FanPost

Professor Frink Wants YOU!


20jr52x_medium

via i38.tinypic.com

Actually, I need your opinions, my good people.

Despite having been happy with my old rating algorithm for some years, I'm not quite as happy these days.  I've discovered that when you publish something for all to see, you have a lot less margin for error.  As much as I like the simplicity of my spreadsheet, I think I can do a little better.

My main concern is that the existing method overly penalizes winning teams like the Saints, who are outstanding on one side of the ball but mediocre on the other.  To rank them in 7th place is IMO something that should probably be addressed.  Last year, for example, the Steelers won the Super Bowl with a subpar offense and a great defense.  So far this year, 3 of the 4 winningest teams have a below average defense (or offense).  If this trend is the new reality in the NFL, I'd rather change than stubbornly stick with something that's worked in the past, but not quite as well now.

At the risk of getting too cute with a simple process, I'm thinking of adding a couple of new variables to the formula.  Winning percentage is one measure of a team's quality that is undeniably relevant, as is Point Differential.  Rather than weighing offense and defense at 50% apiece, my new mix would be:

Offense (curved, as before), 25%

Defense (curved), 25%

Point Differential per Game (curved), 25%

Winning Percentage, 25%.

Here are what the Week 8 rankings would look like using the new algorithm:

Rank

Power Rating

W-L-T

PF/G

PA/G

DIFF/G

 

Offense Rating

Defense Rating

Differential Rating

1

93.7

Colts

7-0-0

28.1

13.0

15.1

0.829

0.978

0.941

2

86.0

Patriots

5-2-0

28.3

14.0

14.3

0.834

0.962

0.929

3

85.5

Saints

7-0-0

39.0

22.0

17.0

0.995

0.465

0.960

4

78.8

Eagles

5-2-0

29.0

19.0

10.0

0.859

0.729

0.847

5

77.0

Vikings

7-1-0

30.5

21.8

8.8

0.903

0.488

0.815

6

76.3

Cowboys

5-2-0

28.1

19.4

8.7

0.829

0.695

0.814

7

74.0

Broncos

6-1-0

20.0

13.7

6.3

0.396

0.967

0.738

8

72.8

Ravens

4-3-0

28.4

19.6

8.9

0.839

0.684

0.818

9

71.0

Packers

4-3-0

26.7

19.1

7.6

0.769

0.718

0.780

10

70.4

Steelers

5-2-0

23.9

18.4

5.4

0.622

0.772

0.709

11

69.4

Bengals

5-2-0

23.3

18.3

5.0

0.589

0.781

0.693

12

65.0

Jets

4-4-0

22.1

16.8

5.4

0.521

0.872

0.707

13

62.5

Texans

5-3-0

24.8

21.0

3.8

0.671

0.558

0.646

14

60.3

Giants

5-3-0

26.5

22.9

3.6

0.759

0.385

0.641

15

59.5

Falcons

4-3-0

24.4

21.3

3.1

0.654

0.531

0.622

16

59.3

Chargers

4-3-0

26.4

22.7

3.7

0.756

0.400

0.645

17

57.4

Cardinals

4-3-0

22.4

20.4

2.0

0.539

0.610

0.576

18

54.8

Bears

4-3-0

22.7

21.4

1.3

0.556

0.518

0.547

19

51.6

49ers

3-4-0

21.0

20.0

1.0

0.454

0.647

0.535

20

45.1

Dolphins

3-4-0

25.1

25.3

-0.1

0.692

0.197

0.488

21

40.5

Seahawks

2-5-0

19.3

21.0

-1.7

0.355

0.558

0.423

22

39.2

Redskins

2-5-0

13.7

17.6

-3.9

0.115

0.827

0.338

23

34.0

Bills

3-5-0

15.4

21.1

-5.8

0.170

0.546

0.270

24

33.1

Panthers

3-4-0

18.3

23.7

-5.4

0.302

0.313

0.281

25

30.4

Jaguars

3-4-0

19.0

25.3

-6.3

0.340

0.197

0.251

26

14.7

Chiefs

1-6-0

15.0

25.9

-10.9

0.156

0.162

0.126

27

13.7

Raiders

2-6-0

9.8

25.1

-15.4

0.037

0.207

0.053

28

11.6

Lions

1-6-0

16.1

29.3

-13.1

0.201

0.037

0.083

29

11.1

Titans

1-6-0

16.3

30.1

-13.9

0.207

0.024

0.072

30

8.8

Browns

1-7-0

9.8

26.1

-16.4

0.037

0.147

0.043

31

6.8

Rams

1-7-0

9.6

27.6

-18.0

0.035

0.081

0.029

32

5.3

Buccaneers

0-7-0

13.7

29.0

-15.3

0.115

0.043

0.054

(I omitted Win% from the table due to space and readabilty considerations, but it does figure into the final ratings.)

Though hardly perfect by any means, this version seems to "smell" somewhat better, at least to me.

Since I publish this for your amusement, kind readers, I would appreciate YOUR feedback on this momentous issue.  Do the results seem more realistic this way?  Does the added complexity strike anyone as a negative?  If so, is that negative outweighed by better results?

Like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin, I look forward to any constructive remarks youse guys have to offer.  Thanks, everyone!

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

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join The Falcoholic

You must be a member of The Falcoholic to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at The Falcoholic. You should read them.

Join The Falcoholic

You must be a member of The Falcoholic to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at The Falcoholic. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker