Jump to content

2017 Football Outsiders DVOA Rankings


Recommended Posts

Talking to the wrong guy.

Am I? Not that you're over the top, but it seems to me that you've been fairly critical of FO throughout this thread. I personally think it's pretty darn good and better than, say, pff. Some sites aand methods are better than others. Maybe I'm misreading your intent, however.

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I? Not that you're over the top, but it seems to me that you've been fairly critical of FO throughout this thread. I personally think it's pretty darn good and better than, say, pff. Some sites aand methods are better than others. Maybe I'm misreading your intent, however.

Oh I'm plenty critical of DVOA in general, but I've acknowledged its usefulness in certain areas. You and I are in agreement (I believe) in objecting to DVOA ratings of quarterbacks in 2017, and I was just using a few examples to illustrate a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fboutsiders

.@Chiefs still No. 1, but parity dominates the new DVOA ratings, now posted at Football Outsiders.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-6-dvoa-ratings

 

21e18w9.jpg

 

@fboutsiders

FO playoff odds now updated. KC still our SB favorite, with an 11% chance of the "Andy Reid Reunion" Super Bowl.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds

 

2s024qr.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford is a better quarterback playing better at quarterback than Taylor is. Pointing to a statistic that says otherwise is YOUR bias, not mine, when 99% of reasonable people would agree with my assessment over yours.

 

I was obviously talking about yards. If you don't think 20% of any statistic has a huge effect I don't know what to tell you.

It's not 20% of a statistic. 20% of the games but not statistic. If a defense gives up 250 yards passing on 3 games and 1 game gives up 180 yards passing it's not going to move the needle very far. It would only change the average by 17.5 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not 20% of a statistic. 20% of the games but not statistic. If a defense gives up 250 yards passing on 3 games and 1 game gives up 180 yards passing it's not going to move the needle very far. It would only change the average by 17.5 yards.

There had been 5 games from which they compiled DVOA when I wrote that. So 1 game out of 5 would be 20% of the games and responsible for 20% of the DVOA calculation.

 

It may not seem like much, but 17 yards would be the difference (in NFL passing defense, for example, which uses YPG) between a team being ranked 9th and in the top ten defenses, and being ranked 16th and dead on league average. One game out of five absolutely has an outsize impact...again, it's 20% of the accumulated statistics at the time it was calculated, as opposed to 6.25% which would be one game out of a 16 game season. So in essence you could say one game out of five is over three times as meaningful to DVOA when calculated through week 6 as opposed to week 16, so you need to look at outliers in that light IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There had been 5 games from which they compiled DVOA when I wrote that. So 1 game out of 5 would be 20% of the games and responsible for 20% of the DVOA calculation.

 

It may not seem like much, but 17 yards would be the difference (in NFL passing defense, for example, which uses YPG) between a team being ranked 9th and in the top ten defenses, and being ranked 16th and dead on league average. One game out of five absolutely has an outsize impact...again, it's 20% of the accumulated statistics at the time it was calculated, as opposed to 6.25% which would be one game out of a 16 game season. So in essence you could say one game out of five is over three times as meaningful to DVOA when calculated through week 6 as opposed to week 16, so you need to look at outliers in that light IMO.

Btw Matt Stafford just had another bad game and now ranks 24th in DVOA. What do you think about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw Matt Stafford just had another bad game and now ranks 24th in DVOA. What do you think about that?

Well, if I had an agenda to make a QB seems like he's better than he is I'd make the de rigueur arguments we're all familiar with. Since I don't, I'm capable of saying he played a mediocre football game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool stat posted by Scott Kacsmar on Twitter:

 

If you look at the 20 best 3-3 teams and 20 worst 4-2 teams by DVOA

 

3-3 teams finished with 10.1 wins

4-2 teams finished with 8.7 wins.

If anyone was wondering how predictive DVOA is, that should tell you.

Edited by HappyDays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fboutsiders

New DVOA ratings featuring new No. 1 the Pittsburgh #Steelers followed by #RamsNFL #Chiefs #Eagles http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-7-dvoa-ratings

ndlqgm.jpg

@fboutsiders

New FO playoff odds give us a #Steelers-#Eagles Keystone Bowl in 11 percent of this week's simulations. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds

14v37es.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following tbis. Pontificate, please, padron

He was talking about how Miami is 4-2 but is 28th overall in DVOA. The worst 4-2 teams of all time, ranked by DVOA, ended up with less wins than the best 3-3 teams of all time. If you took an average 4-2 team and an average 3-3 team you would expect the 4-2 team to end up with more wins. But DVOA correctly predicts which 4-2 teams are worse than which 3-3 teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was talking about how Miami is 4-2 but is 28th overall in DVOA. The worst 4-2 teams of all time, ranked by DVOA, ended up with less wins than the best 3-3 teams of all time. If you took an average 4-2 team and an average 3-3 team you would expect the 4-2 team to end up with more wins. But DVOA correctly predicts which 4-2 teams are worse than which 3-3 teams.

Basically wins suck. All about DVOA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically wins suck. All about DVOA.

 

DVOA is more predictive of success, but it's far from determinative. As FO notes in its commentary, the Bills have been in this position in prior years with a winning record and high DVOA, only to crater in both categories as the season wore on... we shall see. If they can hold up against the Murderer's Row of QBs coming up on the schedule, they'll have a shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DVOA is more predictive of success, but it's far from determinative. As FO notes in its commentary, the Bills have been in this position in prior years with a winning record and high DVOA, only to crater in both categories as the season wore on... we shall see. If they can hold up against the Murderer's Row of QBs coming up on the schedule, they'll have a shot.

 

I was being facetious.

 

I agree though with your second point. DVOA halfway through the season can on occasion mislead because even allowing for the fact the schedules are not even at the start they can be even less even after 5 or 6 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically wins suck. All about DVOA.

I know youre just kidding but it does prove DVOA is more predictive than just record, even midseason. A 4-2 team with low DVOA is not as good as a 3-3 team with high DVOA, and that is reflected in their final records.

 

If theres a better stat than DVOA I havent found it yet. Apparently in the Football Outsiders book they talk about its correlation to wins so Im gonna try and locate that somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fboutsiders

New Week 8 DVOA ratings: #Steelers drop but stay No. 1, #Cowboys rise, #Dolphins are awful.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-8-dvoa-ratings

 

2mq6vme.jpg

 

@fboutsiders

FO playoff odds are now updated as well. 1.5% chance of the "Fifth Time's The Charm Bowl" with #Vikings and #Bills.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds

 

11vmkwk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...