NFLWeek 16: The Night Is Dark and Full of Terror-bowl Defenses

[Kalbear]

But then how about the 2011 Giants? They beat an awful Atlanta team, a sputtering Green Bay offense, and got unbelievably lucky in San Fran. And in the 2010 NFC title game, Green Bay dried up - but no matter, as Cutler was knocked out.

They weren't a wildcard, either. They were the #3 seed.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I'd take it just fine. ;)

Same here. :cheers:

But I think Hector's fretting is for naught. I really can't see the Seachickens spitting the bit this postseason. :frown5:

[Jabronius Maximus]

They weren't a wildcard, either. They were the #3 seed.

Oh that's right, I edited it out.

As for the Hawks, I want to keep my hopes all the way down. Trying to learn from last year...

[trickster]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10153797/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-thanks-justin-tucker-game-winning-field-goal-baltimore-ravens-win-detroit-lions

This one made me smile. Kickers are cool! Coach Jace, can I be the kicker instead?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10153797/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-thanks-justin-tucker-game-winning-field-goal-baltimore-ravens-win-detroit-lions

This one made me smile. Kickers are cool! Coach Jace, can I be the kicker instead?

Saw a postgame quote from Tucker that was hilarious. He basically said "You're Welcome" to the Fantasy Football community.

[Kalbear]

But if you want to chalk it up to random variance, that's your prerogative. I just think I've given way too much evidence to just reject out of hand the notion that "hey, maybe byes don't help teams as much as we think" or "hey, maybe momentum and confidence do matter more than we think."

It's not that I want to write it off as random variance - I want to showcase that it's not a trend. That specifically it's not the case that wildcards are winning it all, or that lesser seeds are winning it all. Instead, it's the case that simply every year is different and that unconnected events are actually unconnected.

I wrote up a whole bunch more, but here's the gist: the only one that doesn't make a lot of sense to me is Flacco's odd resurgence as an offensive power. Lewis and Kroger explain the Ravens defense getting better, especially with Lewis using PEDs knowing he wasn't going to have any suspension issues. But the rest?

-The giants were a #4 seed, won their division, and beat a shitty Atlanta team before playing the Packers. Thanks to turnovers they got an early lead and once again Aaron Rodgers did not lead a comeback. After that they played a good SF team where injuries and turnovers sealed the deal, then played a NE team that most everyone picked them to beat.

-The Packers were WAY better than their record and had shitty injury and fumble luck. Some of that injury luck got a lot better in the playoffs and their fumble luck regressed to the mean. Seriously, they had like a +3 pythag victory value. It was nuts. As they showed the next season they were a very good team.

-Pittsburgh was the #2 seed, and never played a #1 seed. Baltimore beat the #1 seed. If anything, the oddity was SD beating Indy with 6 turnovers. The other oddity was Arizona; they looked like a weak champion of the NFC West (wow have things changed) but never had to face the #1 seed and beat the fairly meh Carolina Panthers.

-The NYG of 2007 - they're interesting. They barely won at home and beat everyone on the road. They also were 10-6, won 6 games in a row before losing narrowly to the Pats, and clearly had improved in midseason. Some oddities about their run: Eli Manning threw zero picks. He had thrown many before this. So once again we have a team avoiding turnovers and playing close to what they showed as their 'top' in the season and did well in the playoffs.

-The Colts? The Colts got a healthy Bob Sanders for the first time all season. Their defense showed this tremendously, going from one of the worst teams against the run to one of the best. Injuries really explain this one well.

-The steelers in 2005 were a very good team in their division and barely didn't win the division (on tiebreakers), then beat the Colts narrowly on a crazy play and then did well against good teams. They were a very good team as well.

We can go on like this, but there are real explanations. Here's another way to describe it, Jaime: do you remember who the 'hottest' team was last year going into the playoffs? Who everyone was saying was peaking at the right time? It was Seattle. The other 'hot' team was New England. How about in 2011? Wasn't the GIants. It was...Detroit. Seriously. And the Saints and kind of the 49ers. 2010? It was the Jets. (and both Indy and the Saints rested their starters). The reason you think of the hot teams making a big run is because you're filtering out all the non-hot teams that made a run.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Saw a postgame quote from Tucker that was hilarious. He basically said "You're Welcome" to the Fantasy Football community.

He also said he helped out his own fantasy team :lol:

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I think the closest right answer to this question is parity. Look at this season. How crazy is it to be through 15 weeks of the season and only have one division locked down? And that's a 9-5 team that is in the league's weakest division.

[Apathete]

Obviously the teams that won the superbowl had things go their way. Equally, of the 11 who didn't win the superbowl some will have been hot. Picking the individual reasons why someone won or lost the Superbowl doesn't help either case. I think there one stat which is important:

How often teams who get a bye win against teams who didn't, in all three rounds.

I don't have the stats to tell you, but if it is the case that wild card victories are only over represented in the Suberbowl, then you could argue that the bye week, and resting your starters for the last week of the regular season, means you could have only played 2 games in 6 weeks. I would argue, that given all those wildcard teams beat bye teams in the superbowl, it's not the first bye that kills you, but the second one.

[Jaime L]

Maybe I see the disconnect in what I think I'm saying and how others are reading it. Let me see if we're a bit closer though with some still fundamental disagreements.

I'm not arguing that if a team has a choice between a bye or playing in the wildcard round, they choose the latter. A bye is a free win after all. I'm just arguing against the conventional wisdom that byes are also beneficial because they give extra rest. I think rest sounds good but is actively harmful to a team's performance in the playoffs where they have to be sharp from the first moment. You still take the monkey paw's gift of rest to get a free pass to the divisional round, but fuck, you better be ready.

We can go on like this, but there are real explanations. Here's another way to describe it, Jaime: do you remember who the 'hottest' team was last year going into the playoffs? Who everyone was saying was peaking at the right time? It was Seattle. The other 'hot' team was New England. How about in 2011? Wasn't the GIants. It was...Detroit. Seriously. And the Saints and kind of the 49ers. 2010? It was the Jets. (and both Indy and the Saints rested their starters). The reason you think of the hot teams making a big run is because you're filtering out all the non-hot teams that made a run.

I'm by no means arguing the hottest team going into the playoff has an edge. After all I'm a Skins fan - they were actually the hottest team going in last year, even hotter than Seattle (though not better). Also had pointed out earlier the Ravens had lost 4 of 5 going into the postseason including getting curbstomped by the Broncos. I think the Giants and Ravens have both shown definitively that momentum can be manufactured on the spot in the playoffs.

But for the teams that survive the wildcard round, I think that experience gives them an edge they otherwise wouldn't have in the next round. That doesn't mean they're going to win - sometimes the team with the bye is just too superior (or has specific matchup edges) and just trounces the upstart - but I think it helps and hardens them in a way that the cushy life that accompanies a bye does not. I think if you juxtapose the '05 vs. '06 Colts you see this. Or the '07 vs. '08 Giants or the '10 vs. '11 Packers. Hell, I think you even see this in other sports like baseball or basketball where the team that had to go 7 the previous round actually has a mental edge over the rust of the team that swept the previous round (while looking like a world-beater in the process.) I think it actually helps teams that have the requisite talent/coaching to be a legit contender and getting the chance to take on the "us against the world/no-one believed in us" mentality. Sure this is anecdotal but no more so than the counter-narrative.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

But for the teams that survive the wildcard round, I think that experience gives them an edge they otherwise wouldn't have in the next round. That doesn't mean they're going to win - sometimes the team with the bye is just too superior (or has specific matchup edges) and just trounces the upstart - but I think it helps and hardens them in a way that the cushy life that accompanies a bye does not. I think if you juxtapose the '05 vs. '06 Colts you see this. Or the '07 vs. '08 Giants or the '10 vs. '11 Packers. Hell, I think you even see this in other sports like baseball or basketball where the team that had to go 7 the previous round actually has a mental edge over the rust of the team that swept the previous round (while looking like a world-beater in the process.) I think it actually helps teams that have the requisite talent/coaching to be a legit contender and getting the chance to take on the "us against the world/no-one believed in us" mentality. Sure this is anecdotal but no more so than the counter-narrative.

