Aikman's Efficiency Ratings- Better than, the NFL system for ranking off/defenses

[Whitewash]

Looking over this new system that apparently Troy Aikman created, it actually works really well....much, much better than the current system used to measure the top offenses and top defenses in the NFL.

It'd be nice to see the NFL implement it over the very flawed ranking system that is based on pure yards.

http://nfl.com/news/story/7683744

Also, here is how the system works: http://nfl.com/news/story/7610861

The rankings will be updated for stats up to Week 3 by Wednesday afternoon.

[Hostile]

I totally agree. That is much more indicative of how to rate teams.

[Reality]

It has been discussed here several times before and if you search, you will find most users agree with Aikman.

[DLK150]

Here are updated rankings for week 2.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7704712

Most fans agree straight stats can be misleading. There will never be a perfect formula for determining statistical rankings, since there are too many intangibles involved. This is at least a step in the right direction.

[SA_Gunslinger]

yup, i agree too....troy has done well in his second career!

i also love how he CONSTANTLY flashes his super bowl ring on broadcasts!!!!!

especially at iggles games....hahahahahaha

[AdamJT13]

It would be easier to know whether his system works or has flaws if he'd reveal the formula. All we know are the components, and each one of them could be misleading in some ways.

Yards per play -- Favors passing teams over running teams. Penalizes teams for grinding out the clock when they have the lead. Why not split it into yards per pass and yards per run?

Points scored -- Doesn't differentiate between a 99-yard TD drive and a 1-yard TD drive, or between 28 points on 16 possesions and 28 points on eight possessions. Why not account for field position and number of possessions?

Turnovers -- Not all turnovers are equal. An interception on a hail mary on the last play of the first half is meaningless, while a fumble at the 1-yard line while going in for a winning touchdown is a killer.

Red-zone efficiency -- I pointed out myriad flaws in this stat earlier this week. It's the only stat in which doing better hurts your ranking. I'd leave it completely out of the rankings.

Third-down conversions -- Yes, they're nice. But what about first-down conversions and second-down conversions? I'd much rather go 0-for-3 on third downs if I'm racking up the yards and first downs on first and second downs, than to go 5-for-10 on third downs and those are my only five first downs of the game.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

It would be easier to know whether his system works or has flaws if he'd reveal the formula. All we know are the components, and each one of them could be misleading in some ways.

Yards per play -- Favors passing teams over running teams. Penalizes teams for grinding out the clock when they have the lead. Why not split it into yards per pass and yards per run?

Points scored -- Doesn't differentiate between a 99-yard TD drive and a 1-yard TD drive, or between 28 points on 16 possesions and 28 points on eight possessions. Why not account for field position and number of possessions?

Turnovers -- Not all turnovers are equal. An interception on a hail mary on the last play of the first half is meaningless, while a fumble at the 1-yard line while going in for a winning touchdown is a killer.

[View Full Quote] Red-zone efficiency -- I pointed out myriad flaws in this stat earlier this week. It's the only stat in which doing better hurts your ranking. I'd leave it completely out of the rankings.

Third-down conversions -- Yes, they're nice. But what about first-down conversions and second-down conversions? I'd much rather go 0-for-3 on third downs if I'm racking up the yards and first downs on first and second downs, than to go 5-for-10 on third downs and those are my only five first downs of the game.

I have a similar problem with QB rating. Its all too generic.

If McNabb completes a 4 yard pass to a back on 3rd and 3 while Manning breaks 3 tackles of would be sackers to complete a 4 yard pass on 3rd and 3 the rating judges them as equal play. Now Manning(being the great mobile QB) is tired from the extra effort and so the next play he tosses an incompletion while McNabb, comfy in the pocket, tosses a 7 yard completion. QB rating tells you to go out and get McNabb as he is the better QB. Until QB rating accounts for avoided sacks, incompletions that save yards lost and other stuff, it is a fairly inaccurate production, IMO.

[Whitewash]

The seven categories measured are:

Adjusted Points (20 percent) -- Total Points Scored or Allowed minus Points on Returns and Safeties.

Turnovers (20 percent).

Red Zone Efficiency (20 percent) -- Measured by Percent of Possible Points (figured by taking the number of Red Zone Chances times 7, then dividing it by the number of Points Actually Scored (defined as TDs times 7 plus FGs times 3).

Yards Per Play -- Divided into Yards Per Rush (10 percent of total) and Yards Per Pass Play (10 percent of total). Yards Per Pass Play includes yards on plays involving sacks.

First Down Achievement -- Divided into Total First Downs (10 percent of total) and 3rd Down Conversion Percentage (10 percent of total).

-------------------

Maybe someone could figure out the exact formula with this information.