Week 19 DVOA Ratings
by Aaron Schatz
Once again, it is time for postseason DVOA ratings. As always, the following rules apply:
- All 32 teams are ranked, whether they made the playoffs or not.
- Teams are ranked in order of weighted DVOA, not total season DVOA. Since weighted DVOA is meant to lower the strength of older games, these ratings do not include Weeks 1-5, and Weeks 6-11 are somewhat discounted. "Last week" here refers to last week's rank in weighted DVOA, not total season DVOA.
- Teams are treated as having a bye week in any week where they did not play. Since most teams haven't played in two weeks, that means some of the ratings for non-playoff teams can start getting a little unreliable. Really, this is only to be used for playoff teams, the other teams are just there for ranking comparison purposes.
- DVOA, as always takes a long-term view of an NFL team's performance. That means that the games of the last two weeks are just two games among many, so teams may be listed below other teams that they have beaten in the playoffs.
The playoff odds report is updated through the wild card games. You will find DVOA matchup pages for the AFC and NFC Championship games on the FO Premium page. Remember that the equation used to determine win probabilities for the playoff odds report is not as complex as the one used for FO Premium picks, so picks may differ.
* * * * *
To save people some time, we remind everyone to put their angry troll hatred into the official zlionsfan angry troll hatred Mad Libs form:
<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>
If you are new to our website, you can read the explanation of how DVOA is figured here. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.
| TEAM | WEI. DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
W-L | WEI OFF DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
WEI DEF DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
WEI S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 1 | NE | 43.5% | 3 | 13-4 | 34.0% | 1 | -3.0% | 12 | 6.5% | 3 |
| 2 | SEA | 42.4% | 1 | 12-6 | 30.9% | 2 | -3.4% | 11 | 8.0% | 2 |
| 3 | DEN | 36.2% | 2 | 13-4 | 19.3% | 4 | -11.8% | 3 | 5.1% | 6 |
| 4 | SF | 30.4% | 4 | 12-4-1 | 21.2% | 3 | -9.1% | 6 | 0.0% | 18 |
| 5 | GB | 20.8% | 5 | 12-6 | 18.9% | 5 | -2.7% | 13 | -0.8% | 19 |
| 6 | WAS | 16.8% | 6 | 10-7 | 13.9% | 6 | -2.5% | 14 | 0.4% | 16 |
| 7 | CIN | 15.6% | 8 | 10-7 | -5.5% | 18 | -16.1% | 2 | 5.1% | 7 |
| 8 | BAL | 15.0% | 10 | 12-6 | 3.9% | 13 | -5.6% | 10 | 5.5% | 5 |
| 9 | CHI | 14.5% | 7 | 10-6 | -10.3% | 22 | -20.7% | 1 | 4.1% | 8 |
| 10 | CAR | 11.2% | 9 | 7-9 | 12.9% | 7 | -2.4% | 15 | -4.0% | 28 |
| 11 | NYG | 8.3% | 11 | 9-7 | 9.0% | 10 | 4.0% | 22 | 3.3% | 12 |
| 12 | STL | 4.4% | 13 | 7-8-1 | -1.8% | 16 | -11.1% | 4 | -4.9% | 29 |
| 13 | ATL | 3.9% | 12 | 14-3 | 6.5% | 12 | 1.6% | 21 | -1.0% | 20 |
| 14 | PIT | 2.4% | 16 | 8-8 | -8.4% | 21 | -9.8% | 5 | 0.9% | 14 |
| 15 | DET | 1.5% | 14 | 4-12 | 11.6% | 9 | 8.1% | 26 | -2.0% | 22 |
| 16 | MIN | 0.4% | 18 | 10-7 | 1.7% | 14 | 5.1% | 23 | 3.8% | 10 |
| TEAM | WEI. DVOA |
LAST WEEK |
W-L | WEI OFF DVOA |
OFF. RANK |
WEI DEF DVOA |
DEF. RANK |
WEI S.T. DVOA |
S.T. RANK |
|
| 17 | DAL | -1.1% | 17 | 8-8 | 8.3% | 11 | 12.7% | 30 | 3.3% | 13 |
| 18 | HOU | -1.2% | 15 | 13-5 | -4.9% | 17 | -6.3% | 9 | -2.6% | 24 |
| 19 | CLE | -3.7% | 21 | 5-11 | -14.2% | 27 | -0.9% | 17 | 9.6% | 1 |
| 20 | NO | -3.9% | 19 | 7-9 | 12.2% | 8 | 10.6% | 28 | -5.6% | 31 |
| 21 | SD | -5.7% | 20 | 7-9 | -11.1% | 25 | 0.7% | 20 | 6.1% | 4 |
| 22 | BUF | -6.6% | 22 | 6-10 | -6.8% | 20 | -0.2% | 18 | 0.0% | 17 |
| 23 | TB | -10.0% | 24 | 7-9 | 0.4% | 15 | 7.6% | 25 | -2.8% | 25 |
| 24 | MIA | -11.8% | 23 | 7-9 | -10.6% | 23 | 0.0% | 19 | -1.2% | 21 |
| 25 | IND | -12.0% | 25 | 11-6 | -5.8% | 19 | 10.2% | 27 | 4.1% | 9 |
| 26 | ARI | -23.7% | 27 | 5-11 | -35.4% | 32 | -8.1% | 7 | 3.6% | 11 |
| 27 | NYJ | -23.7% | 26 | 6-10 | -22.9% | 29 | -7.5% | 8 | -8.3% | 32 |
| 28 | TEN | -24.4% | 28 | 6-10 | -23.0% | 30 | -1.8% | 16 | -3.1% | 26 |
| 29 | OAK | -28.6% | 29 | 4-12 | -13.5% | 26 | 11.4% | 29 | -3.7% | 27 |
| 30 | PHI | -29.5% | 30 | 4-12 | -10.7% | 24 | 19.5% | 32 | 0.8% | 15 |
| 31 | JAC | -29.8% | 31 | 2-14 | -17.9% | 28 | 6.9% | 24 | -5.0% | 30 |
| 32 | KC | -40.2% | 32 | 2-14 | -24.7% | 31 | 13.1% | 31 | -2.4% | 23 |
As the final team left from this year's DVOA top three, the New England Patriots go into Conference Championship weekend as the definite favorite to take home this year's Lombardi Trophy. They're helped even further in our playoff odds by the fact that the DVOA system absolutely loved their performance against Houston on Sunday, giving them a surprisingly high 96% single-game DVOA.
It probably won't shock you to learn that the two close games with last-minute comebacks come out very close in DVOA. In fact, in both BAL-DEN and SEA-ATL, the losing team ends up with the higher DVOA rating for the game. Baltimore and Denver are basically tied once we add in the opponent adjustments. Seattle's DVOA advantage over Atlanta is a little bit larger, with a couple of good explanations: first, Atlanta recovered the game's only official fumble, and second, Seattle had a nice long drive at the end of the second quarter that counts for plenty of positive value in DVOA but didn't end in any points because Russell Wilson took a sack on third down with no timeouts left.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We often talk about how special teams are the most inconsistent element of football, and this weekend provided two prime examples. The worst special teams of the year, Houston, had a very good game, and the best special teams of the year, Baltimore, had a horrendous game. The Baltimore/Denver game does not qualify as one of the top ten/bottom ten special teams games in DVOA history, but it does rank as one of the top 20/bottom 20 special teams games. Converting that DVOA back into expected points added, our system estimates that Denver special teams were worth 13.1 points more than average, and Baltimore special teams were worth -13.4 points less than average.
What does it take to be better or worse than what Baltimore and Denver did on Saturday night? Back in Pro Football Prospectus 2006, I did an essay on the best and worst special teams games in our database. We've added a number of other seasons since then but I believe the best and worst games are still the same. This is what I wrote about those games back then:
BEST: 2002 New Orleans Saints at Washington, Week 6
The Saints beat Washington 43-27, thanks to the one-man show that was Michael Lewis. Lewis combiend for 356 yards of all-around yardage, including a 90-yard kickoff return touchdown and an 83-yard punt return touchdown. He even got a rare chance to be part of the offense. Before this game, Lewis had one regular-season catch in his entire NFL career, but between his two special teams touchdowns, he caught a 58-yard bomb to set up a field goal. As for the rest of the Saints, Toby Gowin didn't have a good game as a punter (two touchbacks) but he had an excellent game as a kicker, averaging 68 yards on nine kickoffs. Twice, Ladell Betts decided to return a kickoff from the end zone, only to have the Saints tackle him before he could reach the 20-yard line. Estimated value: 16.3 points.
