RSS Feed
DVOA Analysis
Football Outsiders' revolutionary statistics that break down every single play of the NFL season
24 Oct 2006
Week 8 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
Here's a look at this week's DVOA and DAVE ratings, with commentary available now on FOXSports.com.
At this point the ratings are starting to look really weird to the average fan. Undefeated Indianapolis and all the 5-1 teams are all beneath teams that are 4-2, 4-3, and even 2-4 (Pittsburgh). With this in mind, this week's commentary really tries to explain DVOA and why it is different than conventional wisdom for each specific team. My hope is that this will help those readers who are a) new to DVOA and b) open-minded.
Some mathy stuff here for the FO readers: In the last couple of weeks, I've noted the gap between the top 20 teams and the bottom 12. A similar gap has opened up between the top 4 teams and the teams ranked 5-20. In that middle section, the teams are really packed close together, which makes a sentence like "New Orleans is only ranked 12th" sound a lot more severe than what the reality is. For a comparison, check out last year's DVOA ratings from this same week. Last year, there were only seven teams between 0% and 15% at this point in the season. This year, there are 15, or nearly half the league.
On the other hand, eight teams from last year's Week 8 would fit into the space between the Giants (fourth right now) and the Ravens (fifth).
One more tidbit: Last week, I said I would go looking to see if the Chicago-Arizona game had the biggest difference in single-game DVOA between two teams where the team with the lower rating actually won. I never got to this on the blog over at FOX, so I wanted to mention it here. It turns out the answer is no. In fact, there are two games in the last two years where the difference was even greater and the team that played better overall lost: Pittsburgh's 33-30 victory over the Giants in Week 15 of 2004, and Philadelphia's 17-16 victory over the Rams in Week 15 of 2005.
Remember that you can always use the keyword "DVOA" to access the latest DVOA commentary at FOXSports.com.
* * * * *
These are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through Week 7 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 DVOA are adjusted based on strength of opponent as well as to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. Opponent adjustments are currently set at 70% and will increase each week until they are full strength after Week 10. SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season.
DAVE is the new early-season formula that combines early-season performance with our preseason projection to get a more accurate picture of how well teams will play over the course of the entire season. (DAVE stands for "DVOA Adjusted for Variation Early.") This is the rating used to rank teams at FOXSports.com. At this point, the preseason projection is just 15% of the rating, and is not used at all for the four teams on bye in Week 8. Next week, we get rid of DAVE and start using WEIGHTED DVOA, which is based on 2006 only, but with early-season games given less value.
To save people some time, please use the zlionsfan template 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>
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
DAVE | RANK |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | CHI | 45.0% | 2 | 39.4% | 1 | 55.2% | 6-0 | 5.4% | 10 | -26.8% | 2 | 12.7% | 1 |
| 2 | PHI | 39.2% | 3 | 35.2% | 2 | 33.6% | 4-3 | 25.0% | 2 | -15.1% | 8 | -0.8% | 18 |
| 3 | SD | 34.0% | 1 | 31.9% | 3 | 44.1% | 4-2 | 15.5% | 4 | -13.6% | 9 | 4.9% | 4 |
| 4 | NYG | 33.3% | 5 | 29.2% | 4 | 27.8% | 4-2 | 21.3% | 3 | -10.8% | 11 | 1.1% | 12 |
| 5 | BAL | 18.2% | 7 | 14.9% | 7 | 30.8% | 4-2 | -17.2% | 27 | -32.0% | 1 | 3.4% | 7 |
| 6 | PIT | 17.3% | 8 | 17.7% | 5 | 8.8% | 2-4 | 8.5% | 8 | -15.4% | 6 | -6.5% | 31 |
| 7 | NE | 14.8% | 11 | 14.2% | 8 | 27.6% | 5-1 | 11.7% | 6 | 1.3% | 22 | 4.3% | 5 |
