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 ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisTough schedules, lucky teams, and Simpson’s paradox
These two posts gave me occasion to whip up a program that tells me what every team's record was against playoff teams and against non-playoff teams. Lots of interesting tidbits in there.
For example, the 1998 Cardinals were one of 16 teams since the merger to make the playoffs without having any wins over playoff teams. They were 0-2 against playoff teams. But perhaps more shameful are the 2004 Vikings, who made the playoffs despite going 0-5 against playoff teams. Like the Cardinals, though, they somehow managed to win an actual playoff game.
The 1998 Cardinals and the 1998 Saints provide a very nice example of Simpson's paradox. Check out this table:
Cards Saints Better Record
==================================================
vs playoff teams 0-2 1- 9 Saints
vs non-playoff teams 9-5 5- 1 Saints
Total 9-7 6-10 Cards
The Saints had a better record (percentage-wise) than the Cardinals against playoff teams. The Saints had a better record than the Cardinals against non-playoff teams. But the Cardinals had an overall record that was three games better. In case you're curious, there have been 42 instances like this since 1970. Where else are you going to get info like that?
More trivia:
- The 1999 Jaguars were winless (0-2) against playoff teams and undefeated (14-0) against non-playoff teams. They are the only team to hold that distinction.
- The 1989 Browns were 5-1 against playoff teams and 4-5 against non-playoff teams.
- Ten teams have been undefeated against playoff teams, with the 2003 Patriots having the most wins (5) among those teams.
- The 1993 Bucs are the only team to play against 11 playoff teams. Four years later, the 1997 Bucs became one of only two teams to make the playoffs despite playing against 10 playoff teams. The 1994 Lions were the other.
- With the schedule set up as it currently is, every team is guaranteed to play at least two playoff teams each year. Back in the old days, four teams played against just one: the 1970 Cowboys, the 1974 Steelers, the 1976 Rams, and the 1987 Redskins. I don't know enough about historical scheduling practices to know if it was ever theoretically possible to get through a season without playing a playoff team. In any case, no team ever did. [CORRECTION: the 1976 Rams, 1975 Vikings, and 1972 Dolphins did.]
- The 1997 Packers and 1998 Jets were 7-1 against playoff teams.
- Two Super Bowl winners, the 1974 Steelers and 1999 Rams, did not beat a playoff team during the regular season. [CORRECTION: add the 1972 Dolphins to the list.]
- Among Super Bowl winners, the worst record against non-playoff teams belongs to the 1988 San Francisco 49ers, who were 7-4.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 29th, 2006 at 4:45 am and is filed under History, Statgeekery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
The 1988 49ers also hold the distinction(?) of having the worst regular season record ever by a Superbowl Champ (10-6 slightly worse as a winning % than the 1968 Packers' 9-4-1)
All this talk of good teams missing playoffs and bad teams making it etc. got me thinking about the 2003 Vikings. They managed to go 9-7 and miss the playoffs by one win. They were 4-2 against playoff teams, but unbelievably lost to all four teams who tied for the league's worst record! (4-12; Chargers, Raiders, Giants, Cards). How does one explain a team like that!?
This brings to mind the subject of consistency. Is it better for a team to be consistent, that is, one that always beats weaker teams and loses to stronger teams, or inconsistent? Obviously, the best team in the league would like to be consistently great, but other than that, maybe not. Is consistency a trait representing any sort of persistent, repeatable ability, above and beyond general team strength? Or is it just an effect of random variation in performances?
A recent baseball study (linked) showed that it's actually better for a starting pitcher to be inconsistent than consistent, but that consistency was not something that was retained from one year to the next.
Guess that link was too long for the text box:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/same-old-same-old/
1998 was definitely a memorable season chiefly due to the Cardinals (who were one of the most fascinating teams of all time) and the 55-9 combined mark of the final four teams. The Falcons, Vikings, Jets, and Broncos were 54-8 if you put aside the Jets 28-3 victory over the Falcons.
