Football Outsiders Rankings

by cgolden on Oct 10, 2007 4:53 PM EDT in News Comment 11 comments

Football Outsiders has released their DVOA rankings for week 5. I don't know how much stock I put in calculations like these but hey we're in a bye week so what else do we have to do. They explain their DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) ranking as a system that breaks down ever single play and compares a team's performance to the league average based on situation in order to determine value over average. You can look on thier website and read about how they calculate these numbers because it's too complex to try and explain on here.

Overall team rank: 3rd (39.4%)

Offensive rank: 7th (12.4%)

Defensive rank: 2nd (-26.7%)

Special teams rank: 16th (0.2%)

They also have their playoffs odds updated through week 5, the projections are based on over 5,000 simulations using their rankings (again I'm not sure that this should mean anything but it's interesting to consider).

Projected Wins: 10.9
Odds of gaining #1 seed: 9.9%
Odds of gaining #2 seed: 22.9%
Odds of gaining #3 seed: 37.8%
Odds of gaining #4 seed: 4.9%
Odds of gaining #5 seed: 5.0%
Odds of gaining #6 seed: 7.1%

Odds of winning the AFC North: 75.6%
Odds of getting a bye in the playoffs: 32.8%
Odds of getting the wild card: 12.1%

Odds of appearing the AFC Championship game: 32.7%
Odds of winning the AFC Championship game: 13.1%
Odds of winning the Super Bowl: 7.6%
    As far as other teams ahead of the Steelers in their Super Bowl odds here is a list in order:
    NE 30.2%
    IND 15.8%
    DAL 10.9%
    TB 8.3%
    GB 8.1%

So do you guys care about any of these numbers or is it all just a bunch of BS?

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I always like numbers

but I'm an engineer, so that's to be expected I guess. :)

Everything is pretty much in line with what I expected before the season. I think I predicted that we'd win 11 games, and since the other teams in the division are worse than expected so far (except Cleveland), it looks good at this point for a division win.

I am surprised that any calculation would have the Bucs and Packers more likely to win the Super Bowl. Interesting.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Oct 10, 2007 5:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

numbers

i like the dvoa stuff but i don't put too much faith in the simulations

by schnifin on Oct 10, 2007 6:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

To match the numbers with betting lines...

...from betus.com, the Steelers are:

-300 to win the AFC North (matching the 75% odds by FO)
+500 to win the AFC
+1000 to win the Super Bowl

Corresponding to a 20% and 10% chance to win the AFC and Super Bowl, respectively.

I doubt this is useful, but it's always something to consider.

by HinesField on Oct 10, 2007 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dude...

The fact that Tampa Bay has better odds of winning the Super Bowl than the Steelers ought to answer your question...

by Cotter on Oct 11, 2007 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

predicated on the fact that the Steelers have to march through a tough AFC postseason just to make the Super Bowl whereas Tampa, Green Bay, or Dallas have an easier road to the big dance.

Suppose I have two dice that are competing with one another. In order to advance to the finals, Dice 1 (representing Tampa Bay) has to roll two 6s in a row. Dice 2 (representing Pitt) has to roll four 6s in a row to advance. Even if we grant that after and if both teams advance, that Dice 2 only has to roll two 6s in a row, and Dice 1 now has to roll three 6s in a row, Dice 1 still has the better odds overall of winning the entire thing. They only have to roll 6s in a row twice once, and then three times, as opposed to four once, and then twice.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Oct 11, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally

Of course, you are correct!

But I'm just sayin' that numbers are a waste of time. Was trying to prove my point in a humorous, albeit terse way. Perhaps I should have just come right out with it -- We're 5 games into a 16 game season. I'd caution anyone who puts stock in these things to hold your enthusiasm. Anything can happen.

by Cotter on Oct 11, 2007 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea

clearly their simulations dont account for the loss of TBs top 2 RBs and a vital OL. I agree with schnifin, the DVOA is a worthwhile metric that can tell you more about a team than just wins, losses, and the basic offensive and defensive stats.

by Blitzburgh on Oct 11, 2007 10:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re:

clearly their simulations dont account for the loss of TBs top 2 RBs and a vital OL.

But then again, neither does DVOA.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Oct 11, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

creative numbers

The DVOA rankings are always interesting because they don't just use flatline statistics, they use creative statistics based on their determination of a value ''adjustor'', which takes into account how peers do in perceived similar situations. Of course the problem with this is that there are no exactly similar situations in football, everything changes from play to play for players, and from game to game for teams. But it's an interesting system and that's why teams like the Packers and Bucs and Cowboys are ranked ahead of Pittsburgh in their determination of playoff outcomes. They have a better chance of getting to the Supêr Bowl, which is what you have to do in order to WIN the Super Bowl. Their odds reflect the fact the NFC is considerably weaker than the AFC. I'm sure that when the AFC and NFC championship games have been completed, and the Super Bowl matchup is, say, Pittsburgh vs. Tampa Bay, the DVOA projections will make the Steelers much more likely to be champions than the Bucs.

by steeler lifer on Oct 11, 2007 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

great point

about situations never being the same. They gave examples about how many yards a back gained on a second and 15 compared to his peers, but I wonder how many variables it takes into account, such as score, point in the game, weather. It won't ever be perfect but I still thought they were interesting to look at.

by cgolden on Oct 11, 2007 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea they are interesting, even if flawed

We might disagree with some of their methodology, but don't be discouraged from sharing man. More stuff to talk the better. Thanks for sharing fo sho.

by Blitzburgh on Oct 11, 2007 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs