Hawks 2013 D better than Ravens 2000 D

[onanygivensunday]

There's been a fair amount of discussion about where the Hawks D stands all time... and the Ravens D in 2000 seems to always be in the discussion so I did some analysis to share with you.

First off, in 2000 the Ravens allowed only 165 points to be scored against them during the regular season.. for an average of 10.3 points/game.

The Hawks by comparison, allowed a total of 231 points in the same number of games... for an average of 14.4 points/game.

Some people would stop me right there and say... you're wrong, the Ravens D was much better (allowing 4 points/game less than Seattle)... to which I would reply... the game/rules have changed since 2000 and the difficulty of schedule each team faced is not the same... and both must be taken into account to truly answer the question as to which was better.

To address how the game/rules have changed, I added up all the points scored by all teams in the 2000 and 2013 seasons.

In 2000, there was a total of 10,254 points scored.

In 2013, there was a total of 11,985 points scored. As expected, the recent rules have favored the offenses and it shows in the total number of points scored.

One must now normalize the 2013 points to the 2000 points by factoring the 2013 points by a ratio of 11,985/10,254, which equals 1.17... or simply put, defenses in 2013 have to defend offenses that score, on average, 17% more points than offenses scored in 2000.

So when we apply the 1.17 factor to the points allowed by Seattle in 2013, we get 12.3 equivalent year-2000 points (14.4/1.17 = 12.3) vs the year-2000 Ravens average of 10.3/game... and some would still say the the Ravens year-2000 D was better than the Hawks year-2013 defense by 2 points/game... but we haven't yet normalized the data for the difficulty of schedule that each team faced.

To accomplish that, I looked at each individual game that the Hawks and the Ravens played in their respective years... and I calculated the point differential for points allowed relative to the opponents average points scored per game.

For example, in 2000 the Ravens first game opponent was Pittsburgh. The Ravens shut out the Steelers that game. That year, Pittsburgh scored an average of 20 points/game. So the Ravens defensive point differential for that game is -20, because they limited the Pittsburgh offense to 20 points below their scoring average.

I calculated the same differential for each of the Ravens games that year... and the Ravens total differential in year 2000 was -105 points (they kept their opponents below their scoring average by an average of 6.6 points/game).

The Seahawks total for this year is -117 points (they kept their opponents below their scoring average by 7.3 points/game).

And when you apply the 1.17 factor to the Hawks -117 points you get -137 year-2000 equivalent points. The 2013 Hawks D held their opponents to year-2000 equivalent 8.6 points/game below their opponents' scoring average.

And know you know that the 2013 Hawks D was statistically better than the 2000 Ravens D.

One of these day I'll do the same analysis for the 1985 Bears.

 

[dopeboy206]

FWIW The 2000 Ravens had 4 shutouts which is impressive

 

[Scottemojo]

First, I don't buy it. It is impossible to prove, and thus a wasted exercise.

Second, the 2000 Ravens won by destroying quarterbacks. We won by breaking their spirit, the Ravens won by breaking their bodies.

Both defenses should be celebrated as being damn good.

 

[volsunghawk]

First, I don't buy it. It is impossible to prove, and thus a wasted exercise.

Second, the 2000 Ravens won by destroying quarterbacks. We won by breaking their spirit, the Ravens won by breaking their bodies.

Both defenses should be celebrated as being damn good.

Yup. I also remember the Ravens D having to carry their team far more than the Seahawks D did this year. Additionally, they had to play 4 games through the postseason and allowed a grand total of 23 points in all 4 games. 7 of those 23 didn't even happen when they were on D... it was the kickoff return by the Giants in the SB. Otherwise, they shut the Giants out.

I think you're going to have a hard time selling most non-Seahawks fans on the primacy of this year's defense. The 2002 Bucs, the 2000 Ravens, the 1985 Bears, those Steelers teams from the 70s... all in the mix to be considered greatest defense in the SB era. What you can argue with absolute certainty, though, is that if one was making a list of the top 5-10 defenses of the SB era, the 2013 Hawks would have to be in the mix.

 

[Kaiser]

When people speak of the greatest defenses to play the game, this years hawks are 1 of the 3 mentioned. They all had the same result in a superbowl, a collosal beatdown, but the ravens and bears winning their game was pretty much a foregone conclusion. The hawks blew the doors off the highest scoring offense in history. If it matters, and isnt just awesome to be in that trifecta, seattle is the best one. I say this while trying to hold back my homerism with everything ive got.

 

[onanygivensunday]

Here's a shock...

The 2013 Hawk defense is statistically better than the 1985 Bears using the same analysis.


Here's a short summary...