Those four teams did not stub their toes in the playoffs against a lesser team. They lost to one another.
The Falcons beat the Vikings.
The Broncos beat the Jets.
The Broncos beat the Falcons.
The Jets were 7-0 against playoff teams with Vinny Testaverde as the starting quarterback. Their one loss to a playoff team came in Week 1. They lost in overtime to the 49ers. Glenn Foley was the Jets quarterback.
The Jets other three losses were to really lousy teams. They were lifeless in losses to Baltimore and St. Louis. Their only regular season loss with Testaverde as the starter came in November when they lost to Indianapolis 24-23.
"Back in the old days, four teams played against just one: the 1970 Cowboys, the 1974 Steelers, the 1976 Rams, and the 1987 Redskins."
Cowboys lost the Super Bowl. Steelers won the Super Bowl. Rams lost the Championship game. Redskins won the Super Bowl.
It really looks as though an easy schedule has a lot to do with success (not a surprise). It's unfortunate. I wonder what the NFL playoffs would look like if they did it like HS football, where division champs are determined only by record within the division. Overall record could be the tiebreaker.
"I wonder what the NFL playoffs would look like if they did it like HS football, where division champs are determined only by record within the division."
I suspect the same team would win the division 95 percent of the time.
hehe. Alright Vince, I think you got me. I didn't think that one through. The NFL's short schedule is just going to create some unfairness.
In our fantasy football league, we have 4 "position weeks" throughout the season, where first place plays second place, third vs. fourth, etc. They just count as a regular game in the standings, but it helps to make sure the top teams in the league play each other a little more throughout the year, and somebody doesn't win the league without playing the best opponents.
[...] How often does the best team win? [...]
Thanks. It was theoretically possible to complete an entire regular season without facing a playoff team in the mid 1980s. I thought this would be interesting to note since the only examples of this are from the 1970s with the 14-game schedule. It coule have happened with the 16-game schedule too. I remember the format in 1986 partcularly because the Redskins and Giants had identical schedules that year (other than home vs away and head to head) with similar results (except head to head).
Back in 1986 three things had to happen for a team to avoid facing any opponents who would make the playoffs.
1. For the four interconference games, face a 5-team division from the other conference (which happened two of every three years) due to the rotating schedule. Two of three divisions in each conference consisted 5 teams, but the scheduling rotation had only four teams in any division facing four opponents from the scheduled division from the other conference. For example, in 1986 the Redskins played the AFC West, and faced Los Angeles, Denver, San Diego and Seattle. Kansas City presumably finished 5th in 1985, and did not participate in the rotation. Therefore, if Kansas City won the AFC West in 1986, and the AFC West did not produce a wildcard team, then the Redskins could have avoided all AFC playoff teams that year.
2. The team must win its division, and its own division must not produce any wildcards. This would result in 8 division games (in a 5 team division) without any playoff opponents.
3. For the four interdivisional intraconference games, the schedule included two games against teams from each of the other two divisions. Those two games in each division could theoretically not include either a division champion or wildcard entry. For example, the 1986 Redskins faced New Orleans and San Francisco from the west, and Minnesota and Green Bay from the Central. If Atlanta, Los Angeles (Rams), Chicago, and Detroit had earned playoff spots that year (two division champs and two wild cards), the Redskins could have avoided all NFC playoff opponents as well.
Of course, the fifth place schedule was completely different, and the schedules for teams from four-team divisions were different as well. However, fifth place teams were guaranteed to face a division champion (how ironic considering they had the easiest schedules) since they always played every team from the four-team division in the same conference. Teams from four-team divisions could also theoretically face a schedule without any opponents who earned a playoff spot.
Good post, Jeff. I don't think any team in the modern age has ever avoided playing a playoff team, but a few have come close, including the '70 Cowboys, '774 Steelers, '76 Rams and '87 Redskins. Yes, there are two SB champs on there and three SB teams on that list. And they're the only four teams to play just one eventual playoff team all regular season.
Does anyone know any of the other 42 instances, which illustrate Simpson's paradox?