SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisRushing, passing, and sacking simplicity
As regular readers know, I frequently refer to a scheme that I call the "simple rating system." There are lots of rating systems out there, and I'm not saying the SRS is necessarily better than any of them in any particular sense. I just think it's, for lack of a better word, neat. It creates a set of rankings that are easily interpreted, that "add up," and that just generally make sense.
Here is the post where I explained all the nuts and bolts of the system. Since then, I (and Chase) have used it many times for various things. In this post I talked about decomposing a team's overall rating into an offensive and defensive component. To be more precise, I should probably say a "points scored" component and a "points allowed" component. As was pointed out in the comments, points scored is not a measure of just offense, and points allowed in not a measure of just defense.
Anyway, the point of this post is to apply that same thinking to other stats. Mathematically, there's no difference between points scored and, say, rushing yards. Or passing yards, or sacks, or turnovers. All you have to do is tell the machine that the "score" of the game was the rushing yards for and against and you've got schedule-adjusted rushing ratings. So I finally got around to doing the programming, and I now have Simple Ratings for rushing yards, passing yards, total yards, turnovers, sacks, and sack yards. (If you want to do Simple Ratings for rate stats, like yards-per-rush or sack percentage, it gets a little more complicated, but it can be done. I'm still working on the programming for that, and I'll show it to you when it's done. For now, we'll limit ourselves to counting stats).
So this post will be mostly a data dump with just a bit of commentary thrown in, but I'll follow up on it tomorrow with some (possibly) more interesting analysis that I'll preview after the dump.
All these rankings are for the period 1970--2006.
Points for
bestMIN 1998 13.2 15-1-0 STL 2000 12.6 10-6-0 WAS 1983 11.7 14-2-0 WAS 1991 11.7 14-2-0 IND 2004 11.7 12-4-0 SDG 1982 10.5 6-3-0 BUF 1975 10.4 8-6-0 STL 2001 10.4 14-2-0 KAN 2004 10.0 7-9-0 SDG 2006 10.0 14-2-0
Remember that the units on SRS (in this case) are points per game. The 1998 Vikings were, after taking into account their schedule, 13.2 points per game better than an average team.
You might be sensing some era bias here. I'll address that in the next post.
And yes, to answer the inevitable question, the 2007 Pats will almost certainly rank first in many of the offensive (and margin) categories when the season is over.
worstPHI 1998 -12.3 3-13-0 IND 1991 -11.5 1-15-0 TAM 1977 -11.1 2-12-0 TAM 1976 -10.8 0-14-0 OAK 2006 -10.3 2-14-0 SEA 1992 -9.8 2-14-0 ATL 1974 -9.7 3-11-0 BUF 1985 -9.5 2-14-0 PHI 1972 -9.2 2-11-1 BOS 1970 -9.1 2-12-0
Points against
bestMIN 1971 9.9 11-3-0 TAM 2002 9.8 12-4-0 PIT 1976 9.6 10-4-0 DEN 1977 9.4 12-2-0 CHI 1985 9.4 15-1-0 MIN 1970 9.2 12-2-0 PIT 1975 8.8 12-2-0 RAM 1975 8.7 12-2-0 BAL 1971 8.5 10-4-0 MIA 1973 8.2 12-2-0worst
SEA 1976 -12.9 2-12-0 HOU 1973 -12.3 1-13-0 BAL 1981 -12.0 2-14-0 NWE 1972 -11.1 3-11-0 TAM 1986 -10.8 2-14-0 IND 2001 -9.8 6-10-0 STL 2000 -9.5 10-6-0 NOR 1977 -9.4 3-11-0 NOR 1980 -9.4 1-15-0 BUF 1971 -8.9 1-13-0
Points margin
bestWAS 1991 16.6 14-2-0 CHI 1985 15.9 15-1-0 PIT 1976 15.3 10-4-0 GNB 1996 15.3 13-3-0 MIN 1970 15.1 12-2-0 MIN 1998 14.9 15-1-0 PIT 1975 14.2 12-2-0 DET 1970 14.0 10-4-0 WAS 1983 13.9 14-2-0 RAM 1973 13.4 12-2-0worst
TAM 1976 -19.7 0-14-0 NWE 1972 -17.4 3-11-0 IND 1991 -17.3 1-15-0 HOU 1973 -16.7 1-13-0 BOS 1970 -15.9 2-12-0 BAL 1981 -15.8 2-14-0 TAM 1986 -15.4 2-14-0 ARI 2000 -15.2 3-13-0 SEA 1976 -15.1 2-12-0 PHI 1972 -14.6 2-11-1
Rushing yards for
bestBUF 1975 72.9 8-6-0 ATL 2006 72.0 7-9-0 PIT 1976 66.9 10-4-0 BUF 1973 65.4 9-5-0 PIT 2001 63.8 13-3-0 NWE 1976 62.2 11-3-0 MIA 1972 62.1 14-0-0 CHI 1984 61.8 10-6-0 RAM 1973 61.4 12-2-0 DEN 2005 57.4 13-3-0
In 1975, Buffalo averaged 67 rushing yards per game more than an average 1975 team. They played teams that, after taking into account the teams they played against, were 5.9 rush yards per game better than average, on average. So Buffalo's rating is 67 + 5.9 = 72.9, meaning that, after considering their schedule, they were 73 yards per game better than an average 1975 team.
