It makes no sense.

Agreed. That rating should be linked to the pursuit angle that the defender takes. Do they take a proper angle, and if so, do they deviate from it properly to avoid other players (the trash)?

That is what that attribute SHOULD do.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

PFF uses the same three people to observe every down BEFORE they run their metrics. The data I have access to utilizes over a dozen people who are trained to professionally observe football players and their abilities. It's not that I don't trust the mathematics involved at getting their results, I don't trust their ability to OBSERVE as keenly as what I would trust a dozen professional scouts. Like I said a million times before in threads like these, if the source data lacks validity, as I posit PFF does in comparison to data derived by professional scouts, then your results will lack validity. I believe that is the "transitive property" of logic. Nothing anyone says here is going to make me change my mind about this. Especially when PFF gives you crap like this: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...ar-brad-jones/ To me, the guy doing the FBG Ratings, scouting data from professional scouts in an actual NFL front office > PFF. That's my opinion and I will not deviate from that. You can take that one to the bank.

I appreciate your point that the guys at PFF aren't trained scouts but in all honesty this isn't as serious an issue as you make it because they aren't attempting to grade players based on techniques etc merely observing win / loss scenarios
Did a rushed beat his blocker , did a receiver catch or drop a pass etc
They state that most plays result in neutral or zero grades and only a relatively few are marked as wins or losses
So whilst a scout may point out a receiver who frequently body catches PFF would not even attempt to
As such the site has a use in it offers comparisons of a players success rate but no insight into any individual talents a player may have
Even then tho it has flaws in that it doesn't take any account of weight of schedule ( each team will only play 13 of the potential 31 opponents during a NFL season) or if players are carrying known injuries , factors I'm sure scouts consider in their grades
I believe it's wise to use as many sources as possible as in this way any errors that slip through the net are more easily identified and corrected
It's my opinion that the problem with madden ratings is less to do with the data used and more about how it is used , both the systems used and the fact that popular opinion, marketing etc plays a significant role