Current Team Defensive Passer Rating Rankings (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Here are the current Defensive Passer Rating rankings through 10 weeks. Historically, this has been one of the more accurate predicators of success in the postseason. Last year, GB and PIT ranked #1 and #2 using this metric.

HOU	60.70	7-3NYJ	65.99	5-4BAL	66.99	6-3DET	69.54	6-3DAL	75.18	5-4GB	75.73	9-0CHI	76.09	6-3NYG	76.40	6-3OAK	76.58	5-4SF	76.98	8-1CLE	76.98	3-6JAX	77.40	3-6ARI	80.13	3-6PIT	80.17	7-3TEN	80.52	5-4CIN	81.10	6-3WAS	82.24	3-6NO	83.00	7-3KC	83.13	4-5BUF	83.43	5-4PHI	83.64	3-6ATL	84.17	5-4SEA	84.20	3-6NE	86.79	6-3STL	87.75	2-7MIA	92.92	2-7TB	93.28	4-5CAR	93.54	2-7SD	94.83	4-5DEN	97.99	4-5MIN	99.24	2-7IND	108.4	0-10

 

[The Jerk]

Although quite useful already, if this metric could be normalized to address scheduling effects -- like Chase's rearview QB analysis -- then it could be an even better measure of pass defense.

 

[pittstownkiller]

David,

Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

 

[David Yudkin]

David,Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

Obviously there is a formula for QB to determine their passer rating as one way to show how well they have performed vs. their peers. Using the same formula, these are the numbers for each team plugging in the same criteria to determine how effective teams have been DEFENDING the pass. I forget the particulars, but there is some criteria that has been universal for all SB winners (something like no team has won the SB that has not ranked in the Top 10 and/or no team has won the Super Bowl with a defensive passer rating above a certain number).I saw this referenced as the following: Teams that won the passer rating battle have won 80% of all NFL games over the past two seasons (2009 and 2010), posting a 409-103 record. Now, I am not sure if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating into that game wins 80% of the time . . . or if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating in that individual game wins 80% of the time.So as of Week 10, if history holds true, teams like NO, PIT, and NE would not be in line to be true Super Bowl contenders (unless they start playing better defending the pass).

 

[pittstownkiller]

David,

Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

Obviously there is a formula for QB to determine their passer rating as one way to show how well they have performed vs. their peers. Using the same formula, these are the numbers for each team plugging in the same criteria to determine how effective teams have been DEFENDING the pass. I forget the particulars, but there is some criteria that has been universal for all SB winners (something like no team has won the SB that has not ranked in the Top 10 and/or no team has won the Super Bowl with a defensive passer rating above a certain number).I saw this referenced as the following: Teams that won the passer rating battle have won 80% of all NFL games over the past two seasons (2009 and 2010), posting a 409-103 record. Now, I am not sure if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating into that game wins 80% of the time . . . or if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating in that individual game wins 80% of the time.

So as of Week 10, if history holds true, teams like NO, PIT, and NE would not be in line to be true Super Bowl contenders (unless they start playing better defending the pass).

Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me; I am still trying to digest it. I do find it interesting that a team like SFO finds itself ranked at 10; it would seem with their ball control offense that their scores would be low enough so their opposition wouldn't lean so heavy on the pass anyway (no, I didn't check the actual numbers); juxtapose that with GNB, where they are scoring so much that you would assume the other teams have to go to their passing game rather quickly. In the case of SFO, it would seem to me, that their relatively high ranking is a product of the ball control offense, keeping the ball out of opposing team hands, and not running away with the game enough that the opposing teams can keep a balanced offense - I think we may of seen a ***** in SFO's armor when a injury-plagued NYG team can come in there, rely almost exclusively on the pass, and almost pull off the victory; as for GNB, they are getting up so quick and scoring so quickly (relatively) in their drives, it really is a true testament to their pass defense. Another glaring ranking was IND, where I would think most teams wouldn't even have to throw a pass to come away with a win; I think we always knew that IND's fortunes rested on the shoulder of P. Manning but after years of trying to upgrade their D they are just awful. I would also think that HOU's ranking is on the move with the Schaub injury probably limiting their scoring output and the injury(ies) to Mario Williams (and others) effecting their interior defensive play.

 

[David Yudkin]

David,

Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

Obviously there is a formula for QB to determine their passer rating as one way to show how well they have performed vs. their peers. Using the same formula, these are the numbers for each team plugging in the same criteria to determine how effective teams have been DEFENDING the pass. I forget the particulars, but there is some criteria that has been universal for all SB winners (something like no team has won the SB that has not ranked in the Top 10 and/or no team has won the Super Bowl with a defensive passer rating above a certain number).I saw this referenced as the following: Teams that won the passer rating battle have won 80% of all NFL games over the past two seasons (2009 and 2010), posting a 409-103 record. Now, I am not sure if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating into that game wins 80% of the time . . . or if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating in that individual game wins 80% of the time.

