Football Outsiders Project Awful Season for Cowboys, Saints, Vikings, Others
by One.Cool.Customer on Jul 10, 2010 11:00 AM CDT
in Dallas Cowboys General
Email
PrintThe fine folks at FootballOutsiders.com (FO) published their annual Football Outsiders Almanac yesterday. It is a veritable treasure trove of football information spread out over 575 pages.
Among many other things, FO have calculated a 2010 Mean Win Projection for every one of the 32 teams in the NFL. Underlying their projections are some complicated calculations based on the DVOA for offense, defense, and special teams as well as a number of different factors such as recent draft history, coaching experience, injury history, previous years DVOA and other variables.
FO have been nothing if not bold in their projections, many of which go against the current prevailing popular opinions.
As you can tell from the title of this post, the Cowboys did not do well in the FO algorithm. FO project 7.5 mean wins for the Cowboys, and have the Cowboys finishing last in the NFC East behind the first place Eagles, second place Redskins and third place Giants. Well, so much for being over-hyped going into the season.
In addition to the Cowboys, based on mean projected wins, FO sees the following 2009 playoff participants not making the playoffs again this year: Bengals, Chargers, Vikings and Saints. New in the playoff picture for 2010: Steelers, Chiefs, Redskins, Bears and Falcons.
The NFC East 2010 standings based on FO's mean projected wins after the jump.
Note: Footballoutsiders have asked that I not post the win projections for every single team in the NFL. I have complied with their request, and have removed the figures for all teams not in the NFC East.
2010 NFC East standings based on mean projected wins by FO
| NFC | |
|---|---|
| East | Projected Wins |
| Eagles |
9.3 |
| Redskins | 9.2 |
| Giants |
8.7 |
| Cowboys |
7.5 |
Some other surprising developments based on the FO data: The Chiefs take the division ahead of the Chargers, the 49ers finish dead last in their division, which surprisingly has the Matt Leinart-led Cardinals at the top. Go figure.
The FO Almanac is clear on why the Cowboys are projected so low:
The team is top-heavy with superstars and short on depth, and they are getting old at the one position where they cannot afford a significant drop in performance: the offensive line.
FO further point out that the Cowboys have been 'lucky' with injuries in the past, and if their injury rate were to regress towards the mean, the team would quickly close in on the .500 level.
ESPN on the other hand rank the Cowboys No.2 in their Ultimate NFL Rankings, also released yesterday. ESPN doesn't appear to be taking the other NFC teams too seriously. They have the Giants 13th, the Eagles 14th, and the Redskins 18th.
Meanwhile, Tim Cowlishaw from the DMN warns that the NFC East is still as tight as ever.
What's your take? Should we be worried, at least a tiny little bit?
104 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
where you getting coffee for a buck?
And not those tiny little diner cups either. I mean are you getting a big cup of coffee somewhere for a buck?
by alanTdot. on Jul 12, 2010 8:27 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Just look at their past projections.... they Suck! Enough Said
Their 2009 predictions for the NFC East were:
NFC East
New York Giants – 10.0
Philadelphia Eagles – 9.3
Dallas Cowboys – 8.0
Washington Redskins – 7.8
They picked a total of 3 correct playoff teams and predicted the Chargers over the Bears in the SB.
Actually they are an anti-correlation indicator
Had cowboys 3rd in NFC in 2008 (when the missed the playoffs)
Had the cowboys 26th in the league and last in the NFC East in 2007 (when boys were #1 seed)
So this looks like good news to me!
Proof positive
This is proof that statistics can be used to prove anything. 49ers in last place-HA; Eagles in 1st -LOL. Chiefs in 1st – LMAO Next thing you know they will predict a new ice age, or new warming, or Kevin Kolb as MVP of the league!
Cowboys in the Super Bowl with the victory.
I like that prediction.
But don't take this personal OCC...
"Confidence doesn't come out of nowhere. It's a result of something... hours and days and weeks and years of constant work and dedication." --Roger Staubach
Well...crap.
