Football Outsiders: Now They Love The Packers

by Brandon on Sep 11, 2009 12:10 AM CDT in Green Bay Packers Analysis

I was disappointed when I read the Football Outsiders Almanac 2009 with the prediction that the Green Bay Packers would not make the playoffs. The only comfort in this fact is that, although they are the best when it comes to NFL statistical analysis, they don't always get it right. In the 2008 edition of their book, they expected the Packers would make the playoffs; not go 6-10.

After watching the preseason unfold, they got back together for their 2009 Staff Predictions. Not only does the post lead with a picture of QB Aaron Rodgers, but they've had a change of heart. 5 of their 12 writers expect the Packers will beat their initial projection and make it to the Super Bowl. Unfortunately only one writer expects the Packers to win the Super Bowl.

As far as other preseason predictions go, Green and Bold posted a good roundup last week. After I interviewed SI's Lee Jenkins about the Sports Illustrated NFL Preview issue, he predicted the Packers would win the NFC North. A lot of people who know football have liked what they've seen so far from the Packers.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There's been no change of heart

The DVOA Projection formula still predicts a disappointing year for the Pack. What they published today was their own subjective opinions.

by Phoenix138 on Sep 11, 2009 12:47 AM CDT reply actions

Yes, but...

A lot of times they don’t believe in their numbers. In that same post, Aaron Schatz wrote how he’s been trying to find some way to give Arizona a better projection because he just doesn’t believe the low projection. It’s subjective, but they realize their numbers aren’t always right.

by Brandon on Sep 11, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm officially worried that we've become the "chick pick"

meaning that we are headed towards a disappointing season. Hopefully its just my inner Cubs fan and I’m dead wrong.

Just say no to players named Aaron on the Cubs.

by nji232 on Sep 11, 2009 9:58 AM CDT reply actions

Sooo

they uniformly predicted that the Pack would not even make the playoffs, but then after viewing a few exhibition outings, they now predict the Pack will win the Super Bowl?!?

Not even us diehard fans are that pathetically knee-jerk.

Why does anyone waste their time reading these idiots? Or for that matter, why does anyone pay them for their demonstrably uninformed and historically incorrect opinions?

Keep predicting that the same teams that won last year will win this year and then when most of them don’t, just ignore that and use the same formula next year. Eureka! I’ve cracked the code.

by 400metres on Sep 11, 2009 11:07 AM CDT reply actions

trendy pick

Every year there’s a team that people pick as an up and coming, and that team often disappoints. I don’t think it’s a jinx so much as the herd nature of journalists. A few people get enthusiastic and the herd follows. It looks like the Packers could be that team this year. I say that because i don’t think the team is that different from last year’s. On the other hand, they do have what looks like an easy schedule working for them.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Sep 11, 2009 11:24 AM CDT reply actions

A lot of people have jump on the Packers bandwagon lately.

"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra

by 49er16 on Sep 11, 2009 2:56 PM CDT reply actions

My friend John said it best...

Me: "Both Drew Magary (here) and Bill Simmons (here) picked us to win the Super Bowl."
John: “Yeah. We’re effed.”

Note: He did not actually use the term “effed”.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 11, 2009 3:33 PM CDT reply actions

All I know is that its going to be a good season...

They want power, We want respect...

by SenorChuckles on Sep 11, 2009 7:17 PM CDT reply actions

I like Football Outsiders.

Really I do. But they’re trying to force statistical models that work very well in baseball onto football, and I’m sorry, football is just not that kind of sport. Baseball has such massive numbers of chances and such obvious outcomes to its confrontations (Hit, Strikeout, Walk, Groundout, Etc.) that, when the data is collected over time and projected into the future, the performance of players and even teams can become reliably predictable. At least within a range of possible outcomes.

Football isn’t like that. Instead of a single confrontation occurring in any given moment (pitcher vs. hitter), football offers a set of simultaneous confrontations, at least 7 or 8 per play, that shift from moment to moment from one-on-one contests to double or triple teams or even the decision to let a man run free. It’s essentially like trying to predict the path of pool balls on a break when you’ve got no control over how the cue ball will strike the other balls.

In the end, it’s just not possible to conduct the kind of reliable statistical projections for individual players or teams in football from year to year the way it often is in baseball. The models they use can be revealing and provide some insight into the future production of skill position players, but they simply can’t be used to predict the performance of offensive linemen, for instance, and that means they can’t be used to reliably predict the performance of teams.

I like their stuff and I read it frequently. I’m interested in their predictions for the Packers and other teams, but in spite of all of the analysis and math, I don’t think they’re any better at predicting the performance of a team before week 1 than I am.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 12, 2009 12:13 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

+1

Exactly right. Baseball is pure statistics, and while I think FO has some cool stats, there are things that are just unpredictable (with a statistical model). For example they say that a defense will usually be a little worse with a new coordinator, and they project the Packers to be terrible defensively because the roster hasn’t changed much and they have a new DC.

by grant76 on Sep 12, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Thank You

I have tried to explain this to a few people who think that FO invented football.

And beyond that, they’re no better at predicitng how each season is going to go than anyone else. In 2008, they ranked the Patriots at #1 all the way down to Atlanta at #32.

Essentially, they had 18 teams (over half) in the 7, 8 and 9 win catagories. No kidding.
They completely missed on rising teams like Miami and Atlanta.
They had the team that won the most games last year (Tennessee with 13 wins) ranked at #21. They had Seattle winning 10. They won 4.

Essentially, their list is a joke. Yeah, they got s a few correct, but the vast majority were off by around 4 games. 4 games is 25% of the season. That’s a lot of games to be off by.

by GeoMak on Sep 12, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions