PDA

View Full Version : Packers Have 16th Ranked Rushing Attack



vince
11-10-2007, 06:23 PM
Believe it - or not!

After Week 9, the Packers are rated by FootballOutsiders.com (http://www.footballoutsiders.com)as having the 16th most efficient rushing attack in the league. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff.php

I wasn't familiar with their methodology, but found their results interesting, since many of them vary significantly from more simplistic conventional methods of statistical analysis. Not having seen it discussed here, here's some background, in case anyone's interested.

Football Outsiders delivers objective in-depth NFL statistical analysis to the level that Bill James has brought to baseball. Their statistical analysis starts with what they call a DVOA - Defense Adjusted Value Over Average. This means that each individual play's result is analyzed relative to a) the "situation", and b) the statistical quality of the defense played that week. All of these variables are adjusted relative to league averages. In other words, every single play is broken down to see how much "success" the play achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average in that situation, adjusted for the strength of the opponent.

The justification for the adjustments is based on the fact that the biggest variable in football is that each team plays a different schedule. By adjusting each play based on each opponent's defense's average success in stopping that type of play over the course of a season, they get DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Offensive plays are adjusted based on down and location on the field; receiving plays are also adjusted based on how the defense performs against passes to running backs, tight ends, and wide receivers.

"Success" is defined by the play's results relative to football's one objective - to get the ball to the end zone. There are two combinations of results that lead to that achievement - gaining yards and getting first downs. Plays that gain more yards are more successful, but plays that gain first downs also add "success." Down and distance statistics are also factored into the equation. In other words, a 3 yard gain on 3rd and 2 is more "successful" than the same 3 yard gain when it's 1st and 10.

Here are the additional details, as stated on the website...


DVOA does a better job of distributing credit for scoring points and winning games. It uses a value based on both total yards and yards towards a first down, based on work done by Pete Palmer, Bob Carroll, and John Thorn in their seminal book, The Hidden Game of Football. On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45 percent of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60 percent of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success.

We then expand upon that basic idea with a more complicated system of "success points." A successful play is worth one point, an unsuccessful play zero points. Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards, four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. There are fractional points in between. (For example, eight yards on third-and-10 is worth 0.63 "success points.") Losing four yards is -1 point, losing 12 yards is -1.8 points, an interception is -6 points, and a fumble is worth anywhere from -1.70 to -3.98 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense - no matter who actually recovers the fumble. Red zone plays are worth 20 percent more, and there is a bonus given for a touchdown.

(The system is a bit more complex than the one in Hidden Game thanks to a number of improvements since we launched the site in 2003.)

Every single play run in the NFL gets a "success value" based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and current scoring lead or deficit. Teams are always compared to one standard, as the team made its own choice whether to pass or rush. However, when it comes to individual players, rushing plays are compared to other rushing plays, passing plays to other passing plays, tight ends get compared to tight ends and wideouts to wideouts.

Other Notes:
* Each week's results carry progressively less weight to the ranking as the season goes on. So recent results mean more than old results.

* Running and passing plays are only compared to other running or passing plays, so the fact that the Packers don't run very often doesn't necessarily hurt their ranking in this analysis. What's important here is what happens when they do run - relative to league averages on a number of different variables listed above. This fact tends to aid the Packer rushing ranking here.

RashanGary
11-10-2007, 07:28 PM
Very interesting, Vince. I was acctually thinking that the Packers YPC was down because many of their runs seem to come in short yardage situations. They barely ran for the first 6 games, and then when they did they just needed a yard. It really brought the average down.

I like this system a lot. I'll have to look a little further into the details, but it seems like a somewhat reliable system.

RashanGary
11-10-2007, 07:31 PM
To this point in the season, they have Minnesota as the 8th best team (overall). I do think Minny is very underrated.

RashanGary
11-10-2007, 07:35 PM
They have the Packers as the 7th best team. I havn't seen much of Tampa or Tennessee, but I do think GB has overachieved to this point.

They are young so they could conceivably grow into their own shoes over the course of one season, but to this point, I think they are fortunate to have the 7-1 record. This system does show that.



The run game isn't as bad as it seems
The overall game wasn't as good as it seemed

Makes sense.

vince
11-10-2007, 08:44 PM
Looking at GB's passing defensive statistics is also interesting... http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php

Not surprisingly, we do pretty well versus #1 receivers with Harris.

Our defense on #2 receivers overall (usually Woodson) is below average, but it's 2nd worst in the league against #3 receivers (Bush).

We are surprisingly average against Tight Ends - when the overall quality of TE's played against is taken into account.

The Packers' pass defense is tops in the league in shutting down running backs receiving out of the backfield...

vince
11-10-2007, 08:46 PM
To this point in the season, they have Minnesota as the 8th best team (overall). I do think Minny is very underrated.

Accordng to this system, Minnesota, Philly and Cincy have performed better than their record indicates, and GB, Detroit and the Giants have underperformed relative to their record.

RashanGary
11-10-2007, 09:02 PM
The Packers are still the 7th best team, so it's not like they drastically overperformed, but I think 5-3, 6-2 would be about right for this team at this point.


I completely agree with Detroit. Maybe it's just because they've been so bad for so long, but I'm going to have to see them truely get over the hump before I believe. They were acctually getting outscored by their opponents up until that blowout against Denver.

Cheesehead Craig
11-10-2007, 10:23 PM
Football Outsiders is a very interesting site in general. Instead of raw numbers, they look at comparisions of situations as to how teams across the league do in those situations. Very interesting.

Before the season, they had the Packers pegged as a big surprise team. I remember one of their guys on TV and the announcers practically scoffed at them for the pick.

pbmax
11-10-2007, 10:45 PM
Love the site, visit it every day. They also use the database to project the season for their preseason publication. It is not the same formula as DVOA, but FO had the Packers winning the division based on their finding that the D was likely to be very good this year.

They were one of the few who gave the Packers a shout out and it looks good so far.