NFL Theory: Team Records in 2018 for JAX / LAR / PHI (1 Viewer)

[Anarchy99]

As I have been known to do, today I looked into how teams have fared in Season X+1 after coming off a year in which that team increased their regular season win total by 6 or more games. I looked at only teams in the salary cap / free agency era (since 1994).

That situation presented itself 37 times. On 3 occasions, a team had more wins the following season. Six teams had the same number of wins the following season. But the huge majority (28 teams) won fewer games the following season. In fact, 14 teams had at least 4 fewer wins (including a couple that dropped off by 9 wins). 76% of the time teams won fewer games the following year.

Overall, the average decline in Season X+1 for all 37 teams was 3 games. Two of the 3 teams that won more games the following year only had 1 win in Season X-1 (and thus started out about as low as they could in the win column). The other team was the 2005 Bears, who went from 5 wins in 2004 to 11 wins in 2005 to 13 wins in 2006.

Why do I bring this up? There were 3 teams from the 2017 season that fit the criteria: JAX (+7 wins from 2016), LAR (+7 wins from 2016), and PHI (+6 wins from 2016).

The question on the floor becomes, why would teams make huge strides in one season only to slip the following year? And what does this mean to the prospects of the Jaguars, Rams, and Eagles? I suspect the common perspective from fans of those teams will be that they are bullet proof and that won't apply to them. But this appears to be an established trend . . .

 

[ShamrockPride]

Are you like retired or something man? Where do you find the time to do all this analysis?

 

[-OZ-]

It wouldn't be surprising if all 3 win fewer games next year. Mostly because it's hard to win 13, 11, and even 10 games facing a first place schedule.

It seems the Rams and eagles are in good position to grow into next year as their QB continues to grow, while the jags seem more likely to go below .500, but the eagles have further to fall (yet could still make the playoffs with 9 wins).  

 

[Anarchy99]

It wouldn't be surprising if all 3 win fewer games next year. Mostly because it's hard to win 13, 11, and even 10 games facing a first place schedule.

The first place schedule isn't THAT much different. By finishing first, PHI gets the Rams and Vikings next year. By finishing last, the Giants get the Bucs and Niners (and SF will be a lot better next year). All 14 other games are the same. Is that enough to cause a team  to lose ground? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[dutch]

The first place schedule isn't THAT much different. By finishing first, PHI gets the Rams and Vikings next year. By finishing last, the Giants get the Bucs and Niners (and SF will be a lot better next year). All 14 other games are the same. Is that enough to cause a team  to lose ground? Maybe, maybe not.

Thats true now but wasnt until realignment and schedule change in 2002 so that may skew prior years results.

 

[dutch]

can you rerun using 2002 as the starting poitn?

 

[Anarchy99]

Thats true now but wasnt until realignment and schedule change in 2002 so that may skew prior years results.

Decent thought but may have only a minor role. 33 of the 37 teams involved were 2002 or later.

 

[Anarchy99]

can you rerun using 2002 as the starting poitn?

Teams that would fall off would be:

IND 99 (-3)
LAR 99 (-3)
MIN 98 (-5)
NYJ 97 (+3)

Would end up with 33 teams but barely moved the needle (in fact it made things worse). Went from -2.9 wins to -3.1 wins.

 

[Anarchy99]

Are you like retired or something man? Where do you find the time to do all this analysis?

Most of the time I see things posted or reported on other places and then re-post the info here. For this thread, I had an idea, looked up the numbers, and posted here. Total time investment was probably 15-20 minutes.

 

[worrierking]

The power of regression to the mean is exceptionally strong in life and more so in the NFL.  Another powerful force is turnover margin.  It is highly-variable and considerably random.  I would suspect that much of the 6+ game change from one year to the next can be explained in many of the cases by a random uptick in turnover margin that corrects itself the next year.  I have zero evidence for this so I am prepared to be shown to be a complete moron.

 

[Amused to Death]

The power of regression to the mean is exceptionally strong in life and more so in the NFL.  Another powerful force is turnover margin.  It is highly-variable and considerably random.  I would suspect that much of the 6+ game change from one year to the next can be explained in many of the cases by a random uptick in turnover margin that corrects itself the next year.  I have zero evidence for this so I am prepared to be shown to be a complete moron.

Agree.  I also think the 'luck' factor and player turnover factor in.  To get to 12+ wins you need some luck along the way and key players to stay healthy.

Specifically for the '17/'18 Eagles, they managed to get where they are with several significant injuries and will have 20 of 22 starters on the team next year so I don't know how much of a drop-off can be expected.  I don't expect 13 wins again, but 10+ shouldn't be out of the question.

 

[worrierking]

Agree.  I also think the 'luck' factor and player turnover factor in.  To get to 12+ wins you need some luck along the way and key players to stay healthy.

Specifically for the '17/'18 Eagles, they managed to get where they are with several significant injuries and will have 20 of 22 starters on the team next year so I don't know how much of a drop-off can be expected.  I don't expect 13 wins again, but 10+ shouldn't be out of the question.

Both the Vikings and Eagles had pretty significant injury issues this year so maybe the odds of them regressing are lower than most of the teams on the list above.  I think they will both be good, but you can't predict 13 wins for anybody.

 

[jasvic]

I'd be more curious how many of these teams went back to a losing record after the big year.  Going from 13-14 wins to 10-11 I would think is common even for teams that are consistently good.

 

[Anarchy99]

I'd be more curious how many of these teams went back to a losing record after the big year.  Going from 13-14 wins to 10-11 I would think is common even for teams that are consistently good.

Teams that made it to at least 13 wins . . .

CAR  2014 7.5 --> 15 --> 6
SFO 20116 --> 13 --> 11.5
BAL 2006 6 --> 13 --> 5
CHI 2005 5 --> 13 --> 4
PIT 2003 6 --> 15 --> 11
IND 1999 3 --> 13 --> 10
LAR 1999 4 --> 13 --> 10
MIN 1998 9 --> 15 --> 10

 

[renesauz]

Interesting analysis, but ultimately not enough on it's own. For example, it's so hard to reach 12 or 13 wins that natural regression demands a lot of these teams win fewer games. The first place schedule might only account for two different games, but it's probably worth 1/2 to 1 game in the numbers (it's certainly NOT meaningless). Also missing is the context of the specific team. For example, somebody posted a study looking at expected changes for teams that won or lost an inordinate % of close games (IE: went 2-7 in one score games one season, or 6-1, etc.), and that data was also very compelling. If that data was combined with yours here, I suspect that some of the outliers in both sets of data would align. The Eagles went something like 2-7 in close games in 2016, meaning they were primed for a large jump in wins based on that analysis. They won 13 games, so they are primed for a drop in 2018 even if they remain just as strong.

In the end, both studies predict trends that exist, but those trends are themselves somewhat predictable based on "regression to the mean" and shouldn't be relied on too heavily as predictive indicators.

 

[Anarchy99]

Only 8 of 37 teams made it to the upper end of the win scale (13+). 24 of them were in the 10-12 range.

And I was the one that posted on the extreme records in one possession games (not that that matters here).

The most logical conclusion in a lot of these outliers is usually injury related. TEAM X had a lot of injuries in the seasons before and after, but very few injuries in the sandwich meat season.

I only thought of this as a topic when I saw several reports that had anointed JAX / PHI / LAR as serious SB threats for years to come and will be regular bye week teams moving forward. That's what got me wondering how many teams go from nowhere to somewhere and then stay there.

 

[yabahos]

This seems to make the Pats run of 12+ win seasons pretty impressive.