![]() |
Graph by Clay Dreslough |
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Super Bowl MVP Predictions
![]() |
Photo by Keith Allison |
Odds are that it will go to a quarterback. But there's a 48.7% chance of someone else taking home the MVP trophy.
Player | MVP Chance |
Tom Brady (NE) | 31.6% |
Eli Manning (NYG) | 19.7% |
Wes Welker (NE) | 5.9% |
Rob Gronkowski (NE) | 5.7% |
Aaron Hernandez (NE) | 4.7% |
Victor Cruz (NYG) | 4.6% |
Hakeem Nicks (NYG) | 4.1% |
Ahmad Bradshaw (NYG) | 3.4% |
BenJarvus Green-Ellis (NE) | 3.4% |
Deion Branch (NE) | 2.6% |
Jason Pierre-Paul (NYG) | 2.1% |
Vince Wilfork (NE) | 1.2% |
Brandon Jacobs (NYG) | 1.8% |
Mario Manningham (NYG) | 1.4% |
Jerod Mayo (NE) | 0.9% |
Justin Tuck (NYG) | 0.9% |
Osi Umenyiora (NYG) | 0.8% |
Kyle Arrington (NE) | 0.7% |
Antrel Rolle (NYG) | 0.6% |
Lawrence Tynes (NYG) | 0.5% |
Devin McCourty (NE) | 0.5% |
Danny Woodhead (NE) | 0.4% |
Chad Ochocinco (NE) | 0.3% |
Jake Ballard (NYG) | 0.3% |
Stephen Gostkowski (NE) | 0.3% |
Stephen Hoyer (NE) | 0.2% |
Note: This simulation assumed that Gronkowski is at 90% because of a high ankle sprain. If he's 100% healthy, his chance to win the MVP will be higher than Wes Welker's.
I'm amused by the 1-in-500 chance that Brady gets injured and Hoyer leads the Pats to their 4th Super Bowl victory.
I'm a bit surprised that Julian Edelman didn't make the list, as the only guy that's playing on offense, defense and special teams. He could conceivably get a receiving TD, a return TD, and a "Pick 6".
Related article: Football Mogul Predicts Super Bowl XLVI
I'm amused by the 1-in-500 chance that Brady gets injured and Hoyer leads the Pats to their 4th Super Bowl victory.
I'm a bit surprised that Julian Edelman didn't make the list, as the only guy that's playing on offense, defense and special teams. He could conceivably get a receiving TD, a return TD, and a "Pick 6".
Related article: Football Mogul Predicts Super Bowl XLVI
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Do Be Evil
![]() |
Photo by Tangi Bertin on Flickr |
This is the day that Google went evil. At least in my mind.
I realize that Google has done many things over the years that could be assessed as evil. But today is the first day where I caught them presenting themselves publicly as evil for all the world to see.
The first ad I saw this morning was one for Google's new "Good To Know" initiative.1
This ad campaign tells me that it's a good thing that Google remembers everything about me
and tells it to all the web sites that I visit, so that I don't have to "re-introduce" myself to each web site. The comparison is made to a friendship, where it would be a waste of time if you had to remind your friends of your name, age, interests, personality, etc. -- every single time you met up with them.
As Mitt Romney might say, "web sites are people too, my friend".
An ad campaign like this, where you try to convince the world that your questionable practices are actually good for them, is one of the biggest signs that a company has gone full evil.
See, for example, the recent ad campaigns about fracking. I was on the fence about fracking until I saw that millions of dollars were being spent to get me to think that it is lets us drill for shale gas "safely and responsibly".
"Orwellian language," as George Lakoff says, "points to weakness." Google realizes that keeping every iota of personal information in order to maximize their revenue is bad. It goes against their policy of "Don't Be Evil". This is new. That is, Google's public acknowledgement is new. Google (or at least a senior exec inside Google) thinks that Google has joined the ranks of evil uber-corporations and needs to start acting like one.