So as of Week 10, if history holds true, teams like NO, PIT, and NE would not be in line to be true Super Bowl contenders (unless they start playing better defending the pass).

Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me; I am still trying to digest it. I do find it interesting that a team like SFO finds itself ranked at 10; it would seem with their ball control offense that their scores would be low enough so their opposition wouldn't lean so heavy on the pass anyway (no, I didn't check the actual numbers); juxtapose that with GNB, where they are scoring so much that you would assume the other teams have to go to their passing game rather quickly. In the case of SFO, it would seem to me, that their relatively high ranking is a product of the ball control offense, keeping the ball out of opposing team hands, and not running away with the game enough that the opposing teams can keep a balanced offense - I think we may of seen a ***** in SFO's armor when a injury-plagued NYG team can come in there, rely almost exclusively on the pass, and almost pull off the victory; as for GNB, they are getting up so quick and scoring so quickly (relatively) in their drives, it really is a true testament to their pass defense. Another glaring ranking was IND, where I would think most teams wouldn't even have to throw a pass to come away with a win; I think we always knew that IND's fortunes rested on the shoulder of P. Manning but after years of trying to upgrade their D they are just awful. I would also think that HOU's ranking is on the move with the Schaub injury probably limiting their scoring output and the injury(ies) to Mario Williams (and others) effecting their pass rush.

Remember that passer rating is a measure of efficiency NOT volume. So in any given game, a team that throws the ball a lot (say 50 times) could have 350 passing yards but 2 TD and 3 INT and that would be rated much worse than a team that threw the ball 20 times with 200 yds, a TD, and 0 INT.That's how a team like GB can rank so high in defensive passer rating. GB has always been ahead and teams have had to pass to score points. So the Packers have given up a fair amount of passing yards and rank low in passing categories based on total numbers. But on a per play basis they have defended the pass well.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Thanks for taking the time to explain that for me; I am still trying to digest it. I do find it interesting that a team like SFO finds itself ranked at 10; it would seem with their ball control offense that their scores would be low enough so their opposition wouldn't lean so heavy on the pass anyway (no, I didn't check the actual numbers); juxtapose that with GNB, where they are scoring so much that you would assume the other teams have to go to their passing game rather quickly. In the case of SFO, it would seem to me, that their relatively high ranking is a product of the ball control offense, keeping the ball out of opposing team hands, and not running away with the game enough that the opposing teams can keep a balanced offense - I think we may of seen a ***** in SFO's armor when a injury-plagued NYG team can come in there, rely almost exclusively on the pass, and almost pull off the victory; as for GNB, they are getting up so quick and scoring so quickly (relatively) in their drives, it really is a true testament to their pass defense. Another glaring ranking was IND, where I would think most teams wouldn't even have to throw a pass to come away with a win; I think we always knew that IND's fortunes rested on the shoulder of P. Manning but after years of trying to upgrade their D they are just awful. I would also think that HOU's ranking is on the move with the Schaub injury probably limiting their scoring output and the injury(ies) to Mario Williams (and others) effecting their pass rush.

Remember that passer rating is a measure of efficiency NOT volume. So in any given game, a team that throws the ball a lot (say 50 times) could have 350 passing yards but 2 TD and 3 INT and that would be rated much worse than a team that threw the ball 20 times with 200 yds, a TD, and 0 INT.That's how a team like GB can rank so high in defensive passer rating. GB has always been ahead and teams have had to pass to score points. So the Packers have given up a fair amount of passing yards and rank low in passing categories based on total numbers. But on a per play basis they have defended the pass well.

I don't think we are in opposition here; a team getting the ball thrown against them 50 times a game certainly has the opportunity to make many more defensive play than a team just getting a hand-full; of course the reverse is true, that team would have many more opportunities to fail in defending the pass game. My point, buried in my tome up there, is that SFO's ranking could be somewhat deceiving where GNB is glaringly good. If I had some idea how this number is generated (i will try to educate myself) I could see if my interpretation of it are even applicable; then again, if it is anything like the passer rating calculation, I should just forget it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

David,

Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

Obviously there is a formula for QB to determine their passer rating as one way to show how well they have performed vs. their peers. Using the same formula, these are the numbers for each team plugging in the same criteria to determine how effective teams have been DEFENDING the pass. I forget the particulars, but there is some criteria that has been universal for all SB winners (something like no team has won the SB that has not ranked in the Top 10 and/or no team has won the Super Bowl with a defensive passer rating above a certain number).I saw this referenced as the following: Teams that won the passer rating battle have won 80% of all NFL games over the past two seasons (2009 and 2010), posting a 409-103 record. Now, I am not sure if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating into that game wins 80% of the time . . . or if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating in that individual game wins 80% of the time.

