PHANTMJOKR'S STATS ANALYSIS (8/12)Add yourself to The HERD's Official Roster (guestbook), if you think you are man enough!
The HERD's ULTIMATE link page-add your favorite here!
I am a great fan of James Gibson's football analysis page--.
LINK
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/x/jxg22/sports/football/main.html
PART I: Statistical analysis of the Offense
Gibson's page contains a new formula to predict winning percentage based on points scored and yardage gained compared to points allowed vs yardage allowed. This type of statistical work was pioneered by Bill James for baseball. My intent is to present that formula with the stats of Green and Faulk substituted in for Banks and the Rams ground game last year. Certainly this won't be anything one should bet the farm on or even five bucks but it may help us understand what is POSSIBLE if not probable. I did this last year incorporating a look at a healthy Bruce Kennison combo which we know didn't last very long. We also thought that the running game was going to appear pumped up with Hill/Holcombe which turned into injury/disappointment...and the whole, coupled with poor coaching in the Cards game and the ill-fated Moore/Saints fiasco turned into a difference of probably somewhere around 3-5 games for the Rams...
Anomalies...
The Rams were ranked 10th overall on defense in yardage allowed but... they were third on pass defense yardage allowed and...24th vs the rush... The anomaly? They allowed 11 rushing Td's (a low number) and 28! passing TD's, a very high number. I really don't know how to approach this one. This info is terribly conflicting...
to press forward...
Faulk as we know was just about the complete rushing game for the Colts. That being said the Rams mustered almost as many ground yards as Faulk. What does this mean? Well for one even teams like Denver get additional yardage from other sources. I have to think that will happen with the Rams. To make a prediction I rather have to guess what the overall input will be. I'm guessing that the YPC will be up with Faulk's 4.1 compared to what Hill did at 6.0 last year. I picked an amount of 4.5 YPC and a total of about 400 carries (the Rams had 395 attempts last year). That's 1800 ground yards with probably Faulk/Hill getting 2/3rd's of those and the likes of Holcombe/Harris/Henley and the Qb accounting for the rest. Even as I think the total is a good estimate it may come from more carries and less of an average YPC. With this offense and the Rams schedule this looks very probable also being that the Rams will lead some more games and therefore run the ball more even if at decreased effectiveness. Generally I see a very good balance between running and throwing for this bunch but I think it will favor throwing especially as long as Bruce/Faulk is healthy.
Green. 25 Td's and around 3500 yds as compares to his 23/3441 last year...(note Skins had 15 rushing td's last year)
So overall I'm predicting something like this.
Rams. 5300 yds. 15 rushing td's (they had 17 last year) 25 passing. 4 misc. 44 td's total Opposition. 4900 yds. 12 rushing td's 24 passing tds. 4 misc. 40 total td's.
Off the top of my head that's 9-7 football...
The formula for estimating a teams winning pct (as put forth by Micheal O Connor) (EPCT) is:
PS=Points scored
YG=Yards gained on offense (net yards passing plus yards rushing) PA=Points allowed YA=Yards allowed on defense (net yards passing plus yards rushing)
Off. Rating (A) = (PS X PS)/YG
Def. Rating (B) = (PA X PA)/YA
EPCT = (A^1.5)/[(A^1.5) + (B^1.5)]
EPCT also equals
[(PS^3)*(YA^1.5)]/{[(PS^3)*(YA^1.5)]+[(PA^3)*(YG^1.5)]},
For the Rams I used 383 points (from 44 TD's with 25 FG's added) and 5300 yds Rams opponents--355 points and 4900 yds
(note: I added 25 FGs to both sides. The Rams saw a number of around 20 for and 26 against in the FG department last year. As for the prediction as we believe we see better offensive possibilities I think these numbers are believeable)
Offensive rating (A) 27.68
Defensive rating (B) 25.72
percentage......................53.66 percent
multiply by 16 games = 8.59 wins...
I still think that a healthy Bruce can impact the record favorably at around 6-9 tds or 2 victories. He draws so much attention that it creates holes for others to exploit, and I still think offensive game planning i.e. Martz is key and his relationship with Vermeil. I've basically added a steady coordination carry over with the Martz Green relation meaning that that combo performs pretty much as they did last year with the Redskins. I imagine Faulk/Hill to pump up the running game some 5OO yds. I have the defense allowing 3 less TDs and a similar number of field goals basically due to better offensive production and field position. However, this could go anywhere. The scoring rankings vs yardage rankings are so screwy for the defense that it could vary widely. I doubt they allow many more points but it is possible for a few more perhaps and also that they allow even less. I'd say 50 td's allowed would be a very high number and 30-35 the low. I don't see the offense coming in under last years 29 tds. I'd guess 35 for a low there and probably 50 the high.
Conclusion: It appears to me that the Rams have the personnel to be a .500 or better than .500 team. What they need that they have not seen in the last couple a years is health and some luck. IF we add in some feelings that carry over from the near past I think we downgrade their chances. I'd say 7-8 wins. Again a healthy Isaac Bruce makes a great difference in my opinion and I think makes the difference as to having a belief that this team can be in the playoff hunt throughout the season. IF he can remain healthy (and some other area of the team is not decimated like RB) I would up this prediction probably 2 more wins. That would be 9 or 10 wins. Should everything go just about completely right I would give the Rams a highside prediction of 12 wins although I think this is very unlikely. The lowside prediction is I would think 4-5 wins but this is also a number that I think is somewhat unlikely as I like the Rams added depth, certainly possible, hopefully unlikely?
Part II: Statistical analysis of the Defense. Modified Drive Value
Key: Modifed Drive Value is (Yards + 10*TD - 30*INT - 35*FumLost)/Drives
Modified Drive Value*****************Yards/Drive
1.San Diego***** 18.44*********** 1. San Diego 20.63
2.Oakland******* 18.52*********** 2. Oakland 21.77
3.Miami********* 19.68*********** 3. Tampa Bay 24.02
4.Atlanta******* 20.96*********** 4. Miami 24.11
5.Pittsburgh**** 21.30*********** 5. Pittsburgh 24.73
6.Tampa Bay***** 21.59*********** 6. Green Bay 24.76
7.Green Bay***** 22.90*********** 7. Atlanta 25.90
8.N.Y. Jets***** 23.24*********** 8. Buffalo 26.06
9.Buffalo******* 23.37*********** 9. St. Louis 26.17
10.Kansas City** 23.54*********** 10. Kansas City 26.24
11.Arizona****** 24.11*********** 11. N.Y. Jets 26.55
12.Denver******* 24.32*********** 12. Denver 26.97
13.San Francisco 24.45*********** 13. San Francisco 27.26
14.St. Louis**** 24.75*********** 14. Washington 27.32
15.Seattle****** 25.02*********** 15. Arizona 27.71
16.N.Y. Giants** 25.55*********** 16. N.Y. Giants 27.95
17.New England** 25.78*********** 17. New England 28.87
18.Minnesota**** 25.80*********** 18. Dallas 29.34
19.Washington*** 26.47*********** 19. Seattle 29.48
20.Dallas******* 27.01*********** 20. Philadelphia 29.52
21.Chicago****** 27.47*********** 21. Minnesota 29.63
22.Jacksonville* 27.84*********** 22. Chicago 29.67
23.Baltimore**** 27.85*********** 23. Detroit 29.75
24.New Orleans** 27.91*********** 24. Baltimore 29.76
25.Detroit****** 28.56*********** 25. Jacksonville 30.22
26.Philadelphia* 28.89*********** 26. Tennessee 30.49
27.Carolina******29.26*********** 27. New Orleans 30.97
28.Tennessee*****29.27*********** 28. Carolina 31.88
29.Indianapolis***32.88*********** 29. Indianapolis 33.14
30.Cincinnati*****34.08*********** 30. Cincinnati 34.72
Below, I post the link that gives an overview of the per drive ranking method.
One of the things it's supposed to do is to divest the dependance between the offense and defense. As it assigns yardage values for scoring and turnovers these things are considered as part of the analysis. In the Rams case you can see that their relationship between yardage allowed per drive and the MDV is a few rankings downward. I think this comes from that discrepency between the low yardage allowed by the pass defense and the high scoring from passing TD's allowed. It tacks on extra yardage "per drive". By this system we can see that the D ranks slightly better than average...and not anything that I would call great....I think the problems do become more apparant when we pull everything together. The run D was not really very good but was in part offset by a nice number of 50 sacks. This info must be weighed by the fact that the Rams were notoriously behind and often very early in many games. They probably therefore faced a lot more deliberate rushing attacks and then so less catch up passing games which would create more sack opportunities. This philosophy then looks two fold. The run defense suffered as the team made good effort to get to the opposing passer. As I said before they look to me to be actually playing almost a warped variant of the Carson scheme with lots of gap shooting, no two gap DT, and very very often a LB shooting a predetermined gap. Also as mentioned the coverage of backs and TE's was SO horrble anyone could score against them that way. Again this points to a gap shoot philosophy in part...
In the end what it looks like to me is a sort of good defense but with some gaping holes/questions which have been for the most part well known and identified. Two gap DT. SSLB and Safety that can disrupt TE's as receivers. Linebacking in general and interior line play...
point two...
It was brought up with Faulk as a question why he didn't make the Colts better/a winner. The answer is terribly evident to anyone that even glanced at their D. It was HORRIBLE. A backfield of Jim Thorpe and Jim Brown probably wouldn't have helped overcome the 160+!!! yards per game the Colts allowed on the ground...and above you can see they rank next to last in yards allowed per drive and MDV...
Attached Link: statistical theory of the per drive rank method
LINK:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/x/jxg22/sports/football/theory.htm