Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My modified defensive ranking and rating system

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My modified defensive ranking and rating system

    When defensive rankings are brought up by analysts and journalists, they are almost always referring to total yards (the same is true of offense rankings but I'm just focusing on defense right now). However, there are a lot of us that don't believe this basic comparison is a very fair assessment.

    If a team has a bad offense, they will not spend a lot of time on the field and it will force the defense to play more. That will cause more yardage to pile up against them, even if they are a pretty good defense. All other things being equal, I believe the following to be a fair concept:

    More defensive time on the field = worse defensive yardage stats

    The simple solution would be to just compare yards allowed per play. But then you have the set of people who disdain the yardage entirely and claim that only points allowed is a true measurement. And while I agree that scoring is obviously important, I disagree that the yardage should play no role in rankings. Also, if a defense is on the field a lot thanks to a poor offense, they'll naturally tend to give up more points simply due to increased opportunity.

    So, I thought combining points and yardage stats would be a better measurement. Unfortunately, simply taking the two separate rankings and averaging them can be misleading. But you can't easily combine the stats since yards and points are two different animals. Here is the solution I came up with, and I'd like some feedback for anybody who'd like to give it (skip if you don't want to know the details ):

    Rather than use straight rankings from #1 to #32 in both points and yardage, I decided to use a 100 point scale (not related to points allowed) that would indicate how well a defense performed on a relative basis to the rest of the league. The defense that allowed the fewest yards per play would score 100 points whereas the defense that allowed the most yards per play would score 0 points and everybody else would receive points in between (basically a percentage of the yardage spread). The same method is then be used for points allowed. Then the point scale for each is averaged to give an overall "rating" on a 100 point scale which is sorted to achieve final rankings. But I believe comparing the "rating" is actually more informative than just the rankings, keeping in mind that the rating is only on a comparitve basis between the teams and their stats during the given period.

    Got it? Good. Using this system, I came up with defensive rankings and ratings for rushing, passing and overall performance. This data does not endorse the total yard stats that generally makes our defense appear better than it really is, in my opinion. No stat is perfect but I feel this gives a much more accurate view, especially when comparing the "rating" instead of just looking at the rank. These rankings and ratings take into acount how many plays the defense played, both yards and points allowed, and compares them on a relative basis to derive their place in the overall scheme of things.

    I'll follow up here with my data for each of the separate defensive categories for the 2005 season:
    "You can't take the sky from me..."
    ------
    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

  • #2
    RUSHING DEFENSE:
    Code:
    [U]Rank	Team        	Att	Yds	Yd/Att	Scale	TDs	TD/Att	Scale	Rating[/U]
    1	Seattle     	420	1510	3.5952	87.0	5	0.011905	93.9	90.5
    2	Tampa Bay	438	1515	3.4589	97.3	10	0.022831	69.3	83.3
    3	Pittsburgh	402	1376	3.4229	100.0	10	0.024876	64.7	82.3
    4	Jacksonville	434	1709	3.9378	61.1	4	0.009217	100.0	80.5
    5	Baltimore  	431	1591	3.6914	79.7	8	0.018561	78.9	79.3
    6	Carolina   	408	1465	3.5907	87.3	9	0.022059	71.0	79.2
    7	Chicago    	443	1637	3.6953	79.4	9	0.020316	75.0	77.2
    8	New England	437	1580	3.6156	85.4	11	0.025172	64.0	74.7
    9	Miami        	480	1771	3.6896	79.8	11	0.022917	69.1	74.5
    10	San Diego	386	1349	3.4948	94.6	14	0.036269	39.0	66.8
    11	Green Bay	504	2010	3.9881	57.3	10	0.019841	76.0	66.6
    12	Philadelphia	506	1883	3.7213	77.4	15	0.029644	53.9	65.7
    13	New York (N)	428	1656	3.8692	66.2	12	0.028037	57.5	61.9
    14	Cleveland 	527	2202	4.1784	42.9	11	0.020873	73.7	58.3
    [COLOR=DarkOrange]15	Denver     	344	1363	3.9622	59.2	10	0.029070	55.2	57.2[/COLOR]
    16	Minnesota	462	1841	3.9848	57.5	14	0.030303	52.4	55.0
    17	San Francisco	486	1832	3.7695	73.8	19	0.039095	32.6	53.2
    18	Kansas City	383	1570	4.0992	48.8	11	0.028721	56.0	52.4
    19	New York (A)	554	2185	3.9440	60.6	19	0.034296	43.4	52.0
    20	Tennessee	449	1894	4.2183	39.8	12	0.026726	60.5	50.2
    21	Detroit      	488	2040	4.1803	42.7	15	0.030738	51.4	47.1
    22	Oakland   	507	2049	4.0414	53.2	18	0.035503	40.7	47.0
    23	Indianapolis	398	1762	4.4271	24.0	9	0.022613	69.8	46.9
    24	Dallas       	414	1731	4.1812	42.7	13	0.031401	49.9	46.3
    25	Washington	411	1686	4.1022	48.6	15	0.036496	38.4	43.5
    26	New Orleans	503	2145	4.2644	36.4	16	0.031809	49.0	42.7
    27	Cincinnati 	429	1850	4.3124	32.7	16	0.037296	36.6	34.7
    28	Arizona     	411	1632	3.9708	58.6	22	0.053528	0.0	29.3
    29	Houston   	506	2303	4.5514	14.7	21	0.041502	27.1	20.9
    30	Buffalo      	489	2205	4.5092	17.8	22	0.044990	19.3	18.6
    31	Atlanta     	438	2063	4.7100	2.7	18	0.041096	28.1	15.4
    32	St. Louis   	459	2178	4.7451	0.0	22	0.047930	12.6	6.3

