Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

[PonyExpress]

Footballoutsiders.com offers interesting statistical data. The 2006 Pats rank 7th on offense, 7th on defense, and 3rd on special teams in the NFL. In the last 9 years only 4 other teams have ranked in single digits in all 3 categories in the regular season:

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: Won SB
1999 St Louis Rams: Won SB
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars: Lost AFC Championship Game
1998 Atlanta Falcons: Lost SB

3 of the 4 teams went to the SB, the other exited in the championship game in one of the flukiest anomalies in NFL history (The Jaguars went 15-3 that season, losing all 3 games to Tennessee). If the Pats can maintain these rankings through Week 16, History may smile on them. With all the hits this organization has taken in the media this year, they deserve credit for putting together one of the most well-rounded teams in recent NFL history.

 

[maverick4]

My biggest fear is that our strong defense generated numbers while we had Junior Seau in there, and that we're not as stout right now with him on the IR.

 

[stinkypete]

I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.

 

[BelichickFan]

My biggest fear is that our strong defense generated numbers while we had Junior Seau in there, and that we're not as stout right now with him on the IR.

There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs

 

[MrTibbs]

Patriots are #2 behind only the Ravens in points scored against.

 

[PromisedLand]

There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs

Once again BF has come up with some great stats. Thanks, BF!

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.

Bump for a "repete"! :rocker:

 

[groundgame]

I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.

Banta-Cain from the outside LB spot gives you 75% of what Vrabel gave you, and Vrabel from the inside LB gives you 125+% of Junior gave us. Bottom line is I think it is a slight overall advantage to have the present group on the field as the positives of a younger, athletic group should favor the previously older, yet wiser interior ILB group of Seau/Bruschi.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs

There's a problem w/ the way you're wielding FO's DVOA stats.

Firstly, by working with their ranking # and not the actual DVOA percentage, you're creating a system where the difference between each team and the one ranked beneath is the same, while in reality, this is far from the case.

When you look at the actual % ratings, you'll see that Indianapolis' top score is 9.5 percentage points better than the #2 team. This is a lot -- it's the same as what separates the 7th ranked Pats and 16th ranked bears. Thus, when you start adding up rankings instead of percentages, you seriously devalue standout units like the Colts' offense.

Meanwhile, the same phenomenon happens on defense. According to the FO metric, the difference between the Ravens' #1 ranked D and the Pats' #7 ranked D is as big as difference between the Pats' 7th ranked D and Cleveland's 25th ranked defense. In other words, the Ravens' #1 ranked defense is really, really good to a degree that doesn't come across when you think of it as #1 to the Pats' #7.

Fortunately for us all, the folks who created these stats have done the work of combining the offense, defense and special teams scores, proportionately, and have worked out an overall team efficiency rating. The Pats rank #3, behind San Diego, and the Ravens.

They might not be quite as "well balanced," but the superlative quality of their offense and defense, respectively, deserves added weight.

 

[BelichickFan]

There's a problem w/ the way you're wielding FO's DVOA stats.

I know, I wasn't trying to claim that I was producing a balanced efficiency rating just an overall feel for the balance. In much the same way, I doubt a lot of people would feel that the ST rank should get an equal share with offense and defense.

 

[BelichickFan]

Stats, shmats, only one counts and it is...................

W's​

For where we stand, sure. But stats can, and do, provide valuable insight as to whether those Ws will continue to come.

 

[smg93]

Stats, shmats, only one counts and it is...................

W's​

Very True. But I should ask then, even in the Win's that we've had, why do you take the time to criticize individual plays or playcalling in general then if the W's are all that matter?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

For where we stand, sure. But stats can, and do, provide valuable insight as to whether those Ws will continue to come.

Is that the same clown who complains about an 11-4 OC?

 

[Kasmir]

I know, I wasn't trying to claim that I was producing a balanced efficiency rating just an overall feel for the balance. In much the same way, I doubt a lot of people would feel that the ST rank should get an equal share with offense and defense.

Folks should go over and take a look at their site; they've got a ton of information about the basis for their models, and faq's addressing most of these questions. They've been doing this consciously modeled "Bill James"-like stuff for a while now, and have probably heard every point you're likely to come up with.

For example, their special team model directly attempt to address points produced per special team play, including attributing positive or negative points contributed from field position in a punt or kickoff. So they've actually attempted to make DVOA from special teams be commensurate with offense and defense DVOA.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php

 

[smg93]

To answer your question, Because many of those wins cold have been made much easier with better play calling. If not for the help of the defense, many of those wins, the ones that were rooclose into the 4th quarter, could easily have been losses, instead of wins.

And, if that type of play calling continues, and the defense has a bad game, we are going to be in serious trouble, and without many more W's.

And, the discussion of EVERY phase of the game, pro and con, are what make these type of message boards what they are....if we all agreed, there would be no need to have them. Right?

Come on Nem. My point was just addressing the point you made that stats are meaningless because it's all about the "W".

If you truly believed that, then you wouldn't argue about this play or that play as long as we win, as long as we get the W. If you care about individual plays, that's totally fine. I don't mind reading what you think. In fact, if you read back, I've defended your right to have your opinion on McDaniels or any other part of the Patriot system.

When someone else brings up a topic however on the Aikman ratings for example which tries to examine how good each individual team is through statistics which is another measuring stick that is similar to arguing the odds on particularl tactics used on a particular play, it's unfair for you to disrespect a person's work as stats, shmats, etc. when you do exactly the same thing with your threads on patriot offensive tactics. That's all this is. Because again, if you truly believed it was just about the W's, there would be very little for you to say when we do win.

As we all know, even when we do win, you still have lots to criticize about. Again, I'm fine with that because i like reading some of your opinions. With that said however, it's a bit strange that you would write in someone else's thread that winning is all you care about because it's obvious to most on this board that you care how we win as well. Read your last post. It's obvious it's not just about the W's for you and you have every right to that feeling.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Come on Nem. My point was just addressing the point you made that stats are meaningless because it's all about the "W".

If you truly believed that, then you wouldn't argue about this play or that play as long as we win, as long as we get the W. If you care about individual plays, that's totally fine. I don't mind reading what you think. In fact, if you read back, I've defended your right to have your opinion on McDaniels or any other part of the Patriot system.

When someone else brings up a topic however on the Aikman ratings for example which tries to examine how good each individual team is through statistics which is another measuring stick that is similar to arguing the odds on particularl tactics used on a particular play, it's unfair for you to disrespect a person's work as stats, shmats, etc. when you do exactly the same thing with your threads on patriot offensive tactics. That's all this is. Because again, if you truly believed it was just about the W's, there would be very little for you to say when we do win.

As we all know, even when we do win, you still have lots to criticize about. Again, I'm fine with that because i like reading some of your opinions. With that said however, it's a bit strange that you would write in someone else's thread that winning is all you care about because it's obvious to most on this board that you care how we win as well. Read your last post. It's obvious it's not just about the W's for you and you have every right to that feeling.

NEM is not about winning, NEM is about making people look at NEM by attacking the Patriots and their fans.

 

[maverick4]

Also, Josh Miller was an all-pro punter and he's out; now we have Mr. Steroids booting the ball back there.

My point is, our team is extremely balanced and deep, maybe as good as we've ever had it, but our team may not be as great as our numbers suggest due to injuries and whatnot.

By the way, nice thread once again PonyExpress.

 

[BelichickFan]

Also, Josh Miller was an all-pro punter and he's out; now we have Mr. Steroids booting the ball back there.

My point is

Your point is not very good

Due to Miller's injury, his season numbers are poor. 20th in the league in gross average, 26th in the league in net. So his contribution to our ST numbers will be about what Sauerbrun does - if Sauerbrun totally sucks.