Another look at the Bengals

More than a quarter through the season, the Bengals are currently at 4-1, tops in the AFC North. As fans and media members rave about the team's new attitude, poise, clutch play, and every other cliche used when a bad squad seemingly becomes a good one, I thought we'd look a little deeper. No, I'm not going to pile onto the already stuffed plate of this subjective analysis. Instead, I'll consider (gasp!) quantitative analysis.

"But it's all about wins. That's all that matters"

Just so the above statement doesn't appear in the comments section, let's make one thing perfectly clear now: wins are obviously important. They decide the standings, and they're the only stat that truly carries  significance towards reaching the playoffs. However, there are many measures besides wins one can look at in order to more effectively study a team's play and determine said team's future success.

The fact of the matter is that DVOA, the primary stat made by Football Outsiders, has better predictive value than wins; to simply dismiss the metric because it's somewhat unusual and doesn't always correlate with past wins is foolish. For those who believe that only wins matter when talking about the past and even the future, I ask you this: If we only consider past wins, then how exactly do we attempt to predict the future? By guessing? By considering rudimentary predictions using just wins? While some can overuse it, DVOA has its purposes, mainly in that it neutralizes certain elements, ones that affect wins themselves-- quality of opponent, an unequal amount of fumble recoveries (this is actually random), an uneven distribution of first downs.

With this said, let's dive into the numbers. The Bengals are at this point eighteenth in DVOA, at a below-average -2.6%. Aaron Schatz, FO's founder, explained the low rating:

We're all by now raining accolades upon New Orleans, Denver, and Cincinnati as 2009's surprise teams, but according to DVOA, one of those teams is not like the others. No, it isn't just that Cincinnati actually has a loss. Despite being one fluke play away from 5-0, the Bengals actually have a negative DVOA, 18th overall at -2.6%. Why is DVOA so down on the Bengals? It isn't schedule -- in fact, DVOA grades Cincinnati with the sixth-toughest schedule in the NFL so far. It's more about how the Bengals are winning: close. Three of the Bengals' wins have come by just a field goal, the other by a touchdown. They needed all of overtime to narrowly beat the Browns, which adds a whole extra quarter of mediocre play into their DVOA rating. The Bengals are also riding some excellent fumble luck (they've recovered six of eight fumbles, not counting special teams).

It is easy to see his point. Despite the Bengals playing well in the final quarter, a lot of what they've done has been dependent on factors teams cannot depend on, such as mistakes by their opponents, fourth down conversions, and timely play (there's no evidence teams can just "turn it on" or greatly improve their play in clutch situations). Relying on the following is risky; all of those last three items are unlikely to last (not to mention the lucky fumble recovery rate).

Then again, we mustn't stop here. Subjectively, I've watched what I would consider to be an above-average team. Even using FO's DVOA splits, one can find optimism: The Bengals actually have above-average marks in offensive and defensive DVOA. Their special teams play (-8.9%, last in the NFL) is bringing the team down, mostly due to the erroneous performance on PAT and field goal situations caused by the recently-cut Brad St. Louis (and to a lesser extent, Shayne Graham). This isn't to suggest that having a good long-snapper will solve all of the Bengals' woes -- more consistent offensive execution and further defensive development have a say in the matter -- but clearly it will help.

So there you have it. While these numbers will never paint a full picture, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Bengals have been playing a little over their heads so far.

Comments

[BuzzKillington]

Aw. You put my picture on this post! Thanks!

[Randy]

So wait...the bengals recovering fumbles is just sheer luck? Did the Bengals not cause said fumbles to happen? That person just happened to dropped the ball huh? Doesn't make sense. The D is playing great. They're causing fumbles and recovering them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the fact that there's still a lot of improvement to be had on this team (and in the offices especially), but the fumbles weren't luck. We caused those by good defensive plays.

[Randy]

Sorry, I worded things wrong. I'm not advocating the fact that there's NOT a lot of improvement that this team needs. There is lots of improvement that needs done.

[jdizzle]

whodey.... just support the team assholes

[CurseofBoJackson]

jdizzle=ignorant We do support the team, most of us anyway, we just refuse to do so with money (again, most? of us), and we would like to be informed fans. What is the problem with reading different statistics and analyzing them? Are you twelve? A woman newly interested in the game? Here's to Ced scoring two home runs this Sunday.

[Michael]

I think there's an aspect of DVOA that needs to be mentioned in regards to fumble rate. DVOA assumes that recovering a fumble is a 50/50 proposition, so looking at a 75% recovery rate looks "lucky". However I guarantee that if you sat at you desk and flipped a coin, you could witin a few minutes have a strech of 6 out of 8 heads. You would not however, see a stretch of 30 out of 40. The denominator need to be a little higher before I worry about "luck".

[Theme-Creator]

Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that the Bengals are 4-1 and I am rooting for them. The problem is what I call "Mike Brown Syndrome". Part of me wants to jump up and down and get excited about 4 very good wins. However, MFB has cursed us with 18 years of tyrany. 18 YEARS!!! It is very hard to forget the errors and abuse of 18 years and by no means is 4 good victories going to do it.

I think we are all hypocrytes if we believe that the all the sudden Mike's plans (which have failed miserably over the last 18 year sample) are all the sudden working. That would be an absurd assumption. So, the fact that the Bengals are off to a good start is heavely tempered by the facts of the last 18 years. Knowing that Mike has not changed and will not change is a big wet blanket on the whole organization. So, right about the time I am really starting to get excited I think about who is running the show and what did he do different this year as opposed to the last 18. When you realize the answer is nothing you also realize that this is another one year fluke. Those who do not remember the past are bound to repeat it.

[Mockenrue]

Theme-Creator, I think the people frothing at the mouth at 4-1 actually DO remember the past, and I think that's part of the Mike Brown Tyranny.

Look at it this way. Some of us are so jaded by the futility that we have to force ourselves to enjoy the Bengals when they win, because it's so easy to see where everything can go wrong again, and we recognize who is still at the controls. It's scarier to be 4-1 than it is to be 1-4 because now they have a season to blow, and the looming threat of awful seasons to come once Brown gets his money. We, as fans, are damaged goods.

But on the other side of the equation are the "other" fans, who shamelessly celebrate 4-1, who call the rest of us "assholes," etc. My theory is that these people are *also* damaged goods, in the same way we are. That is, having been starved by Mike Brown for any sort of success for years upon years, there can be no more satisfying meal than 3 straight wins over the rest of the division en route to a 4-1 record. It's not that they're all blind or ignorant, but rather that there's a recognition that this might be the best we get, and it might not happen again for another 20 years. So of course it's worth embracing a season that to date is without ample misery.

My point is I think we're all the same in our recognition that Brown is the problem, the cancer slowly murdering the Bengals franchise and its fans (and the city of Cincinnati itself). We are just reacting to success differently because he has wounded us in different ways over the years. I don't want to say this excuses the latter group from boycott responsibilities or anything, but I do think it demands we treat them with civility and understanding. We've all been beat up too long by a cheap old man with an inheritance. Let's not beat each other up too.

[Boriskat]

Hey @curseofbojackson watch it with the ignorant sexist talk. He (or she) could be ANYONE newly interested. Why does it have to be a woman?

[MikeBrownMustGo]

Isn't their DVOA rating low mostly because of the crappy game against Cleveland? Having crappy game against one of the worst teams is telling, especially if you do it more than once. Their system rewards teams that destroy teams like the Browns or Raiders (since it's a good predictor of good teams). If they're a "real" playoff team, they'll crush the Texans. Otherwise, we're headed for another one of those not-quite-playoffs seasons which really was the trend until last year and Carson getting hurt.

The close wins were not really due to the fumble recoveries (e.g. yeah Leonard made a heads-up play, but it would be considered unlucky/wierd to lose a game like that on a premature snap by your center as much as it is lucky that he made that recovery) And turnovers are not really that big a factor either: Carson has thrown two for TDs to the other team, and the Bengals have scored two on defense. Overall I think they're -2 in turnovers.

What's concerning: They're giving up 4.2 yards per carry vs the run (this is mediocre -- has to get better if you want to win consistently). Same with their yards per pass attempt allowed (6.5), it's middle of the pack so far.

They're only averaging 6.6 yards per pass attempt on offense (ignoring sacks, which you really shouldn't when computing that). That doesn't correlate with winning consistently either.

These stats would predict that the team "comes back down to earth".

[Ben]

What I find uplifting is that in the game against Baltimore, arguably the toughest team they have faced (no slight to the Broncos intended), they simply dominated in several categories which luck has very little to do with. They had some good luck (Jojo's interception in the end zone, penalties on the game-winning drive), and without that good luck we probably would have lost, but when we outplay the Ravens like that, particularly on defense, we win that game 9 times out of 10. I had a lot of reservations before the Ravens game, but now it looks like we're trending up.

[Michael]

Bottom line is that DVOA tells us that the Bengals will need to play better to continue to win. I think we can agree on that.

[Competitiveness]

A few clarifications:

-The Bengals have been getting lucky in recovering more than half the fumbles they've had the opportunity to get. Creating those fumbles isn't luck

-Of course the recovery rate is likely to regress, but that's kind of the point. In such a small sample size, these things happen, and although it really hasn't affected outcomes a great deal, DVOA is kind of saying that they could have, or even should have

-MBMG, it is true that playing poorly against a shitty team hurts a DVOA rating. However, there are a couple things wrong with assuming the Cleveland game is almost the complete reason for the low rating:

1, the Bengals variance is about average right now, so they haven't had extreme ups and downs

2, I don't think their cumulative ranking changes a whole lot after the game

3, DVOA isn't fully accounting for opposition difficulty yet