| 8 | JAC | 14.1% | 4 | 12.4% | 9 | 17.9% | 3-3 | -3.7% | 19 | -19.1% | 4 | -1.2% | 19 |
| 9 | IND | 13.8% | 13 | 15.7% | 6 | 18.7% | 6-0 | 27.3% | 1 | 9.4% | 26 | -4.2% | 30 |
| 10 | STL | 11.8% | 9 | 6.5% | 14 | 26.3% | 4-2 | 13.0% | 5 | 1.0% | 21 | -0.2% | 15 |
| 11 | DAL | 11.8% | 6 | 9.9% | 12 | 11.6% | 3-3 | -1.9% | 16 | -15.5% | 5 | -1.8% | 23 |
| 12 | NO | 11.3% | 10 | 5.7% | 15 | 16.2% | 5-1 | 7.0% | 9 | 0.9% | 19 | 5.2% | 3 |
| 13 | KC | 10.1% | 17 | 10.0% | 11 | 3.6% | 3-3 | -2.8% | 18 | -9.4% | 13 | 3.5% | 6 |
| 14 | MIN | 9.6% | 19 | 5.5% | 16 | 11.7% | 4-2 | -10.8% | 24 | -20.6% | 3 | -0.1% | 14 |
| 15 | DEN | 9.3% | 12 | 11.1% | 10 | 12.0% | 5-1 | -4.6% | 20 | -15.3% | 7 | -1.3% | 20 |
| 16 | CIN | 7.7% | 15 | 9.1% | 13 | 8.9% | 4-2 | 0.4% | 13 | -5.1% | 14 | 2.3% | 9 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
DAVE | RANK |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | CAR | 4.0% | 14 | 5.4% | 17 | 2.3% | 4-3 | 3.3% | 11 | -2.5% | 17 | -1.8% | 24 |
| 18 | ATL | 0.1% | 20 | 1.7% | 18 | 4.3% | 4-2 | -6.7% | 22 | -9.6% | 12 | -2.9% | 27 |
| 19 | WAS | -3.6% | 18 | -3.8% | 20 | -5.4% | 2-5 | 11.1% | 7 | 16.8% | 28 | 2.1% | 10 |
| 20 | SEA | -5.1% | 16 | 0.2% | 19 | -14.5% | 4-2 | -7.5% | 23 | -2.8% | 16 | -0.4% | 17 |
| 21 | TB | -15.3% | 23 | -13.6% | 21 | -26.3% | 2-4 | -12.8% | 25 | 1.0% | 20 | -1.6% | 22 |
| 22 | GB | -15.7% | 26 | -15.2% | 22 | -20.7% | 2-4 | -6.3% | 21 | 5.6% | 24 | -3.8% | 29 |
| 23 | BUF | -16.8% | 21 | -17.3% | 23 | -20.5% | 2-5 | -14.9% | 26 | 4.3% | 23 | 2.4% | 8 |
| 24 | NYJ | -17.4% | 27 | -19.1% | 25 | -12.0% | 4-3 | 0.4% | 12 | 18.2% | 29 | 0.3% | 13 |
| 25 | DET | -19.3% | 22 | -19.3% | 26 | -19.3% | 1-6 | -1.3% | 14 | 15.4% | 27 | -2.6% | 25 |
| 26 | MIA | -20.1% | 24 | -20.1% | 27 | -9.3% | 1-6 | -20.5% | 28 | -3.0% | 15 | -2.7% | 26 |
| 27 | CLE | -20.2% | 28 | -18.2% | 24 | -25.3% | 1-5 | -21.4% | 30 | 7.2% | 25 | 8.5% | 2 |
| 28 | ARI | -24.3% | 25 | -23.6% | 28 | -16.9% | 1-6 | -26.6% | 31 | -12.7% | 10 | -10.4% | 32 |
| 29 | SF | -25.9% | 29 | -26.4% | 29 | -31.3% | 2-4 | -2.7% | 17 | 22.9% | 31 | -0.3% | 16 |
| 30 | HOU | -29.2% | 31 | -27.6% | 30 | -30.0% | 2-4 | -1.3% | 15 | 29.7% | 32 | 1.8% | 11 |
| 31 | OAK | -39.1% | 32 | -34.4% | 31 | -43.1% | 1-5 | -35.2% | 32 | 0.8% | 18 | -3.2% | 28 |
| 32 | TEN | -41.0% | 30 | -37.1% | 32 | -35.8% | 1-5 | -21.0% | 29 | 18.5% | 30 | -1.5% | 21 |
- ESTIMATED WINS uses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.
- PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.
- VARIANCE measures the statistical variance of the team's weekly DVOA performance. Teams are ranked from least consistent (#1, highest variance) to most consistent (#32, smallest variance).
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VARIANCE | RANK | |
| 1 | CHI | 45.0% | 6-0 | 5.7 | 3 | -11.9% | 31 | -4.4% | 25 | 27.7% | 5 |
| 2 | PHI | 39.2% | 4-3 | 6.1 | 1 | -5.0% | 25 | 2.9% | 13 | 2.4% | 32 |
| 3 | SD | 34.0% | 4-2 | 4.9 | 4 | -8.6% | 28 | -6.4% | 28 | 9.8% | 17 |
| 4 | NYG | 33.3% | 4-2 | 5.7 | 2 | 9.4% | 2 | 3.6% | 12 | 8.5% | 19 |
| 5 | BAL | 18.2% | 4-2 | 4.4 | 8 | -4.5% | 24 | -0.6% | 19 | 12.7% | 15 |
| 6 | PIT | 17.3% | 2-4 | 4.1 | 12 | 7.6% | 6 | -2.6% | 21 | 16.8% | 10 |
| 7 | NE | 14.8% | 5-1 | 4.6 | 6 | -9.0% | 29 | -6.0% | 27 | 6.3% | 27 |
| 8 | JAC | 14.1% | 3-3 | 3.7 | 15 | 2.4% | 12 | -3.7% | 24 | 44.8% | 1 |
| 9 | IND | 13.8% | 6-0 | 4.7 | 5 | -6.3% | 26 | -1.1% | 20 | 6.8% | 24 |
| 10 | STL | 11.8% | 4-2 | 4.3 | 9 | -11.6% | 30 | 0.5% | 17 | 10.2% | 16 |
| 11 | DAL | 11.8% | 3-3 | 3.6 | 17 | 1.8% | 17 | 4.4% | 9 | 15.9% | 11 |
| 12 | NO | 11.3% | 5-1 | 4.1 | 11 | -1.1% | 22 | 5.3% | 7 | 8.0% | 21 |
| 13 | KC | 10.1% | 3-3 | 3.9 | 13 | 3.0% | 10 | -3.6% | 23 | 40.8% | 2 |
| 14 | MIN | 9.6% | 4-2 | 4.5 | 7 | 0.7% | 19 | -6.7% | 29 | 8.1% | 20 |
| 15 | DEN | 9.3% | 5-1 | 4.2 | 10 | -0.6% | 21 | 2.5% | 14 | 9.1% | 18 |
| 16 | CIN | 7.7% | 4-2 | 3.8 | 14 | 1.5% | 18 | 7.0% | 5 | 7.1% | 23 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VARIANCE | RANK | |
| 17 | CAR | 4.0% | 4-3 | 3.6 | 16 | 1.9% | 16 | 10.6% | 2 | 6.6% | 25 |
| 18 | ATL | 0.1% | 4-2 | 3.3 | 19 | 3.8% | 9 | 3.8% | 11 | 36.1% | 3 |
| 19 | WAS | -3.6% | 2-5 | 3.4 | 18 | 2.0% | 13 | 13.5% | 1 | 14.9% | 13 |
| 20 | SEA | -5.1% | 4-2 | 3.1 | 20 | 8.0% | 5 | -9.0% | 31 | 7.7% | 22 |
| 21 | TB | -15.3% | 2-4 | 2.7 | 22 | 9.4% | 3 | 9.4% | 3 | 6.5% | 26 |
| 22 | GB | -15.7% | 2-4 | 2.8 | 21 | 11.3% | 1 | -3.0% | 22 | 4.8% | 28 |
| 23 | BUF | -16.8% | 2-5 | 2.6 | 25 | 3.9% | 8 | -4.8% | 26 | 19.2% | 9 |
| 24 | NYJ | -17.4% | 4-3 | 2.5 | 26 | -7.8% | 27 | -8.0% | 30 | 21.9% | 8 |
| 25 | DET | -19.3% | 1-6 | 2.2 | 27 | 1.9% | 15 | -0.5% | 18 | 3.8% | 30 |
| 26 | MIA | -20.1% | 1-6 | 2.0 | 29 | -14.7% | 32 | 5.4% | 6 | 4.8% | 29 |
| 27 | CLE | -20.2% | 1-5 | 1.9 | 30 | 1.9% | 14 | 4.3% | 10 | 3.1% | 31 |
| 28 | ARI | -24.3% | 1-6 | 2.7 | 23 | -0.5% | 20 | 1.1% | 16 | 23.1% | 6 |
| 29 | SF | -25.9% | 2-4 | 2.7 | 24 | 5.3% | 7 | 1.8% | 15 | 31.6% | 4 |
| 30 | HOU | -29.2% | 2-4 | 2.1 | 28 | 9.2% | 4 | -10.0% | 32 | 15.4% | 12 |
| 31 | OAK | -39.1% | 1-5 | 1.2 | 32 | -1.5% | 23 | 4.9% | 8 | 14.0% | 14 |
| 32 | TEN | -41.0% | 1-5 | 1.5 | 31 | 2.6% | 11 | 8.0% | 4 | 22.0% | 7 |
Aarrgghhh! Why Eagles, why do you torture me so with your 3 boneheaded losses when you should easily have your 6.1 victories?!!
I see Indy's ST performance is returning to its customary dungeon after looking competent in the first two weeks.
Oh for the days of Brad Pyatt returning kicks and, um, invisible trip wires in the turf tackling the opposing returners. So much for the theory that all their young blood on D makes for good tackling on ST.
And Philly's still the most consistent team in the league. Un-freaking-believable. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how that team's not blowing teams out of the water.
I see that Chicago has also joined SD in the ranks of top-10 in everything. Interesting.
I, for one, welcome our new bear-shaped overlords.
Why Eagles, why do you torture me so with your 3 boneheaded losses when you should easily have your 6.1 victories?!!
that missing 0.1 is gonna come back and bite them at the end of the season--guaranteed
Indy's ST's have been severely hurt by Defensive injuries to the DB's and LB's. Plus, Vinatieri has not played that much either.
Still interesting to see how low Denver is to the supposedly stronger defenses in the league. Seventh in DVOA and twenty two of 44 points surrendered from TO's in scoring position.
Great to see how much Jake Plummer makes this defense look worse than they are. Hey let's start him against the Colts Mike Shanahan. He should help boost Peyton's stats some more this week.
Mark my words:
The Jets will make the playoffs with a DVOA in the 20s!!!!!!!!!! (Oh, how I love the NFL scheduling gods!!))))
-3
Its simple, teams are playing well/getting lucky against them. Philly is consistent playing at level say 70 out of 100. Many other teams fluctuate +/- 20 with a mean of say 57. Thus when those other teams have an upward variation they beat PHI 77 to 70 in my mythical "play index".
Pittsburgh's special teams is only 31st? Arizona's must be really some kind of awful to be worse.
Pittsburgh's special teams is only 31st? Arizona's must be really some kind of awful to be worse.
I can feel it. This is the week when the Angry Troll Hatred comes to visit us. . .
Yeah, I don't get the Broncos, either. At this point it looks like it's just a matter of time before Plummer costs them what should otherwise be a victory. Afterwards they'll be justified to switch. It seems like Indy would be a great opportunity for Cutler - Indy's defense isn't fabulous, and their run defense sucks, so the running game will let him get his feet wet.
Freaky...last year CAR was 17 and ATL was 18 on week 8. This year; CAR 17, ATL 18.
"At this point the ratings are starting to look really weird to the average fan. "
You think! I understand the ratings but even so, I would hate to have to explain them to a couple hundred thousand Fox readers. Good luck Aaron!
I'm beginning to wonder if DVOA should start penalising turnovers differently depending on field position (if it already does, penalising turnovers *more* differently...). Pittsburgh's anomalously high placing is a result of outplaying their opponents in two games they lost (Bengals, Falcons) because they turned over the ball in positions where the opposition really couldn't help but score. Ryan called them "potentially the best 6-10 team ever" which currently wouldn't suprise me if this keeps up. Admittedly, the Steelers have also had pretty bad luck in terms of fumble recovery (note to Steelers: this would matter less if you would QUIT FUMBLING), and the playcalling hasn't been the greatest on occasions (Jacksonville, hello). Ultimately, I think there has to be something wrong with the system here. As a Steelers fan, I know we're better than this, and I'm glad that VOA agrees with me, but they didn't actually deserve to win those games, and I think VOA should reflect that.
Wow, Pitt at 2-4? That's phenomenal. how much are the Squealer fans paying you Aaron? Are you listening Atlanta Falcon fans? That right there is your problem! :-D I think that the Squealers are playing sooo well off the charts and are so far out to the right that they've gone LEFT!
LMAO! Well, I guess if they make the playoffs again, we will sure know why!
11: I can feel it. This is the week when the Angry Troll Hatred comes to visit us. . .
Yep. Pittsburgh is at 6 and Atlanta is at 18...
I'm curious to see how far Seattle's going to plummet in the coming weeks.
Oh,BTW, Aaron, just once I'd like to see you just post the DVOA on FOXSports WITHOUT explanation and then post the email retorts that you get on here!
Now THAT would be entertaining!
Great Work! Just don't check your email for the rest of the week! LOL!
#16: Seattle may not plummet; they've gone through the toughest part of their schedule by a longshot, and go into a very easy schedule coming up - KC, Oakland, and SF in 3 of their next 4 games. STL will likely be a loss, but KC and Oakland are very winnable, even with Seneca Wallace.
Pitt at 2-4 ranked above, well, everyone is baffling, but the one that really baffles is NO. What does NO have to do to improve in the eyes of DVOA? I know, the defense needs to improve.
I do like the schedule strength. It'll be interesting to see GB do great and hear all the Favre-ists all go crazy for a bit. It'll also be interesting to see Carolina kind of tank it. And Washington...I'm wondering if they'll win another game.
Steelers special teams are clearly ranked too high because they are pathetically horrible at fielding punts. Paying somebody to stand there and fair catch every single time is way better than this. I will destroy you, Santonio Holmes. OMFG WTF
Wow great rankings this week, I wish we could get footage of the exploding heads of the Foxsports fans from Denver, Cincy, Atl, Carolina, etc....
1) I know there have been crazy 'explanation needed' phenomena in the rankings in the past, but this is the craziest I can remember.
2) The Broncos and Falcons again... I still say there's something inherent in the running games of those two teams that lead to this.
Hi,
I live under a bridge in Denver and turn to stone by the light of day. I just wanted to let you know that me and a bunch of my friends and relatives will be visiting you all real soon. See you then!
Well, for da Iggles, I imagine that some of it just comes down to absurd bad luck. I mean, how many opponents have missed field goals against them? (No wonder Gruden tried the 63-yarder - it's practically guaranteed against Philly this season.) And the forward fumble haunts me to this day.
I'm beginning to wonder if there should be a "luck count" to show how many times a team has just been plain fortunate or unfortunate. Like something that accounts for a team that seems to never/always recover fumbles, and things like that.
A theoretical example would take a team where they've recovered 18 of 29 fumbles, have made 1 of 4 45 yard+ (to pick an arbitrary distance - you'd probably want to pick the yardage beyond which FGs are 50% or less likely to make) FG, and have had 3 for 5 such FGs made against them.
Assuming that fumbles should be a 50/50 proposition, our team is 3.5 fumbles ahead of the game, one field goal behind projection, and have given up .5 field goals more than projection, resulting in a luck count of +2.
I'd be interested in seeing how teams would rank on such a metric - and more importantly, whether this would explain at least some of the disparity between projected and actual records.
My friends from Atlanta will probably drop by, too...
i'll third independent george's post (9/10). i can't even imagine what arizona must be doing to actually be worse than the steelers ST. seriously, if someone knows please tell me. i haven't heard about the cards allowing multiple return TDs a game...
Isn't comparing actual wins to estimated wins a pretty good quantitative indicator of luck? Or actual wins to wins predicted by DVOA?
MJK (21) wins the the funniest post of the day. by a mile.
Teams are getting lucky vs. the Eagles, plain and simple. Two of those losses are a fumble recovery in the endzone and a friggin 62 yard field goal.
This is why I'm not worrying about those three losses too much yet... but playing Jacksonville next week will be no fun.
"Pittsburgh’s 33-30 victory over the Giants in Week 15 of 2004"
Oh man I remember that game... that was Willie Parker's coming out party. James Harrison had a TD! Brian St. Pierre threw passes!!
The Bills wanted that game so bad to make the playoffs and the Steelers scrubs totally embarrassed them.
If the Eagles and Pats meet in the superbowl, I think Belichick will just go for the free kick every time the Eagles kick off to him. Why not? 70, 80 yarders? Bah. They are no match for the power of the Eagles Curse.
