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

# 381 DCEBB2001 @ 07/15/15 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdavis82


	Dan, Any updates from EA yet?

Nope. Rex said I won't hear anything before late August. If they call me, then we get a good sense of the direction they want to go in. If not, it doesn't change a thing with what I do with my website. I will still be rating players on that site unless something happens with EA that overrules it.

# 382 PGaither84 @ 07/15/15 06:54 PM

I could write a whole rant about the player rating system, and those who know me over the last 6 years or so know I have had many threads and posts on this subject, but this thread is about Donny.

Having met him at the Madden 11 Community Day, I can say my limited impression of him was that he is a cool guy who had a passion for his job, but was often hand cuffed by forces outside his control. Marketing and PR had a lot of sway in the decisions he was forced to make and they care more about image than quality, and that had a big impact on the quality and legitimacy of the ratings.

Additionally, one of my pet peeves with Donny was how he rated line backers. What are the jobs of a line backer? Run Support, blitz or pass coverage. Line backers would be given quality play recognition, finesse/power move (pass rushing), and block shedding (run stopping) ratings along with the highest tackle ratings in the game compared to members of the secondary. Okay, that is all well and good, but they tended to have terrible zone and man coverage ratings.

In Madden 2012 and Madden 25 (2014), I did a roster overhaul of line backer coverage ratings, and it was game changing. from memory, the highest zone coverage rating a line backer had was like 86 or so, then the second best was like 82, and third best dropped to 78, and then it began to plummet from there. With my roster overhaul, I started by increasing every LB by 10 points across the board and then made additional tweaks after that. Unfortunately, that only had an impact on offline "play now" because incoming hand crafted rookies were all still terrible in pass coverage.

The point is that, when you couldn't just milk the middle of the field becasue of stupid AI and terrible zone/man coverage ratings by line backers, it made the game more difficult, challenging and fun (for me and my friends). Difficult and challenging are two things EA does NOT want Madden to be. That only scares away the casual crowd they want to appeal to.

Wow, it is so easy to get off topic about Donny leaving... but that is something I am passionate about and maybe his departure might lead to someone else who is open to more positive changes to the ratings system? Donny is a good guy, but as a hard core Madden fan, I won't miss him. Sorry to sound cold like that. I do wish him the best in his future projects.

# 383 splff3000 @ 07/19/15 08:53 PM

Any word on if we are still gonna get ratings updates during the season? It just dawned on me that, with Donny gone, they might not have the resources to do them.

# 384 Hooe @ 07/20/15 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splff3000


	Any word on if we are still gonna get ratings updates during the season? It just dawned on me that, with Donny gone, they might not have the resources to do them.

EA has said they have a team of guys who have worked with Donny in the past to handle ratings adjustments for this year.

# 385 raiderphantom @ 07/21/15 01:43 AM

I thought his ratings were pretty solid the past couple years as you could see a lot of his ratings correlated with stats from various websites. The bigger problems with ratings are what there have always been: they are just too close together. Not enough distinction between good and great etc.. I didn't like the guy though simply from different interviews he's done over the years particularly with cummings. I think it's a good move for the franchise I'm losing interest in.

# 386 raiderphantom @ 07/21/15 02:01 AM

As far as PFF goes, I think their grading is one of the best sources out there right now, even if their grading can possibly be manipulated or simply judged poorly. It's useful for RANKING players or determining overall rating even, but not necessarily for individual attributes. They will award poor technique if it's effective, but they don't reward bad play. If a corner gets beat and the WR drops the pass, the corner still gets the same negative grade he would if the Wr caught it. I don't base my opinions solely off their grading but they definitely factor in. I don't understand how you can completely dismiss the level of detail they go to.

# 387 msdm27 @ 07/21/15 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderphantom


	As far as PFF goes, I think their grading is one of the best sources out there right now, even if their grading can possibly be manipulated or simply judged poorly. It's useful for RANKING players or determining overall rating even, but not necessarily for individual attributes. They will award poor technique if it's effective, but they don't reward bad play. If a corner gets beat and the WR drops the pass, the corner still gets the same negative grade he would if the Wr caught it. I don't base my opinions solely off their grading but they definitely factor in. I don't understand how you can completely dismiss the level of detail they go to.

