I think you misread that. It is a pre-season projection not preseason games statistics. Pre-season projection is based on play for the year prior and personnel additions and losses.
ok, thanks. Again, I guess that's the best you can do early on, but even that hold less relevance to this year. Teams do change year to year.
I'm really not just trying to diss the Jets. They could certainly be a different team by years end but I think it just doesn't pass the smell test. Do people really think they've been the 2nd most efficient team in the league behind Green Bay??
Like I said I am not willing to label them the 2nd best team in league myself, but I think that it gets at a greater point which is that the Jets are a talented football team that can do a lot of things right, just have not been pulling it together for whatever reason. I find statistics of sports interesting (since before Moneyball) and this is one that I feel is one of the best representations of actual play and match ups. Head to head DVOA is fluid, so this will likely change when they update with this weeks game tape in a day or so, but I still think the Jets are better then a lot of people make them out to be.
Who? Me? I said before I'm not sold on them being #2 and am just explaining a statistic to people. If you are talking about football outsiders and their DVOA you should look a little more into it before writing it off. Head to head teams with a higher DVOA have won 74% the time over the past three weeks which is pretty significant.
Your extrapolation is way off. There were 12 teams in the playoffs in 2009 and they played 11 games. That does not begin to describe the playoff scenario that occurred though. First of all 4 of the 12 teams had a bye in the first round of the playoffs. Those teams effectively had a win in the post-season coming into the tournament. Those teams were Indy (#8 DVOA), San Diego (#11 DVOA), Minnesota (#7 DVOA) and New Orleans (#6 DVOA). So DVOA did a terrible job of predicting who would succeed in the playoffs because it whiffed on one of the most important factors: who would get a bye in round 1 and a home game in round 2. Effectively DVOA went 0-4 there. Ok, now in the first round #1 Baltimore did beat #3 New England and #9 NYJ did beat #19 Cin, so in the AFC DVOA went 2-0. However in the NFC #5 Dallas beat #4 Philly and #13 Arizona beat #3 GB so DVOA went 0-2 there or 2-2 overall for a 2-6 record at that point since none of the bye teams should have had a bye according to DVOA. Second round saw #8 Indy beat #1 Baltimore and #9 NYJ beat #11 SD for a 1-1 split in the AFC. The NFC also went 1-1 in that round with #7 Minny beating #5 Dallas and #6 New Orleans beating #13 Arizona for 2-2 on the round and 4-8 overall at this point. The championship round again split with #8 Indy beating #9 NYJ and #6 New Orleans beating #7 Minnesota, so 6-8 at this point for DVOA. Then in the Super Bowl #6 New Orleans beat #8 Indy for a 7-8 overall performance for DVOA in the playoff in 2009. Even if you want to consider the byes as not representative, which is a mistake, DVOA went 7-4 in the games actually played.
The only thing I feel sure of right now, this week is that Green Bay is the best team in the league. By far. It doesn't mean they going to win a Superbowl but they are playing above everyone else right now. And then there are the second tier contenders which includes a LOT of teams.
You added 4 games that never actually happened and did not count correctly. What the hell are you talking about? What do you mean a bye is a win? No it's not, it means you don't play? Could you place a bet that the Colts were gonna win their bye week?!? I miscounted, but 7-4 is still the same record that accuscore predicted. Bengals (#19) Lost To Jets (#9) - Correct Ravens (#1) beat Patriots (#3) - Correct Jets (#9) beat (#11) Chargers - Correct Colts (#8) beat (#1) Ravens - Incorrect Colts (#8) beat (#9) Jets - Correct Dallas (#5) beat (#4) Eagles - Incorrect Cardinals (#13) beat (#2) Packers - Incorrect Vikings (#7) beat (#5) Dallas - Incorrect Saints (#6) beat (#13) Cardinals - Correct Saints (#6) beat Vikings (#7) - Correct Saints (#6) beat Colts (#8) - Correct That's 7-4, the same as accuscore. You are not understanding what their rankings mean. They mean that at the start of the playoffs that's what the team was ranked. These are rankings from AFTER week 17 not the beginning of the season. If you think the best 12 teams at week 17 make it to the playoffs every year you don't watch enough football.
When a statistic says that all the bye teams are worse than 5 other teams in the league it's a useless statistic. Do you really think DVOA had anything to do with projecting the winners in 2009? It dramatically under-rated all of the really good teams that year, all the teams that won 12 games or more finished 6 or lower in the DVOA rankings. That's a useless stat if I ever saw one given that it could not identify clearly the dominant teams that season, something that the regular season and playoffs had no trouble at all doing.
You literally are not reading anything I write. If you did you'd understand that, yes DVOA DOES predict the better team. As I explained piecemeal for you. In 7 out of 11 times that year (In 2010 the results in the playoffs were even better) the better ranked team won in the playoffs. Just because a team has a better record then another (and hence gets a bye) does NOT mean that they are the better team, I would hope you understand that, if you don't then stop right now, because you don't understand basic rules of competition, let alone football. Still don't believe me? DVOA went 10-3 last week straight up. That's higher then any sportscasters predictions on ESPN or Accuscore. In the past three weeks of NFL play it has correctly predicted 74% of head to head matchups. That is better then ANY NFL pundit that I checked from ESPN, and NFL.com. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Don't fight against math, you'll always lose.
Basically you are saying that regular season wins are a better indicator of the strength of a team. I agree that not having any of the teams with the 4 best records in the top 6 for the statistic would suggest that it is not a useful statistic if nothing else was considered. But clearly other factors, like their strength of schedule, will influence two teams of equal strength's final records. I think it just comes down to what philosophy you have, and it seems you have a Parcells-ian, you are what your record says you are, wins are the best indicator of how good you are, attitude. This is not to say DVOA is perfect, but just that statistics other than wins can be better predictors of future success.
I think we can all agree that the "Parcells-ian" view is flawed, no? Are the Bengals as good as the Patriots right now, because they have the same record? What about Bengals verse Steelers or Ravens, you really think that is a 50/50 affair? I mean they all have the same record so it has to be under the failed logic "Brady Sucks" presents to us? I get that it's an attitude of "win the games or shut up" but that applies to BASIC statistics, not the advanced statistics DVOA employs. In 2009 did you think we'd get trashed by the Bengals in the playoffs because they had a better record and were seeded higher? In our last 6 playoff games, (that's two years) which Accuscore's record was 2-4. (Only correct on our loses). DVOA was only wrong once, against the Pats where we upset them last year. DVOA is 5-1 in our last 6 playoff matches at predicting us, literally no sportscasters came close to that. DVOA is not perfect, but it is in fact one of the of best statistical tools we have available. Just because some people don't understand it, doesn't mean it is not one of the most accurate metrics we have.
3 of the 4 best records in the NFL in 2009 were still standing on the next to last weekend of the season. The 4th team still standing was 9th ranked in DVOA. That tells me that DVOA was a very poor predictor in 2009 of which teams were actually the strongest that year. All of the very strong teams, as predicted by DVOA, were gone after two rounds of playoffs. One of them fell to a team ranked substantially below them by DVOA. If DVOA was actually a good predictor of the strength of a team you'd have expected a couple of the top teams to stick around until the championship round, but in fact none of them was strong enough to do so.
You are not understanding basic math man. I am not trying to rag on you, cause you are a Jets fan, but you just don't understand math behind this statistic. If you want me to explain it to you sometime, send me a PM or something. Otherwise, I hate to say it, but you are just clouding this forum with a math lesson. The final four which you described as not a good indicator of DVOA was actually a GREAT indicator of DVOA being a valuable metric in the 2009 Playoffs. Saints beat teams ranked worse then them three times and won the Superbowl. (DVOA 3-0) Vikings beat 1 team ranked better then them, and then lost to one team ranked better then them. (DVOA 1-1) Jets beat two teams they are ranked better then, and then lost to a team then are ranked worst then, once again like the Saints, PERFECT predictor. (DVOA 3-0) The Colts beat a team ranked better then them, then beat a team that was ranked worse then them, then lost to a team ranked better then them. (DVOA 2-1) So out of the last four DVOA head to head predictions were right for: Saints 3-0 Vikings 0-1 (can't count the Saints-Vikings game twice, hence 0-1 instead of 1-1) Jets 3-0 (not about winning the game once again this is DVOA head to head predictions coming true) Colts 1-1 (can't count the Jets-Colts game twice, hence 1-1 instead of 2-1) That's 7-2!! Out of the final four you are so valiantly trying to defend you are incorrect on a giant scale. DVOA DID predict the dominate teams in the playoffs. If you are still not understanding this PM me and I can help you out, otherwise please read the DVOA methodology on their website I provided in the OP. Just because you don't understand it, it does not mean that it is not right.
Ughhhh, throwing you another bone. (Damn that instructor instinct in me) Consider the DVOA at the end of week 17 of 2009. You seem to be obsessed with this year, even though it proves none of your points. It went in order: BAL GB NE PHI DAL NO MIN IND NYJ PIT SD DEN ARI CAR HOU MIA NYG ATL CIN (we can stop there) Guess what? Only 12 of those 19 teams qualified regardless of how good other teams were playing at that point. Those other 7 teams no longer matter cause they are eliminated because regardless of how well they could play the next week, they don't get another game! Teams that qualified were (In order) BAL GB NE PHI DAL NO MIN IND NYJ SD AZ CIN Guess what happened? 7 games where the higher ranked team won, and 4 where the higher ranked team lost. Like I have said from the get go it is not perfect, upsets will ALWAYS occur, but it is a statistically significant predictor of the winner of games. Don't try to argue, it's math.
I may get a lot of shit for this but personally speaking, no I do not think the Jets are the second best team in the league right now. Frankly speaking, I'm not sure if we're even in the top 5. I would personally be happy if we even made it to the playoffs via wildcard. I'm not saying the Jets are a bad team, but as of right now, we seem to be a second half team (ie: we only seem so show up in the second half). However, I think if we played like we do in the second half for all 60 minutes, I think we'd be a dominate team. I'm not sure where the inconsistency lays, but we need to correct it and asap.
no not you...when they play & if they win, that's all that matters, all this other stuff is just hyperbole.
When you have a stat that says that the 9 and 10 win teams are uniformly stronger than the 12 to 14 win teams it's a useless stat. The top 2 teams in DVOA in 2009 had 9 and 10 wins respectively. Neither of them got to the championship round because they were 9 and 10 win teams. Only rarely do teams like that get to a championship game because there are lots of better teams in the playoffs than them, as there were in 2009. The 9 win team that did get to the round of 4 that year was not in the top of the rankings. The year Arizona got to the Super Bowl at 9-7 they were ranked 21st in DVOA. DVOA is a useless stat. It's about as valuable as FG's made in determining who will win or lose at the end of the season. You can argue all you want that DVOA did a good job of showing who should make the playoffs and it won't change the fact that it did a bad job of predicting who would ultimately win in 2009. That's why I say it has a bias built in. The model doesn't capture the total picture very well and it fails in ways that are hard to define, such as the Patriots tending to stack up very well even when the defense is suspect and the Colts never stacking up well even though their offense tends to be as good as the Pats or better and their defense usually looking like the Pats when it is suspect. I'm going to sign off now because you obviously don't get the very basic point that I'm making here.
