Recent comments in /f/dataisbeautiful

kllinzy t1_j3pxgie wrote

Idk I'm in a mood so I'm commenting the same thing again, but, I think the scaling is messing up your logic here.

So the pats looked pretty close to the top corner, but this chart doesn't actually say how much they were beating the chiefs in defensive EPA or how much they were losing in offensive EPA.

They could have been winning the defensive EPA by 3 points and losing the offensive one by 5, and the chart wouldn't be able to show it, so long as the spread on the defensive axis was much tighter than the spread on the offensive axis.it could go the other way too, I'm just saying this chart doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion.

I think this is amusing, because basically, to draw the conclusion about who is better in overall EPA in any given week, the pats or the chiefs, you must also consider how bad the lions and bears played (or whoever is setting the 0 that week on each axis).

24

kllinzy t1_j3pwnc5 wrote

I think the scaling makes this unclear.

Since the top team is scaled to 1 and the bottom scaled to 0, the axis with the largest spread is being undervalued and the axis with the tightest spread overvalued.

It's possible that the defensive 0-1 axis is only 1 expected point, but the offensive 0-1 is axis 50 expected points.

Could be the opposite, too, or it could be different week to week. Basically, I think this is a terrible chart to answer that exact question (but a very interesting chart in general).

12

Poincare_Confection t1_j3psjhu wrote

The big takeaway for me is that offense has more impact on win rate than defense.

Compare the Patriots and Chiefs. Very symmetrical positions on this chart, but Patriots are defense heavy whereas Chiefs are offense heavy. Yet the Chiefs went 14-3 and Patriots went 8-9. According to this, the Patriots had the 2nd best defense in the entire league and had a middle of the pack offense, and yet they went 8-9. That says a lot to me.

177