The Best 2-Game Stretches of the Decade (2000-08)
Posted by Neil Paine on Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A few weeks ago, I threw out this crazy idea about how to isolate a team's peak performance by SRS:
"Obviously, we can't run the SRS on single-game samples, because it requires multiple opponents to 'work'. But what if we broke each team-season down into 15 to 19 'mini-teams' based on 2-game stretches of the season? Like, the Patriots' win over the Jets in Week 1 of the 2007 season would be part of the 'New England Games 1-2' team, and so would their win against the Chargers the next week. And that Chargers team would be part of the 'San Diego Games 2-3' team, who played 'Green Bay Games 3-4' the next week, who played 'Minnesota Games 4-5' the week after that... and so on and so forth. Now, every 'team' connects to every other team, just like in the regular SRS, but we've also isolated team performance down to the most specific time period possible using the SRS method."
As a follow-up, I calculated the best and worst 2-game stretches by teams this decade (2009 isn't included because not all teams have played the same # of games yet). Remember, the SRS is focused on measuring a team's point differential vs. the point differential you'd expect an average team to have based on the game's location and the strength of the opponent; this method takes it even further and is only concerned with the strength of the opponent at the time of the game, meaning wins against teams with mediocre records can still be positive for a team's SOS if they play them either before or after a strong performance. I think there's definitely some logic to this, because (as Chase pointed out in the post that inspired this series) every game features a different version of the same team; sometimes the differences are so small as to be imperceptible, but sometimes they're huge (think the '07 Giants early in the season vs. late), so it really does matter when you catch a particular opponent.
Anyway, here are the 100 best 2-game stretches of the Oughts:
| Year_Tm_G#_G# | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000_rav_19_20 | 21.52 | 29.13 | 50.64 |
| 2000_rav_18_19 | 16.53 | 27.67 | 44.20 |
| 2002_tam_18_19 | 23.52 | 16.20 | 39.71 |
| 2000_rav_17_18 | 16.00 | 17.66 | 33.66 |
| 2003_buf_1_2 | 25.34 | 7.71 | 33.06 |
| 2005_sea_12_13 | 40.00 | -7.69 | 32.31 |
| 2000_rai_17_18 | -2.70 | 34.21 | 31.51 |
| 2003_gnb_15_16 | 31.00 | 0.28 | 31.28 |
| 2001_ram_3_4 | 33.50 | -2.39 | 31.11 |
| 2002_tam_17_18 | 21.00 | 9.13 | 30.13 |
| 2006_buf_13_14 | 19.50 | 10.15 | 29.65 |
| 2001_ram_2_3 | 18.00 | 10.77 | 28.77 |
| 2000_tam_1_2 | 27.99 | 0.63 | 28.62 |
| 2005_pit_19_20 | 15.52 | 13.05 | 28.57 |
| 2008_nyg_9_10 | 12.50 | 15.98 | 28.48 |
| 2007_nwe_9_10 | 28.03 | 0.38 | 28.41 |
| 2006_nwe_16_17 | 19.00 | 9.08 | 28.08 |
| 2001_ram_17_18 | 13.47 | 14.57 | 28.03 |
| 2000_rai_16_17 | 31.97 | -4.00 | 27.96 |
| 2004_clt_10_11 | 34.53 | -6.73 | 27.80 |
| 2007_nwe_7_8 | 33.00 | -5.31 | 27.69 |
| 2004_buf_14_15 | 28.03 | -0.38 | 27.65 |
| 2003_gnb_14_15 | 28.53 | -1.05 | 27.49 |
| 2001_nwe_18_19 | 6.52 | 20.84 | 27.36 |
| 2007_nwe_1_2 | 22.99 | 4.26 | 27.25 |
| 2004_nwe_17_18 | 15.50 | 11.70 | 27.20 |
| 2007_nwe_2_3 | 24.47 | 2.46 | 26.92 |
| 2000_nyg_18_19 | 5.48 | 21.26 | 26.75 |
| 2000_tam_2_3 | 31.00 | -4.40 | 26.60 |
| 2007_nwe_6_7 | 24.03 | 2.53 | 26.57 |
| 2007_nwe_8_9 | 24.50 | 1.99 | 26.49 |
| 2004_gnb_6_7 | 24.50 | 1.91 | 26.41 |
| 2001_ram_18_19 | -0.52 | 26.76 | 26.24 |
| 2001_phi_18_19 | 4.37 | 21.79 | 26.16 |
| 2004_nwe_18_19 | 10.02 | 16.09 | 26.11 |
| 2007_gnb_1_2 | 16.68 | 9.37 | 26.05 |
| 2006_chi_4_5 | 28.97 | -2.93 | 26.03 |
| 2006_jax_12_13 | 20.50 | 5.42 | 25.92 |
| 2002_phi_2_3 | 30.50 | -4.71 | 25.79 |
| 2001_phi_17_18 | 18.00 | 7.61 | 25.61 |
| 2005_pit_14_15 | 31.03 | -5.47 | 25.56 |
| 2006_nyg_5_6 | 16.53 | 8.54 | 25.07 |
| 2004_pit_7_8 | 15.97 | 9.09 | 25.06 |
| 2007_nwe_5_6 | 19.00 | 5.82 | 24.82 |
| 2000_nyg_17_18 | 22.47 | 2.29 | 24.75 |
| 2005_sdg_3_4 | 23.00 | 1.67 | 24.67 |
| 2007_nyg_3_4 | 10.00 | 14.53 | 24.53 |
| 2002_rai_17_18 | 15.47 | 8.97 | 24.44 |
| 2007_clt_6_7 | 26.03 | -1.71 | 24.33 |
| 2000_oti_15_16 | 27.50 | -3.25 | 24.25 |
| 2003_gnb_16_17 | 17.63 | 6.57 | 24.20 |
| 2004_pit_8_9 | 19.00 | 5.08 | 24.08 |
| 2002_rai_16_17 | 18.97 | 4.96 | 23.93 |
| 2000_oti_16_17 | -2.03 | 25.87 | 23.83 |
| 2004_clt_9_10 | 33.00 | -9.17 | 23.83 |
| 2008_crd_18_19 | 13.50 | 10.30 | 23.80 |
| 2008_rav_11_12 | 30.00 | -6.26 | 23.74 |
| 2004_clt_11_12 | 29.50 | -5.80 | 23.70 |
| 2007_nwe_3_4 | 26.00 | -2.36 | 23.64 |
| 2003_oti_6_7 | 20.50 | 3.14 | 23.64 |
| 2005_nyg_7_8 | 27.00 | -3.40 | 23.60 |
| 2003_rav_12_13 | 24.97 | -1.37 | 23.60 |
| 2005_nyg_6_7 | 15.47 | 7.76 | 23.23 |
| 2003_oti_7_8 | 19.53 | 3.54 | 23.07 |
| 2002_kan_12_13 | 40.97 | -17.95 | 23.02 |
| 2006_rav_15_16 | 21.01 | 2.00 | 23.01 |
| 2003_kan_2_3 | 24.50 | -1.56 | 22.94 |
| 2005_nwe_13_14 | 28.00 | -5.09 | 22.91 |
| 2007_clt_5_6 | 20.50 | 2.29 | 22.79 |
| 2008_nyg_10_11 | 14.00 | 8.59 | 22.59 |
| 2007_min_11_12 | 28.00 | -5.53 | 22.47 |
| 2006_clt_17_18 | 12.00 | 10.36 | 22.36 |
| 2005_sea_11_12 | 22.50 | -0.18 | 22.32 |
| 2007_det_7_8 | 23.00 | -0.71 | 22.29 |
| 2006_clt_18_19 | 6.50 | 15.76 | 22.26 |
| 2006_nwe_15_16 | 10.70 | 11.55 | 22.25 |
| 2001_ram_1_2 | 6.70 | 15.49 | 22.19 |
| 2004_kan_6_7 | 24.97 | -2.98 | 21.99 |
| 2007_nwe_4_5 | 19.00 | 2.94 | 21.94 |
| 2004_phi_2_3 | 14.00 | 7.92 | 21.92 |
| 2004_nwe_11_12 | 24.00 | -2.08 | 21.92 |
| 2003_sea_1_2 | 32.01 | -10.11 | 21.90 |
| 2000_oti_14_15 | 28.32 | -6.43 | 21.89 |
| 2006_buf_12_13 | 7.50 | 14.35 | 21.85 |
| 2006_chi_1_2 | 25.66 | -3.86 | 21.79 |
| 2004_buf_13_14 | 23.00 | -1.35 | 21.65 |
| 2007_gnb_2_3 | 14.50 | 7.10 | 21.60 |
| 2005_den_7_8 | 13.50 | 8.09 | 21.59 |
| 2003_rav_15_16 | 25.34 | -3.80 | 21.55 |
| 2007_dal_8_9 | 19.03 | 2.50 | 21.54 |
| 2008_nyg_8_9 | 13.00 | 8.47 | 21.47 |
| 2004_phi_18_19 | 5.48 | 15.99 | 21.47 |
| 2002_atl_10_11 | 24.00 | -2.59 | 21.41 |
| 2007_sdg_5_6 | 26.00 | -4.68 | 21.32 |
| 2001_ram_16_17 | 19.97 | 1.29 | 21.26 |
| 2003_kan_8_9 | 23.97 | -2.72 | 21.25 |
| 2006_nwe_6_7 | 26.03 | -4.81 | 21.22 |
| 2005_pit_15_16 | 33.01 | -11.85 | 21.16 |
| 2007_clt_7_8 | 10.00 | 11.10 | 21.10 |
| 2006_sdg_12_13 | 15.50 | 5.56 | 21.06 |
And the bottom 100 performances of the decade:
| Year_Tm_G#_G# | MOV | SOS | SRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001_nor_15_16 | -37.03 | 3.31 | -33.73 |
| 2003_nyg_13_14 | -25.50 | -6.43 | -31.93 |
| 2008_ram_2_3 | -26.00 | -4.76 | -30.76 |
| 2008_ram_10_11 | -21.50 | -9.19 | -30.69 |
| 2008_ram_11_12 | -17.03 | -13.28 | -30.31 |
| 2002_crd_9_10 | -22.50 | -6.48 | -28.98 |
| 2008_ram_3_4 | -20.50 | -8.36 | -28.86 |
| 2006_car_13_14 | -27.03 | -1.35 | -28.39 |
| 2000_crd_6_7 | -30.00 | 2.05 | -27.95 |
| 2008_ram_12_13 | -14.00 | -13.79 | -27.79 |
| 2003_crd_1_2 | -32.34 | 4.92 | -27.43 |
| 2000_cin_1_2 | -15.00 | -12.04 | -27.04 |
| 2007_atl_13_14 | -27.00 | 0.13 | -26.87 |
| 2001_atl_12_13 | -16.00 | -10.67 | -26.67 |
| 2008_ram_9_10 | -28.47 | 2.21 | -26.26 |
| 2003_crd_13_14 | -19.50 | -6.47 | -25.97 |
| 2001_was_2_3 | -34.50 | 8.57 | -25.93 |
| 2004_chi_15_16 | -11.50 | -14.32 | -25.82 |
| 2002_crd_8_9 | -20.03 | -5.64 | -25.67 |
| 2000_cle_13_14 | -39.47 | 13.98 | -25.49 |
| 2007_ram_15_16 | -22.01 | -3.32 | -25.33 |
| 2008_ram_1_2 | -31.34 | 6.13 | -25.22 |
| 2005_nor_13_14 | -18.00 | -7.20 | -25.20 |
| 2002_crd_11_12 | -35.00 | 9.89 | -25.11 |
| 2000_cin_2_3 | -21.97 | -3.14 | -25.11 |
| 2004_rai_6_7 | -19.53 | -5.52 | -25.06 |
| 2001_nor_14_15 | -28.50 | 3.52 | -24.98 |
| 2004_rai_5_6 | -24.50 | -0.31 | -24.81 |
| 2000_crd_12_13 | -17.50 | -7.18 | -24.68 |
| 2007_mia_12_13 | -24.00 | -0.62 | -24.62 |
| 2006_sfo_6_7 | -30.00 | 5.39 | -24.61 |
| 2008_ram_8_9 | -32.50 | 7.94 | -24.56 |
| 2008_det_2_3 | -20.50 | -3.99 | -24.49 |
| 2003_crd_12_13 | -27.47 | 3.07 | -24.40 |
| 2005_det_14_15 | -13.02 | -11.21 | -24.23 |
| 2008_det_15_16 | -27.68 | 3.45 | -24.23 |
| 2003_nyg_12_13 | -18.03 | -6.18 | -24.21 |
| 2003_nyg_14_15 | -23.97 | -0.03 | -24.00 |
| 2008_det_11_12 | -30.53 | 6.56 | -23.98 |
| 2003_chi_15_16 | -12.50 | -11.44 | -23.94 |
| 2001_car_15_16 | -30.53 | 6.67 | -23.87 |
| 2003_atl_6_7 | -32.00 | 8.17 | -23.83 |
| 2001_atl_11_12 | -26.53 | 2.78 | -23.75 |
| 2007_kan_13_14 | -21.50 | -2.15 | -23.65 |
| 2005_det_13_14 | -13.50 | -10.11 | -23.61 |
| 2007_ram_6_7 | -19.97 | -3.61 | -23.58 |
| 2005_sfo_5_6 | -30.00 | 6.59 | -23.41 |
| 2005_gnb_13_14 | -21.00 | -2.29 | -23.29 |
| 2008_ram_13_14 | -13.50 | -9.65 | -23.15 |
| 2003_crd_9_10 | -22.47 | -0.68 | -23.14 |
| 2003_was_14_15 | -15.00 | -7.98 | -22.98 |
| 2005_nor_5_6 | -24.48 | 1.63 | -22.85 |
| 2008_det_9_10 | -16.50 | -6.23 | -22.73 |
| 2000_crd_7_8 | -26.00 | 3.32 | -22.68 |
| 2008_cin_7_8 | -28.50 | 6.10 | -22.40 |
| 2008_det_1_2 | -20.68 | -1.48 | -22.16 |
| 2007_atl_12_13 | -16.00 | -6.10 | -22.10 |
| 2005_nor_14_15 | -10.52 | -11.57 | -22.09 |
| 2006_atl_14_15 | -11.53 | -10.42 | -21.95 |
| 2007_kan_12_13 | -24.00 | 2.05 | -21.95 |
| 2008_det_3_4 | -22.50 | 0.56 | -21.94 |
| 2004_sfo_3_4 | -22.00 | 0.14 | -21.86 |
| 2006_tam_8_9 | -15.50 | -6.30 | -21.80 |
| 2006_was_9_10 | -10.47 | -11.26 | -21.72 |
| 2007_sfo_3_4 | -20.50 | -1.02 | -21.52 |
| 2005_htx_10_11 | -20.03 | -1.45 | -21.48 |
| 2002_crd_12_13 | -23.00 | 1.57 | -21.43 |
| 2002_crd_10_11 | -22.50 | 1.10 | -21.40 |
| 2007_rav_8_9 | -22.50 | 1.15 | -21.35 |
| 2003_det_5_6 | -19.00 | -2.34 | -21.34 |
| 2003_was_13_14 | -7.00 | -14.25 | -21.25 |
| 2003_det_1_2 | -9.66 | -11.53 | -21.18 |
| 2000_cle_6_7 | -17.97 | -3.10 | -21.07 |
| 2000_crd_11_12 | -24.50 | 3.50 | -21.00 |
| 2003_det_13_14 | -17.50 | -3.46 | -20.96 |
| 2000_buf_13_14 | -25.50 | 4.57 | -20.93 |
| 2000_sdg_13_14 | -24.50 | 3.57 | -20.93 |
| 2003_was_6_7 | -19.50 | -1.41 | -20.91 |
| 2008_den_7_8 | -21.50 | 0.63 | -20.87 |
| 2002_cin_2_3 | -16.97 | -3.88 | -20.84 |
| 2005_nor_4_5 | -16.98 | -3.81 | -20.80 |
| 2005_htx_4_5 | -23.00 | 2.24 | -20.76 |
| 2002_nyj_2_3 | -32.00 | 11.26 | -20.74 |
| 2006_gnb_10_11 | -22.50 | 1.88 | -20.62 |
| 2002_cin_13_14 | -17.50 | -3.10 | -20.60 |
| 2004_sfo_10_11 | -19.50 | -1.07 | -20.57 |
| 2000_crd_13_14 | -19.47 | -1.10 | -20.56 |
| 2008_crd_14_15 | -30.50 | 9.98 | -20.52 |
| 2008_mia_11_12 | -8.00 | -12.50 | -20.50 |
| 2008_det_8_9 | -14.00 | -6.47 | -20.47 |
| 2005_gnb_14_15 | -26.00 | 5.65 | -20.35 |
| 2001_was_1_2 | -30.63 | 10.39 | -20.24 |
| 2003_cin_15_16 | -12.99 | -7.17 | -20.16 |
| 2002_cin_3_4 | -27.50 | 7.44 | -20.06 |
| 2004_sfo_2_3 | -15.47 | -4.56 | -20.03 |
| 2003_det_14_15 | -13.97 | -6.05 | -20.01 |
| 2005_buf_4_5 | -4.52 | -15.47 | -19.99 |
| 2006_tam_9_10 | -5.50 | -14.49 | -19.99 |
| 2006_nyg_14_15 | -21.53 | 1.55 | -19.98 |
| 2005_buf_3_4 | -11.52 | -8.40 | -19.92 |
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 PM and filed under Simple Rating System, Statgeekery. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
As a Miami fan, I looked to see if the Dolphins showed up on the list. Interestingly, they made the list twice. Once in an 1-15 season (no surprise), and again in an 11-5 season. the 2 games that made it in the 11-5 season were a win against Oakland, and a loss against New England (who also finished that season 11-5). I found it somewhat surprising that they went 1-1 in those games.
Posted on 03-Nov-09 at 5:42 pm | PermalinkI wonder how many wins show up on the bad list. Do you know without having to manually check all of them?
Posted on 03-Nov-09 at 5:44 pm | PermalinkAs a retrodictive tool for fun, it's a very cool idea, but in terms of actually measuring team quality... Well, the Ravens were VERY good, but 50.64? I think 2 game stretches allows too much "creative accounting". I'm thinking a 4 or 5 week stretch would balance that out more. I'm curious as to what time period would give the best predictive values. I'll have to think more about it.
Posted on 03-Nov-09 at 11:06 pm | PermalinkJust to see what'd happen, I did the same thing with 4 week timeframes instead of 2 week timeframes. I like it a bit better because the timespan is still short but there's 4x as much interconnectivity.
The top and bottom ends of the list:
NWE 2007 07_10 (30.58)
RAV 2000 17_20 (30.19)
NWE 2007 06_09 (28.10)
NWE 2007 05_08 (27.78)
NWE 2007 08_11 (26.74)
NWE 2006 14_17 (26.03)
TAM 2002 16_19 (25.40)
RAM 2001 01_04 (24.85)
NWE 2007 03_06 (24.05)
CLT 2004 09_12 (23.58)
...
NOR 2005 05_08 (-22.54)
Posted on 04-Nov-09 at 4:32 am | PermalinkDET 2008 01_04 (-22.73)
NYG 2003 13_16 (-23.86)
NYG 2003 12_15 (-24.02)
RAM 2008 11_14 (-24.61)
RAM 2008 01_04 (-25.33)
CRD 2002 09_12 (-25.58)
RAM 2008 10_13 (-25.78)
RAM 2008 09_12 (-25.96)
RAM 2008 08_11 (-27.47)
It's tough to balance the issue of needing more data for significance vs. wanting to zero in on how well a team played at as specific a moment in time as possible. I went with 2 games to lean as far toward the latter as possible, but it's essentially a personal choice, especially since it can only be retrodictive at best.
However, I'm not sure the 2000 Ravens looking so good is that weird -- in the Super Bowl, they trounced a Giants team 34-7 that had rolled up a 41-0 win vs. a Minnesota team that thoroughly beat New Orleans 34-16 a week after the Saints beat the Rams 31-28, on the heels of St. Louis beating the Saints in New Orleans by 5... etc. You can trace back their final 11 games of the 2000 season and it was as dominant a stretch as you'll find: they allowed >10 pts only 3 times, and other than a 1-point win at Tennessee and a 6-point win at Arizona, they won all of the games in that stretch by double-figures, including 8 by 2 TDs or more. The fact that the final 4 games of the run came in the playoffs, ending with the Super Bowl, only makes it more impressive.
Posted on 04-Nov-09 at 8:35 am | PermalinkWell here's the thing. Do you think they'd beat the 2007 Pats at their peak by more than 3 touchdowns? Because that's what the numbers suggest, yes? But it'd have been fun to watch...
.
But with 2 games per mini-team in the playoffs, you've got very few connections and the connections are all to other teams at their extreme ends (and are thus poorly connected too). So the Ravens have an absurdly high score solely because the Giants won by 41 in their previous game.
You'll get the same answer any time the superbowl is a blowout and/or the loser won by a significant margin in the previous game. 1992, Dallas has +8 or so for the season on average but +49 in their final one because they blew out the Bills who won their penultimate game handily.
Using the 2000 ravens as an example with their last rating of the year:
G | Tms | ConPT | RAV
Posted on 04-Nov-09 at 10:52 am | Permalink2 | 487 | 01.9 | +51.01
3 | 456 | 04.2 | +37.77
4 | 425 | 07.1 | +30.28
5 | 394 | 10.7 | +26.39
6 | 363 | 14.7 | +17.23
The 2000 Ravens, while impressive, are a bit overrated, particularly their defensive performance.
They played in a division with a terrible expansion Cleveland Browns team, a Bengals team trying to develop Akili Smith, a Steelers team with the dreadful Kordell Stewart, and a generous slate of non-divisional opponents with weak offenses.
That they won a convincing Super Bowl is again due in large part to a great draw, as they played possibly the worst team to ever appear in a Super Bowl.
A good team, but not a great one, in my view. (For reference, I should add that I think the '85 Bears are overrated, too, although the hyperbole around that team is so extraordinary that they could hardly be anything else).
Anyway, interesting post!
Posted on 05-Nov-09 at 10:09 am | PermalinkI was thinking one solution to the connectivity issue would be to tack a year on either end of the one in question then simply number the games sequentially. So for the 2000 Ravens, instead of games 1-20, you have games 1-54, of which the "real" season is 17-36. Now there's a "crossover" team containing week 17 of 1999 and week 1 of 2000, and another containing the superbowl and week 1 of 2001. While the playoff mini-teams are still poorly connected to the league in general, it's less so than before, and the extreme ends where whipsaws occur is far away. It also has the small bonus of giving you a number at week 1 too. I also did the same with 4 weeks just for kicks. The regular season numbers were pretty similar in all 4 iterations, but the postseason numbers changed dramatically.
Posted on 05-Nov-09 at 5:02 pm | Permalink.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4078394203_7541d77c14_o.jpg