David Yudkin
Footballguy
ONE TIME in the past 14 years. (That team was the 2003 Patriots.)
Any thoughts on why that is?
Any thoughts on why that is?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The team with the best record heading into the playoffs . . . (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter David Yudkin
- Start date
Reepicheep
Footballguy
I would have expected a slightly higher number (say 3 or so), but it's not altogether shocking if you consider it this way:
The point of the playoffs is for teams to prove against top competition that they are the best. Every team plays a different opponents and the odds that the team with the best record is actually the best team are fairly low. The difference between 14-2 and 12-4 could come down to as little as a dropped pass and a blown call. When you throw in the parity/any-given-sunday nature of the NFL, where the best team (however you want to define it) can lose not only to other top teams, but even to bad teams, it's not as surprising.
By the way, I didn't look it up, was there really a clear-cut "best record" each of the past 14 years? Seems like there must have been a few years where there was a tie at 13-3 or so.
The point of the playoffs is for teams to prove against top competition that they are the best. Every team plays a different opponents and the odds that the team with the best record is actually the best team are fairly low. The difference between 14-2 and 12-4 could come down to as little as a dropped pass and a blown call. When you throw in the parity/any-given-sunday nature of the NFL, where the best team (however you want to define it) can lose not only to other top teams, but even to bad teams, it's not as surprising.
By the way, I didn't look it up, was there really a clear-cut "best record" each of the past 14 years? Seems like there must have been a few years where there was a tie at 13-3 or so.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
One reason is that the game changed for every with the start of free agency. Rosters turned over way more. That happened in 1994. I would have to look it up again, but I believe there was one other team that had the best record and won the title in the free agency area. So to answer your question, yes, I would say the earlier years would skew the stats.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Most years there was a single team with the best record. In a couple of years, there were two teams with the same record (and in the same conference), so obviously the team that had the #1 seed would be considered the team with the best record (seeing how they would have hosted the game against the team they were tied against).
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Pats were a Tyree play away from doing it.
Colts were an onside kick and/or a pick-six away from doing it -- and the Saints would have done it anyway if they played their starters in week 17.
Figure the team with the best record probably has a 20-25% chance of winning the SB, so you'd expect the team with the best record to win about 3 SBs in 14 years. Give them those two and we're right on track.
Colts were an onside kick and/or a pick-six away from doing it -- and the Saints would have done it anyway if they played their starters in week 17.
Figure the team with the best record probably has a 20-25% chance of winning the SB, so you'd expect the team with the best record to win about 3 SBs in 14 years. Give them those two and we're right on track.
az_prof
Footballguy
I don't know why but the statistic is even more surprising when you consider that the playoffs have been expanded and the best team gets a first round bye. Or, maybe that is part of the problem? Maybe the extra week off, plus perhaps a week or two at the end of the year when they have it wrapped up, means that they lose their competitive sharpness?
Reepicheep
Footballguy
I don't have the numbers but I thought the four teams with the first-round bye won something like 75% of their games historically? I wonder how many "best record" teams in this period lost in the CCG or SB vs. the first round?
cstu
Footballguy
Fixed.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
It's a curse apparently. 
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Probably just randomness. If the best team is a 60/40 favorite in all three games they'd only have a ~20% chance of winning it all. So 1/14 probably isn't that unusual.
I beleive that teams that have a certain seeding determined prior to the final week's games that rest the majority of their "key" players AND also have the first week bye do more damage to their team than the resting provides help. The NFL is such a week to week demanding sport and when the players have been focused on a routine for about four months only to change that immediately prior to playing top competition in the most important game of the year, it occasionally disrupts their rhythm or chemistry.
It is not nearly as bad as the six or seven week delay between a college team's final game and the championship game, which is ridiculous, but I believe it is sometimes enough that it impacts that team's play in the so-called second season.
