tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post2082417963016494229..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Team Rankings: Week ThirteenUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-45743638031397521602011-12-01T23:31:17.829-05:002011-12-01T23:31:17.829-05:00Thanks, James. That is pretty damn good , even if ...Thanks, James. That is pretty damn good , even if my gut feeling that the Eagles are no where near the 7th best team is being validated as I type. I suppose that shows you where gut and model each have validity. The model shows you where your gut/pet theory needs to be challenged, and your gut shows where the model fails to factor something (like whatever is wrong with the Eagles, who rarely look better than their record suggests, IMO).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-38242839728425120452011-12-01T20:23:05.033-05:002011-12-01T20:23:05.033-05:00Also, I looked it up, and as much as I like Brian&...Also, I looked it up, and as much as I like Brian's model, Every single team that was being predicted as a division winner, currently was leading the division or tied for the lead. And there are a couple of teams that in retrospect are quite a bit off. (Atlanta, Cincy, Washington) Anyway, love Brian's work, but upon closer examination, not really that impressive the choice of division winners picked after week 3. I could have made almost the exact same predictions had I only looked at records and points differential as the tiebreakers. The most impressive call to me was Green Bay over Detroit, despite both being 3-0 but Detroit having an amazing +55 point differential and "just" +35 for Green Bay. <br /><br />http://www.shrpsports.com/nfl/stand.php?link=Y&season=2011&divcnf=div&week=Week%203Boston Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-65306720633217062342011-12-01T20:12:36.903-05:002011-12-01T20:12:36.903-05:00Technically Buffalo was favored in the division @ ...Technically Buffalo was favored in the division @ that point, but New England had a better chance of making of the playoffs. Still I agree...pretty dang good.Boston Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-86092397362874280182011-12-01T19:19:29.935-05:002011-12-01T19:19:29.935-05:00Hey Anon, why don't you read this post on pred...Hey Anon, why don't you read this post on prediction accuracy: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/10/prediction-accuracy.html<br /><br />If that's not enough for you, why don't you look at http://files.nfl-forecast.com/ which uses Brian's data to predict the playoffs. It has predictions starting in Week 3.<br /><br />Division Winners predicted in Week 3: New England, Baltimore, Houston, Oakland, Dallas, Green Bay, New Orleans, San Francisco.<br /><br />Current Division Leaders: New England, Baltimore, Houston, Oakland, Dallas, Green Bay, New Orleans, San Francisco.<br /><br />Pretty damn good, no?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01838293735141324662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-70778160385082601402011-12-01T17:09:37.590-05:002011-12-01T17:09:37.590-05:00I fall in the camp of feeling that the rankings ar...I fall in the camp of feeling that the rankings are a bit off. I recognize that one of the values of statistical analysis is to remove one's perceptual biases, but it's also true that statistical analysis has limitation, particularly in a sport with as many variables as football. <br /><br />Brian, you've addressed this when you talk about luck, but I would like to see you post some end-of-season/play-off predictions to test your model. We're far enough into the season that there is enough data for projections.<br /><br />Obviously for teams with major personal losses, the projections will suffer, but does the model hold up as a projection tool for the non-flukey teams? At what point is there enough data to test the model as longer-term projection tool?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-53215480740132464102011-12-01T17:00:33.127-05:002011-12-01T17:00:33.127-05:00"SOV Anon"
Besides your weak post (i do..."SOV Anon"<br /><br />Besides your weak post (i doubt you ever read articles of this site or you just don´t understand it), the most ridiculous theme is your idea to overvalue SOV b/c you obviously like BAL. If going (more or solely) w/SOV, the 1-15 Cowboys of 1989 may would be around 15th in your Power Ranking, b/c after all they beat the 10-6 Redskins. Just this little example shows how silly it is to overestimate SOV.<br /><br />I guess w/Brian´s model those Cowboys rightfully would have been dead last.<br /><br />Karl, GermanyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-37231643203895883272011-12-01T16:23:48.246-05:002011-12-01T16:23:48.246-05:00In response to Packer homer, the Packers are #2 in...In response to Packer homer, the Packers are #2 in the power ranking and not #1 because their defense sucks. Aaron Rodgers has been playing flawlessly for 11 straight games. Maybe he will keep it up. Or maybe he’ll have one off week or have to play in a foot of snow or get injured. Green Bay better hope it’s not in the playoffs, because their defense sure won’t be able to bail them out. The Packers’ may be more vulnerable than other top-tier teams because they are so dependent on one player having an all time great season.