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

# 401 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/21/15 09:20 PM

Another reason for having ratings like FBG, is that results on the field, what the players do are team based...

Let me try to explain what I mean:

Emmitt Smith, came from big college florida and then went to the Cowboys and ran behind the biggest one on one blockers, and arguably one of the best lines ever..Smith ran a 4.70 40, and some people said he cant go 80 yards..

Barry Sanders, came from Oklahoma State and went to the Detroit Lions, one of the consistently bad teams and also didn't have anything for an offensive line, arguably one of the best runners..He ran a 4.37 40...

Madden would have these players rated high, and maybe equally high, though Barry Sanders may not look as Good in Madden because the offensive line would be rated lower than the Cowboys...

BUt with a solid ratings based system like FBG, Emmitt Smith should be rated well below Sanders and thus require the big line and Sanders would be rated higher and in relation to the other players in the league that he would shine behind even some of the worst lines...

For example, In Madden I would bet they rated Smith's agility about the same as Sander's, which would be wrong..

# 402 DCEBB2001 @ 07/21/15 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S


	Another reason for having ratings like FBG, is that results on the field, what the players do are team based... Let me try to explain what I mean: Emmitt Smith, came from big college florida and then went to the Cowboys and ran behind the biggest one on one blockers, and arguably one of the best lines ever..Smith ran a 4.70 40, and some people said he cant go 80 yards.. Barry Sanders, came from Oklahoma State and went to the Detroit Lions, one of the consistently bad teams and also didn't have anything for an offensive line, arguably one of the best runners..He ran a 4.37 40... Madden would have these players rated high, and maybe equally high, though Barry Sanders may not look as Good in Madden because the offensive line would be rated lower than the Cowboys... BUt with a solid ratings based system like FBG, Emmitt Smith should be rated well below Sanders and thus require the big line and Sanders would be rated higher and in relation to the other players in the league that he would shine behind even some of the worst lines... For example, In Madden I would bet they rated Smith's agility about the same as Sander's, which would be wrong..

Wow. That is one of the best analogies I have read on here in regards to what I am trying to do. One of the things that the scouting data supplies is individualized data. So much of what we see in terms of production is based on the team effort. The scouting data allows us to break that down player-by-player and attribute-by-attribute.

If a WR is capable of catching 99 of 100 balls you throw to him, but he only gets 10 targets in the season and drops his one ball in those 10 targets, you would think that he only has a catch rate of 90% instead of 99%. PFF is giving you the game-observed 90% and is excluding what would happen if he had infinite opportunity.

The scouting data attempts to rate players under the assumption that all conditions are equal for all players (targets = opportunities). They go beyond what you see in a game and add in what they see from workouts, practices, etc. With this data, you get a more complete image of the player and what his abilities should be if all circumstances are equal.

# 403 PGaither84 @ 07/22/15 01:22 AM

I honestly haven't seen the FBG page in the last 3-4 years. I always fully supported the idea of fan adjusted ratings. In the past DCEBB2001 and I have had disagreements on the results and methodology for arriving at acceleration vs speed numbers and if I recall we also talked about the zone/man coverage ratings for linebackers and defensive ends.

I have had personal success in past iterations of Madden when I sit down and do roster overhauls. They only apply to PLAY NOW, but they do greatly improve that "pick up and play" experience. I have written about it before and wish that it would be applied to the game holistically.

More spread out ratings and an overall lower ratings curve improves game play.

# 404 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/15 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	I honestly haven't seen he FBG page in the last 3-4 years. I always fully supported the idea of fan adjusted ratings. In the past DCEBB2001 and I have had disagreements on the results and methodology for arriving at acceleration vs speed numbers and if I recall we also talked about the zone/man coverage ratings for linebackers and defensive ends. I have had personal success in past iterations of Madden when I sit down and do roster overhauls. They only apply to PLAY NOW, but they do greatly improve that "pick up and play" experience. I have written about it before and wish that it would be applied to the game holistically. More spread out ratings and an overall lower ratings curve improves game play.

Yeah, the whole debate over the speed v. acceleration issues in Madden 11's engine was totally proven by my research with CM Hooe. The SPD and ACC ratings did work symbiotically with one another in the sense that the SPD rating determined the maximum velocity when the acceleration phase was over, and the ACC rating affected how quickly you derived at that maximum velocity. Fast-forward a few years and EA finally states in writing that this was the case.

The way I had done things, knowing of the symbiotic relationship that was later proven in our analysis, was use the 40 to represent the average velocity over time and use the 10yd split as a segment to represent the initial burst. This however, was not the best way to do things, so I sought out some professional advice and basically found that there are two ways to do it:

1. Take the 10yd split and use that the correlate to initial burst (ACC) and use the 40-10yd time to match to the SPD rating.

