RSS Feed
DVOA Analysis
Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season
19 Sep 2006
Week 3 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
UPDATE: Commentary is now found here on FOXSports.com.
This week, we provide two sets of ratings -- in two entirely separate tables. The first table is the same one we've always done in the early weeks, simply VOA through the first two games, no opponent adjustments of course. The only differences between "NON-ADJ VOA" and "TOTAL VOA" are fumble luck and the weather/altitude effects on special teams.
The second table is the new rating that combines early-season performance with the preseason projection. This is still a work in progress, and I haven't yet settled on a final formula to use for each week, or figured out in what week I can shift from this formula to 2006 numbers only so that a) the numbers are as accurate as possible and b) there isn't a sudden, jarring change for 10 teams at once. Also, I have no idea what to name this thing. I thought of "Weighted DVOA" but I think it's confusing to have that be this formula and the late-season formula that drops early games. I thought of "Power DVOA," like power ranking, but that's easy to confuse with the running statistic for short-yardage downs, which we call "power situations." I could just call it "FOX Rating" like I do in those boxes to the left but that seems silly. On my worksheets I'm calling it ESW for Early-Season Weighted, but the last thing we need around here is another acronym. Anyway, I'll take your suggestions in the comments.
There's one other big change in this formula. While using the preseason projection makes our rankings of all 32 teams far more accurate if we're trying to predict how they'll do the rest of the year, the fact is that we know some things now that we didn't know two weeks ago when we did the rankings. That's important considering the number of personnel variables that I added to the projection system this off-season. So instead of using the actual DVOA projections, what I'm using here are the DVOA projections adjusted for what we know now. There are three teams that this really affects: First, we drop the offensive projection for Kansas City and Oakland by changing the variables for QB experience and "starting QB health/backup quality." Second, we drop the offensive projection for Washington; the offensive coordinator variable was 3 because it's the same offensive coordinator as the last two years, but at this point it's clear that the titles in Washington are totally meaningless. Not only has Al Saunders installed his offense, but the team is having a heck of a time learning the thing. This is not an isolated incident, which is why the offensive projection penalizes a team with a new offensive coordinator, and we've adjusted Washington accordingly.
On the other hand, none of the "facts on the ground" have changed in Denver, so the projection used in the formula is the same as it was in the preseason, and the Broncos rank seventh in offense on the second table despite their early struggles.
For those curious, the formula this week is 80 percent projection, 20 percent 2006 VOA. Home-field adjustments are still not in here yet. I really will add them this year, I promise. The separate pages for offense, defense, and special teams have now been changed from 2005 to 2006. Individual stats are updated as well.
Two more notes: I didn't stick up the Saturday game previews because I was otherwise occupied. Sorry about that. Also, we've reprogrammed Loser League to be more efficient with the new server, so check tomorrow's Scramble for information about how to check your team's performance in Weeks 1-2.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through Week 2 of 2006, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)
OFFENSE and DEFENSE VOA are adjusted to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season.
There are no opponent adjustments for the first three weeks of the season, which is why offense and defense are "VOA" and not "DVOA."
To save people some time, please use the following format for all complaints:
<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>
| ACTUAL 2006 NUMBERS | |||||||||||
| TEAM |
TOTAL VOA |
LAST WEEK |
NON-ADJ VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | BAL | 84.3% | 1 | 103.6% | 2-0 | -1.5% | 14 | -82.3% | 1 | 3.5% | 9 |
| 2 | SD | 83.8% | 3 | 90.3% | 2-0 | 31.3% | 2 | -48.9% | 2 | 3.6% | 8 |
| 3 | CHI | 62.6% | 2 | 70.3% | 2-0 | 21.5% | 4 | -23.6% | 7 | 17.5% | 1 |
| 4 | CIN | 44.7% | 8 | 45.3% | 2-0 | 15.5% | 8 | -27.1% | 6 | 2.1% | 14 |
| 5 | JAC | 41.7% | 11 | 47.5% | 2-0 | -3.0% | 15 | -44.1% | 3 | 0.6% | 17 |
| 6 | PHI | 40.9% | 5 | 27.6% | 1-1 | 36.2% | 1 | -3.1% | 16 | 1.6% | 15 |
| 7 | ATL | 31.5% | 4 | 37.4% | 2-0 | 12.1% | 9 | -32.2% | 5 | -12.8% | 31 |
| 8 | SEA | 23.7% | 14 | 19.9% | 2-0 | -7.1% | 16 | -34.9% | 4 | -4.1% | 21 |
| 9 | BUF | 23.6% | 15 | 21.8% | 1-1 | 0.5% | 13 | -13.9% | 11 | 9.2% | 2 |
| 10 | SF | 20.8% | 13 | 14.2% | 1-1 | 18.9% | 5 | 2.1% | 19 | 4.0% | 7 |
| 11 | NO | 18.3% | 9 | 21.9% | 2-0 | -7.2% | 17 | -19.5% | 8 | 6.0% | 3 |
| 12 | STL | 10.8% | 6 | 18.6% | 1-1 | -7.4% | 18 | -15.6% | 10 | 2.7% | 11 |
| 13 | IND | 9.4% | 21 | 11.8% | 2-0 | 30.5% | 3 | 26.0% | 30 | 4.9% | 4 |
| 14 | NE | 8.4% | 17 | 5.4% | 2-0 | 10.7% | 10 | 4.5% | 22 | 2.3% | 12 |
| 15 | NYJ | 7.2% | 7 | 2.7% | 1-1 | 18.2% | 6 | 3.0% | 20 | -8.0% | 26 |
| 16 | DAL | 3.6% | 24 | 1.6% | 1-1 | 3.3% | 11 | -8.5% | 14 | -8.2% | 27 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL VOA |
LAST WEEK |
NON-ADJ VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | MIN | -0.6% | 16 | -1.1% | 2-0 | -8.4% | 19 | -12.0% | 12 | -4.3% | 22 |
| 18 | NYG | -8.2% | 10 | 1.0% | 1-1 | 17.7% | 7 | 19.6% | 29 | -6.3% | 25 |
| 19 | KC | -10.3% | 25 | -8.3% | 0-2 | -20.1% | 23 | -8.6% | 13 | 1.2% | 16 |
| 20 | PIT | -15.5% | 12 | -23.2% | 1-1 | -26.0% | 26 | -19.5% | 9 | -9.0% | 28 |
| 21 | WAS | -26.0% | 19 | -19.5% | 0-2 | -20.6% | 24 | 8.5% | 25 | 3.1% | 10 |
| 22 | GB | -28.7% | 31 | -27.9% | 0-2 | -15.8% | 21 | -1.7% | 17 | -14.6% | 32 |
| 23 | CAR | -28.8% | 29 | -26.8% | 0-2 | -26.6% | 27 | 2.0% | 18 | -0.2% | 18 |
| 24 | DEN | -30.2% | 26 | -27.2% | 1-1 | -26.7% | 28 | -5.9% | 15 | -9.4% | 29 |
| 25 | ARI | -31.0% | 18 | -19.1% | 1-1 | -13.2% | 20 | 12.7% | 28 | -5.1% | 23 |
| 26 | MIA | -32.8% | 20 | -18.3% | 0-2 | -24.9% | 25 | 3.9% | 21 | -3.9% | 19 |
| 27 | CLE | -38.3% | 23 | -42.8% | 0-2 | -31.2% | 29 | 12.0% | 27 | 4.8% | 5 |
| 28 | DET | -40.4% | 22 | -44.7% | 0-2 | -19.1% | 22 | 10.3% | 26 | -11.1% | 30 |
| 29 | HOU | -43.5% | 27 | -35.8% | 0-2 | 1.9% | 12 | 47.5% | 32 | 2.2% | 13 |
| 30 | TB | -54.2% | 32 | -65.4% | 0-2 | -44.2% | 31 | 4.6% | 23 | -5.4% | 24 |