It is not nearly as bad as the six or seven week delay between a college team's final game and the championship game, which is ridiculous, but I believe it is sometimes enough that it impacts that team's play in the so-called second season.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
How many years has the best team gotten a bye? since the expansion from 14 to 16 games correct?
personally I think the bye is overrated.
personally I think the bye is overrated.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Yes, Bye weeks started in 1978 when they switched to a 16-game schedule.In that time, the home/bye week team has gone 97-39 (.713).But over the past 7 years, the bye week teams have gone 15-13 (.536).
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's a long season. Teams often bear little resemblance to what they were 16-19 games ago or even 6-8 games ago, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
ETA: College football could use a little dose of this same kind of thinking.
ETA: College football could use a little dose of this same kind of thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fensalk
Footballguy
One factor could be there are more franchise QBs in the NFL today compared to 25 years ago. 25 years ago you had Montana, John Elway, Jim Kelly, and Dan Marino. Today you got Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisbeger, Tom Brady, Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, Aaron Rogers, and some would toss in Matthew Stafford and Eli Manning and even Tony Romo into the discussion. Any one of these franchise QBs could carry their team at some point in the playoffs, maybe the Super Bowl, or the conference title game, or lower, and that can make the entire difference in their playoff fortunes.
In 1986, perhaps only Montana and Elway even make the playoffs, one of them wins HFA, the other 2 are playing golf after the regular season is over, and so the odds that a franchise QB throws his team on his back and gets them to the next round are quite low.
On top of all of this, a lot of teams without a franchise QB have won the #1 seed in the past 14 years. Bears with Grossman. Eagles with McNabb. Steelers with Kordell Stewart (and then a rookie Ben Roethlisberger), Jaguars with Brunnell, Titans with McNair, Giants with Kerry Collins, Titans with Kerry Collins, which makes them vulnerable.
In 1986, perhaps only Montana and Elway even make the playoffs, one of them wins HFA, the other 2 are playing golf after the regular season is over, and so the odds that a franchise QB throws his team on his back and gets them to the next round are quite low.
On top of all of this, a lot of teams without a franchise QB have won the #1 seed in the past 14 years. Bears with Grossman. Eagles with McNabb. Steelers with Kordell Stewart (and then a rookie Ben Roethlisberger), Jaguars with Brunnell, Titans with McNair, Giants with Kerry Collins, Titans with Kerry Collins, which makes them vulnerable.
I went to pro-football-reference.com and looked back to 1990, the season they added a second wild card team to each conference.
In the 22 years since then the team with the best record has won the Super Bowl six times. But all six times happened in the first 14 seasons, and none in the last eight seasons.
The team with the best record has lost its first game seven times over those 22 years, but only twice in the first 14 seasons, the other five have been in the last eight seasons.
Teams with a bye have gone 64-24 (72.3%) in that same time. But they were 45-11 (80.4%) over the first 14 seasons, and only 19-13 (59.4%) over the last eight.
So it appears that the gap between the teams at the top and the teams just below them has gotten smaller over the last decade or so.
In the 22 years since then the team with the best record has won the Super Bowl six times. But all six times happened in the first 14 seasons, and none in the last eight seasons.
The team with the best record has lost its first game seven times over those 22 years, but only twice in the first 14 seasons, the other five have been in the last eight seasons.
Teams with a bye have gone 64-24 (72.3%) in that same time. But they were 45-11 (80.4%) over the first 14 seasons, and only 19-13 (59.4%) over the last eight.
So it appears that the gap between the teams at the top and the teams just below them has gotten smaller over the last decade or so.
fantasizing
Footballguy
The most dangerous teams in the playoffs are the teams that were fighting and scrapping to get into the playoffs.
These teams are "battle tested" and "in the zone", focused because their back was up against the wall trying to get into the playoffs.
They have absolutely nothing to lose because are the low seeds and no one expects them to win in the playoffs.
So they play loose and relaxed and go for it.
So many examples of teams like this over the last 14 years....
These teams are "battle tested" and "in the zone", focused because their back was up against the wall trying to get into the playoffs.
They have absolutely nothing to lose because are the low seeds and no one expects them to win in the playoffs.