Might as well pack it in.
Who’s going to be a good top-10 pick next April? We need a safety.
One of the last Joe Nieuwendyk supporters in Dallas....
Defending Big D - Dallas Stars news & analysis
SB Nation Dallas-Fort Worth
by Brandon Worley on Jul 10, 2010 11:34 AM CDT reply actions
I'm no statistician...
but it seems to me that the Football Outsiders are an example of number-crunching gone too far. They attempt to break performance down into basic measurables with their metrics—a worthy pursuit—but when they put those numbers back together to analyze past performance and project future success, they end up with some very skewed results. And worse, when their analysis comes up with results different than what simple observations reveal , they reject the reality rather than adjusting their metrics.
Remember, these guys had Philly ranked higher than Dallas all year last year, too. Doesn’t look like they’ve gotten any smarter…
by greatwhitenorth on Jul 10, 2010 11:36 AM CDT reply actions
Agreed!
It is almost like the way the figure the Passer rating for QBs. A bunch of old stats crunched together and calculated by non-football people. I dont put any trust in this report seeing how the Chiefs are going to win the AFC west and have a home wild card game against the Steelers. Really Fo.com, REALLY!!
Especially against a Steelers team...
that will be without their starting QB(Roethliesberger-Suspension) for 4-6 games, without their #1 WR and #4 WR’s from last year(Holmes-traded and Sweed-Achilles) and without their starting RT from last season (Colon – Achilles).
Rabid and luvin' it
by lonewolfz28 on Jul 10, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Skewed?
How do they end up with skewed results? The very reason behind using all the metrics is to even the playing field. Do you really think they should adjust their metrics based on observations? That would result in a VERY skewed result.
like I said, I’m not a statistician, so this is my uneducated take. Basically, I think their biggest problem is that their DVOA commits a “double-jeopardy” type of mistake—for example, de-valuing a team’s run defense because they play against teams that have poor rushing stats, which of course are poor at least in part because they played against the first team’s excellent defense. It’s the classic strength-of-schedule argument, where any successful team will have a weak strength-of-schedule because they contribute a loss to their opponents record. FO’s flaws are hidden under several layers of stats so that it all sounds good, but in the end the relatively small sample size of plays in a typical NFL season leads them astray.
As for adjusting their metrics based on observations, no, they shouldn’t add points to Peyton Manning’s stats just because he’s Peyton or anything like that. But they should look at their results, say Cards in first and Cowboys in last, and at least say hmmmmmm… If you metrics give results that don’t line up with common sense, it’s usually time to go back to the drawing board with your metrics.
by greatwhitenorth on Jul 11, 2010 1:58 AM CDT up reply actions
But that's the thing
You’re bringing your own preconceived notions to it. If you are going to put as much effort as they have into a model, you have to go with your results even if they don’t always make sense. I mean, this isn’t baseball where they’re predicting that the Royals are going to be better than the Yankee$. It’s the NFL, where there’s a TON of turnover from year to year.
Who would have thought that Philly would be significantly better than NYG last year? Etc, etc…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions
wish I could get odds...
on the ’boys only winning 7 or 8 games this year. Will take the over on that figure all day long.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate"
If they came out and said the samething most other prognosticaters
are saying, it wouldn’t sell. Got to be a shock jock these day to get attention.
Right
Of course this scenario COULD happen, but they have picked some silly endings. i especially like their reason – people might get hurt. No doubt. That’ll derail any team. But the depth point is weak. Dallas has better depth now than in any year since Parcells started the rebuilding process. You get depth by hitting on FA and draft picks, and Dallas has finally been able to do well enough that it’s not drafting for starters but for depth.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
As long as Romo can stay upright
Dallas has chance to do big things. The OL is a point of concern and is the key in keeping Romo healthy. If Romo goes down for any length of time, all bets are off. There are other players if loss would really hurt Dallas, but not like lossing Romo for the season. I guess you could say that about any team in the league with an elite QB.
You can say that about any team period.
Very few team can overcome one key injury. None can overcome several. If we lost Romo and or Ware for the season we would be done for. We could survive without Felix, Marion or Choice, but I don’t think we could if we lost two of the three. So the injury argument is applicable to every team in the league.
If I should die before I wake,
feed Jake.
That's my concern
FO continues to downgrade the Cowboys based on depth. I’ve understood it in the past, and the Cowboys best seasons have come when they were healthiest. But almost every team’s best seasons come when they’re healthiest.
In the past, I could fully see the depth argument, but I think it’s less of an issue than it has been before. I feel more confident in our reserves at OLB,, WR, RB, QB, OT, ILB, TE and probably OG than I did 3 years ago. It’s very, very hard to have quality depth at each position, and the Cowboys don’t, but they’ve got decent depth at quite a few.
Maybe it’s not the depth that could hold up for an entire season, but season-ending injuries generally kill teams anyways. I trust most of them to be able to hold up for 4 or so games though…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions
FO-Far out.
Curious as to what their prognostications for last season were. Of course, past performance is no indication of future return..
If you make every game a life-and-death thing, you're going to have problems. You'll be dead a lot. ~Dean Smith
When bye dawk picks up on this it will be headline news on bgn.
Someone acually thinking the Eagles are better than the Cowboys. They will covet this like a treasure, because this is the only publication I’ve seen that think they are better.
FO never gives Dallas love
not surprised.
They always give Philly love too. And the Patriots. They love the Patriots.
How does their system project the Cardinals so high? They think there’s no dropoff from Kurt Warner to the beer bonger?
Not to mention...
downgrading from Karlos Dansby to Joey Porter at LB. Some of their other moves (Rolle for Rhodes, Racker for Feely) could be seen as lateral moves…but not at QB and LB.
Rabid and luvin' it
by lonewolfz28 on Jul 10, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I forgot about them losing Boldin too.
Even though they’ve got pretty good depth at WR, that still hurts.
Rabid and luvin' it
i think people are too low on leinart, i know he's not warner but there are concerns
as if he was jamarcus russell type of player
by the way i’m a little worried about the nfc east, i don’t like this is the thoughest division on nfl, this season will be hard, i would love some bufallo bills kinda team here
I'll say this
The Cowboys lose their starting LT, but bring in someone who has been in the system that they’ve been developing.
The Eagles lose their starting QB, but bring in someone who has been in the system that they’ve been developing.
The NYG lose their starting MLB/QB of the defense and bring in…???
How do the Cowboys end up looking the worst in that scenario?
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions
No NFC Team Wins 10 Games?
Based on their calculations, no NFC team (other than maybe Atlanta by rounding up) will win at least 10 games. Has that ever happened?
I noticed that too.
I know almost nothing about football outsider and after seeing this, I think I will keep it that way.
An NFC team will win 10 games
These are mean projections. Because of a normal distribution, it means that an equal number of teams should be one or two standard deviations above as below their mean projections.
Think about it this way…what would you project the Cowboys record to be if Dez Bryant is Randy Moss 2.0? A lot higher, right? Now what would you project if Dez Bryant doesn’t develop into much of anything this year and there’s lots of WR arguing and nobody really steps up and teams shut down the passing game by doubling Witten and Miles? Those are just the scenarios involving one player. But the range of potential wins grows as you take more and more into account. That’s why these teams are all so relatively close together.