    I know this will bug a lot of Bronco fans who see us highly ranked in overall rushing yards and think we're really good. But I know that some of us like Archimedes Owl and myself believe that we're not as good as that stat indicates. Basically, we were run on less often than any team in the league which artifically reduced our yardage stats and made us appear better than were really were.
    "You can't take the sky from me..."
    ------
    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

    Comment


    • #3
      PASSING DEFENSE:
      Code:
      [U]Rank	Team        	Att	Yds	Yds/Att	Scale	TDs	TD/Att	Scale	Rating[/U]
      1	Chicago    	550	2872	5.22182	100.0	10	0.01818	100.0	100.0
      2	Pittsburgh	549	3168	5.77049	77.7	15	0.02732	82.4	80.1
      3	Washington	535	3081	5.75888	78.2	15	0.02804	81.1	79.6
      4	Carolina   	528	3057	5.78977	76.9	15	0.02841	80.3	78.6
      5	Baltimore  	526	2964	5.63498	83.2	18	0.03422	69.2	76.2
      [COLOR=DarkOrange]6	Denver     	613	3643	5.94290	70.7	20	0.03263	72.2	71.5[/COLOR]
      7	Atlanta     	526	3137	5.96388	69.9	18	0.03422	69.2	69.5
      8	Tampa Bay	476	2929	6.15336	62.2	15	0.03151	74.4	68.3
      9	New York (A)	463	2755	5.95032	70.4	17	0.03672	64.4	67.4
      10	Seattle     	571	3559	6.23292	59.0	18	0.03152	74.4	66.7
      11	Indianapolis	509	3151	6.19057	60.7	17	0.03340	70.7	65.7
      12	New York (N)	580	3584	6.17931	61.1	20	0.03448	68.7	64.9
      13	Dallas       	495	3083	6.22828	59.2	18	0.03636	65.1	62.1
      14	Arizona     	488	3097	6.34631	54.4	17	0.03484	68.0	61.2
      15	Cleveland 	471	2867	6.08705	64.9	19	0.04034	57.4	61.1
      16	Miami        	549	3307	6.02368	67.5	23	0.04189	54.4	60.9
      17	San Diego	567	3599	6.34744	54.3	20	0.03527	67.1	60.7
      18	Detroit      	487	3118	6.40246	52.1	19	0.03901	60.0	56.0
      19	Jacksonville	482	2946	6.11203	63.9	22	0.04564	47.2	55.5
      20	Minnesota	533	3332	6.25141	58.2	23	0.04315	52.0	55.1
      21	Buffalo      	503	3291	6.54274	46.4	19	0.03777	62.3	54.4
      22	Oakland   	486	3243	6.67284	41.1	18	0.03704	63.8	52.4
      23	Green Bay	430	2680	6.23256	59.0	22	0.05116	36.6	47.8
      24	Kansas City	559	3679	6.58140	44.8	25	0.04472	49.0	46.9
      25	Cincinnati 	519	3569	6.87669	32.8	21	0.04046	57.2	45.0
      26	Philadelphia	503	3323	6.60636	43.8	24	0.04771	43.2	43.5
      27	New Orleans	418	2849	6.81579	35.3	20	0.04785	43.0	39.1
      28	St. Louis   	507	3424	6.75345	37.8	26	0.05128	36.4	37.1
      29	New England	527	3703	7.02657	26.8	25	0.04744	43.8	35.3
      30	Houston   	469	3521	7.50746	7.2	24	0.05117	36.6	21.9
      31	San Francisco	576	4427	7.68576	0.0	28	0.04861	41.5	20.8
      32	Tennessee	470	3216	6.84255	34.2	33	0.07021	0.0	17.1

      But here our passing defense if better than they are usually ranked because it takes into account that we were passed on more than any other team.
      "You can't take the sky from me..."
      ------
      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

      Comment


      • #4
        So using these numbers, where do you rank the d?

        And does one count with more weight that the other?

        Does opponents TOP have any role at all?


        Interesting concept.


        I am not saying any system is perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the NFL yds/game scale, which is dumb, IMO.

        Everybody's gotta elevate from the norm...

        The greatest list of music I don't own on CD :sad:
        You should check these guys out

        Comment


        • #5
          TOTAL DEFENSE:
          Code:
          		
          [U]Rank	Team        	Plys	RushYd	PassYd	TotalYd	Yd/Play	Scale	RushTD	PassTD	TotalTD	TD/Play	Scale	Rating[/U]
          1	Chicago    	1034	1637	2872	4509	4.36074	100.0	9	10	19	0.01838	100.0	100.0
          2	Pittsburgh	998	1376	3168	4544	4.55311	86.2	10	15	25	0.02505	77.2	81.7
          3	Carolina   	981	1465	3057	4522	4.60958	82.2	9	15	24	0.02446	79.2	80.7
          4	Baltimore  	998	1591	2964	4555	4.56413	85.4	8	18	26	0.02605	73.8	79.6
          5	Seattle     	1041	1510	3559	5069	4.86936	63.5	5	18	23	0.02209	87.3	75.4
          6	Tampa Bay	950	1515	2929	4444	4.67789	77.3	10	15	25	0.02632	72.9	75.1
          7	Jacksonville	963	1709	2946	4655	4.83385	66.1	4	22	26	0.02700	70.6	68.3
          8	Miami        	1078	1771	3307	5078	4.71058	74.9	11	23	34	0.03154	55.1	65.0
          9	Washington	981	1686	3081	4767	4.85933	64.2	15	15	30	0.03058	58.3	61.3
          10	New York (A)	1047	2185	2755	4940	4.71824	74.4	19	17	36	0.03438	45.4	59.9
          11	Cleveland 	1021	2202	2867	5069	4.96474	56.7	11	19	30	0.02938	62.4	59.6
          12	Green Bay	969	2010	2680	4690	4.84004	65.6	10	22	32	0.03302	50.0	57.8
          13	New York (N)	1049	1656	3584	5240	4.99523	54.5	12	20	32	0.03051	58.6	56.5
          14	Indianapolis	953	1762	3151	4913	5.15530	43.0	9	17	26	0.02728	69.6	56.3
          [COLOR=DarkOrange]15	Denver     	985	1363	3643	5006	5.08223	48.3	10	20	30	0.03046	58.8	53.5[/COLOR]
          16	San Diego	999	1349	3599	4948	4.95295	57.5	14	20	34	0.03403	46.6	52.0
          17	Dallas       	946	1731	3083	4814	5.08879	47.8	13	18	31	0.03277	50.9	49.3
          18	Detroit      	1006	2040	3118	5158	5.12724	45.0	15	19	34	0.03380	47.4	46.2
          19	Minnesota	1029	1841	3332	5173	5.02721	52.2	14	23	37	0.03596	40.0	46.1
          20	Philadelphia	1038	1883	3323	5206	5.01541	53.0	15	24	39	0.03757	34.5	43.8
          21	Oakland   	1029	2049	3243	5292	5.14286	43.9	18	18	36	0.03499	43.3	43.6
          22	Atlanta     	1001	2063	3137	5200	5.19481	40.2	18	18	36	0.03596	40.0	40.1
          23	New England	997	1580	3703	5283	5.29890	32.7	11	25	36	0.03611	39.5	36.1
          24	Arizona     	936	1632	3097	4729	5.05235	50.4	22	17	39	0.04167	20.5	35.4
          25	New Orleans	946	2145	2849	4994	5.27907	34.1	16	20	36	0.03805	32.8	33.5
          26	Kansas City	971	1570	3679	5249	5.40577	25.0	11	25	36	0.03708	36.2	30.6
          27	Buffalo      	1030	2205	3291	5496	5.33592	30.1	22	19	41	0.03981	26.8	28.5
          28	Cincinnati 	976	1850	3569	5419	5.55225	14.5	16	21	37	0.03791	33.3	23.9
          29	Tennessee	960	1894	3216	5110	5.32292	31.0	12	33	45	0.04688	2.7	16.9
          30	San Francisco	1090	1832	4427	6259	5.74220	0.9	19	28	47	0.04312	15.5	8.2
          31	St. Louis   	1007	2178	3424	5602	5.56306	13.8	22	26	48	0.04767	0.0	6.9
          32	Houston   	1012	2303	3521	5824	5.75494	0.0	21	24	45	0.04447	10.9	5.5

          There you have it. Not flattering but I believe it's a pretty unbiased view of our defense. We appear to be very slightly above average. But thanks to our offense usually controlling the ball and keeping our defense off the field, and teams having to pass more than run (thanks to us usually having the lead), the stats are hopefully deskewed for a more accurate interpretation.

          What do you think?
          "You can't take the sky from me..."
          ------
          "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jared
            So using these numbers, where do you rank the d?

            And does one count with more weight that the other?

            Does opponents TOP have any role at all?


            Interesting concept.


            I am not saying any system is perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than the NFL yds/game scale, which is dumb, IMO.
            Sorry, I was still laying out the overall defensive stats which you'll see in my last post.

            Because there are are varying opinions about whether yards allowed or points allowed are more important, I gave them equal weight and went with a straight average... but an average of the point scale and not just of the rankings.

            T.o.P. is essentially taken into acount because it directly relates the the total number of plays the defense was on the field. The more the defense is on the field, the more time the other team is spending with possession of the ball.
            "You can't take the sky from me..."
            ------
            "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

            Comment


            • #7
              stats are meaningless IMO - although its gives a general feel for a team.

              i believe in watching the teams play and give my own opinion based on what i see, a perfect formula LOL

              i mean, say for example....... many ppl say that our run D was not great because our RUNS PER CARRY D was only average but if you go deeper then you will see that due to the fact we had a large lead for many games it put us in prevent D for a large part of the game to run the clock down, etc.......... but obviously in a prevent the D is vulnerable to giving up a large chunk of yards on the ground in only a few play....simply due to the formation.

              i believe there are too many invariables in stats......i just watch....although stats an be fun to look at and like i said, give us a GENERAL idea of a teams play.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bronx_2003
                stats are meaningless IMO - although its gives a general feel for a team.

                i believe in watching the teams play and give my own opinion based on what i see, a perfect formula LOL

                i mean, say for example....... many ppl say that our run D was not great because our RUNS PER CARRY D was only average but if you go deeper then you will see that due to the fact we had a large lead for many games it put us in prevent D for a large part of the game to run the clock down, etc.......... but obviously in a prevent the D is vulnerable to giving up a large chunk of yards on the ground in only a few play....simply due to the formation.

                i believe there are too many invariables in stats......i just watch....although stats an be fun to look at and like i said, give us a GENERAL idea of a teams play.
                I understand your point. But on the other hand, unless you are able to watch every single game of each and every team, how do you make a fair comparison between the Broncos and the rest of the league? (And even if you did have some way to do that, you'd have to have a computer for a brain to keep track of each team and how their situations differed in each and every game.)

                That's where stats come into play. They include all the data you didn't personally witness, which should be a lot. As I said, no stat is perfect. But they definitely have their place in team comparisons and discussions.
                "You can't take the sky from me..."
                ------
                "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Javalon, there's a good deal of work involved in your product, and it shows. I think your concept is useful.

