Monday, January 22, 2007

Packer 1-6 in Quality Wins in 2006

Do McCarthy and Thompson actually have the ship turned around yet?

A statistical football fansite,, takes DVOA a step further in trying to show exactly how a team is performing using numbers and statistics.

One statistic that I found interesting was the fact that the Packers finished only 1-6 this past season in what they call "quality wins".

Quality wins are defined as such:

"These are complete NFL standings based solely upon each team's performance against "quality opponents" – that is, against teams with winning records. Strip away the dead-weight detritus of games played against poor and mediocre opponents, and you get a much clearer picture of the true nature of a team. Quality Standings are more important than overall standings because every year there are teams that pad their records by beating up weak opponents. The Quality Wins Quotient tells you which teams have had cakewalk schedules and which teams are truly battle-tested."

In the quality standings, the Packers ended up in last place in the NFC North, and there were only three teams in the NFL with worse quality records than the Packers (Buffalo, Atlanta, and Oakland).

In the "Points For" category, the Packers were actually second-to-last in the NFL, ahead of only Oakland, and in the "Points Against" category, the Packers tied with the Cowboys for third-most, behind just San Francisco and the Giants.

In contrast, the 4-12 2005 squad finished with a quality record of 1-8...fitting, considering how that season panned out, but more interesting is that in 2005, four teams had worse records overall (Houston, Arizona, Tennessee and Detroit), and the Packers actually tied with New Orleans and San Francisco.

In 2005, thirteen teams actually finished with less "Points For" than the Packers, and seventeen had higher "Points Against".

Now, I don't intend to try and make any points one way or another. I'm as much of a statistic skeptic as anyone, and simply found this particular compilation interesting. I may even be using the statistics "wrong", or I may have them out of context, at which point I'd appreciate anyone contributing to clarify or correct their use.

No comments: