Let’s start by recognizing that the 2011 Giants faced a difficult schedule in the regular season; not only was the NFC East competitive, but New York also faced the top four teams in the NFL outside of their division. In 2011, the Giants ranked 13th in the Simple Rating System. For the uninitiated, the SRS is a predictive system, which means it could theoretically place a 3-5 team ahead of a 7-1 team. The SRS mimics the points spread you would see in Las Vegas rather than a power ranking system. As the name implies, it’s simple in the sense that it only looks at two variables: strength of schedule and margin of victory. Each game is given equal weight. A win by 10 points over a team that is 5 points below average is equal to a 5-point win over an average team. The SRS is always just the sum of the margin of victory and the opponent’s rating. Unlike many systems, in the SRS, the values have meaning. A team with an SRS rating of +6.0 means that team is six points better than average.
It’s complicated to create these ratings, but I’ve done the heavy lifting [1]The tricky part is that each team’s strength of schedule is dependent on the ratings of each of their opponents, which is dependent on the ratings of each of their opponents, which includes the … Continue reading. Here were the SRS ratings for each team immediately after week 17 last season:
Rk | Tm | MOV | SOS | SRS |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | New Orleans Saints | 13 | -1.6 | 11.4 |
2 | Green Bay Packers | 12.6 | -1.2 | 11.4 |
3 | New England Patriots | 10.7 | -1.4 | 9.3 |
4 | San Francisco 49ers | 9.4 | -1.1 | 8.3 |
5 | Baltimore Ravens | 7 | -0.9 | 6.1 |
6 | Detroit Lions | 5.4 | 0.6 | 6.1 |
7 | Pittsburgh Steelers | 6.1 | -0.8 | 5.3 |
8 | Philadelphia Eagles | 4.3 | 0.5 | 4.7 |
9 | Houston Texans | 6.4 | -1.9 | 4.5 |
10 | Atlanta Falcons | 3.3 | 0.3 | 3.5 |
11 | Chicago Bears | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.7 |
12 | Dallas Cowboys | 1.4 | 0.3 | 1.6 |
13 | New York Giants | -0.4 | 2 | 1.6 |
14 | Miami Dolphins | 1 | -0.1 | 0.9 |
15 | New York Jets | 0.9 | 0 | 0.9 |
16 | San Diego Chargers | 1.8 | -0.9 | 0.9 |
17 | Seattle Seahawks | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
18 | Cincinnati Bengals | 1.3 | -0.9 | 0.5 |
19 | Tennessee Titans | 0.5 | -1.5 | -1 |
20 | Carolina Panthers | -1.4 | 0.1 | -1.3 |
21 | Arizona Cardinals | -2.3 | 0 | -2.2 |
22 | Buffalo Bills | -3.9 | 0.5 | -3.4 |
23 | Washington Redskins | -4.9 | 0.8 | -4.1 |
24 | Oakland Raiders | -4.6 | -0.3 | -4.9 |
25 | Denver Broncos | -5.1 | -0.2 | -5.3 |
26 | Cleveland Browns | -5.6 | 0.2 | -5.4 |
27 | Jacksonville Jaguars | -5.4 | -0.3 | -5.6 |
28 | Minnesota Vikings | -6.8 | 1.1 | -5.7 |
29 | Kansas City Chiefs | -7.9 | -0.2 | -8.1 |
30 | St. Louis Rams | -13.4 | 2.9 | -10.4 |
31 | Tampa Bay Buccaneers | -12.9 | 2.3 | -10.6 |
32 | Indianapolis Colts | -11.7 | 0.4 | -11.3 |
References
↑1 | The tricky part is that each team’s strength of schedule is dependent on the ratings of each of their opponents, which is dependent on the ratings of each of their opponents, which includes the original team we’re trying to rate. If you adjust each team’s rating over thousands of iterations, eventually the ratings converge, and we’re left with “true” ratings |
---|