Professor Frink’s Power Rankings, Week 9

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 2:50 PM EST

Here's this week's serving of "Original Recipe" Ratings, with generous side dishes of Huh? and WTF? at no charge! And away we go...

RATINGS COMPUTATION (must-read for newbies):

At its heart, this is a VERY simple method of calculating ratings, using only two stats. The results aren't meant to be a perfect reflection of the real world; don't focus too narrowly on exactly where each team's totals are ranked. The two components (O and D ratings) are often more revealing than the totals, don't overlook those.

Here's how the ratings are calculated. The first step is to calculate two simple stats: Points For per Game, and Points Against per Game, for each team. These two leaguewide data sets for offense & defense both conform to a "Bell Curve", or Normal Distribution, that can be graphed. Depending on where each team lies on that graph, they have a value between 0 and 1. (This isn't something pulled from thin air. It's a very common, standardized statistical analysis technique. The purpose is to more accurately measure each team's position within the ‘population' of all league teams.) You now have every team rated from 0 to 1, on offense and on defense. Add those two numbers and you've got a total rating for each team. Last, multiply by 50 to convert the ratings onto a 0-to-100 scale, making them more readable and intuitive. There you go. Simple, right?

Rank	Power Rating	Team	W-L-T	PF/G	PA/G	Offense Rating	Defense Rating	Total
1	90.4	Patriots	6-2-0	28.1	14.4	0.846	0.963	1.809
2	89.1	Colts	8-0-0	27.1	13.5	0.804	0.977	1.781
3	77.8	Eagles	5-3-0	27.4	19.1	0.815	0.742	1.557
4	77.8	Cowboys	6-2-0	27.1	19.0	0.804	0.751	1.555
5	75.9	Steelers	6-2-0	24.4	17.4	0.661	0.857	1.518
6	75.1	Saints	8-0-0	37.9	21.8	0.995	0.507	1.502
7	73.5	Ravens	4-4-0	25.8	19.3	0.737	0.732	1.469
8	71.4	Bengals	6-2-0	22.5	16.9	0.545	0.883	1.428
9	71.3	Vikings	7-1-0	30.5	21.8	0.919	0.507	1.426
10	70.5	Jets	4-4-0	22.1	16.8	0.521	0.889	1.410
11	66.2	Packers	4-4-0	26.9	21.5	0.793	0.531	1.324
12	65.6	Falcons	5-3-0	25.3	20.8	0.711	0.602	1.312
13	65.4	Cardinals	5-3-0	24.8	20.5	0.683	0.625	1.307
14	62.4	Broncos	6-2-0	18.8	15.5	0.312	0.936	1.248
15	61.0	Texans	5-4-0	23.9	20.9	0.632	0.589	1.220
16	59.2	Chargers	5-3-0	25.8	22.4	0.737	0.447	1.185
17	57.9	Giants	5-4-0	25.8	22.7	0.739	0.420	1.158
18	51.6	Seahawks	3-5-0	20.9	20.9	0.441	0.590	1.031
19	50.2	49ers	3-5-0	21.8	21.8	0.497	0.507	1.004
20	42.8	Bears	4-4-0	22.5	23.9	0.545	0.311	0.856
21	42.0	Redskins	2-6-0	14.1	19.3	0.109	0.732	0.840
22	41.7	Dolphins	3-5-0	24.1	25.5	0.646	0.188	0.834
23	35.9	Bills	3-5-0	15.4	21.1	0.151	0.567	0.717
24	30.2	Jaguars	4-4-0	19.6	24.8	0.363	0.241	0.604
25	27.9	Panthers	3-5-0	18.5	24.5	0.298	0.260	0.558
26	17.3	Chiefs	1-7-0	15.8	25.6	0.165	0.180	0.346
27	16.3	Titans	2-6-0	18.5	29.8	0.298	0.028	0.326
28	12.7	Buccaneers	1-7-0	16.8	28.9	0.208	0.045	0.253
29	12.0	Raiders	2-6-0	9.8	25.1	0.026	0.214	0.240
30	11.7	Lions	1-7-0	16.6	29.6	0.203	0.030	0.233
31	8.8	Browns	1-7-0	9.8	26.1	0.026	0.151	0.177
32	5.3	Rams	1-7-0	9.6	27.6	0.025	0.082	0.107
			means =	21.8	21.8

The volatility of the overall rankings was markedly less this week. The most any team moved up was 3 slots (Steelers, Bengals, Cardinals, Seahawks, Bucs). Packers fell 5 spots, no one else close. The Saints still get no love from these ratings. Although their scoring D appears statistically average, they've scored 7 defensive TDs that get credited here to the offense! Life's not fair, Mom! A little surprising to see the Pats ranked on top, though the formula loves that "balance" stuff.

That's it for Week 9, esteemed readers. Remember this is simple math-driven Fun With Numbers, and enjoy. Hopefully you may even glean a pearl of wisdom or two! You can download the spreadsheet here if you wish to play with the numbers. Cheers!

This FanPost was written by one of The Falcoholic's talented readers. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Falcoholic.

Tweet Comment 49 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

First

Am I allowed to say that here? Anyway, keep it up.

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 10, 2009 2:59 PM EST reply actions

INFIDEL!

by Dave Choate on Nov 10, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

You're putting me to shame

I just posted my Week 8 “analysis”.

I’m surprised One.Cool.Customer didn’t give you crap about putting the Eagles ahead of the Cowboys, even though they’re tied in the rankings, DAL has the better record, and just beat PHI…

You should really find some way for the bad stats to count twice for GB’s loss to TB.

There is no way that the defensive TD’s are going to continue at this rate for the Saints. They are certainly starting to show cracks in the armor.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by orang3b on Nov 10, 2009 4:21 PM EST reply actions

lol

Somebody on my BlogginTheBoys post made the same point about Tom’s rankings, to which I replied:

“You can argue whether the numbers make sense, but not about the math that gets them there. Tom uses points for and points against, and unfortunately, that gives the Eagles a tiny edge on the Cowboys.”

I’ll stick to that reply until I find a mathematical work-around that I can suggest to Tom :-)

by One.Cool.Customer on Nov 10, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

"Mathematical work-around", eh?

There’s some jargon a Cowboys fan can be proud of. Guess I’ll have to get right on that task! Cheers!

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

Hmmm

That sounds like something my programmers would say, “It’s not a work-around, we’re just massaging the data, a little bit of dynamic manipulation.”

"This is America, if we can’t self-righteously look down on others and blame them for our faults, the commies win."-----Cormican on Bleeding Green Nation w/r/t fans overreacting to the Eagles signing of Michael Vick

by Jesse28 on Nov 11, 2009 9:12 AM EST up reply actions

Sounds dirty

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by orang3b on Nov 11, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Haha

The results often are.

by Jesse28 on Nov 11, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions

It's easy to post quickly

when all I have to do is copy and paste some numbers. No real work required!

One.Cool.Customer has always struck me as being emotionally detached (and rightly so) when it comes to numbers like these. Surely there are many Cowboys fans who take umbrage at such heresy, though. Amazing how numbers don’t give a crap how they look!

Green Bay just goes to show how bad a decent team can be, on any given week. I sure thought they were better than THAT.

Those Saints defensive TDs are awesome, but agreed the luck’s got to be running out. Just for fun, I took away those 7 TDs from their offense and credited them to their defense (fractured logic, granted) using my algorithm. Saints went into first place that way!

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

I can't wait to see the Saints play the Patriots (week 12)

How can the Saints go 12 weeks before they have to play a top team? That game should be a very interesting reality check!

Yep, I remember 'hemorrhage', and 'embolism', and even 'detached retina'...
It sounded scary, but when you smell the goal line, they're only words. Just words.

by Bill Dauterive on Nov 10, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions

It may suprise you guys to know that

the Saints Fans are just as uneasy (gross understatement) about playing the Falcons IN Atlanta.

Can y’all just call in sick and we’ll owe you one next year?

Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 11, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions

thanks for the humility

ya’ll saints fans are a classy bunch (well the most of you… lol, you argue amongst yourselves seemingly moreso than you do against rival fans – i.e. CP. lol).

As always, thanks for stopping by. I can’t say that I am chalking that game up as an easy win, it definitely makes me just as nervous as the first go-round, but I do believe the Falcons will have the edge and win a close one. Quite possibly one of the best games to come all season. As important as that game may seem though, it will be when the Falcons and Saints find each other meeting once more for round 3 that it really counts.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on Nov 12, 2009 7:14 AM EST up reply actions

I see that you peek at our blog occasionally.

Tell you what, if the Falcons win, we’ll give you CP (coldpizza) and a future draft choice!

Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 13, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions

Falcons will definitely be fired up for that game

Saints @ Falcons should be a great game, but the home team would be insane to get cocky. Given the Saints’ personnel advantage, we’ll need some timely takeaways and resolute defense, same as the first game.

If there’s a postseason for Atlanta, the road does indeed appear to go through New Orleans at this point. If (when) that comes to pass, that would surely be the high point in the Falcons-Saints rivalry after all these years. Bedlam in the streets for the winner of that one!

by tom slick on Nov 12, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

Tom

I think you and I share a common phobia when it comes to playing each other.