WORST: 2002 Cincinnati Bengals at Carolina, Week 14
Steve Smith was spectacular in this game, but Cincinnati's total special teams performance was even worse. Smith returned two punts for touchdowns of 87 and 61 yards. Cincinnati punter Travis Dorsch also managed just 40 yards on a free kick after a safety, and his final punt of the game went only 10 yards, from the Cincinnati 10 to the Cincinnati 20. That was the end of Dorsch's NFL career. He was a fourth-round pick and sat on the bench for 12 weeks until the Bengals put him on the field just long enough to see one of the most feeble punting games in NFL history. Then they released him. Estimated value: -18.6 points.
Comments
73 comments, Last at 16 Jan 2013, 9:44pm
#1 by Anon (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:15pm
Something seems fishy about this week... NE looked good, but not that good; and SF seemed utterly dominant...
#4 by Karl Cuba // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:30pm
I keep reading that the 49ers were dominant but the game was tied midway through the third quarter. How is that dominant?
#6 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:34pm
NE was winning 38-13 despite giving up two long kickoffs allowing Houston to score 10 of their points traveling less than 50 yards total.
So, even ignoring NE's similarly short post-turnover drive, NE outplayed Houston 31-3 on drives in the first three quarters that required going more than half the field. The numbers read entirely correct to me - dominance by NE on both sides with brutal figures for special teams.
#31 by QCIC (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:52pm
These numbers have SF up 73 to 8 in that game, what are you whining about?
#2 by MMM (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:23pm
SF gave up some big plays to GB, which hurt their rating. NE was more dominant than they appeared when you remember that most of Houston's successful drives came off of long kick returns.
#7 by Aloysius Mephi… // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:34pm
I'm also guessing GB gets full credit for their meaningless touchdown drive at the end of the game, which dings SF's defensive score. That may be correct; The Niners had their starters in and were certainly trying to stop the Packers from scoring.
#22 by coremill // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:02pm
SF wasn't entirely trying to stop Green Bay from scoring; mostly they were trying to stop GB from scoring quickly. SF was perfectly happy to trade points for time at that point in the game, so they gave up the underneath stuff and played a deep shell. It worked, GB had to run 11 plays and had only one pass over 12 yards (16 yards), and when SF got the ball back all they had to do was kneel down.
Hard to know how DVOA should take that into account.
#3 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:29pm
I'm shocked to see the falcons total DVOA from the season drop after beating the number 1 team in the rankings. Literally would not have thought it possible.
#8 by Anonymous1 (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:37pm
It is weighted DVOA.
#12 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:57pm
My in terminology. That's what I meant though. It's unbelievable that when weighted against the top team when they are the 12th they could find a way to win the game and still diminish their statistical profile when accounting for opponent strength. Not arguing with the formula, just seems highly improbable.
#13 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:59pm
Geez. I'm a poor typist. Apologies.
#15 by This Guy (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:21pm
I believe in the write up it says that they actually had lower DVOA in that game than Seattle (because of the fumble luck and such). You can't expect to move up in the rankings when you "lose" to them.
Yes they won the game, but it was incredibly close and on a per play average basis Seattle seemed to do better
#27 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:20pm
The surprise isn't that they dropped relative to Seattle so much as that they dropped relative to the idle Rams. But with a DVOA score of 3% for this week, that dropped their average.
idle aside:wondering if anybody pronounces DVOA as 'deh-VO-ah" and not dee-vee-oh-ay
#39 by ScottB (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 6:53pm
One more reason I don't really give a rip about DVOA any more. Too bad we can't measure "will to win".
I've been disappointed in Atlanta's DVOA numbers all year, but hey, they keep on winning. Good enough for me. Congrats Seattle on a great statistical year!
#44 by Will Allen // Jan 14, 2013 - 8:18pm
Yes, it was "will to win" that made the difference.
#52 by jebmak // Jan 15, 2013 - 12:44am
LOL
#41 by Karl Cuba // Jan 14, 2013 - 7:12pm
The Rams played the Pats once and the niners twice, their opponent adjustment will respond to them both having strong games. I find that DVOA is often at its best when you get the non-intuitive results.
#46 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 9:16pm
And let's not forget the Rams also played the Seahawks twice, and the Seahawks had the 3rd best game by DVOA this weekend.
#60 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 10:12am
Does DVOA include the context of a play into the evaluation of value added? For example is a three yard run on 4th and 1 down six points with three minutes to go worth more than that exact same play down 31 even later in the fourth? Is there even a way to do that? Considering the team put itself in that position because of all the other plays of the game that put them in that situation?
#67 by zenbitz // Jan 15, 2013 - 3:26pm
This goes back to my weekly idea of using WPA* to weight a given play. So if the best (worst) possible play (i.e, TD or turnover/TD) only changes the WPA by 0.02 (example, a 4th quarter TD that moves you to within 14 points), it's weighted by this normalized WPA.
For example, up until most of the 3rd quarter, a TD up or down by 7 (either way) is worth about 0.25 WPA. But by the 4th Q, going to/from +14 to +21 isn't worth much at all - see the Green Bay / SF game at http://live.advancednflstats.com/weekly.php?gameid2=55830&week=19 for a good graphic of this. At the close of 3rd Q, the Niners score to go up 38-24. The packers WPA is 0.05 (Niners 0.95). When the Niners score again, the WPA has dropped to 0.01 (large % but low magnitude), and it remains unchanged at all throughout the Packers final garbage time drive and score.
So all plays in the 4th quarter should be worth between 25% (~0.05/0.25) of their full value the and less as the maximum change in WPA tends towards zero.
Contrast with the end of regulation in Ravens/Broncos - where the WPA for the Ravens is again about 0.01, but the tying TD (obviously) jumps it up to 0.50, or the end of any game with less than a 3 point lead where each score jumps the WPA about 0.99.
So you want to cap the value (DVOA, DYAR, EPA, whatever) at the value you get at the beginning of the game with a function like Y = (WPAplay / max[0.25, WPAtd])
#68 by Brent // Jan 15, 2013 - 4:10pm
I think you have a viable idea, but it isn't DVOA. You should create a system, and see if it works. It might provide some really nice insight. I think trying to apply your idea would mess with DVOA, which would then need to be tweaked, which would then lead to a scheme which might be a really nice statistical scheme, but which wouldn't be DVOA any more.
#11 by wiesengrund // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:56pm
Well, why? Isn't it pretty obvious that the Rams are now a better team?
#21 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:02pm
Touche. Their performance last week was pretty compelling.
#23 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:02pm
Touche. Their performance last week was pretty compelling.
#19 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:54pm
Nelson's thoughts about that drop.
(No, I don't know why Nelson was put in charge this week...)
#5 by AB in DC (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:32pm
How much would Seattle's VOA/DVOA change if the last play of the first half counted as a turnover? (Which, in esssence, it was)
#9 by Cody Martin (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:40pm
Baltimore is listed as having a 11-7 record, shouldn't it be 12-6?
#10 by Gus (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 2:53pm
Yep, 10-6 + two playoff wins.
#30 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:29pm
My mistake, fixing now.
#14 by Myran (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:02pm
Just read the playoff report page. For the NE-ATL matchup, you can use something around Asante Samuel. After all, it was the 2007 Superbowl when pulled up instead of absolutely wrecking David Tyree. 'Asante Samuel' homecoming?
#24 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:02pm
Not sure that Asante Samuel deserves the same amount of recognition as Randy Moss.
How about something involving Eddie Matthews? He played on the Boston Braves, the Milwaukee Braves, and the Atlanta Braves.
I know it's the wrong sport, but I would prefer to ignore Asante Samuel.
#35 by Athelas // Jan 14, 2013 - 5:14pm
NE-ATL
The Dimitroff Reunion Special
#16 by Karl Cuba // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:43pm
Kaepernick runs for 180 yards and comes FIFTH in DYAR. Fifth!
Fifth!!!
#17 by Karl Cuba // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:43pm
Out of eight.
#28 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:24pm
let's see if I can guess the rankings without seeing the article...
Flacco
Wilson
Brady
Rodgers
ck
Ryan
Manning
Schaub
Also, are you looking at the combined passing and running numbers or only the passing numbers by themselves?
#34 by Kal // Jan 14, 2013 - 5:14pm
guess that's not that shocking; a lot of his plays were big plays, and those in general get dinged over more consistent plays across the board. I'd imagine Flacco gets dinged for that as well given that he had big plays but not many of them.
#48 by Aloysius Mephi… // Jan 14, 2013 - 9:54pm
I'm astonished if Rodgers graded higher than CK (though I agree that he's the most likely candidate). The others I guess I can see. Rodgers was good, but should his passing DYAR alone even be higher than Kaepernick's? Kaepernick had a lower completion percentage, but Rodgers had a lower Y/A. They each had two touchdowns, one pick and one fumble. I guess Rodgers was more consistent but it's amazing if Rodgers' passing DYAR blew Kaepernick's away enough to negate Kaepernick's performance as a rushser.
I guess one bad thing you can say about Kaepernick's performance is that he did put the Niners in a lot of third and longs. They just didn't matter because he kept picking them up with long passes and runs. Maybe that's the key.
#53 by RickD // Jan 15, 2013 - 2:17am
My list was constrained by the need to have four QBs ahead of ck. I suppose it could have been Ryan instead of Rodgers. I doubt it was Manning, and I would have to demand a recount if it were Schaub.
By my biased eyes, the list should be
Brady
Wilson
CK
Rodgers
Flacco
Ryan
Manning
Schaub
I'm consciously downrating Brady because I'm such a homer and uprating Flacco to account for Denver's defense. About the only thing I feel certain of is that Schaub should be in last. He had a poor game against a pass defense that DVOA hates.
#54 by Aloysius Mephi… // Jan 15, 2013 - 3:02am
Searching for other cracks in Kaepernick's performance, the Niners did not do well throwing to receivers named something other than 'Michael Crabtree' or 'Frank Gore'. 6/18 for 96 yards and that pick-six. Terrible.
On the other hand, Kaepernick picked up successful yards on 7 of 13 runs and gained at least 13 yards on 6 of his 7 successful runs (the other was a 3-yard gain on second and five which is a 'success' but is probably worth close to 0 DYAR).
#57 by Karl Cuba // Jan 15, 2013 - 6:41am
I can understand Kaepernick throwing the ball to Crabtree so much because he's the only guy that he can rely on to catch it.
Edit:
http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/120031-ea-sports-planning-special-49ers-edition-of-madden-14.html
#56 by Dan // Jan 15, 2013 - 5:54am
By expected points added, the ranking is
Wilson
Kaepernick
Brady
Ryan
Flacco
Rodgers
Manning
Schaub
With Wilson way ahead of the pack - Kaepernick was closer to Manning than to Wilson.
It was a big week for quarterbacks - Flacco, Rodgers, and Schaub all put up extremely similar numbers the previous week, when they were all top half QBs rather than bottom half QBs.
#29 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:28pm
Yeah, I was surprised too, but that's tomorrow's article, not today's article.
#45 by nat // Jan 14, 2013 - 8:40pm
Well, for QBs the scales and baselines for rush and pass are wildly different, aren't they? Adding them together has always been a bit suspect.
You should look at using the complete set of QB plays to get the A in VOA. A ten yard pass and a ten yard scramble are worth the same in a game. But I bet VOA and YAR see them differently.
#37 by bravehoptoad // Jan 14, 2013 - 5:59pm
55% completion rate? Still something like 8.5 YPA, so I don't know that he had such a crappy day as a passer that it would drag his DYAR down so low. That completion percentage would have been a lot better if not for Delanie "hands of stone" Walker.
Was this weekend just a sensational one for quarterbacking? I only watched the one game, but it does seem that there were a lot of high-scoring lollapaloozas.
#51 by Duff Soviet Union // Jan 15, 2013 - 12:43am
Yeah, that was my thought. Even the "worst" quarterbacks (Schaub, Manning) were above average statistically. I'd guess Wilson will be tops in YAR but Flacco will move ahead of him after opponent adjustments. It's surprising to see CK fifth, but I don't have a problem with those two being ahead of him. Brady had a great game too. The only real shocker is either Rodgers or Ryan ranking ahead of him.
And yes, Delanie Walker is awful.
#58 by Judy (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 6:57am
My guess is Brady's 1st in both. Partly because that's just what usually happens.