Have to agree with this, as anecdotal as it may be. I especially like the baseball/basketball analogy. There is something refining about that balls to the wall, hardfought victory that seems to just put some teams on another level. I have to believe there is something to this. Not that I'd ever trade the bye for a chance at refinement or anything.

[Jace, Extat]

Mr. Trickster, I see no reason why you cannot be my franchise QB and kicker at the same time. Though, you will have to change your pants every time we want to get a field goal. I will not abide a QB wearing thermal trousers.

[Kalbear]

Have to agree with this, as anecdotal as it may be. I especially like the baseball/basketball analogy. There is something refining about that balls to the wall, hardfought victory that seems to just put some teams on another level. I have to believe there is something to this. Not that I'd ever trade the bye for a chance at refinement or anything.

The problem with this logic is that it's got all the confirmation bias rolled into it.

Okay, so you think about all the teams that won 7 games and were 'battle tested' against the other team and pulled it out. Great. Explain to me why the Heat were able to stomp through the finals, then? They got rest most of their series, but they beat the teams that were battle tested. Let's not do other sport analogies though; they kind of suck since things are so different.

You said you could tell the difference between the 2005 colts and the 2006 colts. Okay, so why don't we see that same difference between the 2010 Packers (which had to win the wild card) and the 2011 ones (which didn't)? Why didn't the Saints repeat after going from champs to wildcards? The Broncos were 'battle tested' the prior year; why were they one and done last year? Why didn't the Chargers keep winning after beating the Colts? For each example of a team that won a bunch in a row, there's a bunch of examples of teams that didn't do that at all.

But for the teams that survive the wildcard round, I think that experience gives them an edge they otherwise wouldn't have in the next round.

As pointed out - even in the last 11 years we have at best a 1-1 record between the bye week teams and the non-bye week teams. That's well within any reasonable comparison. We're talking about a sample size of two - and it corresponds well to what statistical variance we'd expect.

But let's be really specific. 2012:

The Ravens beat Denver. Okay - but Houston - a 3 seed - got stomped by New England in their divisional round. And...that's it, because both Seattle and GB lost to their bye week opponents. So for this theory we have 1 of 4 teams. Not good.

2011: The Giants won (4th seed). However, Baltimore, SF, and NE all won. 1 of 4 teams. Hmm.

2010: Ooh, this year both the Jets and GB made it. Of course the Jets lost to the bye week guy. Still, 2 of 4. That's better! (also note that that GB game was featuring the awesomeness of Caleb Hanie - again, injury luck plays a part sometimes).

2009: Jets were the only winners. 1 of 4 again.

2008: ah, here's where Jaime proves me wrong. 3 of the 4 moved on - only Pittsburgh escaped (though they ended up winning the superbowl). The #1 seeds both lost - the Titans (I know, right?) and the Giants, along with the #2 seed Carolina. That was like 5 years ago! Carolina has sucked horribly and gone back to being awesome in that time!

2007: 2 of 4 - San Diego and the Giants moved on, NE and GB held serve.

So it's not looking that good for that theory by itself. Again, the problem is that everyone remembers the GIants beating GB and surprising everyone, or the Ravens beating the Broncos and surprising everyone. But you don't remember the things you're expecting to have happen. You don't remember NE beating the fuck out of Houston unless you're DanteGabriel. You don't remember the 49er-Saint game until I bring it up and you remember how awesome it is. Really, unless you're a fan of that team most everyone doesn't remember the losers or the teams that play as they're expected to. But they still exist.

[Rhom]

I don't know this expression, but I'm pretty sure that I don't like it.

Did you never read The Monkey's Paw in school?

We read it in fifth grade and I didn't sleep for days!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Explain to me why the Heat were able to stomp through the finals, then? They got rest most of their series, but they beat the teams that were battle tested.

But let's be really specific. 2012:

The Ravens beat Denver. Okay - but Houston - a 3 seed - got stomped by New England in their divisional round. And...that's it, because both Seattle and GB lost to their bye week opponents. So for this theory we have 1 of 4 teams. Not good.

2011: The Giants won (4th seed). However, Baltimore, SF, and NE all won. 1 of 4 teams. Hmm.

2010: Ooh, this year both the Jets and GB made it. Of course the Jets lost to the bye week guy. Still, 2 of 4. That's better! (also note that that GB game was featuring the awesomeness of Caleb Hanie - again, injury luck plays a part sometimes).

2009: Jets were the only winners. 1 of 4 again.

2008: ah, here's where Jaime proves me wrong. 3 of the 4 moved on - only Pittsburgh escaped (though they ended up winning the superbowl). The #1 seeds both lost - the Titans (I know, right?) and the Giants, along with the #2 seed Carolina. That was like 5 years ago! Carolina has sucked horribly and gone back to being awesome in that time!

2007: 2 of 4 - San Diego and the Giants moved on, NE and GB held serve.

Don't think the Heat make your point for you. They went 4-0 versus the Bucks, (arguably the worse team to make the playoffs) 4-1 versus a Derrick Roseless Bulls and The Pacers took them to a game 7. Then the Spurs took them to a game 7 in the Finals. Hardly a stomping outside of the first 2 series against much weaker opponents.

To the second part, yes, of course the bye week teams fare better. For the most part they are stronger teams. They posted better records during the regular season and they have an easier path to the brass ring. By your accounting, you have 10 of 24 teams that don't hold the bye progressing. Seems like the percentage should be a bit lower than that.

[Kalbear]

Yes - and they do. Since 2000 they win 5 of 8 times, or 62.5%. The above sample is slightly worse that that, but not incredibly so. If one more team had lost, it'd be perfectly in line with that.

I think that's what some are confused about - that a bye week team should just obliterate opponents. And that's not the case and hasn't been since the salary cap.

[Maithanet]

ETA: Maith, you're basically arguing my point. Byes should be a fantastic deal because it means less games to win a Superbowl. It's curious that it hasn't conveyed that kind of advantage in recent years in terms of winning it all. That's what started me down this whole inquiry.

Byes are a fantastic deal in terms of making it easier to win the Super Bowl, because fully 50% of the wild card teams are eliminated before the bye week teams even have to play.

Once the divisional rounds really start we have good teams playing slightly better teams, and in that case, the slightly better teams win slightly more than half the time.

Looking at Kalbear's rundown of the bye week teams:

2012: The Ravens beat Denver. Okay - but Houston - a 3 seed - got stomped by New England in their divisional round. And...that's it, because both Seattle and GB lost to their bye week opponents. So for this theory we have 1 of 4 teams. Not good.

2011: The Giants won (4th seed). However, Baltimore, SF, and NE all won. 1 of 4 teams. Hmm.

2010: Ooh, this year both the Jets and GB made it. Of course the Jets lost to the bye week guy. Still, 2 of 4. That's better! (also note that that GB game was featuring the awesomeness of Caleb Hanie - again, injury luck plays a part sometimes).

2009: Jets were the only winners. 1 of 4 again.

2008: ah, here's where Jaime proves me wrong. 3 of the 4 moved on - only Pittsburgh escaped (though they ended up winning the superbowl). The #1 seeds both lost - the Titans (I know, right?) and the Giants, along with the #2 seed Carolina. That was like 5 years ago! Carolina has sucked horribly and gone back to being awesome in that time!

2007: 2 of 4 - San Diego and the Giants moved on, NE and GB held serve.

it looks like even looking at the most favorable time period (2007-2012), we have the bye week teams winning 14 times and losing 10 times. Which still seems like about what you'd expect in terms of upsets, because every team that makes it to the divisional round is at least pretty decent.

I'll admit it seems a little curious that between 2007-2012, the #1 seeds are 5-7 and the #2 seeds are 9-3 in the divisional round. There are a few of possible explanations for this:

1. The #2 seeds are usually playing either the #3 or #4 seeds, typically winners of weak divisions. Those teams may actually be less likely to pull an upset in a hostile environment than the #2 team from a strong division.

2. The difference in quality between the #2 seed and the #1 seed may be nonexistent. Teams that win in the playoffs (more often than not) come from stronger divisions, and if you come from a stronger division you may not be able to secure the #1 overall seed, and thus settle for the #2 seed.

3. Small sample size.

[Jaime L]

You don't remember NE beating the fuck out of Houston unless you're DanteGabriel. You don't remember the 49er-Saint game until I bring it up and you remember how awesome it is.

But I do remember these things. I'm not saying being a wildcard means that alone will allow you to steamroll some better team with a bye. The vast majority of wildcards simply aren't good enough. Houston was always going to get blown out by New England whether they had a bye or they won a wildcard because Matt Schaub ain't good enough. For the few that are, it can help. Again these Superbowl winning wildcard teams aren't just beating one supposedly superior bye team. They're usually beating 3. Even if they got lucky or flukish that should really only help them in the first game. If that's not momentum/confidence...I don't know what it is.

I feel like we're arguing clutch hitting here. Believe me I get the risk of confirmation bias...but that in and of itself doesn't automatically negate what you may be seeing. Especially when you watch this shit as religiously as I do. And like Bill James, I'll wait for you to reverse course on this :P

Byes are a fantastic deal in terms of making it easier to win the Super Bowl, because fully 50% of the wild card teams are eliminated before the bye week teams even have to play.

Again, see my last post on this. We're not disagreeing on this point.

[Kalbear]

Here's another thought experiment.

Let's say that Aaron Rodgers comes back and the Packers win their last two games and make it to the playoffs.

Would it surprise anyone that they went on a tear in the playoffs? Despite them being 9-6-1, would it be shocking if they won the superbowl? Right now, I'd argue no - it wouldn't be that surprising. In the future? We'd probably forget that Aaron Rodgers came back after missing 8 games. We'd look at their DVOA and go wow, they really sucked for long periods of time. But really, all it takes is a QB injury to make a team go from contender to also-ran in a blink of an eye. That's another difference compared to the 80s; in the 80s and 90s you could afford an injury to a QB because QBs weren't quite so essential and you could afford to have a kickass QB as your backup sitting on the bench. Montana had a number of stretches where Young relieved him, after all. The Bears didn't need McMahon all the time. Now? If you lose you pro bowl QB, chances are good that you're simply done.

Again these Superbowl winning wildcard teams aren't just beating one supposedly superior bye team. They're usually beating 3. Even if they got lucky or flukish that should really only help them in the first game. If that's not momentum/confidence...I don't know what it is.

Okay, but you're moving your goalposts here. Which wildcard teams are you talking about? The Ravens won their division last year. The GIants won theirs in 2011.The most recent team that was a wildcard team that won it all was the Packers in 2010 - which we have pretty well understood to be a very good team that had bad luck in the regular season and didn't in the postseason (and their opponents had shitty injury luck, too). They didn't have momentum - they had injury help and were simply a really good team. Before that, it was the Giants - who if you look at the last 8 games of the regular season were a very good team as well.

I mean what, we're talking like 3 teams in the last 10 years. That's maybe larger than what you might think would happen on a bell curve, but in each case we have good explanations for why they were good in the playoffs but didn't get a top seed, and then why they won.

[Maithanet]

Again, see my last post on this. We're not disagreeing on this point.

I agree that the advantage of rest is minimal. I'm sure the players like it, but a little extra time to heal your bruises is rarely, if ever, going to be the deciding factor of a playoff game. I don't agree that it is an actual detriment not to be playing, merely a nonfactor.

Any thoughts on the 2 seed thing I pointed out? Because that really surprised me. If we cover the entire ten year run with this playoff format, the #1 seeds are 11-9, #2 seeds are 13-7, which is a lot closer, but still shows the #2 seeds winning more often. And for the past 5-6 years, the 2 seeds are dramatically more successful at getting to the conference championship game.