The '85 Bears kept their regular season opponents under their scoring averages by a total of 142 points.

The Seahawks raw number is -117... but when adjusted for the rules changes and the proliferation of the passing game, their adjusted number is -145 points.

The adjustment was based on the total number of points scored in 1985, which was 9645, and the total number of points scored this year, which is 11,985.

Hard to believe that scoring today has grown by 24.2% over that in 1985.

Defenses today have greater challenges by comparison to 1985 in terms of points scored.

 

[onanygivensunday]

And here's an even greater shock...

Our 2013 Hawks defense statistically out-performed the 1985 Chicago Bears in the playoffs... even though the Bears pitched two (2) shutouts and allowed NE only 10 points in the SB. The Bears kept their three playoff opponents a total of 59 points below their scoring averages.

After normalizing the 1985 points to 2013 points, the Hawks kept their three playoff opponents to a total of 61 points below their scoring averages.

 

[theascension]

You forget that the Ravens had a far easier schedule (.443 IIRC) as well as the bears (similar and one of their divisions teams went 2-14). We were in the toughest division in football in quite a few years.

I calculated every statistical category (to prove a point to a bears fan) of the '85 bears v.s their league averages and the '13 hawks v.s our league averages. Hawks were 25.6% better than the league average and the '85 bears were 26.4% better than their league average. I figured this was the best way to calculate it. But when you consider their opponents strengths (like Tony Easton in the superbowl) and ours (Peyton, 49ers, Drew Brees), I think our wins are much more impressive.

I also rewatched super bowl XX (da bears) and they got off to a slow start, not nearly as impressive as us fumbling twice on offense. I will say they had an amazing nasty front 4 however. Better against the run and better sack wise.

No question in my opinion that we're the best defense of all time.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice work, OAGS, but I don't think you're finished...

At this point I have to agree with Sarlacc (who slowly digests his meals over 1000 years) and say that the 2000 Ravens were a different animal, but arrived at the same result. Dominance. Too many nuances to consider when comparing the two. Rules and strength of schedule you covered, but there are other aspects to this that might bear the fruit we seek. Where there is a will, there is a way.

What if you were to look at passing D vs. Run D, try to ascertain where the dominance came from from each team. Was it the Linebackers, was it the secondary or the D-line/ends? Scheme? Opposing passer rating will also be key.

3000 words, on my desk, Monday by 3:00pm (central).

:mrgreen:

 

[onanygivensunday]

You forget that the Ravens had a far easier schedule (.443 IIRC) as well as the bears (similar and one of their divisions teams went 2-14). We were in the toughest division in football in quite a few years.

My analysis takes into account the strength of schedule by calculating how many points a defense limits an offense from the team's scoring average.

No question in my opinion that we're the best defense of all time.

I agree. :th2thumbs:

Up until SB XLVIII, I felt that our D was elite but their performance in the SB confirmed that they are the best of all time... and my statistical analysis confirms it as well.

 

[Hawks46]

It's always going to be hard to quantify who's the best as each defense played in very different circumstances with different rules.

There's one little asterisk that needs to be addressed when talking about our defense, and it's a small item that anyone not following this team all year won't get: there were games when we pulled the starting Defense and put in 2nd and 3rd stringers.

Does anyone think Jacksonville scores anything on our starting defense ? They hadn't before we pulled them out. I don't know how many games, but there were a couple when we pulled the starters then the other team scored (1st Saints game ?). So if there was a way to filter out those garbage time points, I'm betting we're at a realistic 12.2 ppg like the 2002 Bucs, and that's before adjustment.

I have a general theory as to why the 2000 Ravens were still the better defense. Teams emphasised the run a lot more back then, as passing was harder to do as you could physically mess with WRs as they ran down the field. The Ravens' front 7 was much better than ours against the run. Put our front 7 back then, and we'd probably have the same result, maybe slightly worse. Our run defense was good enough to stop teams but not historically elite.

Then you flop the personnel: could their secondary hold up against teams of today ? With that Ravens' pass rush, I'd say yes, but the actual secondary personnel weren't as good. Flip our guys back then and you'd still have a historically elite defense. Our guys aren't just good, they're also the largest seondary on record and also the most physical. Go ahead and let guys like Sherman, Browner, Maxwell and Chancellor to openly grab, hold, chuck downfield, etc. That would be nightmarish. Also, I think it was Scotte mentioned that the Ravens made hay by destroying QBs. How much better would our pass rush be if we were allowed to just tee off on QBs ?

I still think that Ravens squad was better, but I think we're in the discussion, which is awesome to me.

 

[Lady Talon]

I like the comparison, I think the Hawks should be mentioned in the same company as the best all time defenses.

But I had a question about that league wide point stat you used. Did you account for league expansion?

For example 4 teams have been added since 1985, that's 2 extra games/week were playing now.

In 2001, there were 31 teams. More teams, more games, more points were scored in 2013 due to that alone.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Nice work, OAGS, but I don't think you're finished...

At this point I have to agree with Sarlacc (who slowly digests his meals over 1000 years) and say that the 2000 Ravens were a different animal, but arrived at the same result. Dominance. Too many nuances to consider when comparing the two. Rules and strength of schedule you covered, but there are other aspects to this that might bear the fruit we seek. Where there is a will, there is a way.

What if you were to look at passing D vs. Run D, try to ascertain where the dominance came from from each team. Was it the Linebackers, was it the secondary or the D-line/ends? Scheme? Opposing passer rating will also be key.

3000 words, on my desk, Monday by 3:00pm (central).

:mrgreen:

While I like sounding incredibly intelligent, I don't believe that was me.

 

[onanygivensunday]

I like the comparison, I think the Hawks should be mentioned in the same company as the best all time defenses.

But I had a question about that league wide point stat you used. Did you account for league expansion?

For example 4 teams have been added since 1985, that's 2 extra games/week were playing now.

In 2001, there were 31 teams. More teams, more games, more points were scored in 2013 due to that alone.

Good catch. I did not take that into account.

Since the # of teams changed, which affects the total # of games played per year, I re-calculated the game/rules affect as follows:

I took the total points scored and divided that by the # of games played, which is 16 times the number of teams in the league in that year. Here's the results.

In 1985, the average total score per game was 21.9 points.

In 2000, the same average was 20.7 points/game.

And in 2013, the same average was 23.4 points/game.

So the factor from 1985 to 2013 is now 1.068... and the factor from 2000 to 2013 is now 0.945, which are going to affect the conclusions that I drew.

Back to the '85 Bears comparison... the Hawks adjusted total is now -125 points (-117 x 1.068)... and the Bears total was -142 so the Bears defense was better.

Back to the 2000 Ravens comparison... the Hawks adjusted total is now -111 (-117 x 0.945), which is greater than the 2000 Ravens total of -105.

So the 2013 Hawks defense is still statistically better than the 2000 Ravens but not better than the 1985 Bears.


LT - Thx again for catching that. :th2thumbs:

 

[Lady Talon]

I like the comparison, I think the Hawks should be mentioned in the same company as the best all time defenses.

But I had a question about that league wide point stat you used. Did you account for league expansion?

For example 4 teams have been added since 1985, that's 2 extra games/week were playing now.

In 2001, there were 31 teams. More teams, more games, more points were scored in 2013 due to that alone.

Good catch. I did not take that into account.

Since the # of teams changed, which affects the total # of games played per year, I re-calculated the game/rules affect as follows:

I took the total points scored and divided that by the # of games played, which is 16 times the number of teams in the league in that year. Here's the results.

In 1985, the average total score per game was 21.9 points.

In 2000, the same average was 20.7 points/game.

And in 2013, the same average was 23.4 points/game.

So the factor from 1985 to 2013 is now 1.068... and the factor from 2000 to 2013 is now 0.945, which are going to affect the conclusions that I drew.

Back to the '85 Bears comparison... the Hawks adjusted total is now -125 points (-117 x 1.068)... and the Bears total was -142 so the Bears defense was better.

Back to the 2000 Ravens comparison... the Hawks adjusted total is now -111 (-117 x 0.945), which is greater than the 2000 Ravens total of -105.

So the 2013 Hawks defense is still statistically better than the 2000 Ravens but not better than the 1985 Bears.


LT - Thx again for catching that. :th2thumbs:

Not at all it's easy to miss such things. Appreciate your hard work on this.

 

[General Manager]

This years Seattle defense is the best I've ever seen. Given the schedule and the proliferation of the passing game there's a legit argument to be made that Seattle fielded the best defense the in NFL history.

 

[Exittium]

This years Seattle defense is the best I've ever seen. Given the schedule and the proliferation of the passing game there's a legit argument to be made that Seattle fielded the best defense the in NFL history.

If we can repeat the results next year and have even better stats on defense, then there will no longer need to be any arguments on what D is better.

 

[HawkWow]

Great write up OP. Much appreciated.

 

[Anonymous]

While I like sounding incredibly intelligent, I don't believe that was me.

My apologies, how I had you confused with the also mighty, Scottemojo, is still a mystery. :mrgreen:

I did bump my head on the arm of the shop-lift today...

 

[Brahn]

Living Legend HOF'er, Highest scoring offense EVER

8 points almost a shut out - how can it not be the greatest?