I'm really starting to think that DVOA loving teams that play dink and dunk ball is causing problems.
Also, how are the Giants so high? How would their DVOA change if you took out the 27 junk points they scored in the Seattle game?
Mediator12,
I forgot all about their strategy of having Corey Simon as a gunner on kicks. After all, he'd cover half the field.
Hopefully everyone bust a gut laughing at the image--mainly the returners would stumble in the craters his footsteps left in the ground. I suppose you are right about injuries, plus they either lost or moved a couple ST stalwarts to the starting lineup (Mathis), and lost their top ST players from last year. And by "top" players, I mean, well, guys with a pulse.
You know how the Gruden hire a few years back signalled the era of paying sky high prices for coaching talent because it was uncapped? Supposedly. Well, is there an ace ST coach out there that Indy could hire? I know Irsay isn't made of money, but maybe freakin' Manning could contribute some cash toward his salary? Is $1M a year too much to expect for the absoute top, walk-on-water, ST coach? Sounds cheap to me. Between NFL and endorsements last year, Manning made about $21M. Hell, I'll kick in 5% of my income as gravy.
And if this ROBO-ST coach moves them up to about 12 in ST, it will have been worth it.
This week the most consistant team(PHI) plays the most inconsistant(JAX). Thats pretty scary for me as an eagles fan, you can pretty much be sure the good Jacksonville team will show up with the Eagles' luck.
Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Denver ranking. They played a bunch of crappy teams (and New England) and didn't win by that much. So objectively they're only a little bit better the average (crappy) team they played. Subjectively we can say that Denver is "only doing enough to win", but there's no quantifiable way to represent that.
9-6 over KC? 17-7 over Clev? 13-3 over Oak? 13-3 over Bal? Lose 10-18 vs. StL? 17-7 over NE? A middle of the pack ranking objectively seems about right.
Jeremy Green I believe it was over at ESPN said something interesting about the way the Eagles are playing. He said they say seem to think they are great team who can win just by showing. The thing is, as he pointed out, the Eagles aren't a great team. They are good, but not as good as they seem to think they are. It sort of reminded me of what PFP '06 said about the Eagles playing at the beginning of last season; they were like the lazy smart kid who didn't study for the test but assummed he would pass anyways. The fact that it has happened two years in row tells me that Andy Reid should try and change the attitude in his locker room.
I’m beginning to wonder if DVOA should start penalising turnovers differently depending on field position (if it already does, penalising turnovers *more* differently…).
It does. And I really challenge you to find a better way of doing it than is already done here.
but they didn’t actually deserve to win those games, and I think VOA should reflect that.
That's not DVOA's job. That's estimated win's job. Where Pittsburgh is 12th.
#30:
The Giants are high mostly because of their running game, their run defense, and the opponent adjustment (note the #2 ranking in "past schedule").
34:
I remember those days well. That cocky smart kid would show up to the test and all of a sudden he'd get sports hernias, torn hamstrings, broken feet, and the class clown would walk up and stab him in the back. If only he'd studied...
28 - Aren't you mixing the Bills and the Giants?
30-
I'm not sure I see your point. Of the top 10 offenses according to DVOA the Eagles are the only team that uses a Walsh-style West Coast Offense. Maybe I'm misinterpretting what your saying, or missing something in the rankings, but I'm just not seeing the problem you're refering to.
(Sorry about the double post).
Well, is there an ace ST coach out there that Indy could hire?
Yup. Bobby April, Buffalo Bills. Or John Harbaugh, Eagles, but you want April. Really, you want April.
#35: I'd be curious to see a similar study done from 2005's turnovers instead of 2002. Not that it should be different, but I wonder if it is.
30 - explain that comment about dink and dunk.
I'll be forwarding this week's rankings to my NFC hating friends.
Hey, even I do not question DEN's overall rankings, just the defenses.
Den is right where they should be overall, if that. I could see them statistically being even worse than they are, due to a horrendous passing game and a QB that is incapable of getting the offense out of bad plays pre-snap. Plummer has been even worse than his numbers, because the numbers can never relate opportunity cost and he has blown way more plays than he has made.
DEN's defense has also had a bunch of missed TO opportunities, more than seven Dropped INT's at last count, but has been extraordinary in surrendering points. Last time I checked, points determined the outcome of games not first downs and yards.
DEN's offense has been way worse than the Stats show since they have given back at least 21 points of the 70 they have scored too.
They have played a poor schedule for sure and that has easily boosted their rankings as well as their wins. We will find out if the defense is for real this weekend. If they can play as consistently as TEN's did in INDY two weeks ago they can and should win the game versus the Colts.
Is the fox thing up yet? Link doesnt seem to be there.
And 2, your webserver sucks. C'mon here, this is awful. Everytime theres a new article, the site shuts down. Word Press just can't handle it.
That’s not DVOA’s job. That’s estimated win’s job. Where Pittsburgh is 12th.
Which is all very well, but even estimated wins has the Steelers at 4-2 instead of 2-4. I suppose "average" fumble recovery luck might well have got them to 3-3 , but 4.1 seems like at least one too many wins.
As I wrote in the FOX blog two weeks ago, Denver's current level of red zone defense is simply not sustainable. While it is no longer past -100%, it is still better than the 2000 Ravens at this point, and the gap between that and their total defense is still the largest ever. (Click link on name.)
We're working on the server. We really thought we had things fixed and we're not sure what's going on. We're on a dedicated server now, so there shouldn't be a problem.
Beatpaths power rankings are up. I have Minnesota ranked #2! DEN #6... NO #8... NE #10... ATL #12.
Last week's "picks" (loose term; done by comparing placement in the power rankings) were 7-6, which were surprisingly good, tied for the best weekly record in King Kaufman's panel o' experts.
Denver hasn't played a particularly weak schedule - it's more that everyone wants to pretend the win over New England didn't happen. "Oh, Denver just owns New England, it doesn't, like, mean they are BETTER than them or anything."
There's no reason to think that win was an asterisk.
"Oh, but I mean BESIDES the win over New England... yeah, yeah, BESIDES that..."
48. The thing is, its tough to not call it an asterisk.
There are some spots where teams just dont match up well. Denver ALWAYS beats NE. Just like NE always seems to beat Indy, and Indy always seems to beat Denver.
yes, Denver beating NE may say that Denver is a very good team, but it also may just be another occurance of Denver beating NE.
Don't expect too many ATL trolls. We are all-too-aware that this team is mediocre.
After the Giants debacle two weeks ago, most of us were just happy the Falcons showed up to the stadium this week. Sure was nice of Pittsburgh to fumble fourteen times. (Lost 12)
Pat, I think luck does play the largest role in Philly not blowing people out, but I still think there is a possibility that something is being missed in regards to interceptions that occur in the middle of the field, like how Barber schooled Mcnabb on Sunday. Maybe td returns for touchdowns really are random, but it might be interesting to see an analysis of ints between the 35 yard lines, broken down between inside and outside the tackle box, within five yards of the sideline, and more or less than 20 yards from the line of scrimmage.
If I remember correctly, the Vikings' special teams have made dramatic leaps in the past few weeks, along with a gradual climb by the defense. I think the defense is definitely for real, and if the special teams maintain their performance, they will be able to tolerate their current offensive performance pretty well, and given their remaining schedule, 10 wins, or if they get a little luck, 11 wins are a possibility.
I would have to say that at this point, when somebody says "DVOA would be better if it could include X" or "DVOA is wrong about this team because of X," 75% of the time X is something that I've already tried to put in the formula that didn't actually improve it and in many cases made it less accurate, and 20% of the time X is something that we simply can't measure because it's not in the standard play-by-play and the charting project doesn't turn data around fast enough. It's been four years now; I've tried a LOT of different improvements.
On the other hand, Will, you're the person who's been harping on the Vikings, right? I'm coming around. They've played much better in the last two weeks. I just can't figure out why, for the second straight year, the defense does all the work and Brad Johnson gets all the praise.
#49 - the problem is, it's impossible to come up with a set of standards to reliably state when it's an asterisk or not. That judgment is totally subjective. Based off of the game outcomes this season only, there is absolutely no reason to believe that New England is better than Denver, as they haven't beaten any teams that have beaten Denver. And there's every reason to believe Denver is better than New England, since Denver beat them head to head.
Besides, Indianapolis beat New England last time they met.
53
Right its somewhat subjective, but so is DVOA.
The thing is, I'm a NE fan, and I had money on Denver that night, even though VOA/DAVE had them as a road-dog.
#33:
Denver beat Baltimore (#5), New England (#7) and Kansas City (#13). St. Louis, the only team they actually lost to, is #10. Yes, wins against Oakland and Cleveland were unimpressive, although interestingly Oakland's defensive rank is actually up at 18, which is middle of the pack.
At what point on that list is a team no longer considered crappy?
Not to say that I'm happy with Denver's offensive performance, and I actually believe they're rated accordingly; but I don't buy it when people say "they beat a bunch of crappy teams + New England".
I think it's more the perception of how Denver won than whether they won + the perception that STL isn't that great. I don't quite understand why; their defense has been strong against all sorts of teams. Their offense has been strong enough. I guess they've not looked like a ridiculously dominant team in any of their games, so they don't stand out.
It will be interesting to see what Houston does throughout the rest of the year with their upcoming schedule (#32 ranked) and considering a 2 -4 record with their past schedule (#4 ranked).
Yes, I know this Atlanta fan is waiting for the Falcons to actually stomp someone other than the Cardinals.
Well, last week I was critical of these DVOA rankings because you had 2-3 Pittsburgh ranked 8th based apparently on an overestimate of their defense's quality. So what happens? On Sunday they give up a ton of points to the Falcons and lose.
And the Steelers move up from 8 to 6.
At some point you guys have to acknowledge that, whatever DVOA is supposed to be measuring, the placement of the Steelers is exposing a serious flaw. I realize you have a lot invested in this system, but it's becoming embarrassing.
I've followed the link to your explanation, but it doesn't really explain what your system is. I will say that there does seem to be some kind of weird inertia to your system. Last week, Philly was rated third. They lost to an inferior Tampa team and climbed to 2nd.
Pittsburgh was 8th, lost to an inferior Falcons team, and climbed to 6th. Jacksonville was 4th, lost in an embarrassing fashion to a very weak Texans team, but they only dropped to 8th, where they are still ranked one spot higher than the undefeated Colts.
This thing ain't working.
"At this point the ratings are starting to look really weird to the average fan.... My hope is that this will help those readers who are a) new to DVOA and b) open-minded."
I am open minded, and I’m not new to your DVOA ratings (following it for 3 years now). But I think it’s time for you to go back to the “drawing board� and rethink how to calculate your ranking.
45
Pittsburgh is estimated at 4-3, not 4-2. Estimated Wins are assuming 7 games for every team, which goes a long way towards explaining why they seem to have one win too many.
#61: even then, it still doesn't explain quite how Pittsburgh's defense is rated so high despite losing. Or for that matter how their offense is rated so high either. That one really confuses me. Hopefully the FoxSports commentary will talk about that, because it's odd seeing them ranked above Jacksonville, who is ranked above Indy, when Indy beat Jacksonville and Jax beat Pitt.
#58: They did stomp the Smith-less Panthers and the Bucs. Maybe not the FO definition of stomp, but they clearly outplayed those two teams.
#60
I'll pick on John, cause he's there. John - why? "Cause I don't think this is right" isn't a good answer. Aaaron has put a lot of work into the formulas for this, and it's got the best correlation coefficient of any method out there.
Footballoutsiders.com has spent four years working hard and proving their formulas to be accurate, and the burden of proof no longer rests on them. It's up to, at this point, the challengers to come up with better solutions.
The Giants are way up there, didn't realize this...
Pittsburgh lost to Atlanta because they LOST three fumbles, not just that they fumbled three times. They also lost another possession when the Falcons recovered the onside kick. Those are fluke plays, not clear indicators that Pitt is better than ATL. I don't know, but I'd expect that DVOA had Pitt ahead of ATL in that game. That's why they moved up.
Hmmm.
PHI last week: 39.9%
PHI this week: 39.2%
Maybe I failed introductory math, but that looks like down to me. Not a lot of down, but definitely not up.
#49: Just like NE always seems to beat Indy, and Indy always seems to beat Denver.
Two wild card blowouts is "always"?
Denver and Indianapolis have met 16 times in the regular season and twice in the post season. Denver leads the series 11-6.
In the regular season only, Denver is 11-4 against the Colts.
In Denver, the Broncos are 6-1 against the Colts. Which means that in the regular season, Denver is 5-3 against the Colts in Indianapolis.
The last two regular season games were won by the Broncos, 31-17 and 33-14 (you can asterisk one, because the Colts were resting their starters).
Those playoff blowouts can color your perspective, but take a closer look at the data. Indy certainly does NOT "always" beat Denver.
Remember too, the Roc Alexander factor--trying to cover Reggie Wayne with an undrafted free agent CB who has had little to no practice time because of injuries to two starting DBs... well, that might have had an impact on one of those games, eh? And the RCA dome... what is NE's record against Indy in that stadium? Anyone know?
But yeah, let's please lay this misconception to rest. Much as it may delight people to imagine a rock-paper-scissors relationship between the Broncos, Colts and Patriots, it is no such thing.
Hey, Aaron, I hope you didn't interpret my remarks about interceptions as criticism; a football game is comprised of a huge amount of information, and until you get an army of charters providng you data to the most minute detail, everything can't be analyzed. If I were really bothered, I should be charting games for the betterment of the analysis.
As to the Vikings, I hope my comments don't seem like harping; I think DVOA and PFP are easily the best objective
analysis available. I just thought it interesting that my projected wins for the Vikings, even accounting for my status as a fan, my was so different than PFP 2006, since I like to think I am a fairly objective fan.
When I looked at the Vikings before the season started, I saw a team with above average offensive and defensive lines, that would be much better coached than in the recent past, and that was playing one of the weakest schedules in the league. I just thought it extremely unlikely that such a team would win fewer than six or seven games. What was the last team with above average lineman on both sides of the ball, that played a schedule as weak as the Vikings', and did not win seven games? This isn't a knock on FO methods, it just again reflects the huge amount of information contained in a football game, perhaps the fact that line play is more difficult to quantify, and perhaps that new personnel on the line really messes with win projections.
Finally, Brad Johnson gets the praise because all he does is win, baby. (sarcasm flag) Seriously, though, one of the best things that can be said about Johnson is that they don't pay him much, which frees up cash to lock up players like Mckinnnie, Hutchinson, probably Kevin Williams this off-season, and two cornerbacks that have played decently this year. What kills a team's prospects is devoting too much cap space to guys who don't provide enought in terms of improving the chances of victory, which is why I think a cap space-adjusted DPAR rating for qbs would be so interesting.
The Eagles have lost all three of their games on the last play of the game. They just have to start winning that last play!
Tennessee is clearly ranked too low because I refuse to believe we're not better than Houston and Oakland. The CareerBuilder monkeys throwing darts are way better than this. K3RR3 C0771N$ iS 43H SuXX0R!
Aaron or someone here who knows: while Denver's red zone defense (2 for 13 TD rate, 15.4%) is unlikely to be sustained, what about 3rd downs? Are defenses that seem to be particularly good on 3rd downs able to sustain it? Or is it random, like fumble recoveries?
Little factoids from the Broncos' news release this week: opponents are 0 for 9 on 3rd downs inside Denver's 20. Further, opponents have converted only 3 of 34 3rd downs of 9 yards or longer (8.8%). I'd love to know what other teams' numbers are like.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I have another question--are penalties a factor in DVOA? Denver is the second least penalized team in the league thus far, with 22 penalties. Does DVOA give them credit for that discipline?
The Fox commentary mentions three situations, but the preceeding paragraphs in the commentary only mention two. (I'm sure that there are at least three such situations and probably more, and it's probably an editing gaffe, but ... writing correctly and well is the primary tool of your trade, so it's important.)
What were the DPAR numbers for Bledsoe and Romo? Romo had a significantly higher QB rating than Bledsoe for the evening (though neither one was very good). Does DPAR offer a similar picture?
Aaron - I'm really surprised by Dallas's continued high defensive ranking (happy, but surprised). So often they seem to give up four or more yards on first down. Are they propped up by an overachieving third-down defense? An ability to force turnovers? Or is my anecdotal memory that far off?
#74 is right, you only list two scenarios but say there are three. i'm assuming the third is the bengals vs tampa bay two weeks ago?
22:
I like your Luck Index idea.
25:
Isn’t comparing actual wins to estimated wins a pretty good quantitative indicator of luck? Or actual wins to wins predicted by DVOA?
Critic of DVOA: Why are Eagles only 4-3 despite 6.1 estimated wins?
Aaron: Because they're unlucky.
Critic: How do you know they're unlucky?
Aaron: Because they're only 4-3 despite 6.1 estimated wins.
Critic: ... [head explodes]
14, 35, 51:
I just skimmed that link that Pat provided about turnovers, but it doesn't look like the type of turnover is accounted for. I think Will Allen is right - a breakdown of where INT's happen and how often each type gets returned for a score would be pretty interesting. Intuitively, it seems like some QB's might be more prone to getting jumped on short sideline throws, and hence getting more picks run back (*cough* Drew Bledsoe *cough*).
52:
75% of the time X is something that I’ve already tried to put in the formula that didn’t actually improve it and in many cases made it less accurate, and 20% of the time X is something that we simply can’t measure because it’s not in the standard play-by-play and the charting project doesn’t turn data around fast enough.
I'm guessing that where an INT was caught is one of the things that are not included in the play-by-play. And that the only semi-solution I can think of, which is to treat INT's that are run back as worse than INT's that are not, is one of the things that has been tried and has not helped.
73:
I'm fairly sure (80% sure?) DVOA does not take penalties into account.
51. Aaron is correct that the Vikings are winning because of defence, but I didn't think Johnson was getting much credit. He has not played well since week 1, but the receivers have really killed him with some key drops including one that likely lost the Buffalo game.
The Rackers field goal at the end of the Arizona game did "graze" the finger of a Bears player, so the Bears had something to do with it. See link.
Correlation between DAVE and Power Rankings...
CBS : .781
ESPN: .783
FOX : .832
I suppose there is some real complicated answer to this, but I don't understand how a team averages -.2 yards per play (NE) ranks way higher than a team that averages +.7 (Minn) yards per play.
That just seems way too big a gap to me to explain away. I thought the same thing leading up to the Minn vs Sea game last week.
Yep, Johnson hasn't been good, or to be more accurate, he has been about as good as his now-limited physical abilities allow, but the Vikings' receivers have been hideous, likely costing them the Bills game, and nearly costing them the Redskins game, which probably should have been a ten point margin of victory. They drop a lot of passes, and make practically zero above-average plays on the ball. This is the worst Vikings receiving corps I can ever remember; you may have to go back to the Norm Van Brocklin era (before my time) to match it. Oh well, when the receivers are this bad, at least one doesn't worry as much when they get injured.
Aaron, in the Jets commentary, it says the '3 wins' instead of '3 loses' in middle of the commentary.
#75: The freakish thing is, Romo basically doubled Bledsoe's numbers for the game.
Bledsoe was 7 for 12 for 111 yards.
Romo was 14 for 25 for 227 yards.
The difference? 7 for 13 for 116 yards.
Bledsoe threw 0 TDs (he did run one in, but the passer rating doesn't give him credit for that) and 1 INT. Romo threw 2 TDs and 3 INTs.
So the QB rating would have these guys neck-and-neck in completion percentage and yards per attempt. Bledsoe would actually have a better interception percentage than Romo. But Romo gets credit for 2 TDs, while Bledsoe gets a big fat zero in that department.
So that, really, is why Romo's rating was higher: He threw 2 TDs, Bledsoe had none.
Critic of DVOA: Why are Eagles only 4-3 despite 6.1 estimated wins?
There are better answers to that, though.
1) When a good team plays a good team, one of the teams gets all of the win, even if it's a close game. Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons, but to treat close losses and close wins just like blowout losses and blowout wins is crazy.
2) Opposing field goal kickers have been ridiculously more accurate versus the Eagles than they have been the rest of the year.
3) Fumble recovery.
I suppose “average� fumble recovery luck might well have got them to 3-3 , but 4.1 seems like at least one too many wins.
See above. You're quantizing wins too much, and it's too early in the season for that. (And they could've been 3-3 with a different flip of a coin. That's absolutely luck. It's the way the game goes, and I personally don't have a problem with it, but that's luck.)
It's not just fumble recovery luck. It's also "single-play luck" - that is, any outcome that's dependent completely upon one single play might as well be luck. Why? Because it is just luck. There probably was a hold on that play that could've been called, or interference, or any number of occurances which probably could've happened, but didn't.
What people really don't understand is that two teams can both be lucky to win in a game. In fact, in almost every game that's separated by only one score, teams were at least somewhat lucky to win. That's what makes it a game.
The Cincinnati game was single-pla