worstHOU 1971 -58.0 4-9-1 NOR 1972 -56.2 2-11-1 SEA 1976 -53.6 2-12-0 TAM 1983 -52.5 2-14-0 GNB 1977 -51.0 4-10-0 TAM 1977 -50.3 2-12-0 STL 1972 -49.5 4-9-1 SDG 2000 -48.3 1-15-0 WAS 1973 -47.9 10-4-0 CAR 2000 -47.0 7-9-0
Rushing yards against
bestBAL 2000 60.2 12-4-0 BAL 1971 53.0 10-4-0 PIT 1976 47.3 10-4-0 RAM 1973 46.1 12-2-0 WAS 1983 46.0 14-2-0 BAL 2006 45.8 13-3-0 MIN 2006 45.4 6-10-0 SDG 1998 42.7 5-11-0 DEN 1977 42.6 12-2-0 SDG 2004 42.0 12-4-0worst
SEA 1976 -62.9 2-12-0 KAN 1977 -62.0 2-12-0 NOR 1980 -60.8 1-15-0 SEA 1982 -59.6 4-5-0 NOR 1977 -59.2 3-11-0 CLE 1999 -58.2 2-14-0 NWE 1973 -54.7 5-9-0 NWE 1990 -53.5 1-15-0 HOU 1983 -53.2 2-14-0 IND 2006 -51.6 12-4-0
Rushing yards margin
bestPIT 1976 114.2 10-4-0 RAM 1973 107.4 12-2-0 CHI 1984 102.4 10-6-0 PIT 2001 100.2 13-3-0 DEN 2005 92.7 13-3-0 BAL 2000 88.0 12-4-0 NWE 1976 87.7 11-3-0 RAM 1984 87.4 10-6-0 WAS 1983 84.2 14-2-0 BUF 1975 83.5 8-6-0worst
SEA 1976 -116.5 2-12-0 NOR 1980 -99.7 1-15-0 SEA 1982 -89.6 4-5-0 NWE 1973 -89.2 5-9-0 IND 1991 -85.6 1-15-0 NWE 1990 -83.8 1-15-0 CLE 1999 -82.8 2-14-0 ATL 1989 -79.6 3-13-0 IND 1993 -79.2 4-12-0 MIA 1988 -78.7 6-10-0
Passing yards for
bestSDG 1982 117.6 6-3-0 STL 2000 115.4 10-6-0 SDG 1985 111.4 8-8-0 HOU 1990 108.5 9-7-0 MIA 1984 108.2 14-2-0 SDG 1980 96.7 11-5-0 SDG 1981 94.0 10-6-0 MIA 1988 89.5 6-10-0 SDG 1983 86.0 6-10-0 STL 2001 85.9 14-2-0worst
SFO 2005 -82.4 4-12-0 CHI 2004 -81.8 5-11-0 PHI 1999 -81.7 5-11-0 CIN 2000 -81.0 4-12-0 KAN 1979 -80.6 7-9-0 CHI 1993 -78.6 7-9-0 SEA 1992 -76.5 2-14-0 PIT 1989 -75.1 9-7-0 CHI 2005 -75.1 11-5-0 IND 1984 -74.2 4-12-0
Passing yards against
bestMIA 1982 91.3 7-2-0 WAS 1980 65.4 6-10-0 BUF 1980 59.6 11-5-0 PHI 1991 57.0 10-6-0 PIT 1990 55.5 9-7-0 CHI 1984 54.1 10-6-0 KAN 1989 53.4 8-7-1 NOR 1984 52.9 7-9-0 TAM 2002 51.8 12-4-0 NWE 1988 50.8 9-7-0worst
NYJ 1979 -71.0 8-8-0 SDG 1985 -67.7 8-8-0 SDG 1981 -66.5 10-6-0 NYJ 1986 -63.4 10-6-0 SFO 2005 -63.1 4-12-0 BUF 1975 -58.3 8-6-0 NOR 1970 -58.2 2-11-1 SDG 1984 -56.2 7-9-0 ATL 1995 -55.8 9-7-0 DET 2002 -55.8 3-13-0
Passing yards margin
bestHOU 1990 109.4 9-7-0 MIA 1984 102.1 14-2-0 STL 2001 101.0 14-2-0 SDG 1980 100.8 11-5-0 IND 2006 99.8 12-4-0 CIN 1975 99.2 11-3-0 NOR 2006 97.8 10-6-0 STL 2000 92.6 10-6-0 IND 2003 90.1 12-4-0 MIN 1976 89.6 11-2-1worst
SFO 2005 -145.5 4-12-0 CIN 2000 -113.9 4-12-0 ATL 1985 -91.0 4-12-0 IND 1994 -88.7 8-8-0 CIN 1992 -88.6 5-11-0 BAL 1983 -85.9 7-9-0 PIT 1989 -84.3 9-7-0 BUF 1973 -82.3 9-5-0 KAN 1979 -81.2 7-9-0 DET 2002 -81.0 3-13-0
Total yards for
bestSDG 1982 131.0 6-3-0 STL 2000 112.4 10-6-0 MIA 1984 111.6 14-2-0 SFO 1998 110.9 12-4-0 BUF 1975 100.9 8-6-0 KAN 2004 99.7 7-9-0 SFO 1993 96.8 10-6-0 SDG 1981 95.7 10-6-0 STL 2001 94.5 14-2-0 CIN 1986 94.3 10-6-0worst
HOU 2002 -114.9 4-12-0 CHI 2004 -114.4 5-11-0 TAM 1977 -114.2 2-12-0 IND 1991 -108.7 1-15-0 TAM 1976 -106.4 0-14-0 DET 1988 -104.2 4-12-0 BOS 1970 -103.0 2-12-0 SEA 1992 -99.3 2-14-0 OAK 2006 -97.6 2-14-0 CLE 2000 -91.0 3-13-0
Total yards against
bestCHI 1984 109.0 10-6-0 PHI 1991 105.2 10-6-0 MIA 1982 97.6 7-2-0 CHI 1985 79.4 15-1-0 MIN 1989 78.9 10-6-0 TEN 2000 77.3 13-3-0 BUF 1980 75.5 11-5-0 NOR 1991 75.1 11-5-0 CHI 1986 73.7 14-2-0 PIT 1976 73.1 10-4-0worst
SEA 1976 -99.6 2-12-0 TAM 1986 -93.9 2-14-0 BAL 1981 -87.3 2-14-0 NWE 1972 -85.5 3-11-0 KAN 1976 -83.4 5-9-0 PHI 1973 -80.1 5-8-1 SDG 1985 -79.8 8-8-0 NOR 1970 -77.1 2-11-1 GNB 1983 -77.0 8-8-0 KAN 1975 -76.2 5-9-0
Total yards margin
bestRAM 1973 141.5 12-2-0 PIT 1979 135.8 12-4-0 DEN 2004 135.0 10-6-0 SFO 1987 131.9 13-2-0 DAL 1978 129.0 12-4-0 STL 2001 127.8 14-2-0 WAS 1991 120.1 14-2-0 CHI 1984 119.6 10-6-0 PIT 2001 116.6 13-3-0 SDG 1980 113.8 11-5-0worst
SFO 2005 -158.5 4-12-0 HOU 1982 -149.9 1-8-0 TAM 1976 -143.1 0-14-0 CLE 1999 -138.1 2-14-0 IND 1991 -137.2 1-15-0 TAM 1986 -133.7 2-14-0 BOS 1970 -130.9 2-12-0 PHI 1972 -127.0 2-11-1 NWE 1972 -124.5 3-11-0 TAM 1977 -123.7 2-12-0
Sack yards for
This means sack yards by your defense.
