Things that have happened since my last post on here, July 22nd, 2006:
42 Twins games, their record in those games being 25-17.
3 Fantasy Football Drafts (I'm not going to get into it right now).
The starts of the European soccer and American College Football seasons.
The Minnesota State Fair, beginning and end of.
The average price of gas has went from $2.98 on July 23rd to $2.68 today- a 30 cent drop.
I still haven't rocked a chick, and officially lost that bet.
Anyway, I was playing a little Madden at MNRaul's place during our fantasy draft and then was playing again the other day when some questions popped into my head, mainly about the rating systems in these games. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'm about to start writing about video games. Sports video games. I realize this topic may not be all of your cup of tea, but for others it might be interesting. And before any of you say it, I realize that the rock a chick thing and the video game thing may be closely connected.
Anyway, all of you that have played sports video games know that they have player ratings, a 1-10, 20, 50, or 100 scale, that are coded into the game to make the player behave as he would in real life. Randy Moss is really fast, the Madden game rates him at a 99 speed or whatever it is this season. The ratings are determined by the game maker, maybe they hire scouts, maybe they do it themselves, it doesn't matter. What does matter to me is how skewed toward greatness they are.
Picture in your head the greatest running back of all time. It may be different for some of you, Payton, Sanders, Rick Fenney, whoever, but picture them in their prime, at their best. This would be the pinnacle of runningbacks in the NFL. As good as it gets. Now picture him rated on a scale of 1-100. He would probably be at least a 99 right? The best of all time-the benchmark. Now picture Edgerrin James. Hanging out in Arizona, running counters, blocking, whatever. He's had some really solid years, he's getting on in age, he's been banged up a little, etc. What would you rate him at? Let's say Barry Sanders in his prime is a 99. Madden 2007 puts Edgerrin James at a 96, which is one point better than consensus NFL stallion Larry Johnson, who, if you projected it out, would have rushed for an NFL record 2,400 yards over 16 games last season. There are 10 running backs in the NFL that are rated 90 or above. Is that true? Are there 10 running backs that good right now?
Now, I guess it's all a matter of what you're judging against. Are you rating players based on their overall ability compared to the rest of the current NFL, or historically against everyone that's played in the NFL? I'm guessing they do it based on the players' ability in relation to the current league's players. Therefore Edgerrin James, while probably not quite in Barry Sanders' league, is probably in Larry Johnson's, and above Ciatrick Fason's (76). I don't really have a problem with that, but it's the inclusion of some of the all-time greatest teams that throws the whole system all out of whack. I was looking at some of the ratings of some of the greatest players of all-time and they couldn't match up to some current average players of today. Jerry Rice for instance. In 1989 Rice had 82 catches for 1482 yards and 17 touchdowns, by all accounts a ridiculous season, especially considering this was just before the days of inflated catch totals brought upon by pass-happy offenses. Now, I wasn't able to look at Madden 07, but in the 06 version the 89 version of Jerry Rice measured in at a 96. That is one notch below Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison of this season. Most, if not all of those guys had great numbers or have had great seasons in the past, but are they better than Jerry Rice was?? Especially as compared to the rest of the league?? I mean, if all those guys are rated 97, none of them have really separated themselves from their peers, so should they be that high?
It's not just football that I see these problems. Soccer, baseball, hockey, golf, etc. All have ratings systems that are messed up. The way I see it, if you're rated above a 95, you're one of the top five best players ever at that position. For the very good players of the time, your Torry Holt's, your Chad Johnson's etc, they would be high 80's, low 90' s, going down to your mid-range players, where most would be in the 70's-60's, and the back-ups and Mike McMahon's rated in the 40's and 50's. Mike McMahon is rated a 78 this season. Wow. That seems high for a guy who sucked last season, and got cut this season. I have a lot more to say about this. David Bentley is not as good of a crosser of the ball as David Beckham is. You could ask pretty much anyone. Football Manager doesn't seem to think so. They're both rated 20 (out of 20). David Beckham is widely regarded as the greatest crosser of a soccer ball of all time. If any of you want to get into it I might put together a Power Point presentation or something.
DOWN WITH THE OVERRATING OF VIDEO GAME ATHLETES!!! DOWN I SAY!!
42 Twins games, their record in those games being 25-17.
3 Fantasy Football Drafts (I'm not going to get into it right now).
The starts of the European soccer and American College Football seasons.
