Nerdvana!, by Ron from NM

Editor's note, by Brian Galliford: Alas, shiny new platforms don't make tedious HTML coding any easier.  This work was all done by Rumblings user Ron from NM; in an effort to clean up the FanPost section, Ron's original FanPosts have been combined into one here - so ignore my byline.  This work is Ron's and Ron's alone, and as usual, it's excellent work.  Take it away, Ron... End Note

I found Nerdvana! It seems to exist in fleeting moments when football and math collide. One of those rare extended moments was today. I finished up all of the games for the season and compiled the data. The chart is below. First, a few clarifications are in order.  My recorder took a dump in the Broncos and Jaguars games so those aren’t included. Also, while the Ravens game ran perfectly back in the season, the first half was somehow corrupted so only the 2nd half of that game is included. The ratings for the centers the Bills faced are snapshots, not season long pools of data. It is possible that some of the centers may have graded out higher or lower over the course of a full season. (My personal bet is that Gurode had an atypically bad game in Buffalo.)

On the needlessly complicated chart you will see how I rated each center the Bills faced this season. Their performance is broken down into passing and running plays with their grade included in the ‘Decent’ column. Each play was rated as good, decent, or bad. This rating refers exclusively to the center in question, not the result of the play with one notable exception: killed plays. A center is given (dis)credit when his failure kills the play. A center is also given (dis)credit when his killed play kills a drive. For example, on the 34th pass of the 1st Jets game, Mangold failed to pick up Schobel on a stunt. The QB had to hurry his pass which led to an inaccurate throw…which led to an INT. Mangold was (dis)credited with a bad pass play, a killed play and a killed drive. (Trifecta!)

A quick look at the chart (Come on, you know you want to!) will show you that there really isn’t a whole lot of difference in terms of how centers grade out on passing downs. The average for the centers was 75%, a shade higher than Fowler’s 74.3%. The main difference in centers when it comes to passing is how many plays and drives they are killing. The centers Buffalo faced killed a combined 7 pass plays while Fowler killed 6.5 in the same period of time. In that regard, Fowler fits right in with the ‘average’ center.

So, in order to do meaningful rankings we have to look at how the centers did on running plays. It quickly becomes apparent that here there are real differences. Fowler graded out at 72.5% on run plays. Here’s how he compares to the 11 centers Buffalo faced this season:

Fraley 78.3%

Jackson 78.3%

Mangold 76.4%

Mahan 76.3%

O’Hara 75%

Koppen 74.7%

Chester 73.2%

Gurode 72.9%

Rabach 72.8%

Fowler 72.5%

Ghiacuic 71.25%

Satele 69.5%

Fraley, Jackson, Mangold, Mahan, O’Hara and Koppen are all significantly better than Fowler on running plays and at least as good on pass plays. Chester, Gurode and Rabach were all somewhat better than Fowler on running plays and comparable on pass plays. Only Ghiacuic (Bengals) and Satele (Dolphins) graded out below Fowler. However, the centers Buffalo faced killed 6.5 drives while Fowler by himself killed 10 drives during the same 14 games. In other words, Fowler hurt his team more than the 11 other centers collectively hurt their teams. Given the varying level of competition the Bills played, my guess is that Fowler is one of the bottom 6 centers in the league. 

To illustrate the importance of the center, look at the difference between the centers who beat the Bills versus those who lost. Again, their pass ratings are almost identical but their run ratings are very different: 72.9% for centers on losing teams and 75.7% for centers on winning teams. Fowler’s 72.5% is below even the average for centers on losing teams. Ugh. It makes sense, though. Much like chess it’s far easier to win at football when you control the middle.

I noticed a couple of things when I looked at the first half of the season and compared it to the second half. The centers were actually a touch more effective in the first half of the season than the second. This might suggest that the defense didn’t wear down as the season went along. Then again, the team faced both more running and more pass plays in the second half of the season. So, even though the centers weren’t any more or less effective the offenses were staying on the field longer