Have you ever had a tiny splinter that you can’t see but you know it’s there because it hurts like a sombitch!!! That’s pretty much how we view this rivalry. We have other games to play but . . . that damn splinter’s always there!!

Good luck, y’all.

Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 13, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions

Perhaps I'm unusual

but I’ve got some great memories of Falcons-Saints through the years! I’ll never forget the Big Ben Right game @ NO in ’78 as long as I live, absolutely spectacular. The last time I attended a Saints @ Falcons game, I bumped into a bunch of ex-coworkers from NOLA and had a blast then, too!

The “pain in the @ss factor” is bound to increase if our teams continue doing well, but I’d like to try this “Two Winning Teams” stuff for a while and see what happens! Cheers!

by tom slick on Nov 13, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions

Way to go and

Scare me about the Eagles. They’re looking pretty scary, alright. Our entire schedule for the rest of the year looks much more positive though – two games against Tampa Bay and a game against Buffalo made me squeal with glee.

by Jebidillah on Nov 10, 2009 4:27 PM EST reply actions

Eagles appear scary in multiple ways

Looking at my rankings since week 6 the Eagles have been ranked 9th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd FWIW. What’s troubling is their very poor showings in losses to the Raiders and Saints. I wonder which team’s going to show up against the Falcons?

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions

My own Ranking...

… is done. I’ll see if I can publish it… I put the stats on the week 9 version this afternoon (it’s evening here in Brazil now). I’ll try to post it tonight, in a new fanpost.

by BrunoH on Nov 10, 2009 5:42 PM EST reply actions

Excellent

I’ll definitely give it a read.

by Dave Choate on Nov 10, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions

Look forward to seeing it

It’s always interesting to see how the numbers are calculated. Algorithms are fun like that (for me), as opposed to a “poll compilation” that tends to be subjective and opaque.

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 7:56 PM EST up reply actions

I've got the Cleveland Cavaliers ahead of the Browns...

who ranked behind most of the North Olmstead youth soccer league. Power rankingsare fun!

How many more days, Lord, must I walk through the wilderness?
GO FALCONS!!!

by AnOldBird on Nov 10, 2009 10:35 PM EST up reply actions

No complaints?

People must have finally started reading the lead to the stats.

If I had a nickel for everytime someone told me I should shutup, I'd probably have 5 or 6 bucks.

by pchaucer on Nov 10, 2009 9:08 PM EST reply actions

As a man with no eyebrows and a hook for a left hand

I can tell you that nobody reads disclaimers.

by Dave Choate on Nov 10, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

When everyone starts reading, Repent Ye Sinners, the end is near!

Thanks for the “Front Page” treatment Dave. Unexpected for a post not about our Falcons!

by tom slick on Nov 10, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions

Good work should be recognized

Even on a slow news day when I haven’t done so in earlier weeks. Cheers!

by Dave Choate on Nov 10, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions

Smitty stole your eyebrows?!?! He's got enough for both of ya ...

Reporter: How will you address all of the dropped passes?

Mike Smith: I don’t think that we were as sharp as we have been catching the football. It’s something that is very fixable. It’s VERY fixable.

by FrankyWren on Nov 11, 2009 12:05 AM EST up reply actions

my power ranking's

1.Saint’s
2.Viking’s
3.Colt’s
4.Eagle’s
5.Patriot’s
6.Steeler’s
7.Bengal’s
8.Raven’s
9.Dolphin’s
10.Cowboy’s
11.Bronco’s
12.Texan’s
13.Charger’s
14.Jet’s
15.Panther’s
16.Bear’s
17.Cardinal’s
18.Giant’s
19.49er’s
20.Falcon’s
21.Bill’s
22.Jaguar’s
23.Packer’s
24.Seahawk’s
25.Titan’s
26.Raider’s
27.Buccaneer’s
28.Ram’s
29.Redskin’s
30.Lion’s
31.Chief’s
32.Brown’s

by simone219 on Nov 12, 2009 6:27 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

I'm impressed!

You managed to misspell every single word, except two! Too funny!
Young man, you are exceptional at displaying your intellect for all the world to see.

by tom slick on Nov 12, 2009 7:14 PM EST up reply actions

did you expect anything more

from a fan of the “Saint’s”?

