ESPN.com produces some excellent analysis. Several of the
writers working there can slice and dice data in ways that reveal
thought-provoking, insightful conclusions. I have a weakness, however, for those
delightfully qualitative pieces known as power rankings.
Even though I know that I should know better, I read them
every week. I literally cannot stop myself from clicking on that link (figuratively,
of course – I could quit if I really wanted to). Imagine, then, just how little
control I had when I saw the NFL
Future Power Rankings link on the lower right side of my screen. These
rankings purported to give a quantitative look at the prospects of each team in
the 2015 season.
I started to suspect something might be amiss when I
looked briefly at the methodology.
The methodology was to poll some of ESPN’s analysts and produce a weighted
average of the results. There were instructions given for each category that
seemed to make sense. Don’t consider players over 27 except at QB; look at the
2012 draft class, the team’s picks in the 2013-15 drafts and their track record
in the draft.
In all, the five categories included Roster (ex-QBs),
QBs, Draft, Front Office and Coaching Staff. The 4 analysts – Trent Dilfer, Mel
Kiper (he of this
track record), Gary Horton and Matt Williamson – voted 1 to 10 for each
category and that was the extent of it.
The results of the survey looked all too familiar. There
was Green Bay at the top, followed closely by New England, the New York Giants,
San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Detroit. Not until seventh was there a team,
Philadelphia, that failed to make the playoffs. Three of the four conference
championship game participants made the top four. It did not appear to be significantly
different from simply ordering teams based on their 2011 record. I decided to
take a look at whether current year results are really that highly correlated
with results in four years?