A lot of movement in the rankings this week. The Giants catapult to #2 on the backs of the Bears who fall from #1 to #9 thanks to that historic beat-down Sunday night. That kind of performance will be hard to repeat
San Diego's offense does not appear to be missing Vincent Jackson one bit, and their pass defense is giving up the second fewest yards per attempt. The model heavily regresses team stats, particularly so early in the season. Nevertheless, the Chargers look like a team about to rattle off a bunch of wins.
Two of the curiosities are the Cowboys and Redksins at #4 and #5. To figure out whey they're so high, all you need to do is scroll down to the team stats at the bottom of the post. Both teams are throwing the ball very well, and they've played against tougher-than-average opponents. Keep in mind these rankings aren't about who has won the most games in the past, but who is likely to win the most games in the future.
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, and team penalty rates. A full explanation of the methodology can be found here.
Click on the table headers to sort.
| RANK | TEAM | LAST WK | GWP | Opp GWP | O RANK | D RANK |
| 1 |  SD | 2 | 0.78 | 0.45 | 1 | 6 |
| 2 |  NYG | 13 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 5 | 4 |
| 3 |  KC | 4 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 10 | 3 |
| 4 |  DAL | 3 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 9 | 8 |
| 5 |  WAS | 10 | 0.64 | 0.53 | 2 | 13 |
| 6 |  HOU | 7 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 4 | 20 |
| 7 |  BAL | 15 | 0.60 | 0.55 | 22 | 1 |
| 8 |  PIT | 9 | 0.59 | 0.47 | 12 | 7 |
| 9 |  CHI | 1 | 0.59 | 0.56 | 14 | 9 |
| 10 |  NYJ | 14 | 0.59 | 0.53 | 8 | 15 |
| 11 |  MIA | 18 | 0.57 | 0.49 | 16 | 12 |
| 12 |  NE | 16 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 3 | 29 |
| 13 |  IND | 8 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 7 | 24 |
| 14 |  GB | 5 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 6 | 17 |
| 15 |  PHI | 12 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 19 | 5 |
| 16 |  TEN | 19 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 13 | 2 |
| 17 |  CIN | 22 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 18 | 16 |
| 18 |  SEA | 6 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 24 | 10 |
| 19 |  CLE | 17 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 11 | 28 |
| 20 |  DEN | 11 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 15 | 26 |
| 21 |  MIN | 23 | 0.41 | 0.42 | 28 | 14 |
| 22 |  CAR | 29 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 32 | 11 |
| 23 |  TB | 24 | 0.40 | 0.49 | 20 | 31 |
| 24 |  BUF | 25 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 31 | 19 |
| 25 |  SF | 21 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 27 | 22 |
| 26 |  JAC | 27 | 0.38 | 0.59 | 26 | 25 |
| 27 |  NO | 26 | 0.36 | 0.39 | 17 | 32 |
| 28 |  ATL | 28 | 0.35 | 0.40 | 21 | 30 |
| 29 |  DET | 20 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 23 | 27 |
| 30 |  OAK | 30 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 25 | 23 |
| 31 |  STL | 32 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 30 | 21 |
| 32 |  ARI | 31 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 29 | 18 |
Each team's efficiency stats are listed below.
| TEAM | OPASS | ORUN | OINT% | OFUM% | DPASS | DRUN | DINT% | PENRATE |
| ARI | 4.2 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 1.3 | 6.3 | 4.4 | 2.8 | 0.63 |
| ATL | 5.9 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 6.5 | 4.6 | 6.2 | 0.38 |
| BAL | 5.9 | 3.0 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.41 |
| BUF | 4.5 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 7.0 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 0.31 |
| CAR | 4.8 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 2.9 | 6.1 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 0.43 |
| CHI | 6.5 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.40 |
| CIN | 6.2 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 5.5 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 0.41 |
| CLE | 6.1 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 7.1 | 3.8 | 2.4 | 0.47 |
| DAL | 7.2 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 0.50 |
| DEN | 7.3 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 6.8 | 4.1 | 2.4 | 0.46 |
| DET | 5.5 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 7.2 | 4.8 | 4.2 | 0.50 |
| GB | 7.1 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 3.8 | 0.53 |
| HOU | 6.9 | 5.5 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 7.8 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 0.30 |
| IND | 7.6 | 3.2 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 6.9 | 5.0 | 2.5 | 0.37 |
| JAC | 5.3 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 8.3 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 0.39 |
| KC | 6.1 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 0.28 |
| MIA | 6.3 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 5.5 | 4.2 | 2.5 | 0.24 |
| MIN | 5.4 | 5.0 | 6.2 | 0.7 | 5.8 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 0.57 |
| NE | 7.0 | 4.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 0.35 |
| NO | 6.5 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 6.8 | 4.5 | 2.7 | 0.30 |
| NYG | 6.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 4.9 | 0.50 |
| NYJ | 6.2 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 6.1 | 3.2 | 2.7 | 0.60 |
| OAK | 5.4 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 2.1 | 0.61 |
| PHI | 6.0 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 4.9 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 0.62 |
| PIT | 6.0 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 1.6 | 5.5 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 0.36 |
| SD | 8.5 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 0.37 |
| SF | 5.5 | 3.8 | 4.6 | 0.5 | 6.6 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 0.40 |
| SEA | 5.8 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 0.35 |
| STL | 5.2 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 5.9 | 4.6 | 2.7 | 0.51 |
| TB | 5.9 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 6.6 | 4.8 | 7.1 | 0.36 |
| TEN | 5.8 | 4.3 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 5.0 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 0.69 |
| WAS | 7.3 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 6.5 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 0.38 |
| Avg | 6.1 | 4.1 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 6.2 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 0.44 |
How is it that the Cardinals have a higher O-Rank, a higher D-Rank, a tougher SoS and won head-to-head (not that that really matters for this) against St Louis, but still rank below them?
Not that I disagree with the fact that Arizona is terrible, but it seems like an odd result.
Car, TB, NO then Atl?
Wow, I would never have ranked like that.
I would have had Buf rooted to the foot of the table too. Are they really a better side than Atl?
I'm curious how the Dolphins climbed from 18th place to 11th after losing 41-14 (passing the Patriots, who beat them).
because almost all the factors thatz made that game a rout are considered unpredictable evebts by brian.
OTOH MIA did walk up anddown the field whenever they were not busy giving away ST TDs or stupid Ints.
Like everything else, just look at the efficiency stats below. Those will answer all your questions.
The Dolphins got beat primarily by ST play. Even if MIA's ST are truly that bad, a game like that will almost never happen again.
Regarding Arizona, it all depends on how the teams are bunched together in the various aspects -offense/defense/passing/running. The only factor that's not included in either O Rank or D Rank would be team penalty rate, and in this case, that's making the difference.
Washington moves from #11 offensive rank to #2 after that lackluster performance against Philly. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. WAS' passing was anything but efficient. Their running was solid but not stellar. What did they do to move up, let alone so high?
DA-WAS ran the ball very well (for once). Plus they passed fairly well despite playing against a PHI def that until then had given up only 4.7 NYPA. McNabb put up 6.6 NYPA. There was the 1 int, but WAS's int rate remains much better than league-avg.
Im surprised the Saints are rated this low.
I can understand some drop off, but they didn't lose many players. #27 seems harsh.
It will be interesting to see how the Jets defense improves overall when Revis returns - assuming his hamstring is 100% and doesn't nag him for the season.
I also don't think the Giants will be anywhere #2 by the end of the season, though they do have some talented players.
Hey Brian-
Your sortable js source site has disappeared, so the tables no longer sort on column clicks.
I love the site and believe in the model, but wonder if you should wait a few more weeks into the season before posting these efficiency rankings.
There simply isn't any chance that the Rams are the second-worst team in the league. Brian, have you watched them play? I know the projections are based on pure numbers - I'm just wondering if your gut feels like St. Louis will climb up the board.
Miles-Thx. Working now.
169 yards passing on 8-19 is not "passing fairly well." Yards per attempt is the only measure where Washington did well. Yes, I'm aware that ypa is a better measure than raw completion percentage or yards. But McNabb's second longest pass to a WR was 5 yards. McNabb had the longest run by a Redskin. That was not the #2 offense in the league on the field on Sunday.
Typo: I think you mean the Chargers offense 'doesn't' seem to miss Vincent Jackson.
The Broncos beat the Titans last weekend
The Broncos dropped 9 places in the rankings
The Titans went up 3 places in the rankings
I can understand how this happens, but that doesn't mean it doesn't surprise me when it does happen.
Anon-I feel the same way.
Marver-thx.
"169 yards passing on 8-19 is not 'passing fairly well.'"
Sure it is. 9 yards per attempt is very good.
"Yards per attempt is the only measure where Washington did well. Yes, I'm aware that ypa is a better measure than raw completion percentage or yards."
You list only two measures where Washington did poorly. Total yards does not matter one iota. Comp% matters, but not nearly enough to override a ypa of almost 9 per attempt.
"But McNabb's second longest pass to a WR was 5 yards."
And? That just means that Washington is getting a lot of YAC yards. We aren't measuring McNabb's performance, we are measuring Washington's offensive efficiency. BTW, you are missing one stat where Washington did well: zero interceptions.
"McNabb had the longest run by a Redskin."
And? Redskins not named McNabb ran 130 yards on 30 carries. 4.33 yards per carry is suddenly a bad day because none of the runs went for longer than 18 yards? That doesn't make sense. The team got 4.83 ypc overall. That is solid, and consistent considering the lack of a "big play."
The fact that they did not break a big run only means that their stats weren't inflated by a random 50+ TD scamper.
"Sure it is. 9 yards per attempt is very good."
It is. But it's the only good passing stat they had.
"You list only two measures where Washington did poorly. Total yards does not matter one iota. Comp% matters, but not nearly enough to override a ypa of almost 9 per attempt."
And there's only one stat where they did well in passing, YPA. Total yards do matter (somewhat), you need those to form yards per attempt.
"And? That just means that Washington is getting a lot of YAC yards."
No, that's not what that says. That stat is total yards. The 2nd longest reception *including* YAC was 5 yards. Save for one deep pass, the WRs did nothing. That's not the mark of a #2 offense.
"That is solid, and consistent considering the lack of a "big play.""
I'm not arguing that it is not solid. In fact I specifically said it was "solid." I'm saying that it's not enough to make WAS the #2 offense.
"The fact that they did not break a big run only means that their stats weren't inflated by a random 50+ TD scamper."
Yes it inflates the stats but a 50+ yard run counts just as much as a 2 yard run.
I'm not trying to be hostile, but when you have a game where a team doesn't get the ball down field to its receivers, where it's not hitting them with any consistency on any part of the field, where they don't have an overwhelming rushing attack, where they don't make a lot of big plays (only 2 plays of over 20 yards)... do you think that team is the second most efficient offense? I don't. That's all I'm saying.
I don't care if my team never gets a play over 10 yards as long as they are averaging 5+ yards per play. It's an efficiency metric, not an "explosive" metric.
Also, consider that they were playing the 5th ranked defense. That makes their performance look even better.
And I'd say the only stat the Redskins care about is adding another 1 in the W column.
"I don't care if my team never gets a play over 10 yards as long as they are averaging 5+ yards per play. It's an efficiency metric, not an "explosive" metric."
Then just rank the team by yards per play.
DA, I kinda see what you are getting at with your posts. It'll be hard to sustain any kind of ypa stats unless the Skins start going downfield more often.
I don't really pay attention to total yards with the exception of how they affect ypa. That would be like saying a pitcher is having a poor season because he has 8 wins and 3 losses. Total yards is a component of ypa, but ypa is the (or one of several) bottom line(s).
IMO the Skins are better on offense than people think, but not as good as #2.