Some of these New ’Awlens folk sure are making quite a showing for their grammatical skills every time they visit the Falcoholic.

know what you believe in and why you believe in it

by MentallyMIA on Nov 13, 2009 7:42 AM EST up reply actions

I think those are reasonable

But then you had to go and put the Falcons 20th. You really believe they belong that low, eh?

by Dave Choate on Nov 12, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions

18th,19th,and 20th

are all interchangeable i guess i should hav put 18a,18b,18c

by simone219 on Nov 12, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

I guess I'm surprised to see them below the Panthers and Jets

We’ll see where that stands after this week.

by Dave Choate on Nov 12, 2009 7:58 PM EST up reply actions

And

49ers and Bears – even though we have a better record, and already beat them both. Doubt that makes a difference in his mind, though. What I want to know is if these are contractions or possessive, as in:

A) the Bear is ranked #16, or
B) I am Bill’s 21st ranking

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by orang3b on Nov 13, 2009 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

Now, don't rush to judgment

It’s probably based on a sophisticated algorithm that’s way over our heads. A tip of the Grammar Policeman’s hat to you, LOL!

by tom slick on Nov 13, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

hmm

Could it be based on a cellular automaton, such as Conway’s Game of Life, or more to Orang3b’s guess, could it be based on a Markov algorithm?

Beep, Boop, bop.

Corey Zickefoose: I think they should still be able to play football, regardless. Tennessee is my place. You know, it's my football team.

Reporter: Even after they put a gun in your face, you say let them play football?

Corey Zickefoose: Yeah. It's Tennessee. That's the way it is sometimes.

Welcome to the SEC!

by Jesse28 on Nov 13, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

Buh?

Over our heads like that, exactly!

by tom slick on Nov 13, 2009 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

Really?

I figured you would have gotten that since those are fairly simple things. Or maybe I’m reading you wrong, haha.

Hmm, well, just check out this, this, and this. Conway’s Game of Life can turn into a great time waster, haha.

Corey Zickefoose: I think they should still be able to play football, regardless. Tennessee is my place. You know, it's my football team.

Reporter: Even after they put a gun in your face, you say let them play football?

Corey Zickefoose: Yeah. It's Tennessee. That's the way it is sometimes.

Welcome to the SEC!

by Jesse28 on Nov 13, 2009 11:07 PM EST up reply actions

Really!

“Simple things” my @ss, my showoff friend! Like you, I do enjoy the subject matter, just not at that level. Nice links, you’re a true professional. Cheers!

by tom slick on Nov 14, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions

Don't let him mess with your head, Tom

“Conway’s Game of Life” is based on Minesweeper and the “Markov algorithm” was derived from Hollywood Squares.

Basic stuff.

Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 14, 2009 8:55 PM EST up reply actions

Hollywood Squares?

Now there’s a subject I can embrace intellectually!
“I’ll take Wally Cox for the block, Peter.”

by tom slick on Nov 14, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions

Meh

This has gotta be like asking a blind man what his favorite porn movie is.

If you’re ranking the Falcons at 20 you don’t know football (or your judgment is clouded by haterade)

Maybe there is no Heaven. Or maybe this is all pure gibberish — a product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow — to sleep late, have fun, get wild, drink whisky, and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind except falling in love and not getting arrested...Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.

by iRonin on Nov 13, 2009 10:05 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

You meant to say "Falcon's"

right?

Just thought I’d help.

Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 14, 2009 8:51 PM EST up reply actions

No data?

How did you arrive at these results? I’d absolutely love to see your data…

by Jesse28 on Nov 13, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions

This is strictly my opinion

but given this kid’s rich history of trolling (see here), it sure looks like a transparent swipe at the Falcons to me. That’s just ME though, I’m awfully cynical about people with a history like that.

I’m guessing we can reproduce the source data “comfortably, overnight” with a dose of Ex-Lax.

by tom slick on Nov 13, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

Shhh, you're blowing my cover!

Troll point #1: He has the Bears above the Falcons… /end discussion

Corey Zickefoose: I think they should still be able to play football, regardless. Tennessee is my place. You know, it's my football team.

Reporter: Even after they put a gun in your face, you say let them play football?

Corey Zickefoose: Yeah. It's Tennessee. That's the way it is sometimes.

Welcome to the SEC!

by Jesse28 on Nov 13, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

Wow...

#1, #3, #4, and #5 all lost today…

keeps on trucking though.

by TigerPaw on Nov 16, 2009 1:53 AM EST reply actions

You guys have to be concerned, though

You took care of business, but that was an awfully tight game against the Rams and that’s three weeks in a row where you’ve looked a little off-kilter.

by Dave Choate on Nov 16, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

So THAT'S why they play the games!

Bet a lot of bookies are crying in their beer today. Interesting how the Packers can look like total crap against the Bucs last week, and then beat the Cowboys the next.

The worst thing the Saints can do is to start believing how great they are. That may be your HC’s toughest job right now, keeping everyone focused. Human nature is to slack off a little, which we’ve seen some lately (not being snarky, just honest).

by tom slick on Nov 16, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions