Has anyone seen SOS's for FF 2007? (1 Viewer)

[Dirty Weasel]

If you have seen any (not just team SOS, but the ones that break it down by position), please provide links. So far I have come across just these two:

http://www.fftoolbox.com/football/strength_of_schedule.cfm

http://www.ffauthority.com/modules/smartse...d=65&page=0

The disparity of each position on these 2 sites borders on ridiculous. Just to give you an example, here is how they differ for QB's (ranked from easiest schedule to hardest). The first column is for fftoolbox; the second is for ffauthority:

STL 1 11

PHI 2 16

CAR 3 15

ARI 4 20

ATL 5 14

SF 6 10

TB 7 21

SEA 8 12

WAS 9 19

NYG 10 17

CHI 11 31

DAL 12 25

NO 13 18

MIN 14 32

NE 15 2

DET 16 24

BAL 17 23

CLE 18 1

PIT 19 4

MIA 20 9

NYJ 21 6

JAX 22 13

BUF 23 3

CIN 24 8

GB 25 26

TEN 26 7

IND 27 5

OAK 28 22

KC 29 28

HOU 30 29

DEN 31 30

SD 32 27

I enjoy using SOS, and I think it's a great tool to aid in decisions when looking at similar players. I certainly would never pass up a superior player with a tough schedule for an inferior one with an easy schedule. I'd like to see more rankings so I can average them out. The only thing I can interpret from these 2 sites is Bulger, Brady, and McNabb should probably be in for a good year. And forget taking that flier on Matt Schaub!

 

[Sea Bass]

 

[-OZ-]

Does SOS ever pan out?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Does for me.

 

[Sea Bass]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Yes

 

[-OZ-]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Yes

show me. Right now, I take it as maybe a tiebreaker, right after bye week. If there's reason to make it more important, let's see it.

 

[mlball77]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Yes

show me. Right now, I take it as maybe a tiebreaker, right after bye week. If there's reason to make it more important, let's see it.

This is sort of the camp I am in as well. I guess I find a touch more validity in it than you, but basically its a tie breaker for me when considering two players of the same position that I feel are in the same tier. Of course there are some sites that I feel more comfortable in using their SOS than others...

 

[Follows Closely]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Keep in mind that between the 8th and 25th QB, there is only 1 point per game difference. That is not much of a factor to value players by. I use SOS broken down by week more so that by year.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

 

[-OZ-]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

 

[AB in DC]

Does SOS ever pan out?

In August, yes.In April, no way.

 

[Sea Bass]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

I believe that this thread is about gathering information on SOS, not a debate about its usefulness. Either start your own thread or move along............please.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

I don't know what pan out means. That's why I asked my question.

 

[-OZ-]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

I believe that this thread is about gathering information on SOS, not a debate about its usefulness. Either start your own thread or move along............please.

Read the title. Has anyone seen SOS's for FF 2007?, and how much do you factor them in?

 

[-OZ-]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

I don't know what pan out means. That's why I asked my question.

Ok, that's different than I took your question. When I say pan out, I mean when we look at SOS right now, and look at it in hindsight, is it usually close? I guess the clue is in the first post, given the disparity between the 2 sites. So never mind, I'll just stand by my comment in post #6.

 

[VICK-tory]

draftsharks has a cool SOS breakdown but its pay content; I tend to factor SOS into my pre-draft routine maybe more than i should.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.

Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

SEA 1 17

GB 2 21

CHI 3 23

SF 4 2

DET 5 27

ARI 6 32

NE 7 18

MIN 8 14

CAR 9 19

DAL 10 15

JAX 11 3

WAS 12 8

SD 13 4

IND 14 16

MIA 15 13

NYJ 16 30

STL 17 10

PHI 18 5

OAK 19 22

DEN 20 9

BAL 21 31

HOU 22 20

TB 23 24

BUF 24 28

KC 25 12

TEN 26 7

NYG 27 6

NO 28 26

CLE 29 29

ATL 30 1

PIT 31 11

CIN 32 25

Teams that performed better than their SOS were (I'll list them based on how much higher they finished than projected):

ATL +29 - To be expected, with a running QB and no passing game

NYG +21 - Tiki had a very nice farewell year

PIT +20 - Shouldn't they always beat their SOS? Could've expected this jump from an SOS of 31

TEN +19 - I'll attribute alot of this to VY, but Travis and LenDale helped too

KC +13 - LJ, need I say more?

PHI +13 - Westy (5.1) was behind only Gore (5.4) and LT (5.2) from the 1000-yd rushers in 2006

DEN +11 - Notorious running game

SD +9 - LT, enough said

JAX +8 - MJD and Fragile Fred both over 5YPC

STL +7 - SJax was a monster

CIN +7 - Doesn't impress me; they started at 32 for SOS and finished at 25; Rudi plods along at 3.8YPC

WAS +4 - Betts made a name for himself

SF +2 - Deceiving they aren't higher on the list, but hard to do when you have an SOS of 4

MIA +2 - Projected middle of the pack, and finished just a tad higher

HOU +2 - Projected at 22, finished at 20, nothing exciting

NO +2 - Only able to jump 2 places from 28 to 26, this one makes me think SOS was accurate

I am most impressed with SF, TEN, and JAX from this list. None of them had good passing games (29th, 31st, and 24th in passing yardage), so I like the fact that their YPC were high.

Teams that performed worse than their SOS were (listed based on how much lower they finished than projected):

ARI -26 - Finished dead last in YPC (3.2) with a top-10 passing game; highest YPC on the team (of all players with more than 1 carry) was Kurt Warner (4.3)

DET -22 - Another top passing team with a pitiful running game

CHI -20 - Had a QB few teams respect, expected better YPC with average passing game (514 attempts compared to 503 rushes)

GB -19 - Ahman was under 4YPC on a team leading the NFL in passing attempts

SEA -16 - Easiest projected schedule, finished 17th in YPC (SA and Morris both under 4YPC); attribute it to OL

NYJ -14 - This is why you go after Thomas Jones

NE -11 - Brady's 2YPC brought them down; Dillon/Maroney both over 4YPC

CAR -10 - Underachieved on offense... bigtime!

BAL -10 - Ball control offense can account for alot of this, but JLew managed just 3.6YPC

MIN -6 - Not really that bad here; SOS of 8, finished at 14

DAL -5 - MBIII did his part, the rest of the team not so much

BUF -4 - Projected 24th, finished 28th; couldn't get much lower

OAK -3 - Just a complete offensive meltdown in 2006

IND -2 - Projected in middle, finished there

TB -1 - Caddy overused in 2005 haunts TB; he finishes with a dismal 3.5YPC

CLE - even - Projected 29th, finished 29th

Here are some conclusions I will draw from this for 2007:

- JAX is projected to have the easiest SOS. MJD owners rejoice.

- If DeAngelo pushes DeShaun aside, and the CAR passing improves, he can take advantage of an SOS of 2

- TEN's SOS of 3 and Vince Young's threat of running spells good things for LenDale (barring trades or a rookie taking over)

- Caddy may have a bounceback year

- Whoever takes over in BUF is gonna have it rough, as they have the hardest RB schedule for 2007

- Thomas Jones may do fine, but I'm steering clear, as I foresee a finish lower than his ADP

- Rudi will once again have to carry 320+ times to maintain his top-10 status

- The only RB I will draft from CLE isn't in the NFL just yet

- Frank Gore's lucky his receiving skills are decent, because it's not gonna be so easy to run in 2007

 

[Chase Stuart]

Does SOS ever pan out?

Do projections ever pan out?

Answer my question first.Are you actually suggesting that SOS is as valuable a tool as projections?

I don't know what pan out means. That's why I asked my question.

Ok, that's different than I took your question. When I say pan out, I mean when we look at SOS right now, and look at it in hindsight, is it usually close? I guess the clue is in the first post, given the disparity between the 2 sites. So never mind, I'll just stand by my comment in post #6.

I'm not really sure what close means, either. Are projections usually close? Compare the Drew Brees projections with say, Daunte Culpepper's projections.SOS is like everything else. We can predict it, and we get some right, and some wrong.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

 

[Tommy Collins]

Buffalo 3rd easiest schedule? HAHAHAHA

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Follows Closely]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.

Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

...

Comparing SOS to YPC may get you into trouble. Unlike projections there is no formula or accurate way to measure how accurate a SOS was. YPC may be the best way, however, I would not venture down that path.Another thing to remember is that there are a few different ways to calculate SOS. first you have the scoring system used, that can create a large difference in final rankings. Then there is the equation to generate the SOS. To generate a SOS for QBs on Team A you could simple take the average of fantasy points given up to QBs for a given Team B over the past season (or longer, or shorter period). Then repeat this for all opponents of Team A, add them up, and there is your total.

Another way that is similar to above except you don't take the total fantasy points given up by each opponent, you actually take the delta between the number of fantasy points that Team A score on Team B compared to the average number of points Team A typically scores. So here you get + or - points based on what Team A usually scores. Not sue which sites use which mythologies. I also would be careful to average then out. Same with projections, its good to use multiple sources, however, it is not good to average them out.

 

[GregR_2]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):SEA 1 17GB 2 21CHI 3 23SF 4 2DET 5 27ARI 6 32NE 7 18MIN 8 14CAR 9 19DAL 10 15JAX 11 3WAS 12 8SD 13 4IND 14 16MIA 15 13NYJ 16 30STL 17 10PHI 18 5OAK 19 22DEN 20 9BAL 21 31HOU 22 20TB 23 24BUF 24 28KC 25 12TEN 26 7NYG 27 6NO 28 26CLE 29 29ATL 30 1PIT 31 11CIN 32 25....

If you check the correlation coefficient you'll find that it is -0.02. If it's 1 it means there is a perfect correlation between the two rankings. If it's -1 there is a perfect inverse correlation. 0 means they are essentially independent variables. So using the numbers you've given, SOS is almost completely random compared to the final ranking.Someone did an article on SOS that, IIRC, found the same result as your data, that using previous season's SOS was close to worthless as a predictor. But that using the current year's final SOS did a great job as a predictor. But of course we don't know what to use until later in the season when it approaches the final results.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Someone did an article on SOS that, IIRC, found the same result as your data, that using previous season's SOS was close to worthless as a predictor.

That's not the point. It's not worthless as a tool.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS. Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS is almost completely random compared to the final ranking.

But that doesn't mean much. If the best RBs have the hardest schedules (and do worse because of that), and the worst RBs have the easiest schedules (and do better because of that), then SOS will also look random compared to final ranking, despite having a large impact. You're hiding the impact of the variable this way.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

SOS is almost completely random compared to the final ranking.

But that doesn't mean much. If the best RBs have the hardest schedules (and do worse because of that), and the worst RBs have the easiest schedules (and do better because of that), then SOS will also look random compared to final ranking, despite having a large impact. You're hiding the impact of the variable this way.

 

[buck naked]

Does SOS ever pan out?

A couple years ago, when Curtis Martin and McGahee of the AFC East played crossover games against the NFC West, they both had like 7 td's against those four teams. They did not play those teams the next year - and their td production was much less for both. Coincidence? I don't think so.Strength of schedule? Believe what you will, but I will believe it.

 

[heidbrink]

No predictive tool is perfect. Thats why this hobby of ours is fun. Regardless of what the naysayers posted here, arguing that SOS is irrelevant would also mean that "weekly" rankings would also be irrelevant. No, everyone is a believer in SOS when the rubber hits. I use it as ONE of my tools when looking at the draft and through the season. I kind of enjoy making my own tables and predictors and such and have found Mr Stuarts articles on the topic (and as a sidenote the related committee stuff) to be very helpful along with my own analysis. Say and do what you will but in the end everyone is a believer.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS. Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

I think there is a disconnect here. I am in no way trying to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs. I was only trying to compare RB SOS with RB YPC. Anyone drafting RB's in order of SOS would be nuts. The jump from RB SOS to FP's has way too many steps in it. I guess you can say that even a RB's YPC has unlimited factors as to why it is what it is and therefore cannot be broken down: ability of QB to handoff at the right time, heighth of grass on the field, distractions from crowd noise making start of the play a fraction of a second off, brand of cleat for the field conditions, meal eaten before game, etc. All factors I mentioned do matter, but we have to start somewhere to compare stats, right? And just so you know, I never once mentioned comparing SOS with FP's in this entire thread. That was you.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS. Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

I think there is a disconnect here. I am in no way trying to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs. I was only trying to compare RB SOS with RB YPC. Anyone drafting RB's in order of SOS would be nuts. The jump from RB SOS to FP's has way too many steps in it. I guess you can say that even a RB's YPC has unlimited factors as to why it is what it is and therefore cannot be broken down: ability of QB to handoff at the right time, heighth of grass on the field, distractions from crowd noise making start of the play a fraction of a second off, brand of cleat for the field conditions, meal eaten before game, etc. All factors I mentioned do matter, but we have to start somewhere to compare stats, right? And just so you know, I never once mentioned comparing SOS with FP's in this entire thread. That was you.

I don't see a difference between RB YPC and RB FP. What's the significance of that distinction?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS. Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

I think there is a disconnect here. I am in no way trying to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs. I was only trying to compare RB SOS with RB YPC. Anyone drafting RB's in order of SOS would be nuts. The jump from RB SOS to FP's has way too many steps in it. I guess you can say that even a RB's YPC has unlimited factors as to why it is what it is and therefore cannot be broken down: ability of QB to handoff at the right time, heighth of grass on the field, distractions from crowd noise making start of the play a fraction of a second off, brand of cleat for the field conditions, meal eaten before game, etc. All factors I mentioned do matter, but we have to start somewhere to compare stats, right? And just so you know, I never once mentioned comparing SOS with FP's in this entire thread. That was you.

I don't see a difference between RB YPC and RB FP. What's the significance of that distinction?

I'll give you a sample. Which RB led the league in YPC in 2006? It was Chad Morton, with a 22.0YPC. How many FP's did he have? Well, he would've scored 2pts in my league. He only had 1 carry, but guess who it was against? Yes, it was the league's worst run defense... the Colts. As I said from the beginning, I am not talking FP's here. FP's come when you get lots of carries for lots of yards and lots of TD's, or you get lots of catches for lots of yards and lots of TD's. I was only looking at comparing RB SOS with RB YPC.

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.

Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.

You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.

Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.

Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS.

Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

I think there is a disconnect here. I am in no way trying to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs. I was only trying to compare RB SOS with RB YPC. Anyone drafting RB's in order of SOS would be nuts. The jump from RB SOS to FP's has way too many steps in it. I guess you can say that even a RB's YPC has unlimited factors as to why it is what it is and therefore cannot be broken down: ability of QB to handoff at the right time, heighth of grass on the field, distractions from crowd noise making start of the play a fraction of a second off, brand of cleat for the field conditions, meal eaten before game, etc. All factors I mentioned do matter, but we have to start somewhere to compare stats, right? And just so you know, I never once mentioned comparing SOS with FP's in this entire thread. That was you.

I don't see a difference between RB YPC and RB FP. What's the significance of that distinction?

I'll give you a sample. Which RB led the league in YPC in 2006? It was Chad Morton, with a 22.0YPC. How many FP's did he have? Well, he would've scored 2pts in my league. He only had 1 carry, but guess who it was against? Yes, it was the league's worst run defense... the Colts. As I said from the beginning, I am not talking FP's here. FP's come when you get lots of carries for lots of yards and lots of TD's, or you get lots of catches for lots of yards and lots of TD's. I was only looking at comparing RB SOS with RB YPC.

That doesn't matter. Just like anyone "drafting RBs in order of SOS would be nuts", trying to guess which RBs will lead the league in YPC based of SOS is equally nuts.The bolded portion above is a correct way to test for whether SOS "works". Your way is not.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Ill simplify it my way:

If LMaroney is playing the Texans, Lions, Browns and Raiders the final four weeks.

And RJohnson is playing the Bears, Ravens, Steelers and Chargers the final four weeks.

And if I find the rest of the season to be pretty much even on schedules. And if I find RJ and LM to be pretty even in my rankings otherwise. And if I find the Bengals and Patriots pretty even at getting their main RBs fantasy points... its quite a large factor. Even if its not justy playoff time - like its even for half of the schedule and lopsided for one guy for 5 games somewhere throughout... its significant.

Now, for me, the SOS will just be one of many factors (like those mentioned above) used. But to blow it off, would be a mistake by me. Just like blowing off a change in the offensive line from one year to the next, or even coaches.

In the end my list will be made including all the factors. It wont change my rankings after the fact the list is made (unless the ranking was started before the release of the schedule and needs updating).

And does anyone check their lineups and match ups against their opponents? And decide if someone has a distinct and evident advantage?

If you do, your looking SOS square in the face.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

SOS certainly is something worth researching. Some people put very little stock into it, while others weigh it quite heavily. I'll provide some stats. Interpret them as you will. I will add my two cents.

Based on research I did from last year, here was the SOS for each team, along with how they actually finished (the 1st column was the projected SOS, the 2nd column is the actual ranking, based on YPC):

I don't know why you'd want to compare those two things. That's not apples to apples. If that's what people mean when they ask the question "does SOS pan out, or how close is it", then I think the answer is pretty clearly no.

Why wouldn't I want to compare SOS with actual finish? Seems like apples/apples to me. The more important question becomes, how do we then interpret the results? Why did team X under or overperform their SOS? The answers to those questions may lead to better predictions the following year, and it's something I am willing to try to figure out.

For example, you might think that the quality of a QB's wide receivers is a key factor in determining how many fantasy points a QB will score. And you'd be right. But you wouldn't want to compare say, projected WR rankings per team with end of year fantasy points by QBs, would you?

I'm not making the connection there. I am trying to compare a team's rushing SOS with their actual finish in terms of YPC. A QB's fantasy points is based on many more factors than just WR SOS. What about passes to RB's and TE's, as well as the QB's rushing stats? Sure, other factors can go into rushing SOS, but not nearly at the same level as final FF points by a QB. I think that would be comparing apples to oranges.

Factors that determine a QB's fantasy points: talent of his wide receivers, talent of his RBs/TEs, talent of his offensive line, his own talent, his schedule, offensive philosophy, luck.Factors that determine a RB's fantasy points: his talent, talent of his QBs/WRs/TEs, offensive philosophy, talent of his offensive line, his schedule, luck.

You don't want to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs any more than you'd want to compare a QB's WR's abilities with a QB's FP totals. There are too many other things that obscure the results.

Strength of schedule matters. Here's how you want to test it.

Compare a team's projected SOS with their actual SOS.

Here's how you want to use it: If LaDainian Tomlinson has the hardest schedule and Thomas Jones has the easiest, that doesn't mean you take Jones over Tomlinson. It just means you bump up Jones and bump down Tomlinson, just like you'd bump down Tomlinson if he sprained his knee and bumped up Jones if the Jets signed Steve Hutchinson.

I think there is a disconnect here. I am in no way trying to compare a RB SOS with their actual FPs. I was only trying to compare RB SOS with RB YPC. Anyone drafting RB's in order of SOS would be nuts. The jump from RB SOS to FP's has way too many steps in it. I guess you can say that even a RB's YPC has unlimited factors as to why it is what it is and therefore cannot be broken down: ability of QB to handoff at the right time, heighth of grass on the field, distractions from crowd noise making start of the play a fraction of a second off, brand of cleat for the field conditions, meal eaten before game, etc. All factors I mentioned do matter, but we have to start somewhere to compare stats, right? And just so you know, I never once mentioned comparing SOS with FP's in this entire thread. That was you.

I don't see a difference between RB YPC and RB FP. What's the significance of that distinction?

I'll give you a sample. Which RB led the league in YPC in 2006? It was Chad Morton, with a 22.0YPC. How many FP's did he have? Well, he would've scored 2pts in my league. He only had 1 carry, but guess who it was against? Yes, it was the league's worst run defense... the Colts. As I said from the beginning, I am not talking FP's here. FP's come when you get lots of carries for lots of yards and lots of TD's, or you get lots of catches for lots of yards and lots of TD's. I was only looking at comparing RB SOS with RB YPC.

