Whether its a power ranking, predicting win/loss records, determining who is good and who isn't, or what have you, how would you describe how you rank teams? What single way of determining who is better do you put the most weight into?

Eye test.

I'm going to go with "If they wear red and gold they are automatically overrated".

Just messing around fellas.

Personally win/loss ratio to me doesn't mean as much as some like to make it seem. Strength of schedule has a factor in that ratio most of the time and therefore a "winning" team can be the benefit of their suckage from last season. If they follow it up the year after a deep playoff run then maybe.

I put little to no credit in power rankings as they are just the opinion of an analyst who uses personal opinions to rank their teams, even though they do tend to be a good forecast of who will be in the playoffs midway through the season.

I use consistency as a way of measuring a teams talent when I "rank" them. If they can consistently find ways to put points on the board and limit other teams from scoring a lot of points each game, as well as keeping mistakes to a minimum, that is a formula for success. It allows for the occasional "bad game" knowing that they are more than capable of bouncing back the next week.

I have a system I use. I incorporate 6 different variations of every single possible statistic, and convert it to a decimal number that gives an overall value in terms of on field performance for all positions. Then I substitute this number into an equation that I formulated last year, an equation that also includes weight room/practice performance and locker room cohesiveness (each numbers of their own). Then I multiply this by the "Swag" constant, and invert the product until I am left with a numerical value greater than 0, but always less than 1. Last but not least, I subtract this number from the total number of white wide receivers on the team, and am left with the final ranking number. This is the BFT value.

Ethnicity...Jseahawks taught me that.

nategreat wrote:I have a system I use. I incorporate 6 different variations of every single possible statistic, and convert it to a decimal number that gives an overall value in terms of on field performance for all positions. Then I substitute this number into an equation that I formulated last year, an equation that also includes weight room/practice performance and locker room cohesiveness (each numbers of their own). Then I multiply this by the "Swag" constant, and invert the product until I am left with a numerical value greater than 0, but always less than 1. Last but not least, I subtract this number from the total number of white wide receivers on the team, and am left with the final ranking number. This is the BFT value.

It doesn't even sound like you're using any calculus. How do you expect to get real answers? If you're not using calculus you're just getting rough approximations. The "Swag constant" is outdated, you need to be using the second derivative of the "Swag curve" over the last 3 years (weighted for current year obviously).

It's all about a quarterback and o-line.

JesterHawk wrote:

nategreat wrote:I have a system I use. I incorporate 6 different variations of every single possible statistic, and convert it to a decimal number that gives an overall value in terms of on field performance for all positions. Then I substitute this number into an equation that I formulated last year, an equation that also includes weight room/practice performance and locker room cohesiveness (each numbers of their own). Then I multiply this by the "Swag" constant, and invert the product until I am left with a numerical value greater than 0, but always less than 1. Last but not least, I subtract this number from the total number of white wide receivers on the team, and am left with the final ranking number. This is the BFT value.

It doesn't even sound like you're using any calculus. How do you expect to get real answers? If you're not using calculus you're just getting rough approximations. The "Swag constant" is outdated, you need to be using the second derivative of the "Swag curve" over the last 3 years (weighted for current year obviously).

I would expect by now you'd have figured out to take the natural logarithm of the principle coefficient as well. Honestly, people, this is the 21st century. We're not cavemen.

eyeballs! some stats...

BirdsCommaAngry wrote:Whether its a power ranking, predicting win/loss records, determining who is good and who isn't, or what have you, how would you describe how you rank teams? What single way of determining who is better do you put the most weight into?

bingo...no fancy formulas, equations, or zen-like trances are needed...

JSeahawks wrote:Eye test.

So you watch multiple games from every team every year you wish to rank teams?

I usually look for a team that will adjust to game circumstances, if a team is doing something to take advantage of a player or a scheme and a coach is bullheaded to the point of forcing something whether it's working or not.

Teams that can make adjustments and not get pigeon holed into one thing tend to be more flexible and have the ability to adapt to different looks given them much easier. They can also present new looks at given times to change how the game is dictated as far as flow.

BirdsCommaAngry wrote:

JSeahawks wrote:Eye test.

So you watch multiple games from every team every year you wish to rank teams?

Well, I don't wish to rank teams. But if that were my job, yes, thats how I would do it.

But you wouldn't be able to predict future success from viewing past performances when there are significant personnel and coaching changes. What do you use then?

Tarot cards and a Ouija board.

BirdsCommaAngry wrote:But you wouldn't be able to predict future success from viewing past performances when there are significant personnel and coaching changes. What do you use then?

You asked, he told you. Can't it be left at that?

I have a two tiered system.

1. Seahawks

2. All those other crap teams.

50% win/loss record, 30% eye test, 20% factoring in how good I think their opponents are/were.

I look at how they play on the road. How dynamic is the offense? How many play makers does the team have? How mature are they? Is there anything about the coaching staff and their history I can decipher? How healthy are they? Is their defense at least decent enough to generate turnovers and make a few stops?

Usually at the beginning of the season I go on past performances from the prior season that will bias my ranking.

JesterHawk wrote:You asked, he told you. Can't it be left at that?

If he elects not to answer, it can. Otherwise we can continue to play Q&A and both learn a little in the process.

RolandDeschain wrote:50% win/loss record, 30% eye test, 20% factoring in how good I think their opponents are/were.

The Colts ended their season with the same record as us but I don't think you'll honestly think they can hold a candle to us. I sure don't and I'm less of a homer than most.

1. Seattle
2. Everyone else
3. Gallstones
4. 49ers

MontanaHawk05 wrote:1. Seattle
2. Everyone else
3. Gallstones
4. 49ers

You forgot to put the Steelers, Redskins, and Cowboys underneath gall stones.