RSS Feed
NOW ON SALE!
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
LATEST KUBIAK UPDATE
8/30: ARI QB/WR, CIN WR, IND WR, NYJ IDP.
8/31: PIT QB, TB RB.
9/1: GB RB/IDP, NE IDP.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
28 Aug 2009
FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
A couple of weeks ago, FO did a big media push to promote Football Outsiders Almanac 2009 on the Sports Blog Nation websites. One site that didn't participate was Canal Street Chronicles, so Saints fan and FO reader Joseph posed his own series of Saints questions in the comments for that post. I promised to answer those questions, and while it took me some time to get to them, I didn't want to leave our Saints fans hanging. Actually, I hope this gets posted around to some Saints blogs... As we often mention, we definitely need more NFC South readership. The current FO readership is heavily weighted towards the East and North divisions, plus the Seahawks and Colts. The more we spread to fans of all 32 teams, the better!
Anyway, here we go. A couple of Joseph's questions were fairly similar, so I combined them here.
1. Why so down on the Saints projection? In FOA, on page xiii, the last sentence of Pythagorean Projection section in Statistical Toolbox says that this suggests improvement, at least record-wise, from the Saints. If they have the fourth easiest schedule, why are they projected for only EIGHT wins? I see 4-2 in the division, + Det, Stl, Jets; split at Buf/Mia; split NE/NYG at home; and prob. Dallas at home. That equals 10-6. Am I missing something?
First of all, I'm not a big fan of going through the schedule and divvying up wins. There's just too much random chance involved in each individual game. Better to look at the season as a whole.
You are correct that Pythagoras suggests improvement from the Saints (they had 9.5 Pythag. Wins last year despite going 8-8). There's more to our projections than just last year's points scored and allowed, however. Obviously, the chapter in the book is a better, longer look at why our Saints projection says what it says. We generally don't see a reason to believe that the offense will improve much, considering it was already fourth in the league last year in DVOA, and we don't see a reason to believe that the defense will improve much, since the Saints' defensive additions seem to be a constant churn of mediocrity and reclamation projects. The result is a team that ends up pretty close to last year, when they were better than average (9.9% DVOA) but not good enough to reach the playoffs. Of course, given our expectations of decline for Atlanta and Carolina, it isn't ridiculous to suggest the Saints will win the division. Any of those three teams could win the thing at 10-6 or even 9-7 and I would not be shocked. As Tanier says at the end of the chapter, you don't have to strain your eyes to imagine the Saints as a 12-win team if things go right.
2. One of the best offenses in the league returns intact -- except Shockey, Colston, and Bush were injured last year. Shouldn't their offense be BETTER -- especially considering that Pierre Thomas, who ranked 11th in rushing DYAR, 4th in rushing DVOA, 6th in receiving DYAR, and 5th in receiving DVOA should have an increased role? By the way, any reason PT is expected to have SIX fumbles? (He had one in practically as many touches in 2007-2008.)
The Saints didn't have a particularly highly-injured offense last year -- their offensive Adjusted Games Lost from starters was about league-average. The line was fairly stable, making up for those injuries to skill players. The 2009 projection suffers from a bit of third-down rebound effect, since they were third in the NFL in offensive DVOA on third downs. Right now, I think their offensive DVOA projection is something like seventh or eighth, depending on what kind of fiddling with roster variables I were to do based on preseason changes throughout the league. Still pretty good.
KUBIAK's projection for Thomas isn't that great, actually... undrafted guys who excel early often regress when given larger roles. If he plays this well another year or two, the system will stop expecting that decline, but for now, he's still a young player and his track record is far from established. As far as Thomas' fumbles, the system is probably just projecting something close to the league average for fumbles given his usage, and it mostly ignores that he had a below-average number of fumbles in his first two seasons.
