Professor Frink’s Power Rankings, Week 12
via i37.tinypic.com
Submitted for your approval, here is this week's venture into the Twilight Zone of floating, spinning football numbers. Enjoy!
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 |
W-L-T |
PF/G |
PA/G |
|
Offense Rating |
Defense Rating |
Total |
||
|
1 |
88.1 |
11-0-0 |
27.6 |
16.7 |
0.857 |
0.904 |
1.761 |
|||
|
2 |
87.6 |
10-1-0 |
31.1 |
18.5 |
0.953 |
0.799 |
1.751 |
|||
|
3 |
83.7 |
7-4-0 |
27.9 |
18.4 |
0.868 |
0.806 |
1.673 |
|||
|
4 |
82.5 |
11-0-0 |
37.0 |
20.1 |
0.997 |
0.653 |
1.649 |
|||
|
5 |
77.7 |
8-3-0 |
28.4 |
19.9 |
0.884 |
0.671 |
1.555 |
|||
|
6 |
76.6 |
7-4-0 |
26.9 |
19.5 |
0.826 |
0.706 |
1.532 |
|||
|
7 |
76.3 |
8-3-0 |
23.2 |
16.5 |
0.613 |
0.912 |
1.526 |
|||
|
8 |
75.6 |
6-5-0 |
23.4 |
17.1 |
0.625 |
0.886 |
1.512 |
|||
|
9 |
70.1 |
8-3-0 |
21.0 |
15.8 |
0.463 |
0.940 |
1.402 |
|||
|
10 |
70.0 |
7-4-0 |
26.6 |
20.7 |
0.814 |
0.587 |
1.401 |
|||
|
11 |
68.6 |
7-4-0 |
24.3 |
19.7 |
0.684 |
0.688 |
1.372 |
|||
|
12 |
68.1 |
6-5-0 |
22.5 |
18.5 |
0.570 |
0.792 |
1.362 |
|||
|
13 |
65.3 |
5-6-0 |
20.9 |
17.7 |
0.456 |
0.850 |
1.306 |
|||
|
14 |
58.3 |
5-6-0 |
20.7 |
19.4 |
0.444 |
0.722 |
1.166 |
|||
|
15 |
57.0 |
7-4-0 |
17.8 |
17.2 |
0.258 |
0.881 |
1.139 |
|||
|
16 |
56.6 |
6-5-0 |
24.7 |
22.3 |
0.712 |
0.421 |
1.133 |
|||
|
17 |
53.9 |
5-6-0 |
23.5 |
22.1 |
0.637 |
0.440 |
1.078 |
|||
|
18 |
49.4 |
6-5-0 |
24.7 |
23.7 |
0.712 |
0.276 |
0.988 |
|||
|
19 |
46.4 |
3-8-0 |
15.5 |
18.6 |
0.144 |
0.785 |
0.928 |
|||
|
20 |
39.6 |
5-6-0 |
23.3 |
25.0 |
0.619 |
0.174 |
0.793 |
|||
|
21 |
39.3 |
4-7-0 |
20.3 |
22.7 |
0.412 |
0.373 |
0.786 |
|||
|
22 |
32.9 |
4-7-0 |
16.9 |
22.0 |
0.209 |
0.450 |
0.659 |
|||
|
23 |
32.3 |
4-7-0 |
19.6 |
23.7 |
0.370 |
0.276 |
0.646 |
|||
|
24 |
30.8 |
6-5-0 |
18.4 |
23.2 |
0.289 |
0.328 |
0.617 |
|||
|
25 |
29.6 |
4-7-0 |
18.1 |
23.3 |
0.273 |
0.319 |
0.592 |
|||
|
26 |
27.5 |
5-6-0 |
20.8 |
26.3 |
0.450 |
0.099 |
0.549 |
|||
|
27 |
16.4 |
3-8-0 |
16.6 |
25.6 |
0.196 |
0.133 |
0.328 |
|||
|
28 |
16.4 |
3-8-0 |
10.5 |
23.5 |
0.026 |
0.301 |
0.328 |
|||
|
29 |
12.5 |
2-9-0 |
17.5 |
30.5 |
0.242 |
0.008 |
0.250 |
|||
|
30 |
10.8 |
1-10-0 |
16.5 |
28.5 |
0.187 |
0.029 |
0.215 |
|||
|
31 |
9.2 |
1-10-0 |
11.1 |
25.4 |
0.034 |
0.149 |
0.183 |
|||
|
32 |
5.7 |
1-10-0 |
11.8 |
27.0 |
0.045 |
0.069 |
0.114 |
|||
|
|
|
means: |
21.5 |
21.5 |
|
The Saints' impressive victory over the Pats just missed elevating them to 3rd place here, one more TD would have done it. Falcons were unchanged, ranking-wise.
The only team rising or falling more than 3 places was the 49ers, up from 18th to 14th. Packers, Bengals, Bills were up 3; Ravens, Texans, Giants down 3.
There's your week 12 numbers, spreadsheet download is here. Skaal!
This FanPost was written by one of The Falcoholic's talented readers. It does not necessarily reflect the views of The Falcoholic.
3 recs |
38 comments
Comments
Approved!
And please, please, please, make sure the Eagles slip in the rankings next week.
by One.Cool.Customer on Dec 1, 2009 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My numbers live to please others
I hope the Falcons can knock the Eagles down a few notches, myself.
by tom slick on Dec 1, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey O.C.C
I found another stats-based Power Ranking you may be interested in. It’s from the guys at Pro-Football-Reference, and it’s based on efficiency stats only (net yards per pass attempt gained/allowed, and yards per carry gained/allowed). I figured you’d like it, since it has the Cowboys #2 behind only the Saints. I tried to signed up at BTB, but it told me I had a 24 hour waiting period – hope you check back here.
For those interested, but too lazy to click the link: the Falcons are way down at #25.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by orang3b on Dec 3, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Orang3B
thanks for the pointer, I’ll look it up.
I have become a friendly troll here ever since our game a couple of weeks back, and also enjoy you line breakdowns. Now, if you guys win against the Eagles, I promise you your very own Atlanta Falcons Power Rankings next week. Git ’em, boys.
by One.Cool.Customer on Dec 3, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yardage-based ratings, eh?
Using yardage stats so heavily has got to be a very unique system, interesting find there!
by tom slick on Dec 3, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you into the college game?
If not, yardage is almost the only real way to go for comparing teams. I mean, things are much more equal in the NFL because you are only dealing with 32 teams full of grade-A All-Americans, so points is a viable way to go. But in college, trying to compare 120 teams of varying degrees of talent that never get a chance to play every single team in the game, well let’s just say it can get highly subjective real quick. Most use a ypp metric, either split between offense and defense, or a differential.
Here’s an interesting breakdown for those interesting in efficiency based ratings for the college game from everyone’s favorite, Football Outsiders.
You can also check this site out for even more college based stats and check on national, conference, and individual leaders.
FOR PONY!
by Jesse28 on Dec 3, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point there
I’ve never thought about CFB metrics much, didn’t realize how popular the yardage-based stats were. I usually look at the Sagarin ratings and the polls only, this may broaden my horizons a bit. Thanks for the links.
by tom slick on Dec 3, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
by Jesse28 on Dec 3, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just so you know
The FEI that’s in the original FO link from Jesse is a drive-based stat from Brian Fremeau. They also have a guy doing a play-by-play-based stat called S&P Ratings. He’s Bill Connelly, one of the lead bloggers at SB Nation’s own Rock M Nation (Bill C.).
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by orang3b on Dec 3, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And these guys get PAID to do this?
Talk about your freakin’ dream job. Oh, to be young and statistically talented! One of these guys could be another Nate Silver or Bill James.
by tom slick on Dec 3, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok maybe i'm asking the wrong questions
I understand our defensive rating
But if the grade is 0-1 what does our offense have to do to rate 1
Shouldnt we have 1 on offense and bengals have 1 on defense
by simone219 on Dec 1, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
0 and 1 are limits
Technically, the ratings represent areas under a Normal Curve. They can approach 0 or 1 but not equal them.
by tom slick on Dec 1, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Outstanding, Thomas.
Statistics evades me — I’m told I have a poor z-score — but this makes sense. Can you do something to make it instill hope?
How many more days, Lord, must I walk through the wilderness?
GO FALCONS!!!
by AnOldBird on Dec 1, 2009 4:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not shy about asking the tough questions, ARE you?
Looking back at my ratings for the 2007 season (30th place, 11.8 power rating), the Falcons have certainly made progress since bringing Comrade & Smitty on board.
Perhaps not quite as comforting as a mother’s love, but empirical evidence that we’re moving in the right direction long-term!
by tom slick on Dec 1, 2009 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you believe these rankings to be true reflection
If your going to score by points for and points against why not just points difference
by mississippisaintsfan on Dec 1, 2009 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which would conveniently put the Saints at the top ...
Come on. Y’all are in first place. I hate to admit it, but you’ll probably do some damage in the playoffs. Bottom Line: Settle down Scooter.
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 Dec 1, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
suuuuuuure you were
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 Dec 1, 2009 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No matter how good things are
SOME people always want more, don’t they?
by tom slick on Dec 1, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was a much better job than I expected.
I really am most impressed.
How many more days, Lord, must I walk through the wilderness?
GO FALCONS!!!
by AnOldBird on Dec 1, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stop Complaining
Why you Saints fans complaining? This stuff means nothing.
by falconplanet on Dec 1, 2009 10:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I proudly accept this enthusiastic endorsement.
:)
by tom slick on Dec 1, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything is meaningless!
Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!
by Dave the Falconer on Dec 2, 2009 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
THE SKY IS FALLING!
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 Dec 2, 2009 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If the sky is the limit, then....well, crap!
How many more days, Lord, must I walk through the wilderness?
GO FALCONS!!!
by AnOldBird on Dec 2, 2009 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
I am beginning to wonder if this may be the case. If so I am going to cash out and head to new zealand to wait for the 2012 doomsday event.
Life is a garden. Dig it!
by Hardcore Falcon on Dec 3, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Naaahhh...
Relax with a good movie like On The Beach and forget about it!
by tom slick on Dec 3, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uggghhh....the outlier effect.
It hurts my eyes to see the Titans (winners of five in a row) come in at #26 while the Patriots are #3…. Remove that 59-0 aberration that happened in Foxboro (where the Titans forgot to bring their pads) and their respective ratings are probably more reflective of their true offensive and defensive strength.
by TigerPaw on Dec 2, 2009 11:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Except that it DID happen
It might not accurately reflect how they are playing now, but I think it does a pretty good job of showing the relative strength of each team for the full season. The system does have some irrational love for the Redskins, though. Their offensive rating should be negative.
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein
by orang3b on Dec 3, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Take a step back
Remember these are simple stats, intended to show the big picture. People often tend to try to read too deeply into numbers, and lose sight of how they’re derived; sort of like trying to write a thousand word book review of “Go Dog Go”.
by tom slick on Dec 3, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yet another reason I love the readership here
Easily my favorite Dr. Suess book and imo the best one ever. Retro references are full of win!
FOR PONY!
by Jesse28 on Dec 3, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was P.D. Eastman.
I did my master’s thesis on its references to the Maharishi and Transcendental Meditation®. Okay, not really, but I had to bust up the love-in.
How many more days, Lord, must I walk through the wilderness?
GO FALCONS!!!
by AnOldBird on Dec 3, 2009 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Crikey, you're right
Oh well, I haven’t had those books since I was about nine, so I’m going to go with “my memory fails me”. Is that an acceptable answer? Haha. Oh well, I remember readin those books all together and that Go, Dog. Go! was my favorite.
"Big Ten can have this challenge. Duke loses, we all win..."
-Marcus Ginyard, G - UNC
by Jesse28 on Dec 4, 2009 8:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you know what I can't wait for
to see how low the Falcons drop in week 13
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
by MentallyMIA on Dec 7, 2009 9:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Waiting breathlessly, eh?
Ran the numbers Sunday night and they dropped to 19th. Now you can sleep easier tonight!
by tom slick on Dec 7, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
in some form or another
you are a hero of mine. One who wonders the streets and kicks wounded puppies to help take them out of their misery.
I thank you Oblivious to Sarcasm Man.
Truly, thank you.
know what you believe in and why you believe in it
by MentallyMIA on Dec 8, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