So they play loose and relaxed and go for it.
So many examples of teams like this over the last 14 years....
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Two words: Las Vegas
Captain Blowhard
Footballguy
Maybe because those teams beat up on their divisions and padded their regular season stats against inferior opponents who didn't make the playoffs? Just a thought.
flc735
Footballguy
[math]
your comparing 1 team vs 11 others. well actually 7 since they get a bye week and start their playoffs with 8 teams left. all things being equal, any one team should win once every 8 years, or about twice every 15 years so were not too far off. if you add in home field advantage + the team with the best record is usually better than their opponents and subtract the pressure/everyone expects you to win factors, i would say it gives the top seed a 60% chance to win each game (20% to win the SB = 1 SB every 5 years = 3 SBs every 15 years).
so i would expect that number to be around 3 for the past 15 years. 1 is low, but not surprisingly low especially since its a 1 game playoff and in a sport where tiny things like a bad call, wrong play-wrong time, right play-right time, missed assignment, bad snap or a poorly timed gust of wind can change the outcome of the game
[/math]
think of this... last year david akers daughter was diagnosed with cancer the week of the GB/PHI playoff game. akers played and missed 2 fairly easy FGs that would have won philly the game and gave the superbowl to some other team. instead of aaron rodgers the superbowl winner, he is aaron rodgers the playoff choker, just like peyton was 5 ish years ago. its also possible that the tragic death of the coaches son had a game changing impact on their past game.
im not blaming anyone about anything here, just pointing out how much of a crap shoot 1 game elimination is.
some other examples, the den/pit game. the coin flips the other way, or either denver or pitt calls a different play in OT, we could have easily seen pittsburg just defeat the ravens a few days ago. or if vernon doesn't catch that game winning catch...or the saints fumble 1 less time...or SF doesnt call that crazy bootleg td play, new orleans wins that game and possibly changes this years superbowl winner
i dont think there is a reason why the best team only won once in the past 15 years. its just a complete crapshoot where "strange" trends like this should be expected
your comparing 1 team vs 11 others. well actually 7 since they get a bye week and start their playoffs with 8 teams left. all things being equal, any one team should win once every 8 years, or about twice every 15 years so were not too far off. if you add in home field advantage + the team with the best record is usually better than their opponents and subtract the pressure/everyone expects you to win factors, i would say it gives the top seed a 60% chance to win each game (20% to win the SB = 1 SB every 5 years = 3 SBs every 15 years).
so i would expect that number to be around 3 for the past 15 years. 1 is low, but not surprisingly low especially since its a 1 game playoff and in a sport where tiny things like a bad call, wrong play-wrong time, right play-right time, missed assignment, bad snap or a poorly timed gust of wind can change the outcome of the game
[/math]
think of this... last year david akers daughter was diagnosed with cancer the week of the GB/PHI playoff game. akers played and missed 2 fairly easy FGs that would have won philly the game and gave the superbowl to some other team. instead of aaron rodgers the superbowl winner, he is aaron rodgers the playoff choker, just like peyton was 5 ish years ago. its also possible that the tragic death of the coaches son had a game changing impact on their past game.
im not blaming anyone about anything here, just pointing out how much of a crap shoot 1 game elimination is.
some other examples, the den/pit game. the coin flips the other way, or either denver or pitt calls a different play in OT, we could have easily seen pittsburg just defeat the ravens a few days ago. or if vernon doesn't catch that game winning catch...or the saints fumble 1 less time...or SF doesnt call that crazy bootleg td play, new orleans wins that game and possibly changes this years superbowl winner
i dont think there is a reason why the best team only won once in the past 15 years. its just a complete crapshoot where "strange" trends like this should be expected
Breesisdaman
Footballguy
Other teams dont know the right way to spy 
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I went and ran the numbers. Since the advent of the bye weeks in 1978 . . .The teams earning byes had a .713 winning percentage.In league championship games in that time, the home team had a .667 winning percentage.In Super Bowls, the team with the better record had a .643 winning percentage (several games had teams with equal records, so I left those out).By my math, that would translate into a 30.6% chance the better team wins out to be Super Bowl champs.So in 15 seasons, the best team "should" have won 4.6-5 times. Granted, not a huge sample size, but a far amount worse than expected and what the numbers show.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Right but in the last few season (7 or 8) the bye has not been a big advantage.Why is that?
