Super Bowl XLIV and Big Game Experience
Posted by Jason Lisk on February 8, 2010
Big game experience is way over-rated.
I thought about writing this post on Friday or Saturday, suggesting that part of the point spread line in favor of the Colts had a big game experience factor built into it. Of course, that may be rational, because if teams with big game experience do play better than their underlying numbers would suggest, then we should expect them to play better in big games and favor them more than the numbers suggest. Turns out, though, they don't, at least in the little bit of Super Bowl information that we have. We are limited by a small sample size of 43 Super Bowls to begin with, and then alot of them don't really fit the theme we had with the Saints and the Colts, where one participant had a recent championship while the other had no experience in the Super Bowl.
With such a limited data set anyway, I thought better of posting it, mostly because applying general thoughts (like experience might be a tad over-rated) to one specific game situation often leads to immediate embarrassing results. Then, my colleague Neil Paine, far more brash and full of youthful exuberance, posted what I was thinking all week: Why are the Colts 5-point favorites?
Now, the answer to that is not a simple one. Other factors were certainly at play, all of which may or may not also be over-rated, such as the Colts had not lost a meaningful game while the Saints had, or that the Colts had played more consistently all year while the Saints played worse late and didn't play nearly as well in the Championship game. In listening to all the pre-game chatter that I could stomach and in hearing a sizeable majority of pundits picking the Colts, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that "big game experience" was a big factor for most of said pundits.
So, let's look at other games that might be similar to this Super Bowl on big game experience differential. Here's a list of every Super Bowl since the merger where one team had won a Super Bowl title within the previous four season, and was playing a team that had not appeared in a Super Bowl during that time.
| Year | Winners | Novices | Line | PF | PA | ATS RESULT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Colts | Saints | -5 | 17 | 31 | L | -19 | ||
| 2008 | Steelers | Cardinals | -7 | 27 | 23 | L | -3 | ||
| 2007 | Patriots | Giants | -12.5 | 14 | 17 | L | -15.5 | ||
| 2004 | Patriots | Eagles | -7 | 24 | 21 | L | -4 | ||
| 2003 | Patriots | Panthers | -7 | 32 | 29 | L | -4 | ||
| 2001 | Rams | Patriots | -14 | 17 | 20 | L | -17 | ||
| 1998 | Broncos | Falcons | -7.5 | 34 | 19 | W | 7.5 | ||
| 1997 | Packers | Broncos | -11.5 | 24 | 31 | L | -18.5 | ||
| 1995 | Cowboys | Steelers | -13.5 | 27 | 17 | L | -3.5 | ||
| 1990 | Giants | Bills | 6.5 | 20 | 19 | W | 7.5 | ||
| 1988 | 49ers | Bengals | -7 | 20 | 16 | L | -3 | ||
| 1980 | Raiders | Eagles | 3 | 27 | 10 | W | 20 | ||
| 1979 | Steelers | Rams | -11 | 31 | 19 | W | 1 |
The Colts-Saints matchup is the thirteenth such matchup in the post-merger Super Bowl era. The team with big game winning experience went 9-4, but only 4-9 against the spread (at least that's my best guess, as I had to search for the older lines in archives and went with what I could find--you may tell me you had to lay 12 1/2 on the Steelers back when they were going for the fourth title against the Rams). Two of those examples are less applicable to this year's situation, as the Raiders (1980) and Giants (1990) were exactly four years removed from titles, they were the only two underdogs, and the opponent had as much playoff experience in the two seasons before the Super Bowl matchup. When the team with big game winning experience has been favored, they are now 2-9 against the spread.
The SRS ratings show that the teams with big game winning experience were better on average, as they had a 9.5 average SRS rating compared to 5.4 for the novice opponent. However, the average point spread was 7.2, so the big game experience teams were getting about an additional field goal boost at the point spread over what the simple rating system would suggest. The actual game results show an average margin of 3.1 points in favor of the big game experience teams (and thus roughly 4 points worse than the point spread), so these teams with the supposed big game edge played roughly in line, and slightly worse, than the average SRS expected result, and almost 4 points worse than expected by the public.
I suspect that the Colts' boost was a little larger than that even, considering that the Saints weren't just a team lacking "big game experience", they were a franchise that had exactly 2 playoff victories ever and were "just happy to be there". So when Neil asks why the Colts were a 5-point favorite, I think the answer is that the public and the talking pundits way overvalued the benefit of big game experience, and this matchup was a lot closer than most people believed.