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-43563232135273151332011-12-01T16:14:13.567-05:002011-12-01T16:14:13.567-05:00To posit a similar idea, should we also be biased ...To posit a similar idea, should we also be biased towards those teams that win more coin-tosses than they lose over a season, because they are somehow better at calling a coin-toss?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-87690757581587641702011-12-01T16:12:48.604-05:002011-12-01T16:12:48.604-05:00Anon above me, the problem is one that has been we...Anon above me, the problem is one that has been well and truly tackled. There are few teams (maybe five percent of the league in any given year) that have a truly superior special teams unit, all other teams are essentially indistinguishable in terms of their special teams performance compared to random noise, so they are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Now, since the aim of these rankings is to represent teams in a predictive manner, it makes no sense to allow 95% of teams to be randomly adjusted by non-repeatable special teams performance, so that the other 5% can be a bit more accurate. In the end this would just make the entire set of rankings far less meaningful.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-25903864534075205832011-12-01T12:31:41.866-05:002011-12-01T12:31:41.866-05:00I just wished the rankings would include special t...I just wished the rankings would include special teams in some fashion. A significant part of the game is overlooked entirely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-27357434255763170242011-12-01T06:28:42.013-05:002011-12-01T06:28:42.013-05:00Anonymous (the one who posted results for each per...Anonymous (the one who posted results for each percentage bracket):<br /><br />It's called statistical artifice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-64596544035541047582011-11-30T21:21:17.300-05:002011-11-30T21:21:17.300-05:00Brian, would it be possible to create something li...Brian, would it be possible to create something like this for the college game?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-46120671319373573452011-11-30T20:48:32.119-05:002011-11-30T20:48:32.119-05:00FWIW. I compared the weekly probabilities to game ...FWIW. I compared the weekly probabilities to game results, and came up with this:<br /><br />> 80% | There were a total of 11 games in which the stronger team had a win probabilitiy of > 80%. Of those games, the stronger team won a total of 9 games (or 82% of the time).<br /><br />70% - 79% | There were a total of 27 games in which the stronger team had a win probabilitiy of 70% - 79%. Of those games, the stronger team won a total of 21 games (or 78% of the time).<br /><br />60% - 69% | There were a total of 40 games in which the stronger team had a win probabilitiy of 60% - 69%. Of those games, the stronger team won a total of 21 games (or 53% of the time).<br /><br />50% - 59% | There were a total of 50 games in which the stronger team had a win probabilitiy of 50% - 59%. Of those games, the stronger team won a total of 28 games (or 56% of the time).<br /><br />===================<br /><br />For some reason, the 60% - 69% results seem to be off. I don't think I made a mistake, but I suppose I could have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-50347138649299217532011-11-30T19:14:15.061-05:002011-11-30T19:14:15.061-05:00anon finance,
if you have a genuine intellectual...anon finance, <br /><br />if you have a genuine intellectual curiosity, go back and read the comments from past power rankings and the posts about how the model was built. <br /><br />every question/comment you made has already been asked, answered, and explained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-18520505894393779652011-11-30T19:11:08.396-05:002011-11-30T19:11:08.396-05:00Brian has finally made it as a blogger--he has his...Brian has finally made it as a blogger--he has his own gaggle of trolls.Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-88227482831700526502011-11-30T18:49:35.068-05:002011-11-30T18:49:35.068-05:00wow ... what an incredible jackass anon finance is...wow ... what an incredible jackass anon finance is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-80951699238559431882011-11-30T17:26:57.358-05:002011-11-30T17:26:57.358-05:00that screwed-up sentence should read: "It'...that screwed-up sentence should read: "It's perfectly fine to disagree with the reasoning behind the model, but you can't effectively or seriously <b>do</b> that <b>by</b> having a gut feeling that one team should be ranked higher than another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-5126931305365798742011-11-30T17:24:50.748-05:002011-11-30T17:24:50.748-05:00What kind of joke job in finance do you have where...What kind of joke job in finance do you have where you can take time off in the middle of the day to type a page of nonsense? Probably some kind of a financial adviser or other joke role.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-32464917212238539072011-11-30T17:24:37.716-05:002011-11-30T17:24:37.716-05:00It's amazing how people nitpick one or two uni...It's amazing how people nitpick one or two unintuitive aspects of the power rankings and proceed to discredit the model as a whole.<br /><br />I could just as easily point to the fact that this model correctly predicted the strength of Houston (and how underrated they were by FO and others) and the weakness of Tampa Bay (and how overrated they were by FO and others) 6 weeks ago. The former has won 5 straight games and the latter has lost 5 straight games.