| 31 | TEN | -74.0% | 28 | -62.7% | 0-2 | -34.2% | 30 | 35.8% | 31 | -4.0% | 20 |
| 32 | OAK | -76.5% | 30 | -91.9% | 0-2 | -73.7% | 32 | 6.9% | 24 | 4.0% | 6 |
| "EARLY SEASON WEIGHTED" (i.e. FOX VERSION) |
||||||||||
| TEAM |
TOTAL VOA |
LAST WEEK |
W-L |
OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | SEA | 37.2% | 1 | 2-0 | 24.8% | 2 | -13.7% | 4 | -1.4% | 22 |
| 2 | SD | 34.3% | 3 | 2-0 | 19.9% | 4 | -14.0% | 3 | 0.4% | 11 |
| 3 | CIN | 24.8% | 4 | 2-0 | 21.4% | 3 | -3.2% | 11 | 0.2% | 13 |
| 4 | IND | 24.6% | 2 | 2-0 | 31.2% | 1 | 5.1% | 26 | -1.5% | 25 |
| 5 | CHI | 22.1% | 8 | 2-0 | 2.7% | 11 | -15.7% | 2 | 3.6% | 2 |
| 6 | PHI | 18.4% | 9 | 1-1 | 11.4% | 6 | -4.8% | 8 | 2.2% | 5 |
| 7 | BAL | 17.2% | 15 | 2-0 | -3.6% | 16 | -20.9% | 1 | -0.1% | 14 |
| 8 | ATL | 13.6% | 10 | 2-0 | 4.3% | 9 | -10.9% | 5 | -1.5% | 24 |
| 9 | JAC | 12.3% | 14 | 2-0 | 2.0% | 13 | -9.9% | 6 | 0.5% | 9 |
| 10 | PIT | 10.0% | 7 | 1-1 | 6.6% | 8 | -4.7% | 9 | -1.3% | 21 |
| 11 | DEN | 9.2% | 6 | 1-1 | 10.4% | 7 | -1.7% | 16 | -2.9% | 29 |
| 12 | NE | 7.8% | 12 | 2-0 | 14.0% | 5 | 5.7% | 28 | -0.6% | 16 |
| 13 | KC | 4.4% | 5 | 0-2 | -1.2% | 14 | -6.2% | 7 | -0.6% | 15 |
| 14 | CAR | 3.7% | 11 | 0-2 | 2.4% | 12 | -2.2% | 14 | -0.8% | 17 |
| 15 | NYG | 0.5% | 16 | 1-1 | 4.0% | 10 | 2.0% | 22 | -1.4% | 23 |
| 16 | DAL | -0.6% | 20 | 1-1 | -1.9% | 15 | -2.2% | 13 | -1.0% | 19 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL VOA |
LAST WEEK |
W-L |
OFFENSE VOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE VOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | WAS | -2.1% | 13 | 0-2 | -7.2% | 19 | -2.6% | 12 | 2.5% | 4 |
| 18 | MIA | -6.3% | 18 | 0-2 | -11.0% | 26 | -2.0% | 15 | 2.6% | 3 |
| 19 | TB | -10.3% | 19 | 0-2 | -9.7% | 21 | -1.7% | 17 | -2.2% | 27 |
| 20 | BUF | -13.3% | 28 | 1-1 | -15.7% | 31 | 1.8% | 21 | 4.2% | 1 |
| 21 | CLE | -14.1% | 23 | 0-2 | -15.4% | 30 | 0.6% | 19 | 1.9% | 7 |
| 22 | DET | -14.4% | 21 | 0-2 | -7.0% | 18 | 4.6% | 25 | -2.8% | 28 |
| 23 | MIN | -15.0% | 26 | 2-0 | -14.2% | 28 | -0.8% | 18 | -1.7% | 26 |
| 24 | SF | -15.7% | 30 | 1-1 | -10.0% | 22 | 2.2% | 23 | -3.5% | 30 |
| 25 | GB | -15.9% | 24 | 0-2 | -10.5% | 25 | 1.4% | 20 | -4.0% | 31 |
| 26 | STL | -16.9% | 27 | 1-1 | -10.3% | 23 | 5.4% | 27 | -1.3% | 20 |
| 27 | NYJ | -19.3% | 31 | 1-1 | -11.1% | 27 | 8.5% | 30 | 0.3% | 12 |
| 28 | ARI | -19.6% | 25 | 1-1 | -10.4% | 24 | 3.7% | 24 | -5.5% | 32 |
| 29 | TEN | -20.1% | 22 | 0-2 | -5.5% | 17 | 15.0% | 31 | 0.4% | 10 |
| 30 | OAK | -23.0% | 17 | 0-2 | -28.2% | 32 | -3.2% | 10 | 2.0% | 6 |
| 31 | NO | -23.0% | 32 | 2-0 | -14.4% | 29 | 7.8% | 29 | -0.9% | 18 |
| 32 | HOU | -24.9% | 29 | 0-2 | -9.7% | 20 | 16.2% | 32 | 1.0% | 8 |
PHI: Number one offense in VOA after two weeks.