bestSFO 1976 21.1 8-6-0 BAL 1975 16.3 10-4-0 NYJ 1981 16.0 10-5-1 NWE 1977 15.0 9-5-0 MIA 1982 14.2 7-2-0 CHI 1984 14.2 10-6-0 RAM 1980 13.7 11-5-0 RAI 1982 13.5 8-1-0 RAM 1979 13.4 9-7-0 SFO 1972 13.3 8-5-1worst
MIA 1970 -12.0 10-4-0 DEN 1982 -11.9 2-7-0 SFO 1982 -11.6 3-6-0 NWE 1972 -11.0 3-11-0 NYJ 1976 -10.9 3-11-0 SDG 1982 -10.9 6-3-0 TAM 1981 -10.7 9-7-0 MIN 1984 -10.7 3-13-0 NYJ 1979 -10.6 8-8-0 BUF 1984 -10.4 2-14-0
Sack yards against
bestSack yards against your offense. The 1970 49ers didn't get sacked very often (only 8 times, to be exact). The 1986 Eagles got sacked a ton.
SFO 1970 16.6 10-3-1 TAM 1979 15.1 10-6-0 MIA 1988 14.9 6-10-0 MIA 1984 14.5 14-2-0 STL 1975 13.7 11-3-0 STL 1976 13.6 10-4-0 STL 1977 13.2 7-7-0 SFO 1979 13.0 2-14-0 NYG 1972 12.9 8-6-0 BUF 1982 12.7 4-5-0worst
PHI 1986 -22.3 5-10-1 IND 1991 -17.1 1-15-0 KAN 1982 -16.4 3-6-0 SEA 1992 -16.1 2-14-0 BUF 1970 -15.9 3-10-1 NWE 1972 -15.6 3-11-0 PHI 1972 -15.5 2-11-1 ATL 1974 -15.0 3-11-0 NWE 1991 -14.5 6-10-0 BUF 1972 -14.1 4-9-1
Sack yards margin
bestMIA 1982 24.5 7-2-0 NWE 1977 23.3 9-5-0 CHI 1984 20.2 10-6-0 RAM 1970 19.4 9-4-1 SFO 1972 19.1 8-5-1 SFO 1976 19.1 8-6-0 NYJ 1981 19.1 10-5-1 CHI 1986 18.6 14-2-0 TAM 1982 18.2 5-4-0 BAL 2006 18.0 13-3-0worst
NWE 1972 -26.5 3-11-0 KAN 1982 -23.3 3-6-0 IND 1991 -23.0 1-15-0 NWE 1991 -22.3 6-10-0 BUF 1984 -21.8 2-14-0 BUF 1970 -20.8 3-10-1 DEN 1982 -19.8 2-7-0 CIN 1979 -19.2 4-12-0 PHI 1972 -19.1 2-11-1 NWE 1992 -19.1 2-14-0
Turnovers for
bestThis means turnovers forced.
SEA 1984 1.7 12-4-0 PIT 1973 1.3 10-4-0 PHI 1989 1.3 11-5-0 NWE 1976 1.2 11-3-0 WAS 1983 1.2 14-2-0 DEN 1984 1.2 13-3-0 KAN 1974 1.1 5-9-0 HOU 1977 1.1 8-6-0 GNB 1981 1.1 8-8-0 PHI 1991 1.1 10-6-0worst
CLE 1973 -1.2 7-5-2 SFO 1977 -1.2 5-9-0 SFO 1982 -1.2 3-6-0 BUF 1986 -1.2 4-12-0 SFO 1976 -1.1 8-6-0 PHI 1976 -1.1 4-10-0 BAL 1982 -1.1 0-8-1 DAL 1989 -1.1 1-15-0 CIN 1974 -1.0 7-7-0 NYG 1975 -1.0 5-9-0
Turnovers against
bestTurnovers committed.
STL 1974 1.4 10-4-0 WAS 1983 1.4 14-2-0 MIA 1976 1.3 6-8-0 BAL 1975 1.2 10-4-0 NOR 1971 1.1 4-8-2 KAN 1982 1.1 3-6-0 NYG 1990 1.1 13-3-0 CIN 1971 1.0 4-10-0 GNB 1972 1.0 10-4-0 RAM 1973 1.0 12-2-0worst
DEN 1982 -1.8 2-7-0 ATL 1974 -1.7 3-11-0 NOR 1997 -1.6 6-10-0 BUF 1970 -1.5 3-10-1 SFO 1978 -1.5 2-14-0 SDG 1998 -1.4 5-11-0 HOU 1973 -1.3 1-13-0 SDG 1973 -1.3 2-11-1 PIT 1970 -1.2 5-9-0 HOU 1971 -1.2 4-9-1
Turnovers margin
bestWAS 1983 2.6 14-2-0 DET 1970 1.7 10-4-0 NOR 1971 1.6 4-8-2 SEA 1984 1.6 12-4-0 PIT 1972 1.5 11-3-0 WAS 1974 1.5 10-4-0 BAL 1975 1.5 10-4-0 CHI 1985 1.5 15-1-0 NOR 1987 1.5 12-3-0 CIN 2005 1.5 11-5-0worst
BUF 1970 -2.3 3-10-1 DEN 1982 -2.2 2-7-0 ATL 1974 -2.1 3-11-0 BUF 1971 -1.9 1-13-0 HOU 1973 -1.9 1-13-0 SEA 1976 -1.8 2-12-0 ARI 2000 -1.7 3-13-0 STL 2004 -1.7 8-8-0 WAS 1988 -1.6 7-9-0 CLE 1990 -1.6 3-13-0
Preview of tomorrow's post:
As I alluded to above, there is some era bias in some of these lists. If, for example, the NFL had declared before this season that TDs are worth 600 points, PATs are worth 100, and field goals 300, it wouldn't really make any difference in the way the games are played or the strengths of this year's offenses and defenses compared to those of year's past. But it certainly would make all of this year's teams appear at the top and bottom of these rankings. To remove any potential bias arising from inflation or deflation, I'm going to divide each team's ranking by the standard deviation of the league's rankings in that category for that year. So a +10 rating in a year where the standard deviation was 4 will rightly be viewed as a more impressive achievement than a +10 rating in a year where the standard deviation was 6.
Another benefit of this extra step is that it will allow us to compare across categories. Was Baltimore's 2000 rushing defense more impressive than the 1976 49ers' ability to sack the opposing quarterback? Was the 2002 Texans' ineptness in the total yardage category more dismal than the 1982 Broncos' propensity for turning the ball over? Find out next time.
This entry was posted on Monday, December 17th, 2007 at 5:01 am and is filed under General, History, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Passing yardage for:
WORST
SFO 2005 -82.4 4-12-0
_CHI_ 2004 -81.8 5-11-0
PHI 1999 -81.7 5-11-0
CIN 2000 -81.0 4-12-0
KAN 1979 -80.6 7-9-0
_CHI_ 1993 -78.6 7-9-0
SEA 1992 -76.5 2-14-0
PIT 1989 -75.1 9-7-0
_CHI_ 2005 -75.1 11-5-0
IND 1984 -74.2 4-12-0
Why do I subject myself to this?
The 2005 Bears and 2006 Colts are the only teams with more than 10 wins to show up on one of your "Worst" lists.
That list sure makes Air Coryell look a lot more impressive.
Man, that 1973 Rams team was good. 2nd in yards, 1st in yards allowed, 1st in points,
top 7 in all the rate stats.
I was unfamiliar with the 1976 49ers, who were apparently the top team of all time in sack yards. So I looked them up.
Um, holy crap.
The 49ers lead the league that year with 61 sacks -- and they allowed 374 attempts. So in 435 total dropbacks, the quarterback was sacked FOURTEEN PERCENT OF THE TIME.
They also allowed only 180 completions. They collected one sack for every three completions allowed.
I realize this was the deadball era, but still, WOW.
You, the next step with this is to modify individuals' numbers for schedule, though I have no idea how it would be done.
Um, that should have read "You know."