3. Robert Meachem is expected to have a 32 percent catch rate. Please tell me that it is an error.
Yeah, sometimes with players who don't have a big track record, the system will spit out some weird results. Usually I catch them and manually change them to be reasonable, but occasionally something odd will slip through the cracks. In the KUBIAK spreadsheet, about a week ago, I upgraded Meachem's projection a little bit, and while doing that I also changed his catch rate to something more like 50 percent.
4. A little unhappy that there was no DVOA by week graph for the Saints. Have it for all teams or for none.
If we self-publish again next year, we may be able to go back to doing them for all teams. If we go with a standard publisher and have to go outside for layout rather than having Vince Verhei do it, including all 32 graphs would likely be cost-prohibitive.
5. Why the drop in completion percentage for Drew Brees?
For those who don't feel like looking it up, the projected completion percentage for Drew Brees is 62 percent, which would be his lowest since 2003. There are a lot of variables considered in the KUBIAK quarterback projections, and to be honest nothing really stands out as an explanation. Some part the drop is that quarterbacks who improve significantly in yards per completion tend to have drops in completion percentage the next year, but there are lot of other little things involved. Sorry I can't give a more substantial answer. His overall projection is still very good.
23 comments, Last at 01 Sep 2009, 2:00am by DeltaWhiskey
Most Recent FO Features
» Walkthrough: Hardly Workin'
From Maurice Clarett to Samkon Gado, Mike Tanier explores the fringes of football employment. Plus, memories of a legend who started at the bottom of the depth chart.
Most Recent Extra Points
Comments
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
"As far as Thomas' fumbles, the system is probably just projecting something close to the league average for fumbles given his usage, and it mostly ignores that he had a below-average number of fumbles in his first two seasons."
Other than Purple Jesus, you are projecting, I believe, the highest fumble percentage in the league for PT. Last I checked, that is not "something close to the league average."
Oh, and Meachem will have a higher catch percentage than 50% (or, chuckle, 32%. Hint: you have a problem with those stats). You should watch a Saints game once in your life. Hands are not his problem, getting the ball thrown his way is. This is a result of Drew Brees getting rid of the ball quickly and not waiting on long routes to open up (and explains the low sack rate). Payton likes this approach.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
I would be very surprised if Meachem gets over 55%. It's not like Aaron doesn't admit that the freakishly low projection is off. The average deep-threat catch-rate is something like 60%, but Aaron can't ignore his system when it tells him Meachem should have a low catch-rate.
Besides, I know nothing about the formulas at work here, but from a mathematical standpoint it seems weird if number of targets has any major influence on catch-rate.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
I agree... with DD-F here...
You can't ignore the system... The value of the system is in its objectivity.
I'm actually a quite bit concerned that Aaron says he usually goes back and manually adjusts things he thinks looks off. If that truly is the commonly used approach, I think I have to really question the rigor and objectivity of FO...
Basically, YOU CAN NOT adjust results for what you want them to be or what you think they should be just because you disagree. That is the definition of BAD SCIENCE.
I disagree with extremely poor projection for Denver, but completely understand the reasons why a projection system might give that result....
But what if it goes the other way? What if Aaron decides he doesn't think X team or player is going to do as well as the system tells him... does he go and adjust the stats to fit his view of reality? If so, is FO then any better than the talking heads saying "run to win"?
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
The formula is only changed if it retroactively makes the formula more predictive. When stuff doesn't look right it's an opportunity to see if they can fix it.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
EXACTLY!!!
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
There's a difference between manually adjusting DVOA and manually adjusting KUBIAK. Aaron doesn't do the former. The latter is necessary and inherent to the process of predicting individual performance. How does KUBIAK know which RBs will get what proportions of the carries? Because Aaron tells it what he thinks. How does KUBIAK know which young unproven WR will get the #3 job and which will only get spot duty? Because Aaron tells it what he thinks. In this case, KUBIAK came up with an unrealistic result because it had too little information. That is always going to be a problem when dealing with large predictive models. In looking at a player who has barely seen the field thus far like Meacham, KUBIAK is simply not as good a predictor as a knowledgeable human being would be. In this case, the knowledgeable human being is Aaron. If you don't like that, don't use KUBIAK. But don't worry about DVOA.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Ok, I won't worry about DVOA. It would be terrible if it were adjusted "manually". But honestly, it might as well be, considering it is left to the reader to try to guess how many free parameters it has. My suspicion about DVOA is that it is a model that fits much data without being mostly theory-driven. I can draw a line through a bunch of points as well as the next guy, but I certainly wouldn't make a big deal about it.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Exactly!