2. Use the splits to create a cubic function and differentiate.

Option number 2 is by far the most accurate. Option 1 is valid because, and I am paraphrasing the expert I sought on this, "the lack of numerous data points means that using the difference in the times could still be around 95% accurate to accurately reflect the acceleration phase and the top velocity phase." I chose the 2nd option because I wanted to be as accurate as possible.

The issue regarding the MCV/ZCV attributes for LBs was something that had to be fixed, but not without supporting data. It was in my analysis of my source material that I found that many LBs were in possession of ZCV/MCV skills that rivaled even some of the best CBs in the game. As a result, I had to ensure that these ratings were accurately reflected.

# 405 PGaither84 @ 07/22/15 09:51 AM

I really don't want to open up that can of worms about acceleration and speed, and you can make claims to how "accurate" your method is or isn't. The reality is that your speed and acceleration ratings for players were nearly identical while Donny's ratings back then had a lot more diversity. Wes Welker at the time had 99 acceleration and 88 speed, where you had something along the liens of like 93 and 91 each. Honestly, I don't remember your exact numbers and they don't even exits on your site anymore to cross reference... or if they are, they certainly aren't easy to find.

I just know that MOST of your ratings I agreed with, except for Speed/Acceleration, which I agreed with Donny. Also, it made players feel more dynamic, especially on 100 speed threshold... which is another topic in terms of game play.

Once I was shown how 100 speed threshold positively effected game play in Madden 11 and 12, I never went back. 0 threshold made the game play like high school football, where a single point of difference in speed made a world of difference. A 93 speed HB flew around the field leaving elite linebackers like Patrick Willis and his 89/90 in the dust. With 100 speed threshold, those same elite linebackers were tackling machines and only the elite HBs in the game (like Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson) had a chance of outrunning them to the corner.

I don't know what in-game 40 times looked like with 100 speed threshold, but as I admit freely, I don't really care. I care about the quality of the game play more than anything. 100 speed threshold still had break away runs, kick off and punt returs for TDs, and the ability to throw over the top, but they weren't as common as they are on 50 or 0 speed threshold. you have to earn them. You had to get the right blocks, take the right angles, throw against the right coverage.

Also, at least in Madden 11 and 12, I used 100 speed threshold in conjunction with 100 fatigue and custom substitution and injury settings. Fatigue in those games was pretty strong. Players who were tired played worse than their maximum ratings, so wearing out a defense and resting yours had an impact on games and vise versa. The tempo and flow of games felt more fluid and natural. Going three and out in the third quarter could be devastating, while a 12 play drive that settles for a FG can turn the tide in your favor as your rested defense come back out to make a stand.

**All of those aspects of game play, which don't seem to function the same in Madden 25. I don't have Madden 15, though I might get 16 this year.

Maybe I am getting a bit off topic, but all of these things are directly related and tied to the user experience. I play Madden 25 for the offline CCM experience, but I put on Madden 12 every now and again becasue the on-field game play in PLAY NOW is so much more satisfying thanks to my roster overhaul and custom settings.

=============================

I completely agreed with you about LB ratings I don't remember if I influenced you to make those changes, but I certainly started a thread about it before I recall you even posted that you were taking over the FBG project. I certainly know you posted about it and gave great feedback on my thread years ago that helped me make tweaks to my custom rosters.

Line backer coverage skills is an important Madden topic for me anytime I give feedback about Madden. I just wasn't able to sell the idea to Donny while at Community Day for Madden 11.

# 406 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/15 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	I really don't want to open up that can of worms about acceleration and speed, and you can make claims to how "accurate" your method is or isn't. The reality is that your speed and acceleration ratings for players were nearly identical while Donny's ratings back then had a lot more diversity. Wes Welker at the time had 99 acceleration and 88 speed, where you had something along the liens of like 93 and 91 each. Honestly, I don't remember your exact numbers and they don't even exits on your site anymore to cross reference... or if they are, they certainly aren't easy to find.

I can assure that at no point did I ever have Wes Welker at a SPD rating in the 90s.

Ever.

Looking at my archives the closest I had to anything like that for Welker was in 2011 when he had a SPD of 78 and and ACC of 88. Outside of that, since 2012, he has been closer to a 77 SPD and 76 ACC.

You may be referring to some ratings where the 10yd split was used solely as the ACC rating without context of the subsequent splits but that was done away with nearly 4 years ago (which makes sense if you haven't been back to the site in 3-4 years). Things have changed a lot since I started deferring to people with degrees in various fields to help ensure that the methodology is accurate. The method employed now is as accurate is it one can get in defining how fast a player accelerates and how fast he is moving at top speed. I have been assured of that.

