Don't measure passing offense (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I propose that from now on, we rank passing offenses not by passing yards but by either adjusted net yards per attempt or by Value - the number of adjusted yards gained over the league average.

Adjusted net yards per attempt, of course, is calculated by adding 20 yards (previously 10 yards) for each passing touchdown, subtracting 45 yards for each interception, subtracting sack yards from gross passing yards, and dividing this adjusted yardage by the combined number of sacks and attempts. That gives you the adjusted net yards per attempt for every player or team. To get their Value, you would subtract the league average from that number and multiply the difference by their number of combined sacks and pass attempts.

To me, this is a much better way to rank team passing. For example, the 2008 Rams passed for 2,947 yards while the Titans passed for 2,819 yards. But along with those numbers, the Rams had 11 TD passes, 19 INTs, 520 attempts and were sacked 45 times. The Titans had 13 TD throws, 11 INTs, 453 attempts and were only sacked twelve times. The Rams averaged 4.09 ANY/A while the Titans averaged 5.75 adjusted net yards per attempt. With a league-wide average of 5.70 ANY/A, that puts the Rams at -911 yards above average (Value) and the Titans at 23 yards of Value. So despite St. Louis ranking ahead of Tennessee in passing yards, it seems obvious to me the the Titans were the far superior passing team.

Data on Super Bowl winners and the best regular season teams, along with the rest of the article, at the link:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so yeah bad teams that have to throw alot are not necessarily good passing teams. Got it

 

[Thorpe]

When you subtract the 45 yards for an int, do you take into account where the ball was intercepted. If the line of scrimmage is the 50, if the ball is picked at the 45 does it count the same as if the ball was picked at the 10? Obviously, having the ball picked at the 10 is a better pass play than having it picked at the 45.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When you subtract the 45 yards for an int, do you take into account where the ball was intercepted. If the line of scrimmage is the 50, if the ball is picked at the 45 does it count the same as if the ball was picked at the 10? Obviously, having the ball picked at the 10 is a better pass play than having it picked at the 45.

Unfortunately, without looking at play-by-play logs, you're not going to be able to do that. The 45 yards is thought to be what the average INT is worth. Just like a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 9 is a lot more valuable than a 10 yard pass on 4th and 11, you can't get too precise when rating performances without play by play logs. We've got those here at FBG for recent years, but for historical purposes, using 45 yards for every INT will have to do. It's also, obviously, a lot easier to do for current teams .

 

[SuperJohn96]

I propose that from now on, we rank passing offenses not by passing yards but by either adjusted net yards per attempt or by Value - the number of adjusted yards gained over the league average.

Adjusted net yards per attempt, of course, is calculated by adding 20 yards (previously 10 yards) for each passing touchdown, subtracting 45 yards for each interception, subtracting sack yards from gross passing yards, and dividing this adjusted yardage by the combined number of sacks and attempts. That gives you the adjusted net yards per attempt for every player or team. To get their Value, you would subtract the league average from that number and multiply the difference by their number of combined sacks and pass attempts.

To me, this is a much better way to rank team passing. For example, the 2008 Rams passed for 2,947 yards while the Titans passed for 2,819 yards. But along with those numbers, the Rams had 11 TD passes, 19 INTs, 520 attempts and were sacked 45 times. The Titans had 13 TD throws, 11 INTs, 453 attempts and were only sacked twelve times. The Rams averaged 4.09 ANY/A while the Titans averaged 5.75 adjusted net yards per attempt. With a league-wide average of 5.70 ANY/A, that puts the Rams at -911 yards above average (Value) and the Titans at 23 yards of Value. So despite St. Louis ranking ahead of Tennessee in passing yards, it seems obvious to me the the Titans were the far superior passing team.

Data on Super Bowl winners and the best regular season teams, along with the rest of the article, at the link:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133

Is this for fantasy or NFL application?What if I'm in a league that only counts yards and TDs?

Not much difference in these stats, passing only of course.

STL: 2947 + 11 TDs

TEN: 2819 + 13 TDs

 

[Chase Stuart]

I propose that from now on, we rank passing offenses not by passing yards but by either adjusted net yards per attempt or by Value - the number of adjusted yards gained over the league average.

Adjusted net yards per attempt, of course, is calculated by adding 20 yards (previously 10 yards) for each passing touchdown, subtracting 45 yards for each interception, subtracting sack yards from gross passing yards, and dividing this adjusted yardage by the combined number of sacks and attempts. That gives you the adjusted net yards per attempt for every player or team. To get their Value, you would subtract the league average from that number and multiply the difference by their number of combined sacks and pass attempts.

To me, this is a much better way to rank team passing. For example, the 2008 Rams passed for 2,947 yards while the Titans passed for 2,819 yards. But along with those numbers, the Rams had 11 TD passes, 19 INTs, 520 attempts and were sacked 45 times. The Titans had 13 TD throws, 11 INTs, 453 attempts and were only sacked twelve times. The Rams averaged 4.09 ANY/A while the Titans averaged 5.75 adjusted net yards per attempt. With a league-wide average of 5.70 ANY/A, that puts the Rams at -911 yards above average (Value) and the Titans at 23 yards of Value. So despite St. Louis ranking ahead of Tennessee in passing yards, it seems obvious to me the the Titans were the far superior passing team.

Data on Super Bowl winners and the best regular season teams, along with the rest of the article, at the link:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133

Is this for fantasy or NFL application?What if I'm in a league that only counts yards and TDs?

Not much difference in these stats, passing only of course.

STL: 2947 + 11 TDs

TEN: 2819 + 13 TDs

This is pretty much an NFL application, only. That said, for next year's fantasy purposes, it's probably somewhat useful to know which teams actually passed the ball well. But I'd tweak the formula a bit to use for FF purposes.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I propose that from now on, we rank passing offenses not by passing yards but by either adjusted net yards per attempt or by Value - the number of adjusted yards gained over the league average.

Adjusted net yards per attempt, of course, is calculated by adding 20 yards (previously 10 yards) for each passing touchdown, subtracting 45 yards for each interception, subtracting sack yards from gross passing yards, and dividing this adjusted yardage by the combined number of sacks and attempts. That gives you the adjusted net yards per attempt for every player or team. To get their Value, you would subtract the league average from that number and multiply the difference by their number of combined sacks and pass attempts.

To me, this is a much better way to rank team passing. For example, the 2008 Rams passed for 2,947 yards while the Titans passed for 2,819 yards. But along with those numbers, the Rams had 11 TD passes, 19 INTs, 520 attempts and were sacked 45 times. The Titans had 13 TD throws, 11 INTs, 453 attempts and were only sacked twelve times. The Rams averaged 4.09 ANY/A while the Titans averaged 5.75 adjusted net yards per attempt. With a league-wide average of 5.70 ANY/A, that puts the Rams at -911 yards above average (Value) and the Titans at 23 yards of Value. So despite St. Louis ranking ahead of Tennessee in passing yards, it seems obvious to me the the Titans were the far superior passing team.

Data on Super Bowl winners and the best regular season teams, along with the rest of the article, at the link:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1133

Is this for fantasy or NFL application?What if I'm in a league that only counts yards and TDs?

Not much difference in these stats, passing only of course.

STL: 2947 + 11 TDs

TEN: 2819 + 13 TDs

This is pretty much an NFL application, only. That said, for next year's fantasy purposes, it's probably somewhat useful to know which teams actually passed the ball well. But I'd tweak the formula a bit to use for FF purposes.

K, thanks.I like having adjusted number to present a more accurate rating of any stat.

Using 'real' numbers in a fantasy application would be ideal though.

 

[coolnerd]

off-season read and think about project

 

[Thorpe]

Just like a 10 yard pass on 3rd and 9 is a lot more valuable than a 10 yard pass on 4th and 11,

Why not add 5 yards for 1st down passes? Especially if it less than a 10 yard pass. Or conversely subtract yards for completion not resulting in a 1st down.

 

[Lord Lucan]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

 

[Chase Stuart]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

I completely agree that SOS needs to be taken into account. It also needs to be taken into account correctly, as I've seen people butcher SOS analysis. It won' be difficult to adjust these numbers for strength of schedule, and it's something I'll do in the off-season. That said, passing yards doesn't take into account SOS, either.

 

[Lord Lucan]

I completely agree that SOS needs to be taken into account. It also needs to be taken into account correctly, as I've seen people butcher SOS analysis. It won' be difficult to adjust these numbers for strength of schedule, and it's something I'll do in the off-season. That said, passing yards doesn't take into account SOS, either.

Fair enough, anything that seeks to improve on raw passing yards statistics has to be a good thing.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Baltimore is at #17, ahead of Pittsburgh (19) and Washington (18).

This surprise anyone?

 

[gheemony]

Second the nomination to use DVOA and DYAR from Football Outsiders.

 

[Die]

Its ok but I think what's more important is how the passing game performs in certain downs and distances and backed up against their own end zone / between the 20s / in scoring range / in the red zone. Adjusted net yards per attempt, from what I can tell, makes zero distinction between completing a pass from your own 45 or from the opponents 15, which I think is wrong.

 

[Die]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

The real problem is there aren't enough games, and therefore not enough data, to really drill down into the numbers to make precise calculations. Errors (like the poster above noted) are real and significant when you try to do this. This isn't baseball.

 

[Chase Stuart]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

The real problem is there aren't enough games, and therefore not enough data, to really drill down into the numbers to make precise calculations. Errors (like the poster above noted) are real and significant when you try to do this. This isn't baseball.

I think this is one of those "the perfect is the enemy of the good" situations. No, ANY/A isn't the greatest thing in the world. It's just a lot better than passing yards. And people use passing yards pretty frequently. Considering how easy it is to use ANY/A, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use that. I probably prefer using the Value statistic -- adjusted net yards per attempt minus the league average ANY/A, multiplied by the number of attempts -- because that at least gives more weight to guys who are good over more attempts.

 

[Die]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

The real problem is there aren't enough games, and therefore not enough data, to really drill down into the numbers to make precise calculations. Errors (like the poster above noted) are real and significant when you try to do this. This isn't baseball.

I think this is one of those "the perfect is the enemy of the good" situations. No, ANY/A isn't the greatest thing in the world. It's just a lot better than passing yards. And people use passing yards pretty frequently. Considering how easy it is to use ANY/A, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use that. I probably prefer using the Value statistic -- adjusted net yards per attempt minus the league average ANY/A, multiplied by the number of attempts -- because that at least gives more weight to guys who are good over more attempts.

I think we have better than ANY/A. We can for example break down an offense's performance. Look at what they do in the red zone. Or when trailing late. Or in 2nd and long. ANY/A just seems to go halfway. If you want to paint with a broad brush, you might as well use simple yardage. If you want to really get specific, look at situations.Well the bottom line is I don't really see the usefulness of ANY/A. I hope this input helped.

 

[msommer]

DVOA down? Any attempt to measure passing offense (or rushing offense, for that matter) without heavily weighting to take into account the opposing defense is flawed from the outset. If you're wanting to downgrade the Rams passing offense, start off with the fact that they face Seattle, St Louis and Arizona twice.

And in a heartbreaking first game the Rams beat themselves to go 1-1 You mean SF and everyone else got it but I felt compelled to make a little joke about it...