Week 7 Efficiency Rankings

Team efficiency rankings are listed below in terms of generic winning probability. The GWP is the probability a team would beat the league average team at a neutral site. Each team's opponent's average GWP is also listed, which can be considered to-date strength of schedule. GWP modifies the generic win probability to reflect the strength of past opponents. OGWP is each team's offensive GWP, i.e. it's the team's GWP assuming it had a league-average defense. DGWP is vice-versa. Rankings are based on a logistic regression model applied to data through week 7. A full explanation of the methodology can be found here.




































TeamRankLast WkGWPOpp GWPOGWPDGWP
IND120.900.520.770.72
NE210.880.440.790.70
TB330.760.480.700.57
DAL440.730.420.700.61
PIT560.700.430.590.62
DEN690.650.570.630.51
NYG750.650.480.590.60
JAX870.630.550.650.49
SEA9110.630.430.580.53
WAS1080.610.470.420.71
TEN11120.580.530.380.70
PHI12100.580.450.640.46
SD13140.560.510.600.47
CIN14130.550.560.630.45
GB15150.500.530.490.52
CLE16170.460.550.530.43
KC17180.450.440.370.58
HOU18160.420.520.490.44
ARI19230.410.500.470.49
BUF20190.410.640.410.52
MIN21210.400.450.430.46
DET22270.400.520.390.46
CAR23220.360.390.460.42
BAL24250.350.330.390.52
OAK25290.330.450.300.52
ATL26200.330.470.450.39
NYJ27240.320.540.470.33
NO28280.290.620.430.31
MIA29260.290.550.540.26
CHI30320.260.540.320.40
SF31300.230.540.240.49
STL32310.220.550.280.43

  • Spread The Love
  • Digg This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Stumble This Post
  • Submit This Post To Delicious
  • Submit This Post To Reddit
  • Submit This Post To Mixx

2 Responses to “Week 7 Efficiency Rankings”

  1. Tarr says:

    It's interesting that only two teams with above-average efficiency (Washington and Tennessee) have better defenses than offenses. My instinctive explanation would be that the variance in offense is greater, thus leading naturally to teams with especially good and bad offenses at the top and bottom of the list, respectively. However, I could think of some other, related ideas, such as:

    1) The research that suggests that offense is more consistent from year to year than defense, leading the better teams to build around offense. (Counter argument - wouldn't everyone be doing this?)

    2) The rules that have made passing offense easier leading to teams investing more in passing offense. (Counter argument - wouldn't this mean passing defense is also very important?)

  2. Brian Burke says:

    Interesting. I didn't notice that.

    I think all 3 of your points can be explained by one fact: offensive performance is drastically more reliant on the talent of a single player than defense. The QB is the linchpin of the squad. If he is bad, there is no "giving him help" by shading a safety in his direction.

    The more players there are on a team for any sport, the more the talent level tends to average out. Tiger in golf or Federer in tennis can dominate for years because they are not reliant on the more average talent of teammates.

    Offense is not totally, and maybe not mostly, but very substantially based on QB talent. I'd bet that's why there is more variance in offense. That's also why it is more consistent from year to year. Teams tend to have the same QB, but face different QBs each year.

    Lastly, other teams can't just copy the pattern of investing in offense because good QBs are so hard to come by and equally hard to predict.

    The model is out there: First, stumble upon a great QB and build a passing game around him. RBs are replaceable. You'll need a good pass defense (incl. pass rush), but run defense becomes irrelevant if you can do the other things. It's that first step that's the hardest.

Leave a Reply