The ratings are listed below in terms of generic win probability. The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule, and all ratings include adjustments for opponent strength.
Offensive rank (ORANK) is based on offensive generic win probability is based on each team's offensive efficiency stats only. In other words, it's the team's GWP assuming it had a league-average defense. DRANK is is a team's generic win probability rank assuming it had a league-average offense.
GWP is based on a logistic regression model applied to current team stats. The model includes offensive and defensive passing and running efficiency, offensive turnover rates, and team penalty rates. A full explanation of the methodology can be found here. This year, however, I've made one important change based on research that strongly indicates that defensive interception rates are highly random and not consistent throughout the year. Accordingly, I've removed them from the model and updated the weights of the remaining stats.RANK TEAM LAST WK GWP Opp GWP OGWP DGWP 10 
8 0.64 0.63 13 19 11 
19 0.63 0.42 9 24 24 
21 0.37 0.46 28 12 14 
12 0.54 0.34 21 14 4 
5 0.71 0.54 10 1 6 
9 0.70 0.54 8 5 27 
28 0.28 0.55 30 18 28 
31 0.27 0.57 19 28 7 
7 0.69 0.50 4 9 16 
11 0.53 0.47 11 25 32 
32 0.12 0.56 31 32 22 
23 0.45 0.45 18 15 21 
26 0.46 0.58 16 30 19 
20 0.52 0.47 12 17 20 
25 0.50 0.58 14 22 31 
30 0.13 0.52 32 31 9 
6 0.66 0.51 7 23 18 
15 0.52 0.52 15 10 26 
22 0.31 0.51 25 29 8 
13 0.67 0.52 6 11 5 
2 0.71 0.33 2 16 15 
10 0.54 0.50 26 4 23 
16 0.41 0.57 24 20 3 
4 0.78 0.56 5 8 12 
14 0.61 0.43 20 3 2 
3 0.81 0.51 1 13 25 
27 0.36 0.43 29 21 29 
24 0.27 0.52 27 26 30 
29 0.25 0.66 22 27 13 
17 0.61 0.63 17 6 17 
18 0.53 0.39 23 7 1 
1 0.83 0.60 3 2 TEAM OPASS ORUN OINTRATE OFUMRATE DPASS DRUN DINTRATE PENRATE ARI 7.16 3.24 0.023 0.025 6.71 4.01 0.017 0.40 ATL 6.68 5.02 0.019 0.007 6.35 4.40 0.024 0.34 BAL 4.89 3.70 0.049 0.032 4.95 2.77 0.048 0.48 BUF 6.71 3.70 0.021 0.028 5.34 4.05 0.018 0.25 CAR 6.72 3.62 0.028 0.017 5.04 3.84 0.017 0.45 CHI 6.25 3.78 0.020 0.016 5.47 3.46 0.024 0.40 CIN 4.32 3.12 0.036 0.036 5.64 4.34 0.023 0.34 CLE 5.23 3.81 0.041 0.023 6.67 4.66 0.067 0.51 DAL 7.90 4.76 0.025 0.041 5.94 3.72 0.010 0.56 DEN 7.26 4.72 0.022 0.027 7.10 5.09 0.010 0.30 DET 4.58 4.32 0.041 0.034 8.35 4.86 0.007 0.44 GB 6.68 3.74 0.020 0.030 5.31 5.11 0.058 0.62 HOU 6.34 4.38 0.043 0.035 7.46 4.46 0.022 0.13 IND 6.49 3.30 0.027 0.009 5.86 4.63 0.036 0.38 JAX 5.76 4.11 0.022 0.016 6.75 4.46 0.031 0.40 KC 3.82 4.57 0.049 0.030 7.59 5.03 0.022 0.23 MIA 7.09 4.29 0.013 0.020 7.20 3.50 0.020 0.29 MIN 5.58 4.18 0.020 0.033 6.04 3.03 0.021 0.47 NE 5.26 3.77 0.025 0.019 7.14 4.59 0.037 0.30 NO 8.47 3.32 0.027 0.031 5.88 4.37 0.023 0.54 NYG 7.13 6.08 0.025 0.008 5.48 3.97 0.013 0.45 NYJ 6.03 3.66 0.043 0.020 5.97 2.88 0.028 0.31 OAK 5.16 4.64 0.015 0.039 6.88 3.94 0.032 0.44 PHI 6.87 3.68 0.018 0.017 5.55 3.54 0.033 0.30 PIT 5.76 3.71 0.022 0.029 4.48 2.78 0.036 0.49 SD 8.32 3.76 0.024 0.015 5.87 4.37 0.025 0.26 SF 6.02 4.67 0.047 0.030 6.38 3.94 0.040 0.36 SS 4.33 4.70 0.041 0.009 7.04 4.18 0.007 0.39 STL 4.75 3.75 0.020 0.029 7.80 4.94 0.007 0.48 TB 5.39 4.95 0.036 0.010 6.21 3.45 0.054 0.52 TEN 6.02 3.58 0.036 0.020 4.65 3.66 0.059 0.37 WAS 6.27 4.62 0.000 0.009 5.80 3.90 0.025 0.32 AVG 6.10 4.10 0.028 0.023 6.22 4.06 0.028 0.39
Week 6 Efficiency Rankings
published on 10/14/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oops. Just click on the Rank header to sort in order of team strength.
Why do you think the Rams stay at #1 despite losing to the 29th best team (from last week's rankings?) Was that loss not as bad as it seemed (not sure how) or is there something else going on here?
I was surprised too. Thought they would fall dramatically, but they didn't for 3 main reasons: They still have pretty good eff stats, they still have zero ints and a very low fumble rate, and they have had one of the toughest schedules.
More surprising than the Skins staying on top was the Panthers moving up a notch after an awful showing in Tampa. What happened there?
There is something I don't understand in the model. I ran the regression with last year coefficients, and set the AHOME at 0.5 for neutral site. Then I took Washington's stats for the "A" coefficients, and the average's stats for the "B" coefficients. I found a GWP of 77% without adjustments. Then I reversed the A and B stats and found a GWP of 21%.
So Washington playing an average team on neutral site has a GWP of 77% but an average team playing Washington on a neutral site has a GWP of 21%. Am I missing something?
Second remark on this, why both percentages don't give 100%.
Re: the Panthers. It could be a couple things--the teams they played previously may have done very well last week, improving their SoS. Also, even thought they lost, they might not have had terrible "internals" or things my model doesn't capture like punt returns or missed fld goals. Another thing could be that the team(s) ahead of them did even worse.
Re:Washington vs avg team on a neutral site. Don't forget the constant. It's about -.3 or something. That might fix it.
Looks like the Panthers moved up despite a poor showing simple because the Giants were ahead of them and had a poorer one.
Do you think that the win probabilities are accurate at the tails? I find it hard to believe that any NFL team has a 5% or less chance of beating any other. Yes, I thought this even before the Rams and Browns won.
SR-You might be right about that. That's one of the criticisms of logit regression in general. I've already added in pretty strong 'regression to the mean' corrections so that the game probabilities aren't overconfident based on short term outlier team performance.
One way to check for overconfidence is to calculate the theoretical predicted accuracy of the regression and compare it to the actual accuracy. I've only done that for one season, 2007, and it was dead-on--72% predicted and 72% actual. So I'm not sure if further corrections are wise.