SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
Toughest postseason slates
On Monday I posted the easiest and toughest schedules of all time according to the Simple Rating System. In the comments, some people asked which teams had the toughest postseason schedules. I'll answer that in this post.
Meanwhile, Wednesday's post about the strongest and weakest divisions sparked a little discussion about how to measure the strength of a group of teams. In that discussion, James G had this to say:
One thing could possibly make Brian happier is if division’s were rated by what the average (some record) team in the NFL’s record would have been in that division. I think you might find the toughest division for a 14-2 team isn’t necessarily the same as the toughest division for a 10-6 team.
He's right. Strength of schedule is relative. If you're a +10 team according to the SRS, you'd rather play two zeros than play a +10 and a -10. Well, if you want to maximize your expected wins, you'd rather. Conversely, a -10 team would rather play the +10 and the -10 than play two zeros.
So I've decided to rate the postseason slates on three different scales:
(1) what is the probability than a league average team would go undefeated against that group of teams?
(2) what is the probability that a typical playoff team (SRS = +6) would go undefeated against that group of teams?
(3) what is the probability that a legitimate candidate for best team in the league in a given year (SRS = +10) would go undefeated against that group of teams.
For example, look at the Patriots' 2006 postseason:
Game #1: at home against the Jets (+2.0)
An average team would have roughly a 55% chance of beating the Jets at home.
A typical playoff team would have roughly a 66% chance of beating the Jets at home.
A great team would have roughly a 73% chance of beating the Jets at home.
Game #2: on the road against the Chargers (+10.2)
An average team would have roughly a 24% chance of beating the Chargers in San Diego.
A typical playoff team would have roughly a 33% chance of beating the Chargers in San Diego.
A great team would have roughly a 41% chance of beating the Chargers in San Diego.
Game #3: on the road against the Colts (+5.9)
An average team would have roughly a 31% chance of beating the Colts in Indy.
A typical playoff team would have roughly a 42% chance of beating the Colts in Indy.
A great team would have roughly a 49% chance of beating the Colts in Indy.
Putting it altogether (and sweeping some rounding discrepancies under the rug), we might estimate that an average team, a typical playoff team, and a great team would have a 4.0%, 9.2%, and 14.8% chance, respectively, of winning all three of those games. In the table that follows, I will summarize that thusly:
nwe 2006 0.040 0.092 0.148 nyj +2.0, *sdg +10.2, *ind +5.9
The asterisks denote road games.
As it turns out, it matters very little which of those three numbers we use to sort the list. I chose the last one for no particular reason. Here is a list of all teams since 1970 that played exactly three postseason games, sorted from toughest slate of opponents to easiest.
NOTE: I'm lazy and a bad programmer, so the "visiting team" in the Super Bowl will have an asterisk that you'll have to mentally remove. In the calculations, however, the game was correctly treated as a neutral-site game.
Tm Yr AvTm PlTm GrTm opp1 opp2 opp3 =================================================================== dal 1975 0.016 0.043 0.078 *min +8.9, *ram +9.1, pit +14.2 min 1987 0.017 0.045 0.080 *nor +9.8, *sfo +13.1, *was +3.7 atl 1998 0.022 0.056 0.097 sfo +10.6, *min +14.9, den +8.9 ram 1989 0.022 0.057 0.099 *phi +5.1, *nyg +6.4, *sfo +10.7 hou 1979 0.023 0.058 0.099 den +4.1, *sdg +11.8, *pit +11.9 min 1973 0.023 0.058 0.100 was +7.4, *dal +12.8, mia +13.2 hou 1978 0.024 0.062 0.106 *mia +7.6, *nwe +5.0, *pit +8.2 phi 2001 0.027 0.066 0.111 tam +4.0, *chi +7.9, *stl +13.4 car 2005 0.027 0.069 0.116 *nyg +7.5, *chi +1.4, *sea +9.1 gnb 1995 0.031 0.074 0.121 atl +0.1, *sfo +11.8, *dal +9.7 dal 1980 0.031 0.075 0.124 ram +6.5, *atl +7.8, *phi +9.7 nyj 1982 0.030 0.075 0.126 *cin +3.4, *rai +5.1, *mia +8.0 jax 1996 0.032 0.078 0.130 *buf +2.9, *den +7.6, *nwe +5.1 ind 1995 0.035 0.084 0.139 *sdg +1.5, *kan +7.6, *pit +4.6 dal 1992 0.037 0.087 0.141 phi +8.9, *sfo +11.8, *buf +4.3 nwe 2001 0.037 0.087 0.142 oak +3.6, *pit +7.4, *stl +13.4 ind 2003 0.037 0.087 0.142 den +5.5, *kan +8.3, *nwe +6.9 nwe 2004 0.036 0.087 0.142 ind +11.4, *pit +9.0, *phi +5.6 was 1986 0.039 0.090 0.145 ram +1.9, *chi +7.6, *nyg +9.0 nwe 2006 0.040 0.092 0.148 nyj +2.0, *sdg +10.2, *ind +5.9 mia 1971 0.038 0.091 0.149 *kan +5.1, bal +10.4, dal +9.9 oak 1976 0.039 0.093 0.151 nwe +8.6, pit +15.3, *min +9.3 sfo 1988 0.042 0.098 0.158 min +10.9, *chi +6.6, *cin +6.1 tam 2002 0.046 0.103 0.163 sfo +0.6, *phi +8.3, oak +10.6 dal 1970 0.046 0.105 0.167 det +14.0, *sfo +6.5, bal +0.4 ram 1979 0.046 0.105 0.167 *dal +3.3, *tam -2.8, pit +11.9 sdg 1994 0.046 0.106 0.168 mia +4.2, *pit +4.7, *sfo +11.6 buf 1991 0.050 0.110 0.171 kan +6.4, den +3.4, was +16.6 dal 1971 0.048 0.109 0.173 *min +6.5, sfo +6.3, *mia +7.7 sea 1983 0.051 0.112 0.175 den -2.8, *mia +7.7, *rai +6.8 gnb 1997 0.051 0.114 0.178 tam +2.7, *sfo +5.1, den +10.7 kan 1993 0.051 0.114 0.178 pit +1.5, *hou +7.2, *buf +4.8 mia 1972 0.052 0.115 0.179 cle +0.3, *pit +10.0, *was +6.3 nyg 1990 0.053 0.119 0.185 chi +3.4, *sfo +5.8, *buf +8.6 pit 1974 0.055 0.120 0.186 buf +1.0, *oak +9.0, *min +6.1 den 1986 0.053 0.120 0.187 nwe +5.7, *cle +3.6, *nyg +9.0 den 1998 0.054 0.120 0.187 mia +5.9, nyj +11.2, *atl +10.0 mia 1984 0.057 0.124 0.191 sea +9.0, pit +3.3, sfo +12.7 was 1972 0.061 0.133 0.203 gnb +7.0, dal +6.1, mia +11.0 den 1977 0.062 0.135 0.207 pit +6.2, oak +10.4, dal +7.8 nwe 1996 0.068 0.141 0.210 pit +5.2, jax -1.5, gnb +15.3 min 1976 0.068 0.144 0.218 was +3.0, ram +10.5, oak +8.5 dal 1982 0.074 0.154 0.228 tam +1.0, gnb +6.1, *was +7.4 rai 1983 0.081 0.162 0.237 pit -0.1, sea +1.5, *was +13.9 gnb 1996 0.076 0.161 0.240 sfo +8.0, car +7.1, *nwe +5.1 dal 1978 0.081 0.164 0.241 atl -4.6, *ram +3.2, pit +8.2 mia 1973 0.079 0.164 0.243 cin +3.1, oak +6.8, *min +8.6 sfo 1989 0.080 0.165 0.244 min +4.3, ram +4.6, *den +9.3 buf 1990 0.079 0.164 0.244 mia +4.7, rai +6.6, nyg +7.7 sea 2005 0.079 0.165 0.244 was +6.0, car +5.1, *pit +7.8 pit 1975 0.079 0.164 0.244 bal +8.6, oak +6.8, *dal +4.1 was 1983 0.081 0.167 0.247 ram +2.9, sfo +8.7, rai +6.8 pit 1978 0.085 0.171 0.250 den +5.0, hou -0.4, *dal +11.0 sfo 1984 0.084 0.171 0.250 nyg +0.8, chi +4.7, *mia +10.6 stl 2001 0.082 0.169 0.250 gnb +6.6, phi +7.7, nwe +4.3 dal 1993 0.084 0.172 0.254 gnb +3.2, sfo +9.7, *buf +4.8 nyg 1986 0.085 0.174 0.256 sfo +7.0, was +5.5, den +5.2 was 1987 0.089 0.178 0.258 *chi +4.0, min -2.5, *den +4.4 min 1974 0.088 0.179 0.262 stl +5.8, ram +3.9, pit +6.8 den 1987 0.089 0.180 0.263 hou +1.7, cle +10.6, was +3.7 den 1989 0.098 0.190 0.272 pit -3.7, cle +4.4, sfo +10.7 oak 2002 0.096 0.189 0.273 nyj +3.2, ten +1.8, *tam +8.8 phi 2004 0.103 0.194 0.274 min -1.7, atl -2.2, nwe +12.8 sfo 1981 0.095 0.190 0.275 nyg +3.4, dal +6.1, *cin +5.5 buf 1993 0.101 0.195 0.279 rai -0.7, kan +2.9, dal +9.6 nyg 2000 0.100 0.196 0.281 phi +3.1, min +1.9, bal +8.0 sfo 1994 0.104 0.202 0.288 chi -1.9, dal +10.1, sdg +3.6 chi 1985 0.105 0.205 0.293 nyg +3.9, ram +2.6, *nwe +5.8 cin 1981 0.106 0.206 0.293 buf +1.3, sdg +4.4, sfo +6.2 phi 1980 0.106 0.206 0.293 min -0.3, dal +8.0, oak +4.2 nwe 2003 0.107 0.208 0.297 ten +6.5, ind +7.0, car -0.9 dal 1977 0.116 0.215 0.299 chi -3.6, min -1.6, *den +11.3 cin 1988 0.112 0.215 0.304 sea -0.7, buf +6.4, sfo +4.8 pit 1995 0.117 0.218 0.305 buf -0.9, ind -1.3, dal +9.7 bal 1970 0.119 0.224 0.313 cin +0.5, oak +1.0, *dal +7.0 dal 1995 0.118 0.224 0.314 phi -1.7, gnb +6.0, *pit +4.6 chi 2006 0.127 0.236 0.327 sea -3.6, nor +4.0, ind +5.9 was 1991 0.126 0.237 0.329 atl +3.4, det +1.0, *buf +3.6 stl 1999 0.128 0.240 0.334 min +4.4, tam +2.6, *ten +1.0 pit 1979 0.128 0.241 0.334 mia +4.3, hou +4.4, *ram -0.6
I should point out that the ratings shown (and used in the calculations) are regular season ratings. The 1999 Tennessee Titans were a +1.0 in the regular season, but by the time they played the Rams in the Super Bowl they had beaten three more good teams, so the +1.0 probably does shortchange them to some extent.
I'll close with the four-game teams.
Tm Yr AvTm PlTm GrTm opp1 opp2 opp3 opp4 =============================================================================== nwe 1985 0.005 0.020 0.041 *nyj +9.0, *rai +4.3, *mia +7.0, chi +15.9 pit 2005 0.006 0.021 0.044 *cin +3.8, *ind +10.8, *den +10.8, sea +9.1 ten 1999 0.011 0.036 0.071 buf +7.1, *ind +6.1, *jax +6.4, stl +11.9 bal 2000 0.014 0.044 0.082 den +5.0, *ten +8.3, *oak +9.7, *nyg +2.4 den 1997 0.014 0.044 0.083 jax +5.5, *kan +8.4, *pit +5.3, *gnb +7.7 ind 2006 0.019 0.055 0.100 kan +1.0, *bal +9.3, nwe +10.2, *chi +7.9 oak 1980 0.020 0.058 0.105 hou +1.6, *cle +1.8, *sdg +6.0, *phi +9.7 buf 1992 0.020 0.058 0.106 hou +5.5, *pit +3.6, *mia +1.5, dal +9.9 car 2003 0.022 0.063 0.112 dal -0.5, *stl +5.9, *phi +4.4, *nwe +6.9 mia 1982 0.042 0.106 0.173 nwe -2.7, sdg +5.1, nyj +10.3, was +7.4 was 1982 0.046 0.112 0.182 det +1.5, min +1.2, dal +8.4, *mia +8.0
This entry was posted on Friday, June 29th, 2007 at 4:39 am and is filed under General, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Awesome. What stands out to me is how improbable it is for even a great team just to make it to the SB, much less to win it.
For example, the current odds for NE to win the SB is 9/5. I think that's insane. I'm not a gambler, but I'd take 5/9 odds against them winning it all.
So the 1972 Dolphins are criticized for the weak regular season schedule, but their post-season schedule is the 8th-toughest amongst teams who won the Super Bowl and played exactly 3 post season games.
(6 Super Bowl champions needed 4 games to win.)
So the Pittsburgh Steelers in 2005 were the most unlikely team ever to win a Superbowl. Very interesting.
The 05 Steelers were statistically bogged down by 2 games of Maddox and 2 games of Batch starting at QB.
Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but how did you go from a ratings difference to a percentage chance of winning?
Bill L,
I skipped over that step, but it's essentially the same as what I posted way back in this post. It's a formula that was obtained from a logit regression on past data.
For this post, I didn't use exactly the same formula as the above post, but it was very close.
All this "simple rating system" analysis is great.
Now how about final question: which was the best team of all time by SRS including all postseason games? And which was the best team ever to not win the Super Bowl (one and the same?) Which was the best team ever to lose in the first round of the playoffs? And which was the worst team to win... Aw, I could go on forever, but what's all this time in the post-season for?
I had time to kill today. All teams measured by regular season SRS
TOP THREE SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS
1. 1991 Redskins, 16.6
2. 1985 Bears, 15.9
3. 1996 Packers, 15.3
TOP THREE SUPER BOWL LOSERS
1. 1983 Redskins, 13.9
2. 2001 Rams, 13.4
3. 1977 Broncos, 11.3
WORST THREE SUPER BOWL WINNERS
1. 1970 Colts, 0.4
2. 1987 Redskins 3.7
3. 1980 Raiders, 4.2
WORST THREE TEAMS TO LOSE SUPER BOWL
1. 2003 Panthers, -0.9
2. 1979 Rams, -0.6
3. 1999 Titans, 1.0
BEST THREE TEAMS TO MISS SUPER BOWL
1. 1976 Steelers, 15.3
2. 1998 Vikings, 14.9
3. 1970 Lions, 14.0
(Note: If a great team lost their playoff opener, to a team that lost their next game, I don't think they'll be in this list.)
BIGGEST UPSETS IN SUPER BOWL HISTORY
(as measured in difference in regular season SRS)
1. 2001, Pats over Rams (-9.1)
2. 1983, Raiders over Redskins (-7.1)
3. 1970, Colts over Cowboys (-6.6)