                  You are right, no stat is perfect due to the human element at the core of the game. Yet, your mix on the numbers does serve a purpose and I appreciate it! CP to you!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pretty thought out system and I agree it is better then just using 1 stat to determine there rank. Now to me, you need to take it one step further and determine what rank offensives where the defenses playing against.

                    For example, you took your data and found that Denver played on average #3 ranked offenses. Then you determined that Washington played on average #30 rank offenses. To me that would factor in how I ranked the Bronco and the teams.

                    So if there is a way to figure the offensive oponents ranking they played against for the year, that would probably be the most accurate ranking possible. IMO

                    Hope that makes sense, I am sure it would take a ton of work. But to me it would give a better representation of how well they played for the year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well personally, I have nothing against stats, if calculated properly.

                      When determining how good a total defense is, you also have to factor in turnovers, sacks, pressures, 3rd Down %, 4th Down %, The Avg Yds the opponent has to go on 3rd & 4th down, Defensive TD's and possibly some other stats.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by White Dragon
                        Well personally, I have nothing against stats, if calculated properly.

                        When determining how good a total defense is, you also have to factor in turnovers, sacks, pressures, 3rd Down %, 4th Down %, The Avg Yds the opponent has to go on 3rd & 4th down, Defensive TD's and possibly some other stats.
                        Yeah i agree with that but really the only thiong that matters is if your winning.
                        Jorden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wow,
                          I can really overcomplicate this. I agree with what you are trying to do, and come up with a different way of looking at the defense.
                          However for similar reasons you have for total yardage given up compared to yards per play, I can say this is still flawed as a true assesment of a defense.

                          In overcomplicating things I believe in trying to obtain a true assesment of a defense, each play should be graded based on the impact of the play. For instance a three yard gain on first down is average for a defense. A three yard gain on 3rd and two is below average for that defense. Worse yet, a third down and 25 for three yards is pretty good with most of the corners and safety playing it safe near the first down marker.
                          Then all of this will need to be on a curve if the game is a blowout, like 20% less meaning when the score is split > 21 points and 2nd, 3rd, water boy are in the game for the D.

                          I guess that is the neat thing about football, there are so many variables to the whole thing, giving meaning to Bronx's comment.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by White Dragon
                            Well personally, I have nothing against stats, if calculated properly.

                            When determining how good a total defense is, you also have to factor in turnovers, sacks, pressures, 3rd Down %, 4th Down %, The Avg Yds the opponent has to go on 3rd & 4th down, Defensive TD's and possibly some other stats.
                            True. But the problem with that is that you have to assign a weighting system for each category, and those relative weights are extremely subjective. Keeping the stats limited to the two most often used categories reduces the effect of opinion but still offers a deeper analysis than the typical total yards allow ranking that is always quoted on television and in articles.
                            "You can't take the sky from me..."
                            ------
                            "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Seamus
                              Wow,
                              I can really overcomplicate this. I agree with what you are trying to do, and come up with a different way of looking at the defense.
                              However for similar reasons you have for total yardage given up compared to yards per play, I can say this is still flawed as a true assesment of a defense.

                              In overcomplicating things I believe in trying to obtain a true assesment of a defense, each play should be graded based on the impact of the play. For instance a three yard gain on first down is average for a defense. A three yard gain on 3rd and two is below average for that defense. Worse yet, a third down and 25 for three yards is pretty good with most of the corners and safety playing it safe near the first down marker.
                              Then all of this will need to be on a curve if the game is a blowout, like 20% less meaning when the score is split > 21 points and 2nd, 3rd, water boy are in the game for the D.

                              I guess that is the neat thing about football, there are so many variables to the whole thing, giving meaning to Bronx's comment.
                              Well, if the NFL would give me access to their stats database I'm sure I could come up with some huge algorithm to completely overcomplicate the system. But as I mentioned above, the more minute criteria that is included brings about big differences in opinion as to how to weight them. Simplicity can be a good thing... as long as it isn't too simplistic.

                              Also, don't discount a macro perspective too quickly. As more stats are compiled, the micro stats should tend to average out. Not to mention that a micro perspective would be incredibly complicated to stick into my spreadsheet.
                              "You can't take the sky from me..."
                              ------
                              "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X