One of the more OCD sort of things that I do is sit at the computer on a Sunday night in the fall and winter and compile NFL stats. For three years now I've developed a ranking system for the NFL that takes into consideration of each teams opponents and weighting their statistics based on the prowess of the opponent in each category.
Here is the final listing for 2009.
First I'd like to cut you all off who immediately want to go on about momentum or how one team "looks".
This isn't a predictive exercise. It's a statement on what HAS happened, not what WILL happen. This merely shows that Green Bay, by my methodology, was the best team during the course of a 17 week season. And I'm sure many of you will really have a problem with that considering that they didn't even win their division. In fact they were swept by their division rivals the Minnesota Vikings. But the numbers are what they are, and after Indy went week in and out as the run away best team in the league (despite being the worst running team), they faded enough in the last two games to drop to fifth.
Now a note on the methodology. Like it was mentioned earlier this ranking was created to take into the strength of the opponents. But I didn't want to just figure out some strength ranking and then factor the order of the teams. I wanted to look at each game and factor each performance turned in. I wanted a team to be rewarded for performing at a top level against a great team and equally hammered if they turned in an egg against a dog of a team.
So I track 1) points scored by offense, 2) offensive TDs, 3) defensive scoring, 4) rushing, receiving and total yards produced, 5) w/l record which is quantified by ranking the teams winning percentages.
So with that I track each teams running totals on offense and defense during the course of the year. And with those raw numbers I rank each team in each category which produces a weighting factor. Then I apply the factors for the stats in each game based on the opponents ranking. If the Browns played a team that holds opponents to low yardage totals, then their yardage total for that day will be boosted. Or reduced when playing a weak defense. The inverse is done for the teams defenses. Additionally this is done based on a teams ranking in that specific category. So a team may be staunch in giving up yardage but in turn gives up a lot of points. So, in theory, a teams factor may be positive for one and negative for another statistical set. (Am I loosing you yet? I find this hard to explain in the written form)
So I guess the point is that I compare each team on each stat independently. Then I aggregate rankings in all the stat groups to create an overall offensive and defensive rankings. I then rank teams based on their offensive and defensive rankings and record. The strength of schedule factor is embedded within the ranking of the teams offensive and defensive rankings.
If you've read my GIS posting then you've heard me warn of biases and author agendas. And of course my dataset has them just as any other ranking. I'm biased in that I have played down the weight of the teams actual record. The record is in there more for tie breaking purposes and to hopefully keep an 8-8 team from being in the top five simply because they have a kick ass offense or defense. Another thing I don't even consider is head to head matchups.
The reason I started this is because of the sickeningly simple rankings thrown around by media talking heads. Most often they claim that this team or that is the best defense simply because they have the lowest yards against. Now this is a good measuring stick, but not enough to be crowning some team as the best. Shouldn't we consider other factors when we look at where a team stacks up against others?
Now much to my chagrin it seems to be that the yards against does most often correlate with the best defense (it has for the last two years at least). But that will be answered as the sample increases.
And a final note, last year (again much to my chagrin) the ranking did turn up Pittsburgh as the number one team for the 2008 season. So I'm interested to see if the same can be said with this dataset. I'm thinking not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my fellow Browns sufferers I offer these thoughts.
- Mangini has met my two goals for this season; 1) beat the Steelers 2) improve on the record; he's also met my constant criteria of at least winning one division game a year.
- I don't think by any stretch the draft was a homerun, but I do also caution optimism. Mack made solid improvement all season. Robiskie actually showed up after a while. I liked what Massoquoi showed all year, at the very least he looks to be a solid number two. Veikune didn't show much of anything, but did end the season with an injury. Maiava looked serviceable at the end of the season once he had a shot at some playing time. And I'm looking forward to seeing more from James Davis.
- And speaking of a running back, it's great that Harrison has emerged what appears to be a solid running threat. At the very least it's worth giving him another year to see what he can do over the long haul. He looked good in the last games. Fast, elusive, quick to the hole or corner, decisive behind the line of scrimmage, and not as easy to bring down as we feared. Perhaps if Davis or Jennigns can become a punishing buiser to complement we have a tandem to work with for a few seasons. At the very least we shouldn't feel bad about not drafting a high back with the first pick. After all there doesn't seem to be a big name in the draft this year.
- And speaking of the draft, we need a D tackle or snot knocking safety. I like that lineman from Nebraska (who doesn't right?), but would be happy with a trade down to get the USC or Tennessee safeties. But then again I think we might see a QB drafted somewhere.
- Can we finally say that Anderson is not the answer? I think we can. But I can't say the same for Quinn.
- Of course with a team that has so many holes we can take at just about any position, but I like what I saw down the stretch. And in the end the Mangini team made the playoffs this year, it just wasn't the Browns....
- Mangini has met my two goals for this season; 1) beat the Steelers 2) improve on the record; he's also met my constant criteria of at least winning one division game a year.
- I don't think by any stretch the draft was a homerun, but I do also caution optimism. Mack made solid improvement all season. Robiskie actually showed up after a while. I liked what Massoquoi showed all year, at the very least he looks to be a solid number two. Veikune didn't show much of anything, but did end the season with an injury. Maiava looked serviceable at the end of the season once he had a shot at some playing time. And I'm looking forward to seeing more from James Davis.
- And speaking of a running back, it's great that Harrison has emerged what appears to be a solid running threat. At the very least it's worth giving him another year to see what he can do over the long haul. He looked good in the last games. Fast, elusive, quick to the hole or corner, decisive behind the line of scrimmage, and not as easy to bring down as we feared. Perhaps if Davis or Jennigns can become a punishing buiser to complement we have a tandem to work with for a few seasons. At the very least we shouldn't feel bad about not drafting a high back with the first pick. After all there doesn't seem to be a big name in the draft this year.
- And speaking of the draft, we need a D tackle or snot knocking safety. I like that lineman from Nebraska (who doesn't right?), but would be happy with a trade down to get the USC or Tennessee safeties. But then again I think we might see a QB drafted somewhere.
- Can we finally say that Anderson is not the answer? I think we can. But I can't say the same for Quinn.
- Of course with a team that has so many holes we can take at just about any position, but I like what I saw down the stretch. And in the end the Mangini team made the playoffs this year, it just wasn't the Browns....
No comments:
Post a Comment