The Minnesota State Fair, beginning and end of.
The average price of gas has went from $2.98 on July 23rd to $2.68 today- a 30 cent drop.
I still haven't rocked a chick, and officially lost that bet.
Anyway, I was playing a little Madden at MNRaul's place during our fantasy draft and then was playing again the other day when some questions popped into my head, mainly about the rating systems in these games. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I'm about to start writing about video games. Sports video games. I realize this topic may not be all of your cup of tea, but for others it might be interesting. And before any of you say it, I realize that the rock a chick thing and the video game thing may be closely connected.
Anyway, all of you that have played sports video games know that they have player ratings, a 1-10, 20, 50, or 100 scale, that are coded into the game to make the player behave as he would in real life. Randy Moss is really fast, the Madden game rates him at a 99 speed or whatever it is this season. The ratings are determined by the game maker, maybe they hire scouts, maybe they do it themselves, it doesn't matter. What does matter to me is how skewed toward greatness they are.
Picture in your head the greatest running back of all time. It may be different for some of you, Payton, Sanders, Rick Fenney, whoever, but picture them in their prime, at their best. This would be the pinnacle of runningbacks in the NFL. As good as it gets. Now picture him rated on a scale of 1-100. He would probably be at least a 99 right? The best of all time-the benchmark. Now picture Edgerrin James. Hanging out in Arizona, running counters, blocking, whatever. He's had some really solid years, he's getting on in age, he's been banged up a little, etc. What would you rate him at? Let's say Barry Sanders in his prime is a 99. Madden 2007 puts Edgerrin James at a 96, which is one point better than consensus NFL stallion Larry Johnson, who, if you projected it out, would have rushed for an NFL record 2,400 yards over 16 games last season. There are 10 running backs in the NFL that are rated 90 or above. Is that true? Are there 10 running backs that good right now?
Now, I guess it's all a matter of what you're judging against. Are you rating players based on their overall ability compared to the rest of the current NFL, or historically against everyone that's played in the NFL? I'm guessing they do it based on the players' ability in relation to the current league's players. Therefore Edgerrin James, while probably not quite in Barry Sanders' league, is probably in Larry Johnson's, and above Ciatrick Fason's (76). I don't really have a problem with that, but it's the inclusion of some of the all-time greatest teams that throws the whole system all out of whack. I was looking at some of the ratings of some of the greatest players of all-time and they couldn't match up to some current average players of today. Jerry Rice for instance. In 1989 Rice had 82 catches for 1482 yards and 17 touchdowns, by all accounts a ridiculous season, especially considering this was just before the days of inflated catch totals brought upon by pass-happy offenses. Now, I wasn't able to look at Madden 07, but in the 06 version the 89 version of Jerry Rice measured in at a 96. That is one notch below Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Torry Holt and Marvin Harrison of this season. Most, if not all of those guys had great numbers or have had great seasons in the past, but are they better than Jerry Rice was?? Especially as compared to the rest of the league?? I mean, if all those guys are rated 97, none of them have really separated themselves from their peers, so should they be that high?
It's not just football that I see these problems. Soccer, baseball, hockey, golf, etc. All have ratings systems that are messed up. The way I see it, if you're rated above a 95, you're one of the top five best players ever at that position. For the very good players of the time, your Torry Holt's, your Chad Johnson's etc, they would be high 80's, low 90' s, going down to your mid-range players, where most would be in the 70's-60's, and the back-ups and Mike McMahon's rated in the 40's and 50's. Mike McMahon is rated a 78 this season. Wow. That seems high for a guy who sucked last season, and got cut this season. I have a lot more to say about this. David Bentley is not as good of a crosser of the ball as David Beckham is. You could ask pretty much anyone. Football Manager doesn't seem to think so. They're both rated 20 (out of 20). David Beckham is widely regarded as the greatest crosser of a soccer ball of all time. If any of you want to get into it I might put together a Power Point presentation or something.
DOWN WITH THE OVERRATING OF VIDEO GAME ATHLETES!!! DOWN I SAY!!
posted by f theb at 10:49 AM
1 Comments:
Nice post. Now that this site is officially dead (1000 words on video games-no comments) we should take the opportunity to make the "Zed" changes. We'll talk this weekend? Good.
Post a Comment
<< Home