There has never (to my knowledge) been an adjustment made to DVOA where FO then explained the improvement in mathematical/statistical terms, such as improved R-square or "goodness of fit."
"I believe"
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Does the fact that Gregg Williams is the new DC have any role in determining these projections? (I can't remember if adjsutments for coaching, particularly OCs adn DCs, were included as a variable.) I think 8 wins is pretty modrate estimate for the Saints and if Wililams makes a big difference then 11 wins is reasonable.
I'm a Who-Dat fella and have a great bet with a falcons fan, $20 for win-spread between the two teams. This division is going to be highly competitive and will likely come down to injuries. Depending on when the injuries occur and the scheduling of the Falcons/Panthers/Saints games that will dictate the division winner if you ask me. Alos, nice because the Falcons have to play the Ravens and Eagles before the Saints games while the Saints get puff matchups in the anterior contests.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
link to the other 31 teams of your "big media push"?
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
I guess you were on vacation for all of July/August.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
http://footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2009/foa-09-media-sbnation-tak...
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Grrr....
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
One problem when looking at the Saints injuries last year is that I don't think the team reported all of them (at least not as severe as they really were).
Will Smith apparently played the whole year with a sports hernia. While I heard reporters saying he was playing through injuries at the time, I don't remember it ever being listed on the report, at least not as anything significant. I believe Grant was playing through injuries before he finally went on injured reserve (of course he's had lots of injuries the last few years, so it might just be his fate). Colston was listed as healthy after his hand surgery, but he not nearly as surehanded as he was in the previous years (all reports are he's back to normal this year).
When Hollis Thomas was injured in training camp, at first they tried to keep him on the active roster. However, when they needed the roster spot in week 2, they waived him injured, only to bring him back in week 10 or so whenever he was healed. Of course, he's not on the team this year, but he was supposed to be starting at defensive tackle last year, and I'm not sure if your notation system counted him as being injured all those games before he came back.
There's several other injuries that I think the Saints did not report/underreported that I don't think showed up in your stats, but those were 4 starters who I think probably should have counted more. The Saints weren't nearly as hurt as Jacksonville and Seattle, but I believe they were injured 'more than average' for the 2nd straight year.
Of course, they've already lost Smith and Grant to suspension for the first 4 games this year, but the Saints have at least had all offseason to prepare (its also the easiest part of the schedule). Also, Jammal Brown is already hurt (always someone really important!), but will be back early.
I'm actually more confident about the Saints this year than I've been in a long time. If we don't suffer more than average injuries this year I think our passing game will be equal or better as I think every receiver + Shockey should either be better or at least equal to last years level (Lance Moore might see less production as Brees passes more to other people). With Tracy Porter healthy, and the free agents + high draft pick added to the cornerback position, I think we'll at least be league average there (a step up!). I'm probably a little too confident in Anthony Hargrove being able to stay clean and contribute as a backup (all the media reports about him are glowing), but after Smith and Grant come back our Defensive Line should be above average...if only they stay healthy this year.
With Mike Bell looking competent at the running game, we're more prepared if (when?) we get injuries at that position again.
All in all, I think the projection for the Saints should probably be a couple of wins higher. Safety is one position I think they might be vulnerable, and their outside linebackers aren't great, but overall this team is pretty solid.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
forgot a word:
Colston was listed as healthy after his hand surgery, but he was not nearly as surehanded as he was in the previous years (all reports are he's back to normal this year).
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
For the record, about 25 other teams' fans can say the same thing.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Are you referring to the injuries or my confidence?
If its the confidence, I can't argue with that, but I'm more confident at this point in an offseason than I've been in a long time.
If its the injuries, I'm only picking out significant cases where I think starters were probably undercounted in the Outsiders' stat. I didn't mention the many other starters' injuries who likely were properly counted in that number, nor did I go into backups. The Saints had a large number of injuries to starters that I'm confident were mostly included in the number (I don't have the book with me, so I don't even remember where exactly they ranked). I'm not totally ignorant of the rest of the league; Payton isn't the only coach who underreports injuries, but the underreported injuries were particularly significant last year. I'm confident the Saints were at least in the bottom 10 teams in getting affected by injuries.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
As few as 25?
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Aaron, thanks a bunch for answering my questions.
Basically, I just wanted to know what variables were pushing their win projection back down to 8-8 when some of your variables indicate an uptick for this year.
Regarding the 3rd down rebound effect: the Saints Off. DVOA splits are: 1st down, 9.1%; 2nd down, 23%; 3rd down, 41.1%; overall is 21.1%. RZ=21.8%; 1st half, 18.7%; 2nd half, 24%. So a follow-up question would be: If the Saints brought their 1st down DVOA up to their overall average, more or less 20%, even if their 3rd down DVOA regressed slightly, wouldn't the overall effect be about the same? What I mean is, they would have more 3rd and medium/short vs. 3rd and long--so even if their 3rd down DVOA regressed (wouldn't they get lower DVOA bump for converting 3rd and 4 vs 3rd and 9?), they still may have approx. the same 3rd down conversion rate--which means still sustaining drives. Is my understanding correct?
Again, thanks for answering my questions--I am sure Sophandros appreciates the write-up too.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Okay--I know I am commenting 2 posts in a row--but look at the time stamp on my post #13--2 pm Central, 1 hour BEFORE the Saints beat some high school team from Oakland. Just so all non-Saints fans understand, check the box score. This is why Saints fans say their offense WILL BE better than last year. Sure, I know it was the Raiders. But, good grief, our FOURTH-string RB averaged 6 ypc--against their FIRST-team D. Then the FIFTH-stringer averages 7 ypc. Understand, the 5th stringer, PJ Hill, is an UDFA who will make the practice squad only to have someone else poach him. He has NO CHANCE of making the final roster.
On the defensive side of the ball, the D has forced 3 turnovers every pre-season game so far. Also the Raiders got 42 of their 52 rushing yds AFTER the Saints went ahead 45-0.
Sure, I know it's pre-season; sure, it's the Raiders. It's also IN Oakland, the 3rd preseason game when the starters usually play more than half the game. Coach Payton took his offensive starters out EARLY 2nd Q--after 3 straight TD drives. It could have/should have been WORSE. The kool-aid tastes really good and sweet.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
While I think the team will be good, I wouldn't use that game to try and prove anything. The Saints destroyed the Raiders in the regular season last year and still ended up 8-8.
Watching yesterday's game I couldn't enjoy the Saints performance at all; I was just astonished at how awful the Raiders were. The Saints probably would have gotten better work staying at home and scrimmaging against Tulane.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
I like what Coach Toledo's doing with our program. Let's see if Andre Anderson can be the next Matt Forte.
-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
Re: FO Mailbag: 2009 New Orleans Saints
Aaron - this article is exactly why I read FO. I hope you are wrong, but I appreciate the honesty. We are in our annual journalistic holiday regarding the Saints here in New Orleans. This lasts from March until October, when everything you read about the Saints leads you to believe they have won every Super Bowl - then suddenly in October, the team has flaws. This Saints team still has so much to prove and so many ifs that I barely know where to start. A classic Sean Payton move was the play action pass to Lance Moore. So you made the Raiders look foolish in a game that did not count. What will you do when the bullets are live and the defense is much better?
Post new comment