Related posts:
ShareThis
February 8th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
They had exactly FOUR playoff victories ever--or TWO before this year--over the Rams (2000) and Eagles (2006), PLUS the two victories this year. Minor nitpick. I agree with the jist of the article--big game experience is overrated, esp. on a professional level. Most of these players probably played in a state/college championship game of some type, even if it was just a division/conference championship game. If we were talking about a high school championship game between a Colts type program and a Saints type program, then I would say experience matters, all else being equal. On a professional level, that just isn't as important.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
To add to my own post--Peter King of SI (IIRC) said that Morstead, the Saints' punter/kickoff specialist, had NEVER attempted an onside kick until 12 days ago. That was his first in a game. Mr. Morstead admitted that he never told Coach Payton in training camp that he didn't know how to kick off--he just went out and did it. (And did it pretty well, too--only Buehler (sp?) of the Cowboys was better on kickoffs this year.) So on the biggest stage of his life, a guy who has never kicked an onside kick before hits a perfect one. Sure experience helps--but as an aside to guys who actively place bets, don't let it influence your choice.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Joseph, it's just my opinion, but I really think a lot depends on a team's QB and how well he handles the lack of experience of playing in a big game. Some guys seem to handle it a lot better than others. I wonder how many QB's could have pulled off that drive that Tom Brady pulled off in his 1st S.B. game that put his kicker in position to kick a game-winner. One bad read, or errant throw and his team probably loses that game. I really believe that some guys can handle it a lot better than others. It's up to an O.C. to know the make-up of his QB., and suggest the right play for that QB.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:56 am
For how long did the average player stay with the same team before free agency? If you want to up the amps on this cursory study (later in the offseason, maybe?), I suspect you can widen the timespan in the pre-FA era. Probably expand to championship games too?
February 9th, 2010 at 1:17 am
I play a team sport too. We play on a national level (allthough in a country of 5.5 mio people, it's not really impressive). We're amateurs and only playing for glory. My team is generally in the low end of the standings, but in the odd good year we've had, we've had some big games. Those games have kept me up at night - so they were a big deal. I'm not comparing it to a Super Bowl, but you get the picture.
On my way to the game I was allways shaking from the tension, and during the tactical meeting I would need to focus tremendously to keep up. However; the second I stepped onto the field, my mind was clear. I found it easy to focus - just doing what I'd done for years. During half time the nervousness returned, but again; as soon as the second half kicked off, it was business as usual. I don't feel like I've played any better or worse in those big games.
I don't know if *my* abillity to shut out the sorroundings is universal. Personally, I think it is. And if not universal, than certainly universal among pro athletes. These guys have been playing in front 50k people for 4 to 20 years - during the game, I find it *very* hard to believe that the players are thinking about the importance of the game.
Maybe there *is* an edge, but if so, I think it's during the preparations. Experience probably helps you deal with media day and all the hoopla too. During games your brain is racing; blitz pickup, covarege schemes and so on. It's when you have to think, the pressure is getting to you.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Does lack of big game experience translate into sticky fingers?
The game came down to the Colts dropping a pass, muffing an onside kick, and missing an interception, while the Saints were grabbing everything in their zip codes. Shouldn't somebody be checking out what kind of soap they used, instead of all this irrelevant stuff that pretty much balanced out?
February 9th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I'll agree with the hands part, Garcon and Wayne had some big drops. They probably would have still lost but that last pass to Wayne was a TD.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Bob S - did you used to post as "Denney"?
Luck plays a pretty huge role in the NFL. The Saints got very lucky that Favre and Manning threw crucial interceptions this year. Yes - the Saints played a part in making that happen. But the Saints caught a lot of breaks in their final 2 games. Much like the Jets caught a lot of breaks with missed FGs in their 2 playoff wins.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Big game experience paid off for a quarter, then the Saints calmed down. But the Colts really blew this when Garcon dropped the ball, Caldwell went safe with 3 runs, and Payton went ballsy with the onside kick. Indy could have built up a real nice lead in that stretch but they failed to make the plays.
And Reggie Wayne was just terrible.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:30 am
Richie, no, I never posted as "Denney", but what was his take on big game experience? By the way, IMO this thread was not directed at Manning at all-he has had big game exp. But it certainly applied to Brees, as well as Brady in 2001 as I stated. As for luck playing a pretty huge role, I would agree with that to an extent. But then we must say that Montana was 16-7 in the PO's, and led his team to 4 S.B. wins, BUT-luck played a pretty huge role in that success. Then we go to Starr, Bradshaw, and all of the others and we always add at the end-but remember-luck played a pretty huge role in that success. As long as you are consistent, it's fair.