To this point, it's almost as if PFF is being judged because they don't make their analysis to fit madden. PFF is NOT interested in figuring out who is fastest, strongest... They care about production and general play/technique and that is mostly what nfl teams care about too.

Physical attributes can be obtained from hard data, but I consider PFF a top option when looking for intangibles, ie. Catching, mcv, zcv....

In the end, PFF is a source that goes beyond just looking at stats for rating players but instead looks at game film to see the whole picture. Not just sacks, but pressures, for example.

# 388 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/21/15 09:13 AM

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?

# 389 KG @ 07/21/15 10:10 AM

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.

# 390 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/21/15 10:59 AM

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...

# 391 Beelzebot44 @ 07/21/15 12:28 PM

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.

# 392 DCEBB2001 @ 07/21/15 12:54 PM

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.

# 393 Bull_Dozer @ 07/21/15 01:35 PM

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.

# 394 DCEBB2001 @ 07/21/15 01:40 PM

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.

# 395 briz1046 @ 07/21/15 04:52 PM

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

# 396 DCEBB2001 @ 07/21/15 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by briz1046


	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

I have stated this before, but will do so again.

I think that PFF is great for identifying tendencies, but not for rating attributes. The win/loss should be played out because of the combination of the individual attributes, not because PFF says that it should.

Further, those tendencies could be carried out to individual teams/coordinators to present an accurate depiction of what teams like to do and when with certain players. That is how I think PFF could be utilized. I just believe that it wouldn't be as good of a source compared to what I have.

However, I would love to see someone make their own ratings using PFF and see how that works. I have already researched PFF years ago, and simply found that it didn't carry over as well as other means. PFF will not tell me how agile or fast a player is, so I can't use it for the attributes.

Tendencies, maybe. Attributes, no.

# 397 briz1046 @ 07/21/15 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I have stated this before, but will do so again. I think that PFF is great for identifying tendencies, but not for rating attributes. The win/loss should be played out because of the combination of the individual attributes, not because PFF says that it should. Further, those tendencies could be carried out to individual teams/coordinators to present an accurate depiction of what teams like to do and when with certain players. That is how I think PFF could be utilized. I just believe that it wouldn't be as good of a source compared to what I have. However, I would love to see someone make their own ratings using PFF and see how that works. I have already researched PFF years ago, and simply found that it didn't carry over as well as other means. PFF will not tell me how agile or fast a player is, so I can't use it for the attributes. Tendencies, maybe. Attributes, no.

I agree that PFF does not provide any data that would be useful in in assigning attribute ratings as such
However it can be used a a fail check , for example if the scouting data and PFF results differ wildly closer examination could be made. PFF scores on a results based system and unless a player is remarkably *lucky* good results should follow from good technique etc
Neither scouting nor metrics are infallible but cross checking is always good practice

# 398 KG @ 07/21/15 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by briz1046


	I agree that PFF does not provide any data that would be useful in in assigning attribute ratings as such However it can be used a a fail check , for example if the scouting data and PFF results differ wildly closer examination could be made. PFF scores on a results based system and unless a player is remarkably lucky good results should follow from good technique etc Neither scouting nor metrics are infallible but cross checking is always good practice

I think that's the key point and why myself and others like the FBG data over the PFF. IMO it's a better indicator over the long run and will lead to more reliable data.

Now what EA does with the data and getting it to translate on the virtual field is a different matter. They (EA) are kind of stuck with their flawed ratings system at this point. Say EA implements a speed ratings system in line with accurate up-to-date 40 times. Fans and players themselves would throw a fit (although the action on the field wouldn't change IF everyone was on the same scale).

Great discussion btw.

# 399 briz1046 @ 07/21/15 08:54 PM

In a idealised world and where data samples where large enough to eliminate normal variances the results based metrics should tally with the scouting reports
Good technique should bring corresponding good results
In reality this will not always occur however comparing the different sources and highlighting any differences for further analysis should produce the best results
No person is infallible no matter their qualifications or pedigree

# 400 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/21/15 08:58 PM

Regardless of the numbers, the software engine has to process them correctly and then it has to be represented upon the playing field correctly..

« Previous 1 2…17 18 192021 22 23…26 27 Next »

More Links

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