2015 Minnesota Vikings: Vikings Have Second-Tallest Team in NFL, Kind Of

The folks over at Bleeding Green Nation (and specifically, Brandon Gowton of Bleeding Green Nation) have been putting together their Eagles Almanac and in the process, discovered something interesting: the Minnesota Vikings have the second-tallest team in the NFL!

Well, for them it was relevant that they found out their own team was the tallest, but that’s neither here nor there. The full rankings are over there, as is a weight chart (the Vikings rank 17th in weight).

An interesting piece of data:

OBSERVATIONS

* The difference between the tallest team (Eagles) and shortest team (Washington) is less than a full inch: 0.82.

* The difference between the heaviest team (Colts) and the lightest team (Rams) is 8.44 pounds.

* None of the bottom five teams in height or weight had a winning record last season. In fact, some of them were among the worst teams.

I said interesting and not relevant because I think the point about teams with a winning/losing record point is irrelevant and just a sample found through randomness, especially because it is using heights and weights from this year’s rosters and applying it to last year’s record.

More than that, it’s not looking at the average height of the starters, or the snap-adjusted height of the players, or even a measure like “height over expected” for positions. For the sake of it, I looked at the correlation between 2014 record and 2015 average height as well as 2015 average weight.

For those unfamiliar with that tool, the correlation ranges from -1 to +1, and the correlation coefficient is that number squared, so it ranges from 0 to 1. 0 means there is no relationship that can be found, and 1 means that there is a direct relationship.

Generally speaking, for simple models, one can say that this provides a percentage explanation of the relationship—so a correlation coefficient of 0.5 means that the data in one set provide 50% of the explanation for the expression of data in the other set (which is not the same as causing it).

For height, the relationship was nonexistent and the correlation coefficient was 0.00—which is somewhat surprising, even two sets of data (where there are 32 data points) calculated entirely by random number generators will more often produce a stronger result (my last three attempts to do that produced correlation coefficients of 0.12, 0.07 and 0.01).

For weight, the relationship was stronger but still meaningless, with a correlation coefficient of 0.08. This could just as easily be interpreted (aside from being random) as a slight preference for playing a tight end over a fullback.

Also consider that short teams, like Washington, are not necessarily short because they target short players, but because they brought in a number of safeties (8), the shortest position group. One of the next shortest, receiver, was also a little stacked and they brought 12. While Washington does happen to have an unusually short receiver corps (the starting three, Pierre Garcon, DeSean Jackson and Andre Roberts, are 5’11 7/8”, 5’9 3/4″ and 5’10 7/8”), the bigger effect is that they brought more players in camp who play positions that happen to be short.

Compare this to the Vikings, who brought only six safeties and 11 receivers. They also brought 17 offensive linemen. In 2012, 2013 and 2014, they brought 15.

Maybe it’s not useful analysis to look at height, but why the Vikings rank so highly when it comes to height. Here, I think it’s a critical lack of safety depth (an issue in part caused by an extremely weak draft at the position) and the heavy, heavy investment in the offensive line.

At any rate, it’s a cool piece of trivia. A team full of Phil Loadholts!