Realistically, a certain set of scenarios is going to play out. When it does, things will build on itself as trades, tanking, and injuries all affect the season. These things build on each other and so you get a wider spread than your MEAN projections, but it is something that you projected. The likelihood just wasn’t very high…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions
As much as I love FO
They are ALWAYS down on the Cowboys. Without fail. And every year it’s “they’re bound to get hurt sometime, and when they do, they will suck.” Personally I think that’s a load of crap. We are top-5 in health nearly every year! We have an excellent medical staff and training staff that gets the players built up right and fixed up right when they get hurt. If I had a dollar for how many times in the past three years we’ve outdone their projection, Id have three dollars. FO is excellent at telling you what happened, but has very mixed results in telling you what WILL happen. I don’t know how we can prove we do or don’t have depth when we never get hurt, but they’re convinced we have none.
by Key19 on Jul 10, 2010 12:54 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I always love the audibles they post on Mondays
if the Cowboys lost, lots of snark in their little emails.
if the Cowboys one, off topic discussion, maybe a Romo joke, and that is it. Never any credit.
by I_miss_Switzer on Jul 11, 2010 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions
2008 waves hello.
How quickly we forget…
One of the authors responded to this issue and pointed out that over the past 5 or 6 years, the Cowboys have only been slightly above average in terms of injury luck. We just remember 2 of the past 3 years.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions
No respect for the Raiders either.
Only 4 wins(5 if rounded up) with a better than avg QB and rebuilt OL? Heck, they managed to get 5 last season with JBust at the helm. They also picked up Big John Henderson to anchor the middle of their DL. Not to mention they brought in two very promising rookie OL and the top rated LB in the draft.
They may not be a .500 or better team this season, but they definitely should be better than last season…not worse.
Rabid and luvin' it
Question
How did FO’s 2009 pre-season projections pan out?
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Here's some answers without getting too much into revealing their data
NFC South 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Panthers (3)
2. Saints (1)
3. Bucs (4)
4. Falcons (2)
NFC West 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Seahawks (3rd)
2. Rams (4th)
3. 49ers (2nd)
4. Cardinals (1st)
NFC North 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Bears (3rd)
2. Vikings (1st)
3. Packers (2nd)
4. Lions (4th)
NFC East 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Giants (3rd)
2. Eagles (2nd)
3. Cowboys (1st)
4. Redskins (4th)
AFC South 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Colts (1st)
2. Jaguars (4th)
3. Titans (3rd)
4. Texans (2nd)
AFC West 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Chargers (1st)
2. Chiefs (4th)
3. Raiders (3rd)
4. Broncos (2nd)
AFC North 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Steelers (3rd)
2. Ravens (2nd)
3. Bengals (1st)
4. Browns (4th)
AFC East 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Patriots (1st)
2. Dolphins (3rd)
3. Jets (2nd)
4. Bills (4th)
I report, you decide.
Throwing darts
Are you kidding me? This rag got only 3 of the top 8 and 7 of the top 16 teams right. By any metric, that’s equal to random. Football outsiders? How about football know nothings? And I’m not saying that simply because they picked the Cowboys last this year, or picked the Saints to not make the playoffs after they won 17 of 19 games last year.
I did the math
They average a 5.2 game deviation. Literally flipping a coin on each game would get you an 8 game deviation. It’s not quite as bad as darts, but I would assume it’s about the same as someone with moderate football knowledge picking wins.
"Only the strong survive, but the strong still get their ass whipped." -Nick Saban
My work here is done
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
Hey, they did get the following right
Bills, Browns, Lions, and Redskins. Got to give credit where credit is due.
Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo-hoo!
by bigbluethruandthru on Jul 11, 2010 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
They responded to this as well.
Last year’s projections were some of the worst projections they’ve ever had. He spent a lot of time working on it. I don’t think you can throw out everything they do just because they have a bad year, especially if they acknowledge and try to find out why.
Turns out, their offensive and special teams projections were pretty good. But their defensive projections were so bad that they turned out being inversely correlated…literally, you’d have been better off going with the opposite of what they said. It’s pretty unusual for them to be that off, though.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Statistics are Diagnostic, not Predictive
Statistics are best used to analyze and determine WHAT HAPPENED. After a game or a season has played out, statistics are great at determining what caused certain outcomes, what factors were most important in success or failure, how individual players performed. Things as simple as completion percentages by recievers showing that when Roy WIlliams is on the field it’s his fault that the offense doesn’t move, not Romo’s.