Last edited by a moderator:
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Thus why I started this thread.
Synesthesia
Footballguy
Fallacy of multiple endpoints, Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and clustering illusion.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
In English please.
L
Luke Skywalker
Guest
When you think about it, what is really the difference between a 14-2 team and a 13-3 one? Not much - a lucky bounce here, a dropped pass there, maybe a missed chip shot field goal. You could even say the same for a 12-4 squad vs. a 15-1 one.
Synesthesia
Footballguy
Fallacy of multiple endpoints: look at the data, find out which endpoints make the most compelling argument, present said data. If you're going to cherrypick your endpoints, you can make any case look compelling. For instance, I could say that home teams are 7-1 so far this postseason, so obviously HFA is huge... or I could say that bye-week teams are barely over .500 over the last 7 years, so obviously HFA is irrelevant. Why did I choose just this season or the last 7 years? Because those were the data sets that resulted in the most eye-catching statistics. When you look at the raw data and *THEN* select which span you're going to pay attention to, you're committing textbook multiple endpoints fallacy.Texas sharpshooter fallacy: this comes from the joke about the "Texas Sharpshooter". Basically, a guy fired a bunch of shots at the side of a barn, then drew a target around the biggest cluster of bullet holes and pronounced himself the best sharpshooter in Texas. The idea here is that, while any given data set might be unlikely to result from chance alone, if you look at enough data sets, it's unlikely that you won't find at least one that was unlikely to result from chance alone. Best illustrated by this comic. The idea here is that there are hundreds of different data sets (record of home teams, record of division winners, record of teams with a better record, record of teams with a bye, record of teams that entered the postseason on a losing streak, record of teams that entered the postseason on a winning streak, etc). In any given set, there's a result that is less likely... but the odds are, given the number of sets, that some of those "unlikely results" are going to show up. The question here shouldn't be "what are the odds of this particular unlikely event happening by chance", it should be "what are the odds, given the size of the data, that some particular unlikely event will wind up happening by chance". To illustrate the difference- shuffle a deck of cards. The odds of the cards winding up in that exact order are 8.06581752 × 10^67 (to put that number in perspective: it is estimated that there are 1.33 * 10^50 atoms on earth. Take that number and multiply it by a billion. Then multiply it by a billion again. That's how many different orders a deck of cards could find itself in). Now, I could shuffle a deck of cards and say "the odds of the cards winding up in this order are some remote, that this deck of cards proves *insert theory here*", but the truth is that, while each individual outcome is mind-bogglingly improbable, the odds of winding up with one of those improbable outcomes are a virtual certainty.
Clustering illusion is a simple one. It's just the human tendency to see clusters and interpret them as patterns. Random is messy. When most people think of random, they think of alternating, but that couldn't possibly be further from random. Ask someone to pretend they flipped a coin 50 times and make up the results. Their "random" results will invariably look something like this: H, T, H, T, H, H, H, T, T, H, T, H, H, T, H, H, T, T, T. True randomness, on the other hand, is not alternating- it'll go on crazy streaks, it'll skew one way or the other, and it will almost certainly produce lots of clusters. People interpret those clusters as proof of a pattern. Quite the contrary- those clusters are instead proof of the absence of a pattern.
In short, while I would expect the team with the best record to average more than a 7% chance to win the SB over any given span, I remain highly skeptical of the idea that the fact that such teams only had a 7% chance to win over this particular span somehow speaks to any greater truth than "random is messy".
In the 22 years I looked at the team with the best record or a team within one game of the best record won the Super Bowl 16 times. But five of the years where it didn't happen have come in the past seven years.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Wow, who let the brainiac into the shark pool.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
the real answer is probably parity