When I woke up this morning, I wasn't too worried about the info Google keeps on me. I admit it's annoying that almost every single web page I visit is trying to sell me things that I *just bought online*. But annoying isn't evil.
:(
1 As an aside, I must give props to the subtle naming of this initiative: a name that subconsciously implies that it is good that Google knows so much about you. I bet they spent at least six figures on cognitive science consultants to come up with this one.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The NFL's "Worst" Pass Defenses
In tonight's 45-7 drubbing of the Broncos by the Patriots, I have to admit that the 2nd half was pretty boring.
Here's what I did see that was interesting:
CBS put up a graphic showing that the best teams in the NFL this year also had the worst pass defenses. This wasn't the first time I had seen this stat trotted out as "proof" that the Packers, Saints and Pats have horrible pass defenses.
Teams that win most of their games are often playing with the lead. That means that their opponents are playing from behind. Teams trying to catch up have to pass more. And teams that pass more get more pass yards.
As you can see, the better teams allow more passing yards. Using passing yards allowed to measure a football defense is like using double plays to measure a baseball defense. Counterintuitively, bad teams turn more double plays, simply because they allow more base runners, and you need someone on base to turn a double play.
If the talking heads really wanted the truth, they would show this:
Here's what I did see that was interesting:
CBS put up a graphic showing that the best teams in the NFL this year also had the worst pass defenses. This wasn't the first time I had seen this stat trotted out as "proof" that the Packers, Saints and Pats have horrible pass defenses.
Team | Won | Lost | Pass Yards Allowed Per Game | NFL Rank |
Green Bay Packers | 15 | 1 | 301.2 | 32nd |
New England Patriots | 13 | 3 | 283.0 | 31st |
New Orleans Saints | 11 | 5 | 266.7 | 30th |
Teams that win most of their games are often playing with the lead. That means that their opponents are playing from behind. Teams trying to catch up have to pass more. And teams that pass more get more pass yards.
Furthermore, these three teams have the three best QBs in the NFL. With Brady, Brees and Rodgers leading your passing attack, it doesn't take very long to score. And teams that pass use up less time on the clock. That gives opponents of these teams even more opportunity to rack up passing yards.
The problem with Passing Yards is that it's an absolute stat, not a rate stat. So circumstances that cause a team to pass more will make it look like they are "better" passing teams.
To show that good teams allow more passing yards, I took the free version of Football Mogul and created a universe where every team had the exact same players on defense. And then I used the "Simulator Tool" to simulate the 2011-2012 one hundred times, to look at the impact that a team's offense has on their passing yards allowed:
To show that good teams allow more passing yards, I took the free version of Football Mogul and created a universe where every team had the exact same players on defense. And then I used the "Simulator Tool" to simulate the 2011-2012 one hundred times, to look at the impact that a team's offense has on their passing yards allowed:
Team | Wins | Pass Yards Allowed Per Game |
Great Teams | 13 - 16 | 259.7 |
Good Teams | 10 - 12 | 257.2 |
Average Teams | 7 - 9 | 244.3 |
Bad Teams | 4 - 6 | 240.1 |
Horrible Teams | 0 - 3 | 241.6 |
As you can see, the better teams allow more passing yards. Using passing yards allowed to measure a football defense is like using double plays to measure a baseball defense. Counterintuitively, bad teams turn more double plays, simply because they allow more base runners, and you need someone on base to turn a double play.
If the talking heads really wanted the truth, they would show this:
Team | Won | Lost | Opponent Passer Rating | NFL Rank |
Green Bay Packers | 15 | 1 | 82.2 | 11th |
New England Patriots | 13 | 3 | 84.7 | 16th |
New Orleans Saints | 11 | 5 | 88.1 | 24th |
Alas, saying that the Patriots have an "average passing defense" doesn't make for eye-catching on-screen graphics. So for now we'll have to continue to hear about New England's incompetent secondary.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)