Pats: Highest Strength of Schedule, Victory of +.500 Teams

[Pat_Nasty]

There was a lot of talk last week about how how the Pats hadn't beaten anybody and were paper tigers because of a weak schedule.

Interestingly enough, a quick persual of the NFL conference standings shows that the Pats actually have the 2nd highest strength of victory in the league, highest of teams .500 or better, and the 3rd highest strength of schedule, and again, highest of teams over .500 or better.

First of all, though heading into last Sunday they had 0 victories over teams w/ winning records, after this weekend's games, they came out w/ 3, due to wins by Jets and Bengals. More at issue, however, is the fact that the Pats have played just one game all season vs. a team with a worse record than 5-6, the 4-7 Packers.

While the Pats may have only one victory (and 2 losses) vs. a team that is a current playoff seed, the fact is the Pats also have had a comparably miniscule number gimme games vs. the league's truly terrible teams. The Jets, Bills, Bengals and Vikings might not be elite, but they can beat any team that doesn't show up to play. Consistently outperforming the middle-class teams of the NFL speaks louder about a teams true worth, week in week out, then getting up for a big game or two, and then being able to sleep walk through the Texans and Raiders.

 

[sieglo]

Interesting post, thanks.

The AFC East's ****tiness is often overrated.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

and this will all change after games against detroit, tennessee, and houston. wave goodbye to strength of schedule after those

 

[BelichickFan]

and this will all change after games against detroit, tennessee, and houston. wave goodbye to strength of schedule after those

I don't think we really care what it is at the end of the year, the point was that the numbers show that we have played a solid, representative schedule for our 8-3 record and they haven't all been silly, automatic wins.

Speaking of that, I can't wait to hear how Belichick talks up Detroit at his press conference today

 

[PonyExpress]

I think the "quality win" stat has been gaining alot of traction in the media lately and is mostly misguided, at least at this stage of the season. For example, the Pats are now 3-3 against teams over .500, having lost to the Colts, Broncos and Jets. But if they had beaten the Jets in that recent game, they would actually have FEWER so called "quality wins", because the Jets would no longer be over .500. OTOH, the Pats' win over Minnesota has been discounted as meaningless. But if the Pats had lost that game, their record against teams over .500 would be 3-4. Same thing for victories over Buffalo and Miami. IOW, if you lose those games, they count against you as "quality losses". If you win them, they are discounted as meaningless. Pretty shady stuff.

 

[CTPatsFan]

Just win baby! The rest takes care of itself.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

PonyExpress makes a great point that I have also made in the past. Especially early in the season the difference between whether you beat or lose to a team can be the difference between them being a quality team and a decent team.

 

[shakadave]

The AFC East is the 2nd strongest division in football (AFC West) in total wins, and is the only division in football with nobody below 5 wins.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

We are secretly compiling a lot of interesting stats this year and flying under the radar.

Hope it pays off in the playoffs!

 

[nukin]

We are secretly compiling a lot of interesting stats this year and flying under the radar.

Hope it pays off in the playoffs!

Stats are next to meaningless.
I want results, not stats!

 

[smg93]

Remember, we are regarded as a top team in the NFL. Any team that beats us means that they've had a "quality" win only because the Pats over this decade have been the standard of excellence in the NFL.

The people we beat, well, we are expected to beat them anyway. Strength of schedule doesn't really mean so much anyway in todays NFL. The teams are so close in terms of talent. This isn't like College Football where playing Ohio State is truly totally different from playing Army.

 

[brdmaverick]

the fact that we 'hadn't beat anybody' is somewhat laughable. It's not just who you beat but WHEN you beat them.

Going into the Bengals game NOBODY saw that as a gimme game. The Bengals were 3-0, coming off a win in Pittsburgh, and the Pats were coming off a poor showing against the Broncos.

The same goes for the Vikings. There were many media pundits that were siding with the Vikes, who were like 4-1 at the time and beating some pretty good teams themselves.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

A year or two ago, FootballOutsiders.com got sick of continuously hearing the old saw that the sign of a good team is that they find a way to win the close games, so they put it to the test in this article, linked here.

The general conclusion of their case study over the last 10 years is:

People want to believe that the teams that can win the close ones are championship teams. But as counter-intuitive as it sounds, championship teams are generally defined by their ability to easily win games over inferior teams.

Football games are often decided by just one or two plays — a missed field goal, a fumble that bounces one way instead of the other, a fourth down where officials spot the ball two inches from the first down marker. One dropped pass short-circuits a last-minute comeback. A cornerback smothers his receiver all day, only to get beat once and give up the winning touchdown.

The team that comes out with the victory in a tight game is one step closer to the postseason. But has that team really proven that it is better than its opponent? There are many times where two teams are evenly matched, and if they played again the next week the result might just as well go the other way.

When a team blows out its opponent, however, one unlucky bounce or missed kick isn’t going to change the result. A lopsided win provides pretty good proof that the winner is a better team than the loser. That’s why the teams that meet on Super Bowl Sunday are usually the teams that won a lot of games by big margins during the regular season.

The rest of the article, which reveals the study's methodology and results, is actually pretty interesting, if you dig that kind of charts and graphs. Definitely worth the read.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

CHFF's Quality Standings have the Pats currently at 3-3.

What I find troubling is that since 2005, including playoffs, the Pats are 0-6 vs Indy/Denver/SD.