If the Jets play both sides of the ball well for a full 60 minutes, I can't think of a team that can beat them except maybe GB.
Historic for whom? Only Aaron Rodgers. I'm not saying they are not a fantastic team, but they have their flaws like everyone else. Their run game is 23rd in the league in yards per attempt. Their offense is not playing historic, Aaron Rogers is. They are in fact 4th in Offensive yards per game in the league. They are 4th in pass yards, and 20th in run yards. Their defense is 17th in points allowed (I incorrectly quoted 15th above) and they are 30th in yards allowed. Garbage time you say? Not true. They beat the Saints by 8, the Panthers by 7, the Vikings by 6, and the Chargers by 7. This is not some sort of untouchable juggernaut, just an elite team. How are they historic except for the efficiency of Aaron Rogers? 1984 Dan Marino, 2007 Tom Brady, and 2008 Drew Brees all had insane years, yet didn't win the superbowl. I have never once stated that I truly believe that the Packers are not better then the Jets, it's just that your subjective analysis that since the QB is having a top-10 all time year they HAVE to be the best team is misguided.
Not necessarily. Coaching, game-planning and execution obviously play a big role in how well a team performs over time, but ultimately the talent gap shows between the best and worst teams. For instance, I think the Jets or Packers playing mediocre or poorly by their standards would still kick the shit out of the Phins or Colts, etc. The fact of the matter is that the Jets have yet to play a full two halves of football on both sides of the ball this season. If they can manage that, the rest of the NFL should look out.
Look dude you are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of rushing to defend DVOA you should take a step back read what a person is critiquing and take it from there. It's like you just had a baby boy and you named it DVOA. I am well aware of Green Bays flaws. Sorry in a QB driven league, a team with a QB having an historic year is going to be the best. I threw an argument out and I am done. You can't be objective, which is cool. You seem to be a strict #'s guy, again fine. I am not interested in circular arguments. I understand the data, I understand the #'s, I work in a #'s business. Sometimes they don't tell the whole story. I was just trying to figure out loud why they do not.
Puck and Morin You guys both are bringing up good points. However we are moving away from the original intent of the original post and what we wanted to accomplish with the discussion. I think OP by RMorin was stating that of ALL the advanced statistical analysis methods that are out there, DVOA is THE most accurate/successful of the 4 or 5 available over the last 20 years. I don't think anyone, including myself, thinks that DVOA is flawless or has a great fewer flaws than Pro Football Ref or USAToday, etc. What the discussion derailed to was DVOA is the best metric to use casue it is correct. DVOA just happens to rank the Jets at the top of the list currently. And while no one in thier right mind would do that, I still think as the facts present themselves, is that DVOA IS the most accurate of the advanced metrics. Again, I want to reiterate the FACT that DVOA is NOT flawless. It is inherently flawed because there are some things you cannot create a mteric for such as luck of a ball bouncing or being coached up or playing a perfect game or upsets. The fact of the matter is that DVOA is the best albeit flawed, system to use since the other advanced metrics systems are less accurate. And as a final point, we are talking about DVOA being more accurate by 3% over the next closest system so there isn't a huge difference. /thread....
I critiqued your points precisely. Don't know what more you want. I like DVOA because #1 it is very successful at predicting head to head matchups and #2 is not about some sports writers opinion. Players having seasons comparable to what Rogers is doing don't always win the superbowl (see brady 07, brees 08, and marino 1984) Also the quote from you that "You can't be objective, which is cool. You seem to be a strict #'s guy, again fine." is some fine irony.
L Omfg you said something critiquing DVOA must defend rather than listen and have dialogue. Lather rinse repeat. Whel gully gee eye thawt everi 1/4back day wuz ausome wun da Supperbole tank u soe much
Well Fozzi I know you can converse objectively. You think the Jets being more of a jack of all trades master of none helps them vs. a team that mostly gets one phase correct but lacks in the others or is simple as that there is is no formula that can get it right. It isn't bad that's for sure but the Jets at #1 is odd. That doesn't pass the eyeball test.
What I mean by "that good" is if they could predict winners and losers and final scores with some accuracy they'd be tearing up Vegas instead of selling it to ESPN as some content to talk about during the week.
Anyone remember last season when that Wizard of Odds toolkit showed up the week before the 2nd patriots game and wouldn't shut up about how it was statistically impossible for them to beat the Jets?
I completely agree with that. I don't take DVOA as Bible either, but in those rare moments I am looking for stats, DVOA is where I go first because they tend to be slightly more correct than everyone else. I'm not that much of a homer to go with DVOA because the Jets happen to be ranked #1 currently, the Jets have fallen off the good graces through the years as we all know. But yeah, I subscribe to the fact that the Jets are jacks of all trades. That's a good way of putting it. So over 1000+ simulations (Madden or otherwise) the Jets will come out ahead in the long run.
The problem with this theory is that many sofisticated bettors use things like DVOA to make their wagers, which impacts the line (wouldn't be surprised if those that set the line, use DVOA actually).
I just want to follow up on this discussion about whether DVOA is the best ranking metric, whether it is 'smarter' than football experts, etc. This season, ESPN's Accuscore, ESPN Pick 'em users, and Yahoo's users all had better percentages than DVOA. DVOA ended the year with an accuracy of 64.1% in head-to-head picks. This is right in line with the last two seasons (64.1% 2010, 63.7% 2009), and is a huge drop from the 74% that was being referenced earlier this season. ESPN's Accuscore correctly predicted 67.9% ESPN Pick 'em users correctly predicted 67.2% Yahoo's users correctly predicted 68.3% The fact that DVOA is a very "advanced" ranking system (i.e. it takes into account "clutchness" of plays, game temperature, difficult stadiums like Denver, etc.) does not, by itself, make the system any more valid (or accurate, or effective) than anything else, including human intuition. Maybe it is better, but I have not seen anything to indicate that. Also, you simply CAN NOT judge a ranking system like this based on several weeks worth of NFL games; the variation is way too high & sample size way too low. Sources: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/store/premium-access http://espn.go.com/nfl/picks http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/picks
I won't even point out how funny the spelling mistake is, but they aren't too sophisticated if they're just relying on DVOA. I don't mind DVOA, I think it's amusing. Sort of on the level of Astrology.