#70 by beargoggles // Jan 16, 2013 - 9:34pm
Delanie Walker has bad hands, but he is been forced out of his proper role (blocker, occasional receiving target) by all the receiver injuries. He also dropped probable game-winning pass against the Rams
#59 by EJ (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 9:49am
This weekend the stats "lie" about Joe Flacco and Matt Schaub. I watched the Ravens-Broncos game and my brother and I were texting how bad Joe Flacco was playing. The defensive scheme (not helping Champ) gave up 2 long tds to Torrie Smith and 1 long td (70 yards at the end of the 4th quarter) to Jacoby Jones. Yes in all 3 cases Joe had to throw the ball deep to the right spot, but Scot Zolak could do that. Take those 3 plays away and the stats show Flacco was not very good.
As for Matt Schaub, his stats were padded in the 4th quarter when New England was essentially playing prevent. They were allowing 10-15 yard passes uncontested and then tackling the receiver and eating up clock. And even with this, Schuab played with no sense of urgency as if there was a fifth quarter. His stats looked pretty good after the game, but he did not look good during the game.
#62 by BJR // Jan 15, 2013 - 10:35am
The Houston 'hurry up' offence when they were down two scores late in the game looked so disorganised and lacking in urgency. Surely they must practice something other than Arian Foster outside zone runs all week?
#71 by beargoggles // Jan 16, 2013 - 9:38pm
Schaub is so slow he can't even run a hurry up offense. Seriously, I think it's very hard to win with a statue like that. I had not seen him play a lot so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on his passing ability because I have a feeling he's got an injury. Still, hard to picture him as a Super Bowl winner with that footwork and pocket presence.
#63 by Will Allen // Jan 15, 2013 - 10:46am
This is why stats in a single game need to be taken with a very large grain of salt. The sample size is simply too small. Over 500-600 attempts (a season) the issues of context get balanced out to some degree, and over the 5000-6000 attempts (a career), the issues of context usually get balanced out to a very, very, large degree, although sometimes this is not true, with regard to the quality of teammates. In the sample size contained in a game? It is a really large mistake to simply look at the stats, even advanced stats, and make strong conclusions regarding the quality of play of an individual. There is no substitute for breaking down film, if you want to really know how well, or how poorly, somebody, even somebody at the position that best lends it self to statistical analysis, played in a particular game.
#18 by GrandVezir // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:48pm
Not sure what the change was in Baltimore's special teams, but Houston benefitted from having Danieal Manning return kicks, which he had not done during the regular season. (Manning did return kicks in the wild card round, but Cincinnati only kicked 4 times that game, twice for touchbacks.)
#25 by RickD // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:15pm
Baltimore dropped from 10.4 (#1) to 5.5. NE dropped from 8.7 (#2) to 6.5.
All because of a returner cut by the Texans and another returner that the Texans hadn't been using.
(Makes you wonder about the Texans' special teams coaching.)
#33 by Dan // Jan 14, 2013 - 5:10pm
I suspect that the Texans were just saving Manning for the playoffs, since he plays nearly every snap on defense. They took him off regular season kick return duty after he was injured in the middle of the 2011 season, but he's been their playoff kick returner both last year and this year.
#20 by Bruce Lamon // Jan 14, 2013 - 3:59pm
Kaepernick threw a pick six.
#26 by Karl Cuba // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:16pm
5th!
(Plus by DYAR it only counts as a pick)
#32 by herewegobrowni… (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 4:53pm
I am guessing the Browns' improvement is due to processing all the plays, due to Baltimore winning (since the Browns played them twice but the Broncos and Colts only once each) and Cin's close (at least score-wise) loss?
Still don't like them likely switching to 3-4 now that they've cleared replacement level on defense.
#36 by Anonymousse (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 5:19pm
Are there no ST adjustments? it looks like all the ST VOA matches the ST DVOA.
#38 by Aaron Schatz // Jan 14, 2013 - 6:16pm
Right. I've never figured out a good way to do opponent adjustments for special teams. There are adjustments, but they are for weather and altitude.
#40 by okalriii (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 7:03pm
The Game We Don't Have a Special Name For is the Bizzaro Bountyspygate Bowl.
I don't know how to incorporate Atlanta as a New Orleans and Josh McD in New Orleans any better than this.
#42 by zenbitz // Jan 14, 2013 - 7:44pm
I like having Special Teams in DVOA for explicatory purposes, but I wonder how much predictive value it has. Obviously, if you post-dict with special teams dvoa you will get a much better correlation with w/l (since those things happened).
But is that true prospectively? Or a related question, how much should ST DVOA be regressed to the mean for predictive purposes? Are some components (FG/XP, for instance) better than others?
#43 by Danny Tuccitto // Jan 14, 2013 - 8:13pm
It's a good one, so might want to put this question into the FO mailbag. That way, it doesn't get buried in the comments section of a long-forgotten column once we've found time to sit down and do mailbag XPs during the offseason.
#49 by bravehoptoad // Jan 14, 2013 - 9:55pm
I know that over at advancednflstats, he thinks special teams are so non-predictive that they count for 0% in his rating system.
#47 by andrew // Jan 14, 2013 - 9:45pm
That was not the end of of Travis Dorsch's NFL career.
The following season the Packers signed him to their playoff roster, although he did not see action. He was on the Vikings practice squad the year after that, then spent two years in NFL Europe with the Rhein Fire.
#50 by Joshua Northey (not verified) // Jan 14, 2013 - 11:31pm
Thanks for the update Travis!
#55 by navin // Jan 15, 2013 - 3:31am
I don't understand the opponent adjustments for NE and SF. Both teams' VOAs were adjusted up by 21pp. However, GB is 22pp better in DVOA than Houston. Shouldn't SF's adjustment be higher?
Specifically, how does the NE defense get a negative (i.e., good) adjustment? Houston has a below average offense, yet the NE defense was adjusted from -6% to -10%. Also, NE's offense adjustment is massive--24pp. Houston's season ending Def DVOA is 14% and their Weighted DVOA is 6.3%.
The only other issue I can think of is fumbles, but I don't remember either team getting massively lucky/unlucky on fumbles.
#64 by QCIC (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 12:25pm
It judges different plays different. So the Texans might be below average passing and above average running, but if they run more than pass you will get a positive adjustment.
#61 by Rick Z. (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 10:34am
My God, it's amazing how much of a fraud the Falcons are.
I fully expect them to be blown out of their building this week.
#65 by John from Tuscaloosa (not verified) // Jan 15, 2013 - 12:38pm
Look I'm a falcons fan so that probably explains my touchiness on the topic, but oh well. I'm a huge believer in advanced statistics across the board in the scoring world. Football, baseball, soccer, basketball, I love it. And, like you, I think the Niners are heavy favorites in the Georgia Dome this weekend, however, there comes a line where you have to decide how games are evaluated at the end. Last, I checked it's still by points. The Falcons have had more points than their opponents in more games than anyone else this season. You don't have to explain to me why DVOA has them lower, I understand they aren't very efficient from a play-by-play standpoint and that they don't run the football or stop the run at league average per play levels. Games are not decided by DVOA. If you want that to be how winners are chosen, start your own league. Better team =/= champion in much the same way that regular stats don't convey all the information that advanced stats can. Isn't that why we love the NFL?
#72 by beargoggles // Jan 16, 2013 - 9:44pm
I'm a 49ers fan and I respectmthe possibility of A Falcon win on Sunday. I suspect the Falcons true level is somewhere between their won- loss record and their DVOA ranking. For what it's worth I feel the same about the Colts. However I do think that DVOA is a better predictor of how the Falcons are going to do next year. I have absolutely no evidence to back this theory up.
#73 by beargoggles // Jan 16, 2013 - 9:44pm
I'm a 49ers fan and I respectmthe possibility of A Falcon win on Sunday. I suspect the Falcons true level is somewhere between their won- loss record and their DVOA ranking. For what it's worth I feel the same about the Colts. However I do think that DVOA is a better predictor of how the Falcons are going to do next year. I have absolutely no evidence to back this theory up.
#66 by Sid // Jan 15, 2013 - 1:00pm
26-3% is very close? Looks to me like Seattle was clearly better. It's only even that close due to opponent adjustments.
#69 by Punters are pe… (not verified) // Jan 16, 2013 - 5:21am
That stat about Dorsch made me laugh. In his first career game-A ten yard punt from his own ten, Two more returned for td's, and then got cut. lol.