Team Efficiency Rankings - Week 4

The team rankings below are in terms of generic win probability. The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule, and all ratings include adjustments for opponent strength.

Offensive rank (ORANK) is offensive generic win probability which is based on each team's offensive efficiency stats only. In other words, it's the team's GWP assuming it had a league-average defense. DRANK is is a team's generic win probability rank assuming it had a league-average offense.

GWP is based on a logistic regression model applied to current team stats. The model includes offensive and defensive passing and running efficiency, offensive turnover rates, and team penalty rates. A full explanation of the methodology can be found here.


RANK
TEAM
GWP
Opp GWP
O RANK
D RANK
1
IND
0.80
0.49
1
11
2
NO
0.71
0.47
2
7
3
DEN
0.68
0.34
7
15
4
PHI
0.65
0.50
10
2
5
NYG
0.63
0.47
8
3
6
BAL
0.60
0.41
6
18
7
NYJ
0.59
0.49
23
1
8
DAL
0.59
0.44
3
30
9
SD
0.59
0.45
4
23
10
PIT
0.59
0.50
9
16
11
TEN
0.56
0.55
18
5
12
JAC
0.53
0.59
17
13
13
GB
0.52
0.41
16
20
14
CHI
0.51
0.51
14
8
15
ARI
0.50
0.60
20
9
16
ATL
0.49
0.42
12
31
17
WAS
0.49
0.40
15
24
18
SF
0.47
0.46
22
12
19
BUF
0.47
0.50
24
17
20
HOU
0.46
0.56
5
32
21
NE
0.46
0.52
11
19
22
MIN
0.44
0.34
29
21
23
CIN
0.43
0.59
13
14
24
SEA
0.43
0.42
21
28
25
MIA
0.42
0.63
26
4
26
KC
0.42
0.53
19
26
27
CAR
0.37
0.58
31
6
28
OAK
0.34
0.56
32
10
29
TB
0.33
0.56
28
25
30
DET
0.30
0.55
25
27
31
STL
0.29
0.48
27
29
32
CLE
0.24
0.57
30
22

Raw team efficiency stats are listed below.



TEAM
OPASS
ORUN
OINT%
OFUM%
DPASS
DRUN
DINT%
PENRATE
ARI
6.0
3.2
3.1
2.7
7.2
3.1
1.8
0.45
ATL
6.8
3.4
1.1
1.4
6.2
4.7
1.8
0.34
BAL
7.5
4.7
1.9
1.1
6.7
2.5
6.3
0.48
BUF
5.5
5.3
2.2
0.7
6.0
4.4
2.3
0.61
CAR
4.9
4.3
7.4
2.1
5.8
5.4
2.2
0.33
CHI
6.8
2.8
5.0
0.7
5.1
3.9
1.9
0.44
CIN
5.6
4.2
4.3
1.4
6.7
4.0
1.0
0.44
CLE
4.2
3.3
6.5
0.8
6.8
5.4
0.0
0.42
DAL
7.7
6.8
3.4
0.0
6.9
4.7
1.8
0.47
DEN
7.1
4.7
0.0
0.6
4.3
3.3
5.9
0.33
DET
5.2
3.5
4.9
1.3
7.7
4.5
1.9
0.48
GB
6.1
4.1
0.0
0.0
6.3
3.9
7.4
0.46
HOU
7.1
3.3
1.9
2.2
7.2
6.3
2.1
0.37
IND
9.9
3.5
2.1
1.4
4.7
4.3
2.6
0.28
JAC
5.7
5.1
1.0
0.7
7.8
3.7
1.9
0.31
KC
5.5
3.6
2.4
1.4
6.9
3.8
1.0
0.47
MIA
4.6
4.7
3.2
0.6
8.2
3.0
0.0
0.23
MIN
5.0
4.8
1.0
1.3
5.1
3.5
4.4
0.36
NE
6.0
4.0
1.4
0.0
6.4
4.0
0.0
0.41
NO
7.9
5.0
2.1
1.2
5.6
3.2
5.6
0.37
NYG
7.9
4.0
1.1
0.6
4.4
6.1
6.2
0.38
NYJ
6.3
3.8
2.4
1.9
4.3
3.9
3.4
0.43
OAK
4.3
3.9
5.2
2.5
6.1
4.4
3.1
0.37
PHI
6.6
4.4
3.4
1.3
4.8
3.6
6.9
0.37
PIT
6.9
3.3
3.7
0.6
5.5
3.8
0.9
0.45
SD
7.8
2.8
2.6
0.0
5.8
4.5
4.4
0.43
SF
5.4
4.2
1.2
1.4
5.5
3.0
3.1
0.39
SEA
5.9
4.0
3.3
1.2
5.3
5.6
1.1
0.30
STL
4.6
4.9
1.0
1.6
7.8
4.3
2.1
0.45
TB
5.3
4.3
2.5
1.6
8.4
5.2
1.2
0.42
TEN
5.5
5.7
3.8
0.0
6.9
2.2
2.7
0.27
WAS
6.9
4.0
1.9
0.7
6.1
4.4
1.1
0.45
Avg
6.2
4.2
2.7
1.1
6.2
4.1
2.8
0.40

  • Spread The Love
  • Digg This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Stumble This Post
  • Submit This Post To Delicious
  • Submit This Post To Reddit
  • Submit This Post To Mixx

19 Responses to “Team Efficiency Rankings - Week 4”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Hey Brian,

    Awesome. Love these rankings. Quck question about early season logic.

    I know you said you weight the pre-week 8 stats with NFL avg. stats in the GWP equation. Are all stats weighted the same? Is the OppGWP weighted as well?

  2. Big Jim says:

    Amazing work, Brian. Thanks. Tells me more than any other ranking chart I've found.

  3. Alchemist says:

    Good stuff. Being a Jags fan, and having been in a general state of football depression for the last year, it's at least interesting to see us rated as high as 12th in your first rankings for the season. I hope we stay there (or rise).

  4. Chris says:

    Whoo hooo! Now I need to get nfl-forecast.com updated for this season. That is a few hours work, but now I'm fully motivated. Thanks for posting these.

  5. mustardboy3141 says:

    Can you explain why the Vikings are 22nd if they are 3-0. I know they have played terrible teams but shouldn't they be a little higher?

  6. Rod says:

    Great basic model, Brian. Somehow, it seems that it is deficient in scoring correlations, though. Teams that march up and down the field accumulating yardage (or prevent their opponents from doing so) while not committing turnovers can be ranked very highly even if they never score.

    Another surprising observation: you'd expect for most teams that RANK be somewhere intermediate to ORANK and DRANK, RANK being some non-linear mean-tending combination of the two. And that's mostly true. Then look at Denver, an outlier in that expectation. I guess you could regard the Broncos as a "synergistic" team, where their overall ranking is better than the sum of their parts. Either that or a complete statistical anomaly. Being a Denver fan, I prefer the former...

  7. Anonymous says:

    I see you translated these into GWP for Week 4 on "The Fifth Down."

    No love for your own readers?

  8. Brian Burke says:

    I have contempt for my readers. Can't you tell?

    Just kidding, I was planning to put up a post with a link to those at Fifth Down soon.

  9. Brian Burke says:

    Minnesota is low because of two reasons: They are 27th in net offensive pass efficiency. And they are tied with the easiest schedule to date.

  10. Chase says:

    I gotta say, I'm shocked with how high the Chiefs are. They look absolutely awful. Glad to see this back, though. Really enjoyed these last season.

  11. Zach says:

    I forgot, are these GWP's adjusted for opponent GWP?

  12. Mr.Ceraldi says:

    Brian;
    Great work as usual..
    could you repeat how much weight is given to strength of schedule when you calculate game
    %.
    i.e. Dallas vs Denver is 28% vs 72% on fifth down
    has this accounted for denver's easier schedule
    thus far
    thanks
    Dan

  13. dave b says:

    Kansas City don't look that high too me. The teams below them are all even more awful.

    Maybe Carolina can turn things around but Delhomme has to stop turning the ball over.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Hi Brian I have used your previous numbers ({including ff and def.int. }and coff. to build my own formula. With this formula you used a constant of 5.31 wins then 1.43 * OP + -1.65* def pass etc.
    from your article "What makes teams Win..?

    VARIABLE COEFFICIENT
    const 5.31
    O Pass Eff 1.43
    D Pass Eff -1.65
    O Int Rate -53.50
    D Int Rate 81.70
    O Fum Rate -49.10
    D FF Rate 70.90
    O Run Eff 1.00
    D Run Eff -0.55
    Pen Rate -2.73
    R-squared 0.802

    Is it possible you could give us the corresponding numbers for your new formula with ff and def.int removed (in this format?!)
    it would be really helpful >I find having each team as expected wins is easier to relate to strength rather then W%.I.e. I know whata 6win team or a 10 win team is rather than a 60% or35% team thanks Dan

  15. Brian Burke says:

    Those numbers aren't the game-by-game prediction numbers. Those are from the linear season win total prediction model. I'll post the new game-by-game coefficients sometime soon.

  16. Brian Burke says:

    And yes, previous opponent strength is accounted for in the rankings and game predictions.

  17. Anonymous says:

    thanks Brian

  18. Phil Ruben says:

    hello Brian, in looking over your example with arizona and the steelers, the cards had a 28% chance of winning without taking into consideration schedule strength and 36% by taking it into account although the Steelers schedule was harder. how could that be?

    thanks
    Phil

  19. Brian Burke says:

    That is weird. I'll check into it. I probably goofed up the math or made a typo.

Leave a Reply