<br /><br />As a longtime follower and lurker, I share Brian's sentiment (mostly frustration) when a new slew of posters comment on the Team Rankings. Do everyone a favor and read <i>everything</i> else on this website first. Even if you disagree with the philosophy and objective method behind the model, at least you will be informed and not sound completely ignorant. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the reasoning behind the model, but you can't effectively or seriously doing that be having a gut feeling that one team should be ranked higher than another.<br /><br />Brian - maybe you can create a "grit and determination" variable so we can finally all breathe a sigh of relief as denver rightfully ascends in the rankings and philadelphia drops.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-83330969755287873452011-11-30T16:48:05.527-05:002011-11-30T16:48:05.527-05:00brian,
Would you say that wins and losses are a f...brian,<br /><br />Would you say that wins and losses are a function of high leverage situations? I hypothesize that certain teams are built for those situations and some are not. On a slightly different point some teams are built in such a manner that those situation are avoided.<br /><br />With your rankings I see them as a list of teams I would least likely want to be in a tie game with late in the 4th qtr. <br /><br />I think the main complaint from Packer backers is that the Packers are head and shoulders above everyone else for team I'm least likely to be in a tie with in the 4th qtr. At least that would be my guess.<br /><br />This is a problem with regression. It sometimes answers too narrow of a question. Then people want to blame the output which is correct. What we should do instead is seek to broaden the scope of the question.<br /><br />Ultimately, the Packers will be in one of those 4th qtr situations. This is proven by the 5th law of relativity which died with Albert.marparkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-75950159837362956872011-11-30T16:13:23.531-05:002011-11-30T16:13:23.531-05:00I'll throw in another one. This site had the C...I'll throw in another one. This site had the Cowboys ranked at or near the top weeks ago when they were 2-3. Now they've ripped off 5 out 6 and are on top of the nfc east.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-72134925868765085862011-11-30T15:35:08.676-05:002011-11-30T15:35:08.676-05:00DVOA is bunk. Jets were #1 a couple weeks ago. The...DVOA is bunk. Jets were #1 a couple weeks ago. They're still top 5 or something. Brian had the Texans as #1 weeks before DVOA caught up.<br /><br />These rankings aren't perfect, and Brian never claimed they were. But they're clearly the least imperfect rankings around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-52505032842073458042011-11-30T15:31:23.701-05:002011-11-30T15:31:23.701-05:00Regarding the question about CIN, it's strengt...Regarding the question about CIN, it's strength of opponent (oppOGWP).Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-81037366192722067712011-11-30T15:30:39.689-05:002011-11-30T15:30:39.689-05:00"Here's another purely statistical model ..."Here's another purely statistical model that does a better job conforming to actual results: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2011/week-12-dvoa-ratings What have they figured out that you have overlooked?"<br /><br />Right...<br /><br />That's the thing you don't understand. FO conforms to <i>past</i> results. But we already know past results. We can watch them on tv or look them up in the paper. Until you understand the distinction, you're better off sticking with FO, and your job in finance.Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-78339754469027737182011-11-30T15:05:31.307-05:002011-11-30T15:05:31.307-05:00Brian, I've brought this idea up before, and I...Brian, I've brought this idea up before, and I'll try to make the question brief: Is it possible that certain factors in the 2nd table are overrated (conversely implying that others are underrated)? I know that weighting those variables differently will produce different results--and that your regression analysis have lead you to use these weights. A follow-up question would be--what historical data set did you use to determine the weights? [For a really bad example, one could use pbp data (if obtainable) from 1970-1977, and say that ypcarry & run success rate are the two most important factors.]<br />For a real example--over the course of a season, a .5 ypa difference between 2 teams means ~300 yds passing total, so <20 yds/game. Now, maybe that's a whole lot, but it could be a combination of more spikes (if they aren't removed from the stats), or one team's QB throws the ball away 3x/game instead of taking sacks, or one team gets those ~20 yds/game via running. It might also have to do with the team with the lower YPA starting with better field position--so their QB's "long TD passes" are 60 yds instead of 70, because he constantly had a shorter field to work with. Many factors could make those ypa differences basically null. Now, over 1 ypa, including sacks, plus bonuses for TD's and maybe first downs, with penalties for INT's--then adding weights--okay, now we've got something that will help us order teams well. Of course, that's just one component of the formula.Josephnoreply@blogger.com