Week 8: Non-Packers

[LUKE23]

Any objective ranking using a formula is not going to look completely right, especially when there are 32 teams. Everyone else s rankings are subjective anyway, so who is to say those are right? It doesn't mean the whole formula or methodology gets scrapped.

Also, FWIW, DVOA has the Saints 7th. What these things are attempting to do is look beyond record and look at schedule and how the team is playing on a play by play basis.

[Newz]

Any objective ranking using a formula is not going to look completely right, especially when there are 32 teams. Everyone else s rankings are subjective anyway, so who is to say those are right? It doesn't mean the whole formula or methodology gets scrapped.

Also, FWIW, DVOA has the Saints 7th. What these things are attempting to do is look beyond record and look at schedule and how the team is playing on a play by play basis.

Who in their right mind would ever say that the Saints aren't in the top 5 team in the NFL?

[LUKE23]

You're not understanding my point.

[Newz]

You're not understanding my point.

I think you understand my point.

The rankings from RealGM are useless.

EDIT: I get your point. The whole "you can't expect them to be perfect" thing. So then what the hell is the point of them in the first place?

"Based on this data we input it tells us which team has the best trench score."
"So what does that mean?"
"It means they have the best trench score."
"So does that measure how good they are?"
"Well... kind of."
"Kind of?"
"Well, it does. But it isn't accurate."
"So then what's the point?"
"To measure their trench score."
"Which means what?"
"Oh, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!"

[LUKE23]

Just because they don't fall in line for all 32 teams with a fans arbitrary and subjective rankings doesn't make them useless. That is the point.

Any methodology that uses objective calculations is never going to fall in line completely with a "fans" perspective. To expect it to is ridiculous.

Just as another example, I'm taking DVOA all day long if I'm going to make predictions about the rest of the season, over just looking at records and using my gut feeling right now. Some teams have played hard schedules. Some teams have been unlucky. Etc.

[Newz]

Just because they don't fall in line for all 32 teams with a fans arbitrary and subjective rankings doesn't make them useless. That is the point.

Any methodology that uses objective calculations is never going to fall in line completely with a "fans" perspective. To expect it to is ridiculous.

Just as another example, I'm taking DVOA all day long if I'm going to make predictions about the future, over just looking at records and using my gut feeling right now. Some teams have played hard schedules. Some teams have been unlucky. Etc.

I don't expect it to be perfect, I expect it to be close. 9th for the Saints are horrendous, just like when the Packers were in the teens after the first couple of weeks.

I have never been huge on stats, but I have been sold on some of the basketball ones. TS% for instance is an excellent statistic... it doesn't tell you everything you need to know, but it is at least useful when judging a player.

Stats are pointless if they don't define something... and if they do define something, then they should actually be close to what the truth is.

The truth is the Saints rank 9th on that list. It defines them as the 9th best team, but it means nothing... it doesn't measure anything other than saying they are 9th on a list. If I am reading 'Power Rankings' I want to know an opinion on a team with some valid reasoning or see some stats that support it. Not some ridiculous 'catch all' stat that puts teams in a horrendous ranking.

[LUKE23]

Stats are pointless if they don't define something... and if they do define something, then they should actually be close to what the truth is.

You just stated the entire point with that sentence. Who decides what the truth is? Which fan? You?

[Newz]

Stats are pointless if they don't define something... and if they do define something, then they should actually be close to what the truth is.

You just stated the entire point with that sentence. Who decides what the truth is? Which fan? You?

Common sense?

The DVOA that you put your faith in has the 49ers ahead of the Saints. Would you rather play the 49ers in the playoffs or the Saints?

Do you use common sense or do you look at the formula?

In the AFC, would you rather play the Bills or Jets than the Patriots? Because according to DVOA, they are better.

[LUKE23]

Common sense?

Who's to say your sense is better though? That is the reason statistics were designed in the first place. It attempts to remove bias. It also makes up for the fact that very few fans watch more than a handful of games outside of their own team. Again, no system is perfect, but the random fan eye test is no better, and likely worse.

[Newz]

Common sense?

Who's to say your sense is better though? That is the reason statistics were designed in the first place. It attempts to remove bias. It also makes up for the fact that very few fans watch more than a handful of games outside of their own team. Again, no system is perfect, but the random fan eye test is no better, and likely worse.

I say my sense is better because you ignored the questions.

Saints or 49ers?
Patriots or Jets/Bills?

I'm not going to say I'm some football genius, but I think I could rank teams better than those lists do. I think most people who spend a fair amount of time watching football would. I think if you believe the 49ers, Bills and Jets are better than the Saints and Patriots then you aren't the best judge of football talent or football statistics.

[Kerb Hohl]

Newz, don't ever bet on sports.

[El Duderino]

Common sense?

Who's to say your sense is better though? That is the reason statistics were designed in the first place. It attempts to remove bias. It also makes up for the fact that very few fans watch more than a handful of games outside of their own team. Again, no system is perfect, but the random fan eye test is no better, and likely worse.

I say my sense is better because you ignored the questions.

Saints or 49ers?
Patriots or Jets/Bills?

I'm not going to say I'm some football genius, but I think I could rank teams better than those lists do.

That isn't the point though of DVOA

What the people on that site are attempting to do with DVOA is make a good assessment of what has actually happened so far in the season based on stuff like who has beat who, by point differentials, and stats that they deem involve some luck or others that are more predictive going forward. Their DVOA ratings aren't put out to rank say what would happen if the Jets and Patriots were to play on a neutral field.

Aaron Schatz of footballoutsiders is often on podcasts by Bill Simmons and he never tries implying that their DVOA rankings mean that say Green Bay wasn't the most likely to win it all even when the Packers weren't number one in DVOA. He thought the Packers were the best team. What the DVOA rating does attempt to do this early in the season is use more than just record to show which teams are more likely to continue having success as the year goes along, which teams might be better than their records, and which teams that say could have a better record than they really are. Take Buffalo. When they run their DVOA numbers, it leads them to conclude that the Bills aren't currently a fluke and likely weren't a fluke 2-3 weeks ago when they were surprising people by winning. Thus, it made them believe that even earlier in the year that Buffalo was more likely to continue winning more games than expected, not that it's likely Buffalo would beat New England in the playoffs. That's you not understanding the point of DVOA, especially earlier in a season.

If you just spent 15-20 minutes on their site, it would be easy to grasp what DVOA is, what the intentions of it are, and what it's not intending to do, especially only seven games into the season.

[chuckleslove]

Honestly, if I'm Chicago, I'm giving him a look.

speaking of...

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/7152162/chicago-bears-take-chance-terrell-owens

And then there is this:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... port-says/

[Newz]

Newz, don't ever bet on sports.

I actually do incredibly well when I bet on sports. Granted that's once a year when I go to Vegas, but I win a fair amount.

Don't worry, I think I can still do well without something that tells me the Saints are the 9th best team in football or that takes seven weeks to figure out the Packers are the best team in the league.

[LUKE23]

That isn't the point though of DVOA

What the people on that site are attempting to do with DVOA is make a good assessment of what has actually happened so far in the season based on stuff like who has beat who, by point differentials, and stats that they deem involve some luck or others that are more predictive going forward. Their DVOA ratings aren't put out to rank say what would happen if the Jets and Patriots were to play on a neutral field.

Aaron Schatz of footballoutsiders is often on podcasts by Bill Simmons and he never tries implying that their DVOA rankings mean that say Green Bay wasn't the most likely to win it all even when the Packers weren't number one in DVOA. He thought the Packers were the best team. What the DVOA rating does attempt to do this early in the season is use more than just record to show which teams are more likely to continue having success as the year goes along, which teams might be better than their records, and which teams that say could have a better record than they really are. Take Buffalo. When they run their DVOA numbers, it leads them to conclude that the Bills aren't currently a fluke and likely weren't a fluke 2-3 weeks ago when they were surprising people by winning. Thus, it made them believe that even earlier in the year that Buffalo was more likely to continue winning more games than expected, not that it's likely Buffalo would beat New England in the playoffs. That's you not understanding the point of DVOA, especially earlier in a season.

If you just spent 15-20 minutes on their site, it would be easy to grasp what DVOA is, what the intentions of it are, and what it's not intending to do, especially only seven games into the season.

Yep.

[LUKE23]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_ ... relocation

In some ways, the Minneapolis proposal will distract from what remains the single biggest obstacle facing the Vikings: Convincing a large number of stadium opponents and tax opponents in the state legislature to approve the project. Thursday, a bipartisan group of state legislators held a news conference to confirm they would prefer relocation of the team over committing taxpayer dollars (or new gambling revenues) to a new stadium.

Said Sen. David Hann: "We don't want them to leave, but if they're going to leave I guess that is going to happen."

Personally, I don't want the Queens to leave. It would be fun to laugh at their fans, but I like the rivalry and the hatred I have towards the team. Additionally, I don't want a precedent set should the Bucks be in this same situation in the near future.

[Newz]

Yep.

So then why didn't you just say that's what DVOA was?

RealGM (the one I was initially talking about) says that their rankings are 'Power Rankings' which implies that it is the list of the best teams from top to bottom. The way you came out and talked about DVOA you said you'd "trust it" to tell you the same thing.

So the explanation you responded to actually makes sense. What you were trying to throw at me before that response does not.

[Kerb Hohl]

Newz, don't ever bet on sports.

I actually do incredibly well when I bet on sports. Granted that's once a year when I go to Vegas, but I win a fair amount.

Don't worry, I think I can still do well without something that tells me the Saints are the 9th best team in football or that takes seven weeks to figure out the Packers are the best team in the league.

Those things are known. I would say it's consensus that the Saints buck that particular system. However, you can find a lot of diamonds in the rough by objective numbers and beat the "public opinion" lines.

[Newz]

Those things are known. I would say it's consensus that the Saints buck that particular system. However, you can find a lot of diamonds in the rough by objective numbers and beat the "public opinion" lines.

I'm sure you can.

I don't do sports betting as a hobby or very often. I am sure there is more of a science to it than I know about. When I bet on them, I look at every game, pick the one that seems totally lopsided to me and I win very often.

The last time I was in Vegas the Jazz were playing the Hornets in Utah. Boozer, Williams and I believe AK47 were out for the game and they were favored by 4 or 5 just because they were at home in Utah. So I threw down like $500 on that game and dominanced.

There seems to be at least two or three games every time I am there in different sports that are like that.

I'm sure if I bet on games on a weekly basis or did it as my main hobby I'd do a lot more research. I appreciated the explanation of DVOA for what it really is as opposed to be being a 'Power Ranking' like RealGM labels their own. I hadn't heard about it until this thread and I'm glad I got it clarified.

I agree a tool like that is probably useful. But it isn't useful in the sense of "Power Rankings" though. That is a horrendous way to label it, IMO.

[Marley2Hendrix]

mortreport Chris Mortensen
by AdamSchefter
#Bills & QB Ryan Fitzpatrick finalizing new contract today -$59 million over 6 years; $24m guaranteed; $33 million in 1st 3 yrs #NFL32

yeesh.