Bring it on, Bill Barnwell. Congratulations that your team won, but ha ha on being wrong about PHI's pass offense. :)
Sigh. The 14% VOA adjustment for fumble recovery is little consolation, however.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that ranking New Orleans at #31 will get you at least a few angry emails. I hope at least one person has the balls to use the line "Football Outsiders doesn't care about black people."
Nice to see the Eagles higher than the giants.. a small consolation price for that atroucious loss and Keare's season-ending injury
Wow, NO must be really low on that preseason ranking...
I just dont understand how the Pat's offence grades out as significantly better than their D so far.
The offence has been god-awful, while the defence has been about mediocre. (other than 2 fluke plays)
The Giants have now had consecutive weeks where their VOA differential for the game (fairly assessed, IMO) doesn't match the game result. I can't imagine this happens often. Anyone know if any team has had a longer streak?
sorry, I take that back. The run game has been good. The passing offence has been god awful.
So instead of using the actual DVOA projections, what I’m using here are the DVOA projections adjusted for what we know now. There are three teams that this really affects
Okay, but why isn't Carolina getting dropped by the formula due to the absence of Steve Smith?
I feal really bad for Aaron having to explain why the Eagles, after dominating New York for 45 minutes, are ranked higher than a team that had to get unbelievably lucky to beat them.
I'm assuming the FOMBC will apply to either the Giants or possibly the Vikings next week.
Okay, but why isn’t Carolina getting dropped by the formula due to the absence of Steve Smith?
There might not be variables for "WR health". Green and Brooks getting injured tells you that they're not that healthy. :)
In what week do opponent adjustments start taking effect?
Anyone know if any team has had a longer streak?
Dear God, yes. Atlanta, last year. Took 8 freaking weeks before their luck started to right itself.
Re: 8. Yes, I thought of that after I did the numbers but by that point I was already halfway through things. (The variable is "lose big WR" not "WR health" but clearly this is having an impact on Carolina.) Depending on the medical reports this week, I'll take that into account next week. But it wouldn't do more than drop the Panthers in line with the Giants and Cowboys. For those curious, Deion Branch was already taken into account on the original preseason projections.
I just dont understand how the Pat’s offence grades out as significantly better than their D so far
Remember that this is value over average. There have been a lot of offensive stink-fests so far this season.
The guy who called first is clearly ranked too high because he just slaps a few keys and Say It! Stealing music or kicking puppies is way better than this. My well-reasoned use of copy-and-pasting paired with creative diatribe is self-evidently superior. Arrrrrr, matey!
Good to see the bizarro-Seahawks turn everyone around with defense and lousy offensive line play. If this continues against stouter foes than DET and ARI, anyone know of historical comparisons for that level of turnaround on both sides of the ball for a SB-level team?
Dear God, yes. Atlanta, last year. Took 8 freaking weeks before their luck started to right itself.
Atlanta was inordinately lucky early last year, but I can't imagine they had a lower VOA than Minnesota in Week 4.
I just noticed the "Top 5 Offenses - Through Week 2" over to the left.
4. Chi*
5. SF*
*Not Misprints
That right there brings the funnay.
Oh, and I nearly forgot: Wooo! The Oakland Raiders offense as graded by VOA now finally meets my opinion of it - the worst offense I have ever seen in my entire life.
Yeah, some of that is due to Baltimore's defense. But unless Baltimore exudes waves of "you must be inept... you must be inept..." they didn't cause Brooks's pair-o-fumbles at the beginning of the game.
Mark my words: the Raiders are going to surpass the 49ers -40% offensive DVOA this year. And that's with actual offensive talent on the team. That's incredible. My brain simply cannot comprehend how bad the Raiders coaching staff and front office is.
hahahaahaha not misprints...
this place sometimes still feels the same.
#9:
Please, dear God, not the FOMBC! I'm going to try to ward it off with a preventive "The Giants don't deserve to be ranked any higher than this! Really!"