So as of Week 10, if history holds true, teams like NO, PIT, and NE would not be in line to be true Super Bowl contenders (unless they start playing better defending the pass).

It's the latter.Passer rating is a poor predictive stat -- relative to net yards per attempt -- but a very good explanatory stat. That's because it puts extreme weight on completion percentage and interceptions. The issue, of course, is that the arrow points in both ways. Having a lead --> higher completion percentage on remaining throws + lower INT percentage on remaining throws. Trailing --> lower completion percentage on remaining throws + higher INT percentage on remaining throws.

That's why QB rating, and by extension QBR allowed, will do a good job of explaining the past but a poor job on a relative basis of predicting the future.

 

[pittstownkiller]

David,

Could you break this down for us (me), a little, I really don't know what to make of it.

Obviously there is a formula for QB to determine their passer rating as one way to show how well they have performed vs. their peers. Using the same formula, these are the numbers for each team plugging in the same criteria to determine how effective teams have been DEFENDING the pass. I forget the particulars, but there is some criteria that has been universal for all SB winners (something like no team has won the SB that has not ranked in the Top 10 and/or no team has won the Super Bowl with a defensive passer rating above a certain number).I saw this referenced as the following: Teams that won the passer rating battle have won 80% of all NFL games over the past two seasons (2009 and 2010), posting a 409-103 record. Now, I am not sure if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating into that game wins 80% of the time . . . or if that means the team with the better defensive passer rating in that individual game wins 80% of the time.

So as of Week 10, if history holds true, teams like NO, PIT, and NE would not be in line to be true Super Bowl contenders (unless they start playing better defending the pass).

It's the latter.Passer rating is a poor predictive stat -- relative to net yards per attempt -- but a very good explanatory stat. That's because it puts extreme weight on completion percentage and interceptions. The issue, of course, is that the arrow points in both ways. Having a lead --> higher completion percentage on remaining throws + lower INT percentage on remaining throws. Trailing --> lower completion percentage on remaining throws + higher INT percentage on remaining throws.

That's why QB rating, and by extension QBR allowed, will do a good job of explaining the past but a poor job on a relative basis of predicting the future.

I sit here in stunned silence like when I was first asked "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there, does it make a sound?"; a lot of info to process here.

 

[Reepicheep]

I seem to recall GB coaches talking up the passer rating differential stat at some point. Going by the numbers above I guess it is something like 55 for GB currently. I wonder what the record is, because that's an insane number.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

 

[DoubleG]

While I don't disagree that this is a somewhat interesting point, there is one point in regards to post season play that it does not take into account:

A team that had a defense that is poor at stopping the run.

I'm too lazy to go back and check the stats, but previous Colts teams were very good vs. the pass, but would get eaten up in post season by teams that ran the ball well - thus keeping the ball out of the high-powered offense's hands.

I also think the stat may yield a "false positive" correlation because of the fact that passer rating is tied to turn overs. What I mean by that is that a QB who throws INTs will also have a low passer rating.

Turnover differential is probably a better metric in prediction than passer rating. In fact, a team that wins the turnover battle by 2 or more is 91% more likely to win the game (I wish I had a link - I heard Marv Levy say this on the radio just yesterday), regardless of total yards or any other factor.

I am leaving work right now, so don't have time to pull up turnover differential #'s - but I will in the next day or so (unless someone beats me to it).

 

[Reepicheep]

While I don't disagree that this is a somewhat interesting point, there is one point in regards to post season play that it does not take into account:

A team that had a defense that is poor at stopping the run.

I'm too lazy to go back and check the stats, but previous Colts teams were very good vs. the pass, but would get eaten up in post season by teams that ran the ball well - thus keeping the ball out of the high-powered offense's hands.

I also think the stat may yield a "false positive" correlation because of the fact that passer rating is tied to turn overs. What I mean by that is that a QB who throws INTs will also have a low passer rating.

Turnover differential is probably a better metric in prediction than passer rating. In fact, a team that wins the turnover battle by 2 or more is 91% more likely to win the game (I wish I had a link - I heard Marv Levy say this on the radio just yesterday), regardless of total yards or any other factor.

I am leaving work right now, so don't have time to pull up turnover differential #'s - but I will in the next day or so (unless someone beats me to it).

The turnover differential stats would certainly be interesting to see. But I would want to know what percentage of games the stats cover - for example what % of games end with a turnover differential of 0, 1, and 2+? What's so impressive about the passer rating differential stat is that it covers all games without a qualifier of the actual size of the differential. (I'm assuming the number of games with an equal passer rating to the tenth of a point must be cosmically rare)

 

[Deamon]

Here are the current Defensive Passer Rating rankings through 10 weeks. Historically, this has been one of the more accurate predicators of success in the postseason. Last year, GB and PIT ranked #1 and #2 using this metric.

HOU	60.70	7-3NYJ	65.99	5-4BAL	66.99	6-3DET	69.54	6-3DAL	75.18	5-4GB	75.73	9-0CHI	76.09	6-3NYG	76.40	6-3OAK	76.58	5-4SF	76.98	8-1CLE	76.98	3-6JAX	77.40	3-6ARI	80.13	3-6PIT	80.17	7-3TEN	80.52	5-4CIN	81.10	6-3WAS	82.24	3-6NO	83.00	7-3KC	83.13	4-5BUF	83.43	5-4PHI	83.64	3-6ATL	84.17	5-4SEA	84.20	3-6NE	86.79	6-3STL	87.75	2-7MIA	92.92	2-7TB	93.28	4-5CAR	93.54	2-7SD	94.83	4-5DEN	97.99	4-5MIN	99.24	2-7IND	108.4	0-10

Are you going to do a QB and RB playoff strength of schedule post? The TE/WR/DEF ones were very helpful!

 

[David Yudkin]

Since Chase mentioned net passer rating, here are those rankings after 12 games played . . .

Offensive Passer Rating, Defensive Passer Rating, Net Passer Rating

Team	Off	Def	Net	W	LGB	123.9	80	43.9	12	0HOU	95.2	60.7	34.5	9	3SF	94.7	74.9	19.8	10	2NE	105.9	86.6	19.3	9	3NO	105.5	87.7	17.8	9	3PIT	94.1	77.1	17	9	3DET	91.4	77.9	13.5	7	5DAL	95.9	82.6	13.3	7	5NYJ	81.1	69	12.1	7	5BAL	79.1	67.5	11.6	9	3NYG	96	85.6	10.4	6	6OAK	77.7	75.5	2.2	7	5TEN	83.9	83.7	0.2	7	5CHI	77.7	78.1	-0.4	7	5ATL	85	85.4	-0.4	7	5MIA	84.9	86.5	-1.6	4	8CLE	76.9	79.4	-2.5	4	8BUF	83.9	87.8	-3.9	5	7CIN	80.4	85.3	-4.9	7	5SEA	74.8	80.5	-5.7	5	7KC	71.2	80.8	-9.6	5	7SD	84.9	94.7	-9.8	5	7ARI	72.3	83.4	-11.1	5	7CAR	82.6	94.9	-12.3	4	8DEN	81.4	94.2	-12.8	7	5WAS	70.5	86.1	-15.6	4	8STL	70.7	87.3	-16.6	2	10PHI	72.9	91.4	-18.5	4	8TB	74.4	93.4	-19	4	8JAC	60.4	86	-25.6	3	9MIN	79.1	106.5	-27.4	2	10IND	71.8	109.2	-37.4	0	12

 

[Fensalk]

Here are the current Defensive Passer Rating rankings through 10 weeks. Historically, this has been one of the more accurate predicators of success in the postseason. Last year, GB and PIT ranked #1 and #2 using this metric.

HOU	60.70	7-3      JAX	77.40	3-6      SEA	84.20	3-6NYJ	65.99	5-4      ARI	80.13	3-6      NE	86.79	6-3BAL	66.99	6-3      PIT	80.17	7-3      STL	87.75	2-7DET	69.54	6-3      TEN	80.52	5-4      MIA	92.92	2-7DAL	75.18	5-4      CIN	81.10	6-3      TB	93.28	4-5GB	75.73	9-0      WAS	82.24	3-6      CAR	93.54	2-7CHI	76.09	6-3      NO	83.00	7-3      SD	94.83	4-5NYG	76.40	6-3      KC	83.13	4-5      DEN	97.99	4-5OAK	76.58	5-4      BUF	83.43	5-4      MIN	99.24	2-7SF	76.98	8-1      PHI	83.64	3-6      IND	108.4	0-10CLE	76.98	3-6      ATL	84.17	5-4

Things I might try with this metric:1. Look at super bowl winners and losers, conference title game losers, see how robust it is.2. Look at the velocity of improvement or decline over the course of the season and see if that tells us anything more.Since super bowl winner are top 10 in this category, and there are only 32 teams, it sounds like without further refinement it can be used to simply eliminate a few teams from consideration each postseason.