Posted: 1/5/2013 10:15:01 AM
Originally Posted by theclaw
FO does some nice research, however their DVOA is very weak, my info has eaten DVOA up for lunch.
A couple years back in 2010 they had the Pats as one of the best teams in the DVOA era ever, when I first saw that I damn-near laughed myself to death.
Well, it woud be helpful for you to mention that of their top 9 DVOA teams since 1991, 8 have either made the conference championship game or the Super Bowl. You chose to only reference the 2010 Pats---the only team of the 9 that did not reach this goal. Selective presentation of data, my friend.
DVOA correctly called deep playoff runs for the 1991 Skins(won SB), 1992 Cowboys(won SB), 1995 49ers(won SB), 1996 Packers(won SB), 2004 Steelers(lost to NE in AFC championship), 2004 Pats(won SB), 2007 Pats(lost SB) and 2010 Steelers(lost SB).
This year DVOA has Denver, NE and Seattle as top 12 teams of all-time. It's likely that at least one of these teams will reach and possibly win the SB.
And that is on the site now because now they have Seattle one of the best and they breakdown the other teams who finished high, like the 2010 Pats.
Pats were a very weak no.1 seed, and both my power ratings and value ratings had the Jets to cover and win out-right and of coarse they did.
Good for you. Of course.
That's 1 example, there are plenty more and I suspect I'll add another notch to my belt this week over DVOA.
My method is not as much about blow-out wins, but blow-outs in a stat, yea Seattle has blow-out wins but not in the stats like the Redskins have.
For and they haven't won each stat as consistent week in week out like the Skins. example, in the 49ers 42-13 win, Seattle won the ave gain per pass by only .8, that is not indicative of a 29 pt blow-out, it simply is not. Seattle losses alot of value because they were not as good as the final score indicates.
Actually that is not correct. Seattle won by 1.3 yards per pass. It was 7.7 to 6.4
In the Redskins 7 pt win over Philly they won the ave gain per pass battle by 1.3 yds, a much bigger more dominating performance which indicateds a larger win then 7 pts, the Redskins are just flat-out better than the scores in their games make them look and this is why the are the most undervalued team in the league. Here the Redskins gain alot of value because they are much, much better than the final score indicates.
Actually, that's incorrect also. The Eagles were down by only 1.0, not 1.3. The final numbers were Washington 7.7 to Philly 6.7.
The majority of people are looking only at Seattle's 42-13 final score and the Redskins 27-20 final score but the method is looking at value and the Redskins win that by a country mile in those games, this is why FO rates Seattle high because of that42-13 score and such similar dominance what my method is telling us is that dominating 42-13 score was NOT DESERVING OR EARNED BY SEATTLE it was more luck.
In that game alone Seattle lost 10.71 pts of value while the Redskins earned 8.25 pts of value a whopping 18.96 difference in value pts.
So while you and FO is looking at that final score I'm looking at the value earned.
I am not just looking at the final score, that is rather presumptuous. I also watched the game, did you? The Redskins secondary fell asleep twice at the end. First, Maclin was wide open for a TD, but Foles underthrew him. Secondly, in his first game with the Eagles, TE E. Moore dropped a well thrown TD pass with about 10 seconds left in the contest. You want to talk about luck? The Skins were the recipients of luck that day, not Seattle.
This game could very well have(and probably should have)gone to OT, regardless of the stats which say this was a more dominant performance than Seattle's win.
Beating a Foles led Eagles team without its top receiver, a hobbled RB and a defense with a new coordinator and new FS is hardly reason to proclaim dominance.
I'll take a solid win over a much better SF team. You seem to discount their special teams play as aberrant(a blocked FG leading to a TD) and overall stellar defensive play as "unearned". Simply because traditional "move the chains" football was not used to obtain victory does not, in any way, indicate that the team was somehow undeserving. Far from it.
And that was one of the reasons I was very confident that the Rams would cover VS Seattle in week 17 because teams coming off games with big negatives in value tend to not cover the next week, great stats or noT.
Teams can not continue to score more than their play-on the field is worth, because that is mostly luck..
The value method tells us which team has more value, in other words which teams are playing better or worse than the final scores in their games, and the Redskins play-on the field is far greater than the final scores in their games would indicate and this gives us value in the point spread........................................................................
Quality of opponents and their defenses is also important. Did you know that Seattle played 9 games against top 10 DVOA ranked defenses? Washington played only 2. In fact 11 of their games were played against the bottom half of the league in DVOA defense. A significant difference, no matter how you choose to slice it or ignore it.
Good debate and good luck theclaw.