Between losing a game we should have won, and wining a game we should have lost, it pretty much evens out. The luck factors drop us two spots, which isn't that much. Though I suspect we'll make it up once the opponent adjustments come into play.
Indy's defense looks pretty shaky here. With the 20% weighting, clearly the Giants game--primarily rushing D I assume--is dragging them down. But the highly rated Philly D also let up a bunch of points to NYG. Hmmm.
Plus Indy totally stomped lowly HOU until the reserves stepped in in the 4th quarter, which I guess hurts them statistically, as well... handing David Carr a 120+ rating day, despite the circumstances.
Looks like another year of bend, don't break. The trick is all in how much they bend.
You know what make Oaklands offensive numbers even funnier...they have a +15.4% adjustment. That means that they've been lucky to be as bad as they've been.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but it's appropriate here too as well:
Why would anyone complain about the Giants ranking? Yeah, they won. So what? Tons of teams win luckily. Some of them even win luckily all the way through the Super Bowl. But is any Giants fan in the world really honestly not worried about their secondary right now?
So, on the subject of Oakland: under the VOA formula, is it possible to have a rating lower than -100%? I'd imagine that you can - if a play that's expected to gain, say, two and a half yards actually loses five, that seems like it should be -125% or something similar - but I want to know for sure if I have that to look forward to this year.
#23:
It's no worse than it was last year.
In other words, it's a huge problem, and yes, I'm very worried.
"New Orleans is clearly ranked too high because Reggie Bush is so overrated. ESPN's power ranking is way better than this. Houston is cleerly the best team in the NFL and just had a few bad brakes that made them lose early."
How's that?
Nice job as always and as confusing as ever. I'm glad to see my 9ers actually starting to show a marked improvement.
Ahoy Mateys!
At last SF seem to be emerging from the cesspool grouping them with OAK and HOU. Despite having a young, unproven QB, new OC and only 1 WR.
Gore for President!
I think so. V+ is linear, isn't it? VOA is just "(actual V+ - average V+)/(average V+)", I think. So if a team fumbles every single snap - and that's not far off from what Oakland's doing, dear God - that'd be well over -100%.
In other words, it’s a huge problem, and yes, I’m very worried.
Exactly. Which is why I can't understand how someone could possibly want New York ranked higher. Their offense looked pretty good - the running game shone against Indy, the passing game looked good late against Philly - but the defense just looks... bad. That's Minnesota, 2004, and an average ranking.
Oh, good.
And, re: 27, the "new OC" seems to be working out in the Niners' favor. Not so much for the Packers, but I suspect that horse is going to be soundly beaten by the end of the season.
Shiver me timbers!
Okay, my bad, no opponent adjustments yet. Which, of course for Indy, will just make things stranger when they kick in. Esp. if the Jags game ends something like last year's low-scoring 10-3 brawl in Week 2 (Which ESPN helpfully told me last night was the only game of 2005 to have a scoreless first half!) The Jags' O is kind of inscrutable. They seem to be working pretty well, but it's tough to say what exactly is their strength. I guess that's why their non-fox O rating is average.
You know what make Oaklands offensive numbers even funnier…they have a +15.4% adjustment. That means that they’ve been lucky to be as bad as they’ve been.
I think the adjustment goes the other way (7 total fumbles in OAK games, 5 recovered by the other team), but a -76% VOA is still off-the-charts bad.
But is any Giants fan in the world really honestly not worried about their secondary right now?
I'd be worried about the offensive line (8 sacks?), the lack of a pass rush, and Voltron too.
How much of that #1 for ST on the Bears is due to Robbie Goulds sudden ability to kick touchbacks?
Yeah, you're right Travis. I was just about to correct myself on that. Oakland is actually the unluckiest team in the league, with Philly right on their heels.
In case anyone is interested, here are the luck modifiers for each team:
BAL 19.30%
SD 6.50%
CHI 7.70%
CIN 0.60%
JAC 5.80%
PHI -13.30%
ATL 5.90%
SEA -3.80%
BUF -1.80%
SF -6.60%
NO 3.60%
STL 7.80%
IND 2.40%
NE -3.00%
NYJ -4.50%
DAL -2.00%
MIN -0.50%
NYG 9.20%
KC 2.00%
PIT -7.70%
WAS 6.50%
GB 0.80%
CAR 2.00%
DEN 3.00%
ARI 11.90%
MIA 14.50%
CLE -4.50%
DET -4.30%
HOU 7.70%
TB -11.20%
TEN 11.30%
OAK -15.40%
33: I don't think I saw a Robbie Gould kickoff at Penn State that didn't go out of the back of the end zone. He's got a leg on him.
So Aaron, is what you are saying with the two tables is that the first is how teams "are" and the second is how they are going to be come January? ... Man how lame is that if you are NO and HOU to be below OAK. Talk about your nadirs ... wooooo.
But is any Giants fan in the world really honestly not worried about their secondary right now?
Probably no more so that I am worried about Philly's secondary. Did anyone else find it ironic that the Eagles' achilles heel was Rod Hood's bruised heel.
*I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. I'll go away now.*
How much of that #1 for ST on the Bears is due to Robbie Goulds sudden ability to kick touchbacks?
I think Robbie Gould's sudden ability to kick touchbacks had to do with the 68 degree weather and the 7 mph tailwind. Gamebook
Kickoff distance when defending the south goal: 58, 61, 65 (Hanson had a 68 yarder).
Kickoff distance when defending the north goal: 70, 70, 70, 70 (Hanson also had a touchback).
Correction: Hanson's kickoff wasn't a touchback, but it reached the end zone.
Clearly you need to introduce a variable for Art Shell being a moron.
Seriously, though I think maybe 4th quarter performance should be waited more heavily in DVOA...the eagles should be penalized for falling apart compeltely; clutch teams tend to be more consistently clutch (e.g., Jaguars, Pats) whereas the iggles choking faculties are the reason they havent and wont win the super bowl during mcnabb's tenure.
In order to the ease the pain of RaidahNation, maybe Aaron can release DVOA estimates for the 2010 season.
The DVOA Pre-season data is best-worst about +40% to -40%. The actual VOA after week 2 is about +80% to -80%. Quite a spread!
So much for NFL parity so far.
Oh my god you did not just start talking about clutch in a statistical discussion.
#43
ignore it. please.
yo-ho-ho!
Blended DVOA?
Soo, when is actual DVOA available? I assume it's when every team is linked by opponents.
And could you run DVOA by adjusting the first two weeks against your predictions?
Pat:
I am a Giants fan and I am not worried about our secondary. Unless it rains, cardboard kind of wilts then.
Bobman #21:
But the highly rated Philly D also let up a bunch of points to NYG.
The Philly D gave up perhaps 20 points to the Giants, which is respectable, but not great. The Giants were then lucky and recovered their own fumble pushed forward into the endzone on a play that started at midfield, and they recovered an Eagles fumble in easy FG territory and turned that into a touchdown. Its hard to blame the Philly D for Westbrook fumbling in Field Goal range, or for a fumble squirting forward 30 yards into the endzone.
Well, obviously, the Bears matchup with the Vikings in Minny this Sunday will put my theory to a significant test, that Aaron's pre-season projected wins for the Vikings seriously miscalculated how horrid their coaching was last year, even compared to a completely new coaching staff this year. On the other hand, the Vikings lost another significant player for the season on Sunday, starting de Erasmus James. In about one month now the Vikings have lost two starters (DE and SS) on defense, their number one nickelback, and their first round draft pick linebacker, to season ending injuries, and it seems to me that Aaron was basing a good part of his Vikings projection on expected injuries. I think, however, that might have pertained more to an expected injury to Brad Johnson.
I'd like to know what value Aaron assigns to expected injuries when projecting wins, and how he develops an injury expectation. If he has developed a formula to consistently predict injuries with some accuracy, well, that would be a tremendously valuable ability for projecting a team's wins, and I'd certainly keep it proprietary.
I certainly had fears that the injury bug would get the Vikings on the defensive line and quarterback, and to some degree those fears are being borne out, and those fears are accentuated by the injuries elsewhere. Those fears were simply a gut feeling based on players' past injury histories, which really is hard to translate into a specific impact on wins and losses. I have more confidence now than I did a month ago regarding their depth at defensive line, however, so I haven't yet conceded defeat to Aaron's formulas, even though I'd like to see them all in detail.
Didnt know where to post, but I just heard that Volek was traded to San Diego for a 6th rounder. WTF is going on in Tenessee, and what did Volek do to get run out of town?
Post new comment