The team rankings below are 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 offensive generic win probability, which 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, defensive interception rates, and team penalty rates. If you're scratching your head wondering why a team is ranked where it is, just scroll down to the second table to see the stats of all 32 teams.
Click on the table headers to sort:
| RANK | TEAM | LAST WK | GWP | Opp GWP | O RANK | D RANK |
| 1 |  IND | 2 | 0.80 | 0.47 | 4 | 5 |
| 2 |  NO | 1 | 0.79 | 0.44 | 1 | 16 |
| 3 |  PIT | 3 | 0.76 | 0.50 | 9 | 3 |
| 4 |  NE | 5 | 0.73 | 0.50 | 3 | 12 |
| 5 |  DAL | 6 | 0.70 | 0.49 | 2 | 17 |
| 6 |  PHI | 8 | 0.70 | 0.48 | 10 | 1 |
| 7 |  DEN | 4 | 0.69 | 0.54 | 15 | 4 |
| 8 |  SD | 7 | 0.69 | 0.48 | 5 | 21 |
| 9 |  CIN | 9 | 0.66 | 0.57 | 11 | 6 |
| 10 |  NYG | 10 | 0.65 | 0.49 | 8 | 10 |
| 11 |  MIN | 12 | 0.64 | 0.42 | 6 | 23 |
| 12 |  GB | 11 | 0.63 | 0.43 | 13 | 7 |
| 13 |  BAL | 15 | 0.59 | 0.50 | 12 | 11 |
| 14 |  HOU | 14 | 0.57 | 0.48 | 7 | 26 |
| 15 |  NYJ | 13 | 0.55 | 0.47 | 24 | 2 |
| 16 |  ARI | 17 | 0.49 | 0.51 | 17 | 14 |
| 17 |  JAC | 19 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 14 | 30 |
| 18 |  ATL | 16 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 16 | 25 |
| 19 |  WAS | 25 | 0.46 | 0.42 | 21 | 13 |
| 20 |  TEN | 20 | 0.45 | 0.57 | 18 | 20 |
| 21 |  CAR | 24 | 0.44 | 0.51 | 25 | 9 |
| 22 |  CHI | 18 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 19 | 18 |
| 23 |  SF | 22 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 26 | 8 |
| 24 |  SEA | 21 | 0.39 | 0.47 | 23 | 19 |
| 25 |  MIA | 23 | 0.38 | 0.57 | 22 | 22 |
| 26 |  BUF | 26 | 0.32 | 0.47 | 28 | 15 |
| 27 |  STL | 27 | 0.29 | 0.53 | 20 | 27 |
| 28 |  TB | 28 | 0.22 | 0.56 | 27 | 29 |
| 29 |  KC | 30 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 29 | 32 |
| 30 |  OAK | 29 | 0.17 | 0.55 | 31 | 24 |
| 31 |  DET | 31 | 0.15 | 0.56 | 30 | 31 |
| 32 |  CLE | 32 | 0.11 | 0.59 | 32 | 28 |
And here are the sortable raw team efficiency stats. Passing, running, and penalties are in yards per relevant play. Fumbles and interception stats are in turnovers per relevant play.
| TEAM | OPASS | ORUN | OINT% | OFUM% | DPASS | DRUN | DINT% | PENRATE |
| ARI | 6.4 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 6.2 | 4.2 | 2.9 | 0.46 |
| ATL | 6.3 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 6.6 | 4.6 | 2.3 | 0.37 |
| BAL | 6.4 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 0.57 |
| BUF | 5.1 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 5.6 | 5.1 | 5.3 | 0.45 |
| CAR | 5.6 | 4.8 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 5.8 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 0.36 |
| CHI | 6.2 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 0.45 |
| CIN | 6.3 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 5.9 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 0.39 |
| CLE | 3.6 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 6.9 | 4.7 | 1.4 | 0.35 |
| DAL | 7.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 5.9 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 0.50 |
| DEN | 6.2 | 4.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 5.5 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 0.34 |
| DET | 4.7 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 1.1 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 0.45 |
| GB | 6.5 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 4.7 | 0.54 |
| HOU | 7.5 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 6.3 | 4.7 | 2.6 | 0.43 |
| IND | 7.7 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 3.0 | 0.30 |
| JAC | 6.2 | 5.0 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 6.9 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 0.29 |
| KC | 4.7 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 6.9 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 0.34 |
| MIA | 4.9 | 4.6 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 0.34 |
| MIN | 7.1 | 4.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 0.35 |
| NE | 7.3 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 5.6 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 0.41 |
| NO | 8.1 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 5.7 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 0.39 |
| NYG | 6.8 | 4.4 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 5.6 | 4.5 | 3.2 | 0.45 |
| NYJ | 5.9 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 1.3 | 5.1 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 0.36 |
| OAK | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 6.7 | 4.4 | 2.3 | 0.39 |
| PHI | 6.5 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 5.5 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 0.49 |
| PIT | 6.9 | 4.3 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.37 |
| SD | 7.3 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 0.34 |
| SF | 5.2 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 0.7 | 6.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 0.44 |
| SEA | 5.6 | 3.8 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 6.1 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 0.37 |
| STL | 5.3 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 0.44 |
| TB | 5.1 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 7.2 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 0.37 |
| TEN | 5.6 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 1.8 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 3.2 | 0.42 |
| WAS | 5.9 | 4.1 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 0.42 |
| Avg | 6.1 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 6.1 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 0.40 |
sorting doesnt work for me on windows 7 with firefox 3.5.3
not just you, anon #1. no sorting for me either, and it definitely worked ~1 week ago. also firefox (3.5.5), but on xp.
Sorry about the sorting. My traffic has been so heavy the past couple weeks that the javascript server has been overloaded.
any chance of getting these out earlier on Thursday mornings
I know there has been a lot of discussion in the past similar to the following dilemma:
SD beats PHI, but PHI moves up past SD...as a philly fan, I also can't help but wonder if the #1 team defensive efficiency rating is a statistical fluke at this point in the season. To me, it has a lot to do with beating the bad teams convincingly, and falling behind against the good teams early, thus being able to predict more running plays late in the game when we are on defense.
In the last two games, we have not been able to get stops when we needed them. I usually trust the statistics, and I know that these final drives can be viewed as just a small sample size, but I think by the end of the season we may see the PHI Defense ranked lower statistically.
Great Site!
Is there value in tracking the last three games of each team in terms of whether they are improving or regressing?
My case studies would be the Denver and Tennessee teams and their current directions.
thanks
Hi. Welcome. I've looked at it both ways--over-weighting recent games and equally weighting all games. On one hand we can capture things like injuries, and on the other hand we get a larger sample of data. Both methods are about equally accurate, so I prefer to use the simpler method and use equal weights for all games.