# 407 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/22/15 11:03 AM

I am missing the point on bringing in M11 and M12 and 100 speed threshold...The game is made around 50 threshold, for one thing, and we are headed into M16...

And distance between speed rating and acceleration rating, or closeness, is not important..What matters is the use of consistency and accuracy of data; the best way to do that is through the use of actual scouting grades...

# 408 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/15 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4thQtrStre5S


	I am missing the point on bringing in M11 and M12 and 100 speed threshold...The game is made around 50 threshold, for one thing, and we are headed into M16... And distance between speed rating and acceleration rating, or closeness, is not important..What matters is the use of consistency and accuracy of data; the best way to do that is through the use of actual scouting grades...

The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube".

When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it.

However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would.

Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data.

The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate.

Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part.

Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

# 409 SolidSquid @ 07/22/15 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube". When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it. However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would. Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data. The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate. Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part. Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

Hey man the whole point of having a czar is that you don't need no stinking sources! His word is gospel.

But seriously thank you for all you do. You make madden enjoyable for me as you can feel a real difference between players. Quick question, if they allow global editing in CCM would you release a way for us to use your methods to re-rate rookies? It sucks not being able to use your rosters in CCM bc drafted rookies throw off the balance.

# 410 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/15 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidSquid


	Hey man the whole point of having a czar is that you don't need no stinking sources! His word is gospel. But seriously thank you for all you do. You make madden enjoyable for me as you can feel a real difference between players. Quick question, if they allow global editing in CCM would you release a way for us to use your methods to re-rate rookies? It sucks not being able to use your rosters in CCM bc drafted rookies throw off the balance.

Thanks man. Make sure you sign the petition.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...en-titles.html

Global editing of rookies and the roster in general would fix everything. I would make a page on how to do this on the site so anyone could make the rookies fit the way that I rate players. Simply opening up the editing would make this game better.

# 411 4thQtrStre5S @ 07/22/15 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The big thing is that we get it right, so we avoid the real head-scratchers. If a player is rated x in y category, I want an explanation for that...beyond "well, I saw it on youtube". When I got started in coaching high school ball back in 2005, the first thing the staff did, before I ever even got to step on the field with actual players, was teach me to analyze film. that led to my involvement as a scout with NFLDS shortly after. You have to be trained on what to look for. Using stuff like youtube videos is OK if you have trained eyes analyzing it. However, I fully submit that there are professional scouts who are paid to do a way better job than me. These guys have been doing it for years. If you were privy to the data that they use, wouldn't you use it knowing that the source is legit? I sure would. Once you have a valid source, you then need a valid way of interpreting it. That is why I turned to some contacts at TAMU that I made while I was a GA there. The opinions I sought were those of, once again, trained professionals with PhDs in their fields. Others were former strength coaches for college and professional teams. One other source I utilized is a guru on Wall Street - he taught me a ton about analyzing trends in the data. The point being is this: your outcomes are only as good as your sources. Who has EA claimed to utilize in developing their ratings models? I heard a lot about PFF and Youtube over the years, but not much aside from that and "various sources on the internet". Did they use any academic scholarship to cite why they did what they did with ratings? I do! There is a ton of literature on determining strength and power out there by some really good researchers. Why wasn't this stuff being used? It's out there and the validity seems to be legitimate. Once you get all the sources and methods in line, then you make sure that everything is done uniformly. Rate every player using the same method and let the chips fall as they may. Once you do that, you will get data that is true to your methods and sources. Then, when people ask you why you rated a player the way you did, you can justify it with the source and the method, without any bias on the analyst's part. Wouldn't that be the logical course of action?

THat would be the logical course of action...I have been aware of the difficulties of scouting and taking one source of information in one form and accurately transferring it into another form that still represents the original data..

It is similar to translating one language to another....The Bible being a perfect example there....

The result can only be as good as the source, but then a lot can be lost if it isn't translated properly into its new form, such as Madden ratings...

It is a MUST to have everything going in uniform, in the same direction under the same method; makes the difference between having a good football team and a great one, for example..

# 412 PGaither84 @ 07/22/15 01:45 PM

Yeah. As I said, it was about 4 years ago we had that talk, so I am bit fuzzy on the specific ratings and examples of individual players you had. I just know it was like an 11 page thread that went into great detail and was the only point that I, or anyone once had a disagreement with you on. As I recall it as settled and I think you have a better system, in part thanks to that long talk. I think what you wrote is the best answer NOW. (not what you had years ago, which was my whole point... that I support you

)

==========

I was just talking about speed threshold and all that as a way to improve the game experience that we have with the most current versions of Madden.

The complete lack of "engaged player movement" on the offensive/defensive lines makes any outside runs a joke. If you watch any film break down of Alex Gibbs and his zone blocking scheme, you will quickly notice how Madden looks NOTHING like real life line play.

Here is a picture of Green 18 HO Force

This is an OUTSIDE ZONE play. The job of the HB is to read 1 to 2 from outside starting with the DE and working in. The DE plays with his helmet outside (outside hat). The back sees this and goes to 2, which is the DT. The DT is also playing outside hat, so the back plants his foot and goes up field instead of bouncing out. Tn the video, Coach Gibbs talks about how people incorrectly call this a "cut back" run when the HB doesn't really cut back at all. He just goes right down the pipe where he was headed in the first place instead of bouncing outside.

Notice how far both the offensive and defensive lines gets horizontally on this play. The Center starts inside the right hash and ends up 5 or so yards outside it. Notice the LT starts just left of center field and ends up outside the right hash mark. That is a lot of "engaged player movement" we have never seen in Madden before.

So, while I can continue to complain about it, and I do from time to time, I tend to just accept it begrudgingly and try my best to adjust the ratings and sliders and internal settings to give me the best game play experience I can squeeze out of Madden, and suggest ways for other people to do the same.

# 413 DCEBB2001 @ 07/22/15 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	This is an OUTSIDE ZONE play. The job of the HB is to read 1 to 2 from outside in starting with the DE and working in. The DE plays with his helmet outside, so the back goes to 2, which is the DT. He is also playing outside hat, so the back puts his plants his foot and goes up field instead of bouncing out. Notice how far both the offensive and defensive lines gets horizontally on this play. The Center starts inside the right hash and ends up 5 or so yards outside it. Notice the LT starts just left of center field and ends up outside the right hash mark. That is a lot of "engaged player movement" we have never seen in Madden before. So, while I can continue to complain about it, and I do from time to time, I tend to just accept it begrudgingly and try my best to adjust the ratings and sliders and internal settings to give me the best game play experience I can squeeze out of Madden, and suggest ways for other people to do the same.

Totally agree.

The lack of movement on the OL is a huge issue. So many teams run a ZBS these days, that it needs to be done better in the game. The days of standing pat in your place on the field as if frozen into the ground are over. This needs to be represented better.

# 414 Rysumm @ 12/24/15 11:35 AM

Not sure if Donny is working on the game this year but the ratings are horrible. Hope it's not a result of the new guy or we could have some real problems with ratings in the future.

# 415 DCEBB2001 @ 12/24/15 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rysumm


	Not sure if Donny is working on the game this year but the ratings are horrible. Hope it's not a result of the new guy or we could have some real problems with ratings in the future.

Dustin Smith, the EA "Equipment Guru" is doing the ratings this year. Apparently most people here at OS think he is doing about the same quality of work as Donny did. There was a poll topic/thread around here somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.

Pastapadre also found a twitter thread by Dustin Smith alluding to the fact that the ratings may be making a big change in the future. Smith also said on a thread here that he "has a plan for the overall rating" in the future.

It seems as if some big things may be happening with the ratings, but the plan is not yet public. Without getting into details, EA is still in contact with me and the FBG Ratings team, discussing possible involvement. The premise of the idea is interesting, alas it must still be OK'd by the production team at EA. Maybe we will have more information on that later.

# 416 KANE699 @ 12/24/15 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rysumm


	Not sure if Donny is working on the game this year but the ratings are horrible. Hope it's not a result of the new guy or we could have some real problems with ratings in the future.

Appreciate the kind words, thanks!

# 417 Gman 18 @ 12/24/15 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KANE699


	Appreciate the kind words, thanks!

You guys should really start to use real data to get ratings. Having one guy entirely do the ratings makes the ratings gimmicky/opinionated and not based on what you actually see on the field. Thats part of the reason many people still see madden as an arcadish game as opposed to a sim game. FBG ratings are the way to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

# 418 Jarodd21 @ 12/24/15 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KANE699


	Appreciate the kind words, thanks!

So your the reason why a lot of the Cowboy players are overrated? Haha!

# 419 Millennium @ 12/24/15 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gman 18


	You guys should really start to use real data to get ratings. Having one guy entirely do the ratings makes the ratings gimmicky/opinionated and not based on what you actually see on the field. Thats part of the reason many people still see madden as an arcadish game as opposed to a sim game. FBG ratings are the way to go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Out of curiosity - Do you have the documentation showing what they use to create/update the ratings? Surely you do since you accuse a dev of being "gimmicky/opinionated".

This is your official warning - We don't take kindly to disrespectful/nonconstructive posting to anyone, much less the devs that take time out to come here and interact.

# 420 charter04 @ 12/24/15 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarodd21


	So your the reason why a lot of the Cowboy players are overrated? Haha!

No way. My Cowboys should be 99's across the board. Eli should be a 40 overall. [emoji23][emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Previous 1 2…19 202122 23 24 25 26 27 Next »

More Links

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