Jump to content

NFL 2019: Wild Card, Mitches!


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

Man am I glad that I forgot to write my picks and predictions here because............I got almost everything wrong. The only thing I got right was the Saints winning, and even then I thought they were gonna boat race the Eagles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bronn Stone said:

There is a difference between "three road games" and "three straight trips to different time zones with the final two cross country"

Since the 2002 expansion (previous Wild Card games could be at home), three teams have made the Super Bowl.

2005 Steelers - games at Cincy , at Indy, at Denver - two of those barely count as road trips.
2007 Giants - at Tampa, at Dallas, at Green Bay
2010 Packers  - at Philly, at Atlanta, at Chicago

None of them had anything like back-to-back cross country trips.

3 out of 64 is not the sort of number that inspires "should have",  It's more of an indication of my point than a counter.

Not really.  Home teams win approximately 57% of the time in the regular season and 65% of the time in the playoffs (because most of the time it's the better team playing at home).  If you take that 65% and apply it 3 times, a wild card team winning three road games should happen 4.4% of the time.  And we divide 3 by 64 and we get 4.7%, which is exactly what we'd expect. 

So my point is that winning one road playoff game is hard.  Winning three road playoff games is even harder, because you have to win one road playoff game three times in a row.  Not because you're particularly exhausted from traveling long distances three times, but because winning road playoff games is always hard, and it's rare a team can pull of that trick three times.

I don't have an easy way of getting at the information, but I suspect that the winning percentage for wild card teams in the divisional round (their second road game in a row) is no better than their winning percentage in the championship round (their third road game in a row).  It might even be worse, because they're guaranteed to be playing a very good team in the divisional round, and that team just had a bye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of anything else, it does seem kinda crazy that the Chargers flew back to the West Coast after the Baltimore game rather than finding a nice hotel somewhere on the East Coast near a practice facility they could use for the week.

Even if it only has a small impact, any impact in the playoffs is important.

 

I am ignoring everything about Gase, I was already on record opposed to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Regardless of anything else, it does seem kinda crazy that the Chargers flew back to the West Coast after the Baltimore game rather than finding a nice hotel somewhere on the East Coast near a practice facility they could use for the week.

Even if it only has a small impact, any impact in the playoffs is important.

It does seem stupid to make everybody make two cross country trips in six days when you could easily avoid it.  But I think that by far the biggest failure of the Chargers was their baffling defensive gameplan, which seemed to be to take away all the routes except the ones that the Patriots prefer most.  It's like an NBA team clamping down on long distance 2 pointers, but allowing layups and 3 pointers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Not really.  Home teams win approximately 57% of the time in the regular season and 65% of the time in the playoffs (because most of the time it's the better team playing at home).  If you take that 65% and apply it 3 times, a wild card team winning three road games should happen 4.4% of the time.  And we divide 3 by 64 and we get 4.7%, which is exactly what we'd expect.

You may be mixing cause and effect here.  Road teams likely do worse in the playoffs because of the disappearance of the protections of back-to-back (-to back) games. 

From your linked article " NFL home teams gain almost 5 extra points of win probability in the playoffs — again, after controlling for the fact that better teams tend to get more postseason home games. "

Eight percent better chance before controlling for team quality, five percent after.  I'd say this makes my point more than it refutes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bronn Stone said:

You may be mixing cause and effect here.  Road teams likely do worse in the playoffs because of the disappearance of the protections of back-to-back (-to back) games. 

From your linked article " NFL home teams gain almost 5 extra points of win probability in the playoffs — again, after controlling for the fact that better teams tend to get more postseason home games. "

Eight percent better chance before controlling for team quality, five percent after.  I'd say this makes my point more than it refutes it.

I'm not really sure how that (bolded) statement backs up your point.  I am taking issue with the idea that it is back to back to back road games that are particularly difficult to win.  I'm saying that instead, it is hard to win road games in the playoffs period, regardless of how many road games you've played recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronn Stone said:

It's either magic voodoo of the playoffs or repeat games.  You say magic, I say repeats. I think we're done here.

What?  How is what I'm describing magic voodoo?  I feel like it's opposite of that.  You know that in the playoffs you're guaranteed to get both team's best game, and in that situation, the better team wins more often.

So I went and looked at the actual playoff results because I was genuinely curious.  Here's the wild card team playoff results for 2002-2019.

Wild Card Round: 32 - 40 = 44% win percentage

Divisional Round:  9-23 = 28% win percentage

Championship Round:  3-6 = 33% win percentage

That looks like prettymuch what I would expect, the results in the wild card round are significantly better than the later rounds because they're playing a lesser opponent, rather than one of the top two teams in the conference.  The difference between the divisional round and championship round is small, with the wild card teams winning slightly more often in the championship round than the divisional games.  It's too small a sample size to say anything definitive, but it really calls into question the idea that it is the back to back to back road games that is particularly a problem.  There's no evidence of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Why didn't the Browns hire Gregg Williams?

Because hiring a hotshot offensive coordinator as your head coach is the cool thing to do right now.  Kitchens had been doing a good job as offensive coordinator, and as a result he would have probably gotten HC offers elsewhere if the Browns didn't hire him.  So they fired Williams because he was seen as more replaceable than Kitchens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Because hiring a hotshot offensive coordinator as your head coach is the cool thing to do right now.  Kitchens had been doing a good job as offensive coordinator, and as a result he would have probably gotten HC offers elsewhere if the Browns didn't hire him.  So they fired Williams because he was seen as more replaceable than Kitchens.

Or, to say it another way, after years, even decades, of failure, they stumbled into a HQ who had good chemistry with their new stud QB, and the rest of the team, and manged to get this group of perennial losers to start winning, and said, eh, fuck it, let's make a change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Or, to say it another way, after years, even decades, of failure, they stumbled into a HQ who had good chemistry with their new stud QB, and the rest of the team, and manged to get this group of perennial losers to start winning, and said, eh, fuck it, let's make a change.  

I think change was inevitable.  Having Williams as HC and Kitchens as OC might have been preferable, but it runs the (very real) risk that Kitchens gets hired away.  They considered Williams more replaceable than Kitchens, and I can't really blame them for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Why didn't the Browns hire Gregg Williams?

Because he's a defensive minded coach and the Browns had a shitty defense?  The main reason the Browns turned around is because of Freddie Kitchens.  You know...the guy they just hired to be their head coach.  He was the one who was calling plays when the offense went from one of the worst five in the league to one of the best five.  He's the one who had the chemistry with Baker Mayfield and made him go from looking like a promising rookie the first eight games to a top ten NFL QB the last eight.  He's the one who schemed so that Baker took by far the fewest QB hits/sacks in the league over the final eight games of the season despite a mediocre at best O-line.  

Really no reason to hire Gregg Williams and then lose Freddie Kitchens a year from now when he inevitably got another head coach offer when you can just cut out the middle man and hire Kitchens now.  Williams should be thanking Kitchens he even got a damn interview, because the offense looked so good and Mayfield so exciting during the back half of the season that no one really noticed the defense was still shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...