That doesn't matter. Just like anyone "drafting RBs in order of SOS would be nuts", trying to guess which RBs will lead the league in YPC based of SOS is equally nuts.The bolded portion above is a correct way to test for whether SOS "works". Your way is not.

When did I say I was trying to figure out who will lead the league in YPC? What I am mostly looking at is trying to determine how much a RB's YPC may increase or decrease from year to year based on that RB's difference in SOS from year to year. At this point I am not trying to predict how many carries a given RB will have, nor am I talking about catches or TD's. I am only talking about increases and decreases in YPC. If you go back and read my original post, I was asking if anyone knew of any other SOS rankings (other than the 2 sites that I posted links for). I wanted to see more SOS projections, because those 2 sites had many disparities. Rather than going back and forth for another umpteen posts, would you happen to know of any other sites that have SOS projections? That's all I want at this point. Let's stop beating this horse, for he is dead.

 

[Follows Closely]

...When did I say I was trying to figure out who will lead the league in YPC? What I am mostly looking at is trying to determine how much a RB's YPC may increase or decrease from year to year based on that RB's difference in SOS from year to year. At this point I am not trying to predict how many carries a given RB will have, nor am I talking about catches or TD's. I am only talking about increases and decreases in YPC. If you go back and read my original post, I was asking if anyone knew of any other SOS rankings (other than the 2 sites that I posted links for). I wanted to see more SOS projections, because those 2 sites had many disparities. Rather than going back and forth for another umpteen posts, would you happen to know of any other sites that have SOS projections? That's all I want at this point. Let's stop beating this horse, for he is dead.

Man! quotes get our of control! www.ffauthority.com update its SOS today.

 

[GregR_2]

SOS is almost completely random compared to the final ranking.

But that doesn't mean much. If the best RBs have the hardest schedules (and do worse because of that), and the worst RBs have the easiest schedules (and do better because of that), then SOS will also look random compared to final ranking, despite having a large impact. You're hiding the impact of the variable this way.

Thank you for strengthening my point by pointing out a possible flaw in his methodology. Now explain how knowing a model gave a result that is no closer to the real result than a random generator would have given, "doesn't mean much."

 

[Chase Stuart]

SOS is almost completely random compared to the final ranking.

But that doesn't mean much. If the best RBs have the hardest schedules (and do worse because of that), and the worst RBs have the easiest schedules (and do better because of that), then SOS will also look random compared to final ranking, despite having a large impact. You're hiding the impact of the variable this way.

Thank you for strengthening my point by pointing out a possible flaw in his methodology. Now explain how knowing a model gave a result that is no closer to the real result than a random generator would have given, "doesn't mean much."

Because we may be using a biased, even if random, sample.For example, say you have ten die. And you know five of them always end up on an odd number. Five are fair die. You give the fair die to a guy, the nonfair die to a girl. The girl rolls two 3s, two 5s and a 1. The guy rolls two 3s, a 4, 5 and 6. One conclusion would be that the guy and girl are both equally likely to roll a 3. They both rolled one 40% of the time. But that conclusion, even based on data showing no result closer to a random result, is wrong.I'm not sure what's confusing about this. I'm starting to think we're arguing totally different points. I don't think we could really be arguing about the key concepts here.SOS matters. You'd rather your RBs face really bad rushing defenses than really good rushing defenses, because bad rushing defenses allow more FPs to RBs than good rushing defenses.

 

[GregR_2]

...I'm starting to think we're arguing totally different points. I don't think we could really be arguing about the key concepts here....

Well, not meaning to sound antagonistic, but from my end I think you are putting words in my mouth then disagreeing with them.I posted that using SOS for year N based on year N-1 results isn't a good predictor for year N results. But using SOS for Year N based on Year N results is good at predicting year N.

Your reply was that this isn't the point, that SOS isn't worthless as a tool. Reading my post I don't see any such blanket statement that SOS is worthless. In fact I pointed out when SOS is very worthwhile -- when you are dealing with the same year's SOS and results. So I don't know why I was contradicted on something I not only didn't say, but I pretty clearly implied the opposite of.

Especially since I know you agree with what I said about not using the previous year's results to determine SOS for the next year:

Remember, pre-season predictions about strength of schedule are usually meaningless.

-Chase Stuart

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=142

Getting back to your summary:

...

SOS matters. You'd rather your RBs face really bad rushing defenses than really good rushing defenses, because bad rushing defenses allow more FPs to RBs than good rushing defenses.

I've never said otherwise so yes, I don't know what this argument is about. If I may take my turn at changing your words, I'll incorporate the points I actually made and it would say:

...

SOS matters. You'd rather your RBs face really bad rushing defenses than really good rushing defenses, because bad rushing defenses allow more FPs to RBs than good rushing defenses. But using the previous year's records doesn't do a good job of predicting which teams are really bad rushing defenses and which are really good ones.

 

[GregR_2]

Doug's article that I previously mentioned but couldn't find on FBG until I found where you linked to it in the page I quoted.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=17

Strength of schedule

Posted by Doug on Monday, April 10, 2006

The NFL schedule was released last week. Like most people who are neither season ticket holders nor executives for FOX or CBS, I like the new flexible scheduling plan that will allow more interesting games to be shown on Sunday nights.

As has been noted elsewhere, the toughest schedules (based on last year’s records) belong to the Giants and Bengals, whose 2006 opponents were a combined 139-117 in 2005. The Bears have the easiest slate; their opponents were 114-142 last year.

But as we all know, some teams that were bad in 2005 will be good in 2006 and vice versa. And some schedules that look easy right now will actually be tough and vice versa. The question is: to what extent, if any, do the Bears have an advantage over the Giants because of their schedules. Two games? One game? Half a game?

To investigate this, I went back to 1990 and recorded three bits of data about every team.

1. their own record in Year N-1

2. their preseason estimated strength of schedule. I.e. the combined Year N-1 records of the team’s Year N opponents.

3. their record in Year N

For the 2005 New York Jets, for example, I have

1. .625 (their 2004 record was 10-6)

2. .535 (the combined 2004 record of their 2005 opponents)

3. .250 (their 2005 record ended up being 4-12)

I then labeled every team, based on their Year N-1 performance, as either Very Bad (less than 5 wins), Bad (5 or 6 wins), Mediocre (7 to 9 wins), Good (10 or 11 wins), or Very Good (12 or more wins). I also labeled each team’s projected schedule as either Easy (combined opponents record under .500) or Hard (over .500).

Take a look at the Very Bad teams, for example. The Very Bad teams with a projected Easy schedule averaged 6.44 wins the next year. The Very Bad teams with a projected Hard schedule averaged 6.63 wins. The difference is not significant, and that’s the point. Here is the complete breakdown:

Average Wins in Year N

Easy Sched Hard Sched

Very Bad in Year N-1 6.44 6.63

Bad in Year N-1 7.67 7.26

Mediocre in Year N-1 7.82 8.27

Good in Year N-1 8.94 8.57

Very Good in Year N-1 8.78 10.06

TOTAL 7.73 8.27

An eyeballing of this table indicates that the estimated schedule strength is essentially irrelevant and official statistical tests confirm that. [For example, a regression of Year N record on Year N-1 record and projected Year N schedule strength produces a not-even-close-to-significant coefficient for schedule strength.]

Note that I’m not saying that schedule strength isn’t important. Some teams will have harder schedules than others in 2006 and it will make a difference. The point is that these strength-of-schedule estimates that are being thrown around right now seem to have no role at all in determining teams’ 2006 records.

P.S. Good stuff by Doug, he takes donations for the upkeep of his site at http://www.pro-football-reference.com/help.htm if anyone wants to contribute.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I posted that using SOS for year N based on year N-1 results isn't a good predictor for year N results. But using SOS for Year N based on Year N results is good at predicting year N.

Well using Year N results obviously isn't going to be helpful, but yes, we agree.I think I figured out the disconnect here; I'm talking about using SOS based on Year N projections (good), while others are talking about using SOS based on Year N-1 results (bad). This is no different than someone saying yes, projections are a lot more accurate than just using last year's final numbers.