1

Connor Walsh
October 10, 2021
SPEX 660: Data-Driven Decision-Making
Data Visualizations
 2

Data Visuals
 3

Importance of Correctly Presenting Data

While ensuring that data is presented correctly is obviously always important when

presenting it to an audience, it was essential for this analysis in particular because it is based off

of metrics derived from two different datasets. The base dataset being used for this analysis was

one taken from the Madden 21 video game. The focus of the analysis was to evaluate the four

different archetypes assigned to quarterbacks in the game (Improviser, Field General, Scrambler,

and Strong Arm) along with the ratings given to them for specific traits such as throw accuracy,

throw power, and throwing on the run. With the theory going into the analysis being that

quarterbacks under the “Field General” archetype would statistically perform better during

games because of Madden’s emphasis on their ability to throw the ball accurately, the next step

was to consult the 2020 season statistics themselves to see which archetype group had the best

average statistics.

With a wide variety of data being considered for this analysis, it could potentially

overwhelm viewers not familiar with it if not presented correctly. Looking at the two visuals

above, making sure that every element was properly labeled was imperative because there is one

graph for each dataset. For example, if the title of the graph illustrating quarterbacks’ passer

rating, which is an official NFL statistic, was not labeled as such someone with little knowledge

of football may conclude that the Madden throwing accuracy ratings shown in the first graph

simply led to a better overall rating in the video game itself. On the flip side, if it was not made

obvious that the first graph came from Madden, then someone may think it is an actual NFL

game statistic instead like completion percentage. From there, another important element to

consider was the scale of the y axis since it reflects units of measurement. If the baseline was not

set to zero and the gridlines reflected numbers that are too close together, then that would skew
 4

the data on the graph. In this case, one incorrect conclusion that could result from those mistakes

is that the “Improviser” archetypes had significantly better accuracy ratings on Madden which

then led to much higher passer ratings during actual games, when in reality the difference was

not that drastic.

Challenges

Having previous experience working with Excel made it a lot easier to put together these

charts, but that does not mean this process did not come without its challenges. One major

challenge was actually picking out which metrics should be illustrated on these graphs in the first

place. There are so many important attributes and metrics to consider when evaluating the

performance of quarterbacks that it is difficult to pick out just one indicator to focus on because

they are all pieces of the whole picture.

Madden’s rating system has eight traits specific to quarterbacks in the game, and with the

explosion of analytics in professional sports there is now an endless list of player statistics and

figures that teams consider when evaluating them. Ultimately, accuracy ratings for deep,

medium, and short passes were chosen from the Madden dataset because it more closely tied

back to the stated theory about the “Field General” archetype. Then looking at the actual 2020

statistics, a quarterback’s passer rating was chosen because the variables included in the formula

to calculate it are completion percentage, passing yards per attempt, touchdowns per attempt, and

interceptions per attempt. For the sake of this analysis, this was a much more effective standard

for comparison than total yards or touchdowns because not all quarterbacks played the full 16-

game season last year.

 5

The next challenge had more to do with the appearance of the graphs themselves,

specifically with attempting to include a line on both graphs that represented the averages for all

starting quarterbacks on both charts. That way, the bars on each graph representing the four

quarterback archetypes could then be compared against the league-wide average to see which

performed above or below standards. On a normal table of data this can usually be achieved by

creating a combo chart, but unfortunately PivotTables work a bit differently. Trying to add an

average line was ultimately not successful without messing up with integrity of the existing

graph since it was already categorized specifically by archetype, so instead it was kept the way it

was to prevent any confusion for the viewer.