Okay, that title is false; I didn't actually make picks. I was trying to find out the best way to predict a winner, if I could go strictly with Power Rankings, or if momentum comes into play. I never came up with a good way to approximate momentum, and Power Rankings was the best way to predict. So....go ahead and put together your own picks...
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Power Rankings (Week 8)
No changes to the formula; I did a little playing around with the win rating but didn't see any big improvement. However, this coming Thursday I'll post again, predicting this week's game.
Rank | Team | Power Ranking |
1 | Pittsburgh Steelers | 1.000 |
2 | New York Jets | 0.928 |
3 | New England Patriots | 0.856 |
4 | Baltimore Ravens | 0.834 |
5 | Tennessee Titans | 0.825 |
6 | Houston Texans | 0.818 |
7 | Indianapolis Colts | 0.788 |
8 | Atlanta Falcons | 0.780 |
9 | New York Giants | 0.731 |
10 | Seattle Seahawks | 0.722 |
11 | Kansas City Chiefs | 0.717 |
12 | Green Bay Packers | 0.690 |
13 | Washington Redskins | 0.690 |
14 | Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 0.671 |
15 | Chicago Bears | 0.669 |
16 | Philadelphia Eagles | 0.667 |
17 | St. Louis Rams | 0.647 |
18 | Cleveland Browns | 0.633 |
19 | Denver Broncos | 0.627 |
20 | Arizona Cardinals | 0.625 |
21 | Miami Dolphins | 0.608 |
22 | Jacksonville Jaguars | 0.604 |
23 | Oakland Raiders | 0.591 |
24 | Minnesota Vikings | 0.552 |
25 | Cincinnati Bengals | 0.552 |
26 | New Orleans Saints | 0.535 |
27 | Detroit Lions | 0.517 |
28 | Dallas Cowboys | 0.500 |
29 | San Diego Chargers | 0.498 |
30 | San Francisco 49ers | 0.429 |
31 | Carolina Panthers | 0.422 |
32 | Buffalo Bills | 0.380 |
No big shake-ups in the rankings, the top 4 teams are still there. The NFC is kind of all over the place from week to week, are the top 3 teams in the league Atlanta, NY, and Seattle?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Power Rankings (Week 7)
To test my rankings, I went back to old seasons (2004 through 2009) and calculated a final regular season power ranking. Next, I compared how these final rankings compared to playoff performance: if someone ranked higher than another team (and subsequently beat them) then hey, a plus; if a lower ranked team beat a higher ranked one, a minus. Then finally, I tweaked through a whole range of coefficients on the Scoring Efficiency, Yardage Efficiency, and Margin of Victory. Basically, I tried to find which coefficients best predicted playoff performance.
Fortunately, the behavior was really weird. For three of the seasons I looked at, Scoring Efficiency was the only value that mattered. If I set all the other items to zero (and used only Scoring Efficiency), then I best predicted the post-season. So for this week's power rankings, I used this equation for the win rating:
Win Rating = exp(-1/(3* Scoring Efficiency ))
Thus, the only thing I'm using to rate a team is how they score; if it takes them a few yards to score points, that's good, if it takes alot, it's bad. It's interesting; bad teams have drives that stall, turnovers, etc. Good teams score on every drive, and force turnovers. I'm going to explore what this means in the next couple of weeks, we'll see how it goes.
And here's this week's power rankings:
Team | Power Ranking |
New York Jets | 1.000 |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 0.978 |
New England Patriots | 0.900 |
Baltimore Ravens | 0.885 |
Houston Texans | 0.797 |
Indianapolis Colts | 0.797 |
Tennessee Titans | 0.792 |
Atlanta Falcons | 0.792 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 0.767 |
Seattle Seahawks | 0.730 |
New York Giants | 0.725 |
Green Bay Packers | 0.716 |
Chicago Bears | 0.708 |
Denver Broncos | 0.707 |
St. Louis Rams | 0.701 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 0.695 |
Arizona Cardinals | 0.695 |
Washington Redskins | 0.683 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 0.681 |
Miami Dolphins | 0.645 |
Minnesota Vikings | 0.624 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 0.608 |
New Orleans Saints | 0.594 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 0.578 |
Cleveland Browns | 0.573 |
San Diego Chargers | 0.572 |
Detroit Lions | 0.550 |
Oakland Raiders | 0.544 |
Dallas Cowboys | 0.522 |
San Francisco 49ers | 0.456 |
Buffalo Bills | 0.412 |
Carolina Panthers | 0.388 |
J-E-T-S baby. But actually, the Jets, Ravens, Steelers, and Patriots are all pretty equal. Let them slug it out.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Power Rankings (Week 6)
Going off last week, we can calculate a win rating for the winning team; for the losing team, I simply subtract the win rating from 1. The simplest way to calculate a total team ranking is find the average win rating across all games. However, we wouldn't be taking into account the teams they're playing, and we wouldn't be taking into account the teams those teams were playing, etc. It's what they call a recursive function. At some point we would have to stop calculating these team rankings, as (1) it would take forever, and (2) the differences would be so small that it wouldn't even matter. So, at some point I'll terminate the series, calculating a team ranking on win ratings alone. Here's the formula:
TeamRanking1(x) = average (WinRating2 * TeamRanking2(x-1) + WinRating3 * TeamRanking3(x-1) +....)
Where x is some value. When x equals 0:
TeamRanking1 = average (WinRating2 + WingRating3 + ...)