But statistics get really dicey when they’re used to predict the future. There are so many moving parts in football and so many qualitative and unpredictable aspects, so many situational issues, etc. that statistical predictions, in my opinion, are little more than curiosities.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Jul 10, 2010 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
But....
But that’s the whole point of prognosticating with statistics: Use those statistics to predict the future. Otherwise, who wants to buy their magazine? I could throw 32 name tags in the air, then arrange them in order of how they land of the floor and I’ve got a 50/50 chance of beating these guys based on their 2009 results.
Not really
Some statistics are better predictors than other, it’s just that you have to isolate/select for them. There are plenty of statistics that are predictive.
I do agree, this is all a lot harder to do in football than in baseball. So many moving parts in each play, so few games, so often that a singular mistake changes everything. I do think they’ve caught on with some things, but I’m not about to go to Vegas with their picks.
I think it’s better to take this as a different opinion than what we’re used to, with different strengths and biases compared to other methods.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not trippin on it
I think Dallas will do well, but if someone thinks they won’t, it won’t bug me any.
I wouldn't
but that strikes me as hating for the sake of hating.
I stopped taking this seriously...
when it says the Bears make the playoffs.
I think 7.5 is going out on a limb
This team has finished with a winning record the last 5 years. And what is this depth concern? We have really really good depth at every position except OL. OL is absolutely a legitimate concern, and its why I find it tough to see us playing in the superbowl, but c’mon…7.5 wins? When the Eagles have practically revamped their D, the Giants are coming off a nightmare of a season and the Redskins just had a coaching change? Is anything, our division is prime for the picking I think. Though I do think the Giants will be back.
Finally, predicting injuries is silly. Last season, the Eagles had more injury struggles on the oline than us (much to ByeDawk’s dismay).
The Cowboys OL depth is as good as most teams.
If Free were an established starter, people would be much less worried about our depth. Barron is a better reserve option than most teams have at Tackle, and Holland is a decent option at guard. If Gurode goes down it could get dicey, but I guess that’s where they would slide Kosier over and bring in Holland. Other than that scenario, they have guys with significant starting experience as backups.
I’m more concerned about the depth at S.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 12, 2010 1:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Good points
The line does need some younger/’better starters, but I think the depth is fine. I am concerned about depth at both S and CB to be honest.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
2009 Football Outsiders Mean Wins Projection
Actual record in parentheses.
NFC North
Chicago Bears – 10.5 (7-9)
Minnesota Vikings – 8.8 (12-4)
Green Bay Packers – 7.4 (11-5)
Detroit Lions – 5.8 (2-14)
NFC South
Carolina Panthers – 8.3 (8-8)
New Orleans Saints – 7.8 (13-3)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers – 7.2 (3-13)
Atlanta Falcons – 6.6 (9-7)
NFC East
New York Giants – 10.0 (8-8)
Philadelphia Eagles – 9.3 (11-5)
Dallas Cowboys – 8.0 (11-5)
Washington Redskins – 7.8 (4-12)
NFC West
Seattle Seahawks – 9.9 (5-11)
St. Louis Rams – 8.2 (1-15)
San Franciso 49ers – 5.7 (8-8)
Arizona Cardinals – 5.6 (10-6)
AFC North
Pittsburgh Steelers – 9.6 (9-7)
Baltimore Ravens – 8.8 (9-7)
Cincinnati Bengals – 6.9 (10-6)
Cleveland Browns – 6.6 (5-11)
AFC South
Indianapolis Colts – 11.5 (14-2)
Jacksonville Jaguars – 10.2 (7-9)
Tennessee Titans – 9.3 (8-8)
Houston Texans – 6.9 (9-7)
AFC East
New England Patriots – 11.4 (10-6)
Miami Dolphins – 6.4 (7-9)
New York Jets – 6.2 (9-7)
Buffalo Bills – 5.3 (6-10)
AFC West
San Diego Chargers – 12.5 (13-3)
Kansas City Chiefs – 6.7 (4-12)
Oakland Raiders – 6.0 (5-11)
Denver Broncos – 4.9 (8-8)
Super Bowl: San Diego Chargers over Chicago Bears
So this method picked 3 of the 8 division winners. It had 2 of the division winners 2nd, 2 3rd, and 1 4th. Mean wins may be a good stat in baseball, which is a series of one-on-one match-ups, but in football, better teams win more close games. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
"Only the strong survive, but the strong still get their ass whipped." -Nick Saban
frequently miss by 3+ games
Number of teams they got the wins within
0: 2
1: 7
2: 7
3: 8
4: 5
5+: 3
meaning they missed most teams by at least 3 games in 2009, and unfortunately 2009 was not a bad projection year for them. As much as I love FO, their projections are horrible — picking every team to be 8-8 is a lot more accurately foretelling.
They average a 5.2 deviation.
"Only the strong survive, but the strong still get their ass whipped." -Nick Saban
They missed the same number of teams
by less than 3 games (16) as they did 3 or more games (16).
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions
Again, this is about what I expected...
NEXT.
"You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you."
- John Wooden (God rest his soul)
FO likes the iggles, they always grade well based on FO metrics, but I have never assigned much weight to their predicitons, or any pundits predicitons.
All that is just filler, like declaring who is going to be in the SB when it is only week 4 (remember the gints last year).
Ignore the Mainstream Media, EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!
I know the Eagles have a stat dept
I just figure they both have identified similar things that they strive for. It would be like if there was a talent evaluator who really liked speed…he’s going to like teams that also value speed. So, in his experience, where fast teams win, he might overrate a team who is fast but lacking in other areas that you would assume goes along with speed.
Chances are, there are things their stats are missing (which FO freely admits) that are also things that the Eagles miss in their valuations.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Overlooked Fact by FO Almanac
Yes! Everyone in the Dallas COWBOYS organization/ team players, etc. and of course Us Solid and True Real America’s Team COWBOYS Fans clearly know that SuperBowl XLV is at COWBOYS Stadium (Our Home) — the added and important touch of FOCUS to WIN!!!
by America'sTeamCOWBOYS on Jul 10, 2010 5:35 PM CDT reply actions
I'm a homer, but a homer that will listen to reason, but....
The team is top-heavy with superstars and short on depth…
I find their main reasoning inaccurate, inconsistent, and flawed. Does Washington and Philadelphia actually have more depth?
I work with statistics in the retail sector, and I’ve always found that the best decisions are made with quantitative and qualitative analysis. It doesn’t seem to me that Football Outsiders took the time/effort to step back and look at the numbers they have compiled and simply asked themselves the question…does this make sense?
I wonder what Football Outsiders’s past performance in predicting past records has been…?
Yeah I don't really get that statement.
I’d say there are definitly some positions that need depth, but isn’t that the case with every team?
There isn’t one teams in the NFL that could lose a starter at every position and have an average player step in.
Anything said above is purely the opinion of AFB unless said otherwise.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Jul 11, 2010 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions
They have said this basically every single year for the past 5 seasons
FO’s statistical model, for whatever reason, consistently underrates the Cowboys and consistently overrates the Eagles. It makes that site torture for a Cowboys fan.
To justify their Cowboys prediction (which is usually arounud 8 wins), they have said, for 4-5 years in a row, that we were unusually healthy, our injuries will regress to the mean the next year, and we lack depth.
I’m really sick of the “Dallas is a team of superstars but doesn’t have depth” mantra that so-called analysts spout consistently about this team. First, I don’t even totally know what it means. Do they mean our backups are inferior to other teams’ backups? Second, I don’t think it’s true, I think it’s just something that sounds good to say. Where is the evidence that our backups are not as good as any other teams, like the Eagles? I’d say our RB depth, secondary depth, and LB depth is some of the best in the entire NFL.
I can’t even talk about this at length, I get too angry.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
Can it be we just have top of the line training staff and strength/conditioning program?
We never hear rumors about any of our players eating their way out of the league, or how we have to fine so and so guys because they report to camp overweight.
Never underestimate the power of a neck brace and wheelchair. In Donnie Walsh I trust!
Most teams get predicted close to .500
Considering the parity in the NFL, that really makes a lot of sense.
I’ve said it above, but I think that while depth could have been a legit issue for previous Cowboys teams, that this team has better depth (or at least more promising youngsters) than previous editions. I like the Alex Barron move, etc. 4 capable WRs, 3 capable TE’s, 6-8 capable LB’s, 3 capable RB’s, etc.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Hmmm
IDK FU FO WTF DC RULE STFU!!!
Just becuz you put yer boots in the oven don't make it bread
by dcfansinceiwasababy on Jul 10, 2010 8:51 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
LOL
Trust them...they know what they're doing.
by Aaron Novinger on Jul 11, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Football Outsiders = Really Bad Statistics
Let’s see, in 2007, they predicted Dallas would win six games. That’s right, six, instead of 13.
Two years ago, they predicted Dallas would win 7.5 games. They won nine.
Last year, it was eight. We won 11.
See a patten here?
They also keep harping on Dallas’ luck with injuries. The fact that Dallas is “lucky” year after year, after year might be related to their training or conditioning and is in fact not luck after all, is quite beyond their comprehension.
I work with statistics every single day. Not the blind numbers crunching that often passes for statistics in the sports world, the actual mathematical branch that handles the collection, normalization and analysis of data to make informed predictions. What Football Outsiders does is not serious statistics. DVOA has any number of serious problems wrong with it, from the overreliance on dummy variables, undemonstrated reliance on mean values, and saturating their calculations with too many degrees of freedom, for starters.
Oh, and they hate the Cowboys, and always have.
shoot me an e-mail and I'll give you some more grist for your stat mill
by Rafael Vela on Jul 11, 2010 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think they hate the Cowboys..
…but they probably hate us fans constantly pointing out when they screw up the Cowboys projection at this point.
I think it’s more likely that they are missing some element that the Cowboys are good at. I have a theory that it’s size (bigger players get hurt less than smaller ones?), but no real data to back it up.
I haven’t read this year’s edition, but you’d have to think they have a better explanation than previous years.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Okay...
…but the Eagles thing is a genuine problem. They have acknowledged it. The Eagles’ DVOA rating is consistently higher than their league W-L record. I get that in 1 or 2 seasons, but not over a decade of sample size.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
It Just Proves
stats are for losers.
Shut up and deal.
by TCB Orange Dino on Jul 10, 2010 11:02 PM CDT reply actions
Ouch! Again, don't take it personal OCC
"Confidence doesn't come out of nowhere. It's a result of something... hours and days and weeks and years of constant work and dedication." --Roger Staubach
Heh....
…right. People who are in charge of making multimillion dollar decisions totally ignore statistics.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions
What a load of bull
I have virtually every prospectus they have put out over the years, and care to guess who they ALWAYS favor? The Eagles. If last year didn’t make it convincingly clear that Philadelphia is now far behind Dallas, I’m not sure what FO are looking at. And the Cowboys are thin? Really? At RB? at WR? at LB? Secondary? I wonder where that book is published. Call me when someone figures out how to block DeMarcus Ware.
by MichiganinAtlanta on Jul 10, 2010 11:07 PM CDT reply actions
Finally. Motivation!
Post on every square inch of space at Valley Ranch for all of the offseason, pre-season, season, and post-season. Then go play like 22 Angry Men.
My Take
While they do use stats for predictions, I don’t think they love the Eagles. The Eagles are on top because of their offense while the Cowboys tend to let their defense do the talking. I’m serious. With that said, the NFL is a crapshoot season in and out and the only real predictions I would take to the bank right now are the Patriots in first and the Vikings and Saints failing to make the playoffs as long as Darren Sharper holds his end of the bargain to retire Brett Farve forcing the Vikings to play Tarivis Jackson for the full season, and the Saints are forced on the road due to the oil spill.
Why would the saints be on the road?
I havent anything that the oil spill will cause them not to play in LA?
This is not baseball; football fans do not live and die by stats.
The closest method as of now to predict the season is using a cracked crystal ball
As long as peyton manning is the starting QB of the colts they will be in the playoffs
Raiders making playoffs this year write it down
Of course Cowboys super bowl champs!
Really?! Really?!
Ummm
Yeah NO is going to be playing at home all year. Where did you get that from?
Anything said above is purely the opinion of AFB unless said otherwise.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Jul 11, 2010 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions
I get the feeling Jessy is being sarcastic.
But, I could be mistaken.
If I should die before I wake,
feed Jake.
I think they overvalued the Eagles deep strike capability
And missed how easy it is to outmuscle their smallish WRs on the short routes and just keep a FS deep over the top. They didn’t really have the run game to punish you for taking this approach.
It’s an example of a hole in their method, where a specific gameplan or matchup can really make them look silly. Imagine if the Philly played in a different division and didn’t face the Cowboys. They probably could have gone 12-4 or 13-3.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions
This is similar to the problem with PFF.com.
When you start massaging stats, or adjusting them, or whatever you call it, you are not using the actual stats anymore.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 12, 2010 1:06 AM CDT reply actions
Only stats that matter are W's and L's.
No one can accurately predict them on a consistent basis. You can be right a lot of the time, but even the best bookies don’t rely just on losers to make their money.
If I should die before I wake,
feed Jake.
While it's true, they are what matters
They aren’t a very good predictor of what’s going to happen the next year. For every Indy, there’s a NYG, Tennessee, Miami, Pittsburgh, etc..
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
These guys never get the Cowboys right
For some reason Dallas is a constant outlier in all their models. This may mean Dallas is doing something no one else is that skews their models. It reminds of the Angles always over performing their pythag record every year. At first you attribute it to luck. After a while, you begin to expect it. Now, baseball stat geeks assume the Angels are doing something to account for their seeming good luck that no one else is. I think the Cowboys are doing the same thing.
I didn't know what a mancrush was. Derek Holland showed me.
I like FO, but...
They’ve been saying for 5 years that Dallas has “incredible injury luck,” and then we continue with our “incredible injury luck.” Maybe they should reassess their assumption that our health is (mostly) lucky. FWIW, I don’t think it is.
I do think that DVOA and their other stats are superior (though not perfect) ways of assessing past performance, in the same way that baseball’s advanced analytics are superior to the old AVG/HR/RBI silliness. But baseball statisticians have come up with some sophisticated ways of telling how much luck is involved in past performance (“Batting Average on Balls in Play,” for instance), and I think FO is just scratching the surface of that in Football.
In general, Football is just based on more moving parts than baseball is, with its discrete batter-vs-pitcher matchups. Again, I think that should lead to some humility on FO’s part.
I agree, and commented on the injury thing above before I saw this
But I also think that the people at FO are too quick to try to retroactively explain away problems with their predictions, rather than reexamining their model and the issues with it.
To me, they are nowhere near the Baseball Prospectus guys in terms of the predictive (or even just past analytical) value of their statistics.
Larry Allen benched 700 pounds. That is Leonard Davis times two.
Niiiiiice
Anything said above is purely the opinion of AFB unless said otherwise.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Jul 12, 2010 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Remember, the source
The Ravens were the pet pick to win the Super Bowl last year.
Never underestimate the power of a neck brace and wheelchair. In Donnie Walsh I trust!
They didn't do poorly though?
I don’t know about them, but I think the Ravens will be pretty good this year…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Jul 13, 2010 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
