by Aaron Schatz
Here's a look at this week's DVOA ratings, with commentary now available on FOXSports.com [1]. As of this week, the DAVE formula that includes preseason projections is gone, and we start using WEIGHTED DVOA, although the difference between that and regular DVOA is really small -- basically, just enough to have the Giants above the Eagles for the purposes of FOX.
I'm sure that FO readers, as opposed to the general public, will understand why Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are still fairly high -- you guys are used to the fact that we consider every game, so one game won't have a huge impact on the ratings unless it is a blowout. The commentary will talk a lot about Philadelphia, and Any Given Sunday [2] covers the situation with Pittsburgh.
Last week, I actually responded to a few comments in the discussion thread. It's really going to be hard to do that in the future. These comment threads are getting very long, and I have so many other things I need to do, and it is tough to sort through all the bad suggestions (some mean-spirited, some well-meaning) to get to the few actual good suggestions.
If you really want to help improve DVOA -- and despite what some readers seem to believe, we do not think it is perfect by any means -- here are some good guidelines to follow:
1) I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again: If you want to really get my attention, send e-mail.
2) Any e-mail that suggests that we favor a certain team, or hate another team, gets tossed immediately.
3) Make a specific suggestion. Don't send e-mail that says "Team X has a high DVOA and they suck so DVOA sucks." An e-mail that says "I understand what you say about luck but if Pittsburgh is 2-5 they must blow goats" is just pointless.
4) Please read the description of how DVOA works before you make suggestions. If you own a copy of Pro Football Prospectus 2006, go back and read the essay that details all the work I did this past off-season improving the system, tweaking some things and trying others. People keep suggesting things that are already in the system, things I've written about over and over again, like "you have to consider turnovers more."
5) Please don't suggest something that isn't in the play-by-play. I love the game charting project, but we just can't use that information in DVOA because we don't turn around the data fast enough.
And now, to completely ignore what I just said about not responding to comments, I would like to respond to a comment that was made earlier today in the Any Given Sunday thread [3]:
Rich Conley: This site increasingly disappoints me. Not the site, but the commentators. Originally, DVOA was based on questioning everything, now it seems like everyone just accepts it as being correct, even when it obviously has trouble with things. I still think there are plenty of aspects where we need to stop assuming things are luck, when theyre really not.
If fumbles by a RB are recovered 70% of the time by the offence, and a team is only doing it 10%, yeah, it could be luck. It could also be that the team has stupid lineman, who arent keeping their heads up. Problem? Theres no way to really tell, unless the trend stays that way.
As to Int return yardage being luck, thats a joke. If the ball gets picked off while a team is in either red zone, its run back for a TD a high percentage of the time. If teams aren’t getting yards on those returns, maybe its not luck ... maybe their corners arent that fast.
I'll take the second part first.
When I first posted this, I misread Rich's comment. I thought he asked about end-zone interceptions. I actually address this in the DVOA commentary. Can you guess how many end-zone interceptions have been returned for touchdowns in the past six regular seasons?
Six.
That's it. One per year.
But it turns out he's talking about red-zone interceptions. So let's look at those too. Rich could mean two different things, so I will look at both.
From 2000-2005, there were 1,065 interceptions caught by the defense between their own 20-yard line and the end zone. 35 were returned for touchdowns, or three percent.
From 2000-2005, there were 394 interceptions where the offensive line of scrimmage was in the red zone, i.e. the 20-yard line or closer. 28 of these were returned for touchdowns, or seven percent.
OK, what about when a team is backed into its own end?
From 2000-2005, there were 333 interceptions where the offensive line of scrimmage was on or behind the offensive 20-yard line. 57 of these interceptions were returned for touchdowns, or 17 percent.
As I note in the commentary -- go down to New Orleans -- there is a difference between throwing an interception where you throw the pass from your opponent's red zone, and throwing an interception where the defender catches the ball in the red zone.
OK, but what if certain defenders have a better record of returning interceptions for touchdowns, something you can see stay constant from year to year? Well, I discuss this in PFP 2006, in the article on predicting fantasy defense. The correlation [4] of defensive touchdowns from year-to-year is .01. And if, for some reason, that result is mistaken, and there really are certain defenders who have a special ability to return interceptions for touchdowns, do you really think Nnamdi Asomugha is one of them?
Now we'll take the first part of the question. That's a legitimate argument, that some defenders or linemen are just better than others at recovering fumbles. So I went and looked at recovering fumbles in the same season. Instead of comparing one year to the next, I compared the first half of one season to the second half of the same season, so each team basically is working with the same roster.
In 2005, the correlation [4] between fumble recovery percentage in the first half of the season and fumble recovery percentage in the second half of the season was -.15 on offense, and -.09 on defense.
OK, maybe that was a one year fluke. Let's look at 2004.
In 2004, the correlation between fumble recovery percentage in the first half of the season and fumble recovery percentage in the second half of the season was -.16 on offense, and -.17 on defense.
So, if these numbers are to be believed, a team that recovers a high percentage of fumbles in Weeks 1-9 is actually slightly more likely to recover a low percentage of fumbles in Weeks 10-17. That's sort of silly, of course. More likely, there's just no connection. In other words, it is random.
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 8 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 [5].)
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 80% 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.
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 |
WEI. DVOA |
WEI. RANK |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | CHI | 47.4% | 1 | 47.3% | 1 | 7-0 | 5.6% | 9 | -28.1% | 2 | 13.7% | 1 |
| 2 | PHI | 36.3% | 2 | 36.0% | 3 | 4-4 | 23.7% | 2 | -13.5% | 7 | -0.9% | 20 |
| 3 | NYG | 36.1% | 4 | 36.7% | 2 | 5-2 | 16.3% | 4 | -17.8% | 5 | 1.9% | 12 |
| 4 | SD | 34.1% | 3 | 33.8% | 4 | 5-2 | 21.7% | 3 | -6.2% | 12 | 6.2% | 2 |
| 5 | BAL | 23.9% | 5 | 23.5% | 5 | 5-2 | -12.0% | 24 | -32.8% | 1 | 3.1% | 6 |
| 6 | NE | 22.2% | 7 | 22.7% | 6 | 6-1 | 16.2% | 5 | -3.2% | 14 | 2.8% | 8 |
| 7 | JAC | 17.8% | 8 | 18.0% | 7 | 4-3 | -3.2% | 20 | -21.1% | 4 | -0.1% | 16 |
| 8 | DAL | 17.3% | 11 | 17.1% | 8 | 4-3 | 3.8% | 13 | -12.7% | 8 | 0.8% | 14 |
| 9 | IND | 16.0% | 9 | 15.9% | 9 | 7-0 | 34.8% | 1 | 16.7% | 28 | -2.0% | 25 |
| 10 | KC | 13.7% | 13 | 13.2% | 11 | 4-3 | 1.5% | 15 | -9.8% | 9 | 2.4% | 9 |
| 11 | PIT | 13.6% | 6 | 14.0% | 10 | 2-5 | -1.9% | 18 | -21.2% | 3 | -5.7% | 31 |
| 12 | DEN | 10.7% | 15 | 10.9% | 12 | 5-2 | 4.0% | 12 | -7.5% | 11 | -0.8% | 19 |
| 13 | CIN | 7.2% | 16 | 7.0% | 13 | 4-3 | 6.2% | 8 | 3.0% | 20 | 4.0% | 4 |
| 14 | STL | 7.1% | 10 | 6.9% | 14 | 4-3 | 13.1% | 6 | 5.6% | 25 | -0.4% | 18 |
| 15 | NO | 5.6% | 12 | 5.3% | 15 | 5-2 | 4.9% | 10 | 3.6% | 21 | 4.3% | 3 |
| 16 | ATL | 0.9% | 18 | 0.8% | 16 | 5-2 | 0.8% | 16 | -2.7% | 15 | -2.6% | 27 |
| TEAM | TOTAL DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
WEI. DVOA |
WEI. RANK |
W-L |
OFFENSE DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
DEFENSE DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
SPECIAL DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | CAR | -1.3% | 17 | -1.3% | 17 | 4-4 | 4.2% | 11 | 1.7% | 19 | -3.8% | 30 |
| 18 | MIN | -1.9% | 14 | -1.7% | 18 | 4-3 | -15.6% | 26 | -13.8% | 6 | 0.0% | 15 |
| 19 | GB | -3.7% | 22 | -3.1% | 19 | 3-4 | 2.2% | 14 | 4.1% | 22 | -1.8% | 24 |
| 20 | WAS | -4.5% | 19 | -5.1% | 20 | 2-5 | 10.5% | 7 | 17.1% | 29 | 2.1% | 11 |
| 21 | CLE | -14.7% | 27 | -14.6% | 21 | 2-5 | -18.3% | 27 | 0.1% | 18 | 3.7% | 5 |
| 22 | SEA | -14.8% | 20 | -15.1% | 22 | 4-3 | -8.9% | 23 | 5.6% | 24 | -0.2% | 17 |
| 23 | BUF | -16.8% | 23 | -17.6% | 24 | 2-5 | -14.0% | 25 | 5.3% | 23 | 2.4% | 10 |
| 24 | TB | -17.5% | 21 | -17.2% | 23 | 2-5 | -19.5% | 29 | -4.2% | 13 | -2.2% | 26 |
| 25 | NYJ | -19.0% | 24 | -19.5% | 25 | 4-4 | -3.3% | 21 | 18.7% | 30 | 2.9% | 7 |
| 26 | MIA | -19.8% | 26 | -19.8% | 26 | 1-6 | -18.7% | 28 | -1.6% | 16 | -2.7% | 29 |
| 27 | DET | -20.8% | 25 | -20.9% | 27 | 1-6 | -2.6% | 19 | 15.7% | 27 | -2.6% | 28 |
| 28 | HOU | -29.1% | 30 | -28.7% | 28 | 2-5 | -0.9% | 17 | 27.1% | 32 | -1.0% | 21 |
| 29 | OAK | -30.4% | 31 | -30.0% | 29 | 2-5 | -38.0% | 32 | -8.8% | 10 | -1.3% | 22 |
| 30 | SF | -33.1% | 29 | -33.1% | 30 | 2-5 | -6.6% | 22 | 24.9% | 31 | -1.6% | 23 |
| 31 | ARI | -34.9% | 28 | -34.5% | 32 | 1-7 | -26.7% | 31 | -1.0% | 17 | -9.2% | 32 |
| 32 | TEN | -35.3% | 32 | -34.4% | 31 | 2-5 | -22.2% | 30 | 15.0% | 26 | 1.8% | 13 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VARIANCE | RANK | |
| 1 | CHI | 47.4% | 7-0 | 66.1% | 6.5 | 3 | -18.0% | 32 | -1.9% | 22 | 30.2% | 3 |
| 2 | PHI | 36.3% | 4-4 | 27.9% | 6.7 | 2 | -0.9% | 22 | 2.8% | 9 | 4.2% | 30 |
| 3 | NYG | 36.1% | 5-2 | 31.6% | 6.7 | 1 | 4.8% | 5 | 6.0% | 7 | 9.4% | 21 |
| 4 | SD | 34.1% | 5-2 | 41.1% | 5.8 | 4 | -5.1% | 27 | -8.7% | 30 | 7.1% | 26 |
| 5 | BAL | 23.9% | 5-2 | 35.5% | 5.4 | 6 | -1.9% | 24 | -1.2% | 19 | 11.5% | 18 |
| 6 | NE | 22.2% | 6-1 | 34.3% | 5.7 | 5 | -8.1% | 30 | -5.2% | 26 | 10.0% | 20 |
| 7 | JAC | 17.8% | 4-3 | 18.1% | 4.6 | 11 | 7.6% | 3 | -5.4% | 27 | 38.6% | 1 |
| 8 | DAL | 17.3% | 4-3 | 17.8% | 4.7 | 9 | 2.5% | 14 | 2.2% | 14 | 13.7% | 12 |
| 9 | IND | 16.0% | 7-0 | 20.3% | 5.4 | 7 | -3.3% | 26 | 0.0% | 15 | 7.8% | 25 |
| 10 | KC | 13.7% | 4-3 | 8.5% | 4.8 | 8 | -2.5% | 25 | -0.2% | 17 | 36.2% | 2 |
| 11 | PIT | 13.6% | 2-5 | 7.5% | 4.4 | 13 | 3.4% | 9 | 2.6% | 12 | 15.6% | 10 |
| 12 | DEN | 10.7% | 5-2 | 7.3% | 4.5 | 12 | 4.7% | 6 | -1.3% | 20 | 9.2% | 22 |
| 13 | CIN | 7.2% | 4-3 | 5.7% | 4.1 | 17 | 2.1% | 15 | 10.3% | 3 | 6.7% | 27 |
| 14 | STL | 7.1% | 4-3 | 19.0% | 4.6 | 10 | -7.8% | 29 | -7.5% | 28 | 10.4% | 19 |
| 15 | NO | 5.6% | 5-2 | 5.8% | 4.3 | 15 | 3.0% | 11 | 2.3% | 13 | 11.6% | 17 |
| 16 | ATL | 0.9% | 5-2 | 8.3% | 4.1 | 16 | 1.3% | 17 | 2.7% | 10 | 30.0% | 4 |
| TEAM |
TOTAL DVOA |
W-L |
NON-ADJ TOT VOA |
ESTIM. WINS |
RANK |
PAST SCHED |
RANK |
FUTURE SCHED |
RANK | VARIANCE | RANK | |
| 17 | CAR | -1.3% | 4-4 | -5.0% | 3.8 | 20 | 3.0% | 10 | 8.6% | 4 | 8.1% | 24 |
| 18 | MIN | -1.9% | 4-3 | -0.9% | 4.4 | 14 | 1.6% | 16 | -8.9% | 31 | 12.7% | 15 |
| 19 | GB | -3.7% | 3-4 | -4.1% | 3.8 | 19 | 3.0% | 13 | -4.3% | 25 | 13.2% | 14 |
| 20 | WAS | -4.5% | 2-5 | -5.4% | 3.8 | 18 | 3.0% | 12 | 13.4% | 2 | 13.2% | 13 |
| 21 | CLE | -14.7% | 2-5 | -17.4% | 2.7 | 25 | -0.5% | 20 | 6.7% | 5 | 3.9% | 32 |
| 22 | SEA | -14.8% | 4-3 | -18.4% | 3.0 | 22 | 6.7% | 4 | -11.2% | 32 | 8.8% | 23 |
| 23 | BUF | -16.8% | 2-5 | -20.5% | 3.0 | 21 | 3.8% | 8 | -1.9% | 21 | 16.1% | 9 |
| 24 | TB | -17.5% | 2-5 | -30.5% | 2.9 | 23 | 10.4% | 2 | 5.5% | 8 | 4.3% | 29 |
| 25 | NYJ | -19.0% | 4-4 | -13.1% | 2.8 | 24 | -7.3% | 28 | -3.6% | 24 | 18.2% | 8 |
| 26 | MIA | -19.8% | 1-6 | -9.3% | 2.3 | 29 | -9.7% | 31 | 6.5% | 6 | 4.2% | 31 |
| 27 | DET | -20.8% | 1-6 | -19.3% | 2.4 | 27 | -0.2% | 19 | -0.6% | 18 | 5.1% | 28 |
| 28 | HOU | -29.1% | 2-5 | -30.6% | 2.3 | 30 | 4.0% | 7 | -2.7% | 23 | 14.0% | 11 |
| 29 | OAK | -30.4% | 2-5 | -36.3% | 2.2 | 31 | -0.1% | 18 | 2.6% | 11 | 12.6% | 16 |
| 30 | SF | -33.1% | 2-5 | -43.0% | 2.6 | 26 | 10.5% | 1 | -7.5% | 29 | 29.0% | 5 |
| 31 | ARI | -34.9% | 1-7 | -27.0% | 2.4 | 28 | -1.8% | 23 | -0.2% | 16 | 26.5% | 6 |
| 32 | TEN | -35.3% | 2-5 | -26.4% | 2.0 | 32 | -0.6% | 21 | 15.5% | 1 | 19.7% | 7 |
Links:
[1] http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6122994
[2] http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/31/ramblings/any-given-sunday/4477/
[3] http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/31/ramblings/any-given-sunday/4477/#comment-181298
[4] http://www.footballoutsiders.com//info/glossary#correlation
[5] http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#dvoa
[6] http://www.footballoutsiders.com//info/glossary#estimated_wins
[7] http://www.footballoutsiders.com//info/glossary#variance