For this week I set x to 4; any longer and the calculations take alot longer. My final step is I scale everything to 1; divide each team's team ranking by maximum calculated team ranking to get a final power ranking. And that takes us to this week's rankings:
Team | Power Ranking |
Pittsburgh Steelers | 1.000 |
Baltimore Ravens | 0.931 |
Indianapolis Colts | 0.809 |
Tennessee Titans | 0.791 |
New York Jets | 0.759 |
Atlanta Falcons | 0.742 |
Houston Texans | 0.715 |
New York Giants | 0.690 |
Chicago Bears | 0.683 |
Kansas City Chiefs | 0.668 |
Washington Redskins | 0.668 |
Green Bay Packers | 0.645 |
Philadelphia Eagles | 0.628 |
Denver Broncos | 0.627 |
New England Patriots | 0.624 |
Dallas Cowboys | 0.615 |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 0.596 |
San Diego Chargers | 0.595 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | 0.595 |
Cincinnati Bengals | 0.581 |
St. Louis Rams | 0.572 |
Oakland Raiders | 0.564 |
Arizona Cardinals | 0.528 |
Cleveland Browns | 0.526 |
Detroit Lions | 0.513 |
Seattle Seahawks | 0.508 |
Minnesota Vikings | 0.461 |
New Orleans Saints | 0.459 |
Miami Dolphins | 0.415 |
San Francisco 49ers | 0.317 |
Carolina Panthers | 0.285 |
Buffalo Bills | 0.247 |
It's interesting, although we have a bunch of one and two loss teams, there's a pretty clear separation; the Steelers and the Ravens are the teams to beat. And of course, over time, we'll have a more clear picture. Next week, I'm going to analyze some earlier seasons, and see how I need to tweak the win rating / power ranking.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Win Rating
So this blog is my own weird musings on putting together some kind of football ranking system. I suppose this all stems from me trying to find something to do while watching football. It’s not like it’s exactly boring, it’s just I need my mind on something else to stay involved in the game, if that makes sense. Maybe the best use of my mind, well, I won’t say best use, but a use, is coming up with this ranking system. In college football, I always considered the BCS computer ranking idea an interesting one. I mean, think of it, we have arguably the second most popular sport in the country (after the NFL) decided by some system of equations and assumptions. I like the elegance of the BCS computer over relying purely on polls, it’ll help keep Florida State out of a Fiesta Bowl. But it seems throughout its history, they’ve been removing variables from ranking system. For instance, margin of victory is taken out. Now it’s probably reasonable the BCS has to make changes like that, political pressures and all that. However, I’m just going do what I feel like here. I may radically change how I do things at any point, but well, I need somewhere to start from.
In order to come up with any kind of team ranking, the first step is to come up with some way of quantifying a team’s success in a game, think of it as the quarterback rating for the whole team. This post is purely about putting together that metric. Here’s the base numbers I’m working with: total offensive yards, points scored, and turnovers. Points is obvious, and yardage (on both sides of the ball) I feel is a fine indicator of how effectively a team can move the ball, stop an offense, etc. I’m not considering anything too sexy like pass completion rate, special teams yardage, sacks etc. For one, it’s hard to get that data in any simple form I can ingest in to a spreadsheet. And two, I can chug through a lot of seasons by ignoring this information. So anyway, here’s the three metrics I came up with:
Scoring Efficiency = 100 / (Winner’s Offensive Yards / Total Points))
Yardage Efficiency = (Winner’s Offensive Yards + 38 * Loser’s Turnovers) / (Loser’s Offensive Yards + 38 * Winner’s Turnovers)
Margin of Victory = (Winner’s Points – Loser’s Points) / 7
Now margin of victory is pretty simple, it indicates the number of possessions the winner won by. For the yardage efficiency, I divide the two yardage values by each other; I feel I can negate any weather / field conditions this way, while still giving a team a way of dominating. In order to simplify my life, I consider a turnover as a 38 yard play (just quickly, the average net yardage change for a punt in the NFL is 38 yards). So, if the defense generates two turnovers, I add 76 yards to the total offensive yardage (and if the offense coughs the ball up two times, I add 76 yards to the other teams total offensive yardage). And then finally, I came up with this metric called scoring efficiency, it finds how many yards it takes to score a touchdown. It’s my way of approximating stalled drives, failed fourth down conversions, effectiveness of the punting game, and also any special teams touchdowns. The fewer yards it takes to score a touchdown, the better the team is.
Now to put this all together, I wanted to have a decaying function approaching 1. I like this idea, I feel it’s a way to take margin of victory into account, where winning by two touchdowns is a bigger deal that winning by three, and is a bigger deal than winning by four, etc. Also, my goal was to have a bare minimum winning performance to get around 0.5, while any dominating performance will be in the 0.9 range. So here’s how I combine the values:
Win Rating = exp(-1/(Scoring Efficiency + Yardage Efficiency + Margin of Victory))
For a little example, below are all the games from week 4 of the NFL:
Winner/tie | Loser/tie | Win Rating |
St. Louis Rams | Seattle Seahawks | 0.808 |
Jacksonville Jaguars | Indianapolis Colts | 0.696 |
Baltimore Ravens | Pittsburgh Steelers | 0.664 |
San Diego Chargers | Arizona Cardinals | 0.896 |
New Orleans Saints | Carolina Panthers | 0.631 |
Atlanta Falcons | San Francisco 49ers | 0.650 |
Cleveland Browns | Cincinnati Bengals | 0.655 |
Denver Broncos | Tennessee Titans | 0.734 |
New York Giants | Chicago Bears | 0.813 |
Green Bay Packers | Detroit Lions | 0.666 |
New York Jets | Buffalo Bills | 0.867 |
Houston Texans | Oakland Raiders | 0.753 |
Washington Redskins | Philadelphia Eagles | 0.669 |
New England Patriots | Miami Dolphins | 0.869 |
So as you can see, anything in the high .8s is a comfortable victory, while anything in the .6s could have gone either way. Every week I'll be using this win rating to throw together an overall power ranking - when I put one up I'll tell you how I compute it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)