Is there any correlation between strength of schedule and playoff success?

[jimnance]

Sorry OP- was 1960Pats who posted the list- but it still applies.

 

[venecol]

The Patriots have played the easiest schedule in the league this year based on average opponent DVOA.

I don't know what Dead V on Arrival means. So they are ranked 32? That is hard to believe.

 

[Mogamedogz]

The Patriots have played the easiest schedule in the league this year based on average opponent DVOA.

I actually think the Fish are dead last in SOS right now, we're 31st.

 

[jimnance]

The Patriots have played the easiest schedule in the league this year based on average opponent DVOA.

That's not true.

 

[mosslost]

One other thing I am kind of wondering... If you have the "easiest" SOS in the league, but go 14 and 2 that season... doesn't that kind of "equalize" the stat out some? I mean if you have the easiest schedule but only go 9-7 things are a little worse. I would be curious to look at the regular season final records of the winners verses the SB losers in those same 16 Super Bowls.

 

[mosslost]

OP- MAJOR flaw in your post.

The only accurate way to assess Pat's sos is to SUBTRACT all the Patriots games from each opponent.

Because the Pats are one of the best teams in the NFL, their sos is automatically going to be weakened by the simple fact that THEY BEAT ALMOST EVERYONE THEY PLAY. That's true not just for the Pats , but ALL the good teams.

Just look at the OP's list: compare teams 1-10'schedule to the bottom ten- 22-32; 1-10 is almost all crappy teams with losing records; 22-32 is almost entirely playoff teams including the 2 best , Pats and Cowboys and I don't think there's a single team 22-32 with a losing record.

OP- you need to subtract each teams games from ALL their opponents- I guarantee that makes Pats and every winning teams sos improve. Otherwise its all pointless b.s.

I actually think the stat is meaningless. They are all NFL teams.

I would be more interested in the regular season win loss record of all those teams in those 16 SBs rather than their SOS.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

That's not true.

Oh no? Where do we rank in that case?


FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2016 TEAM EFFICIENCY RATINGS

 

[jimnance]

I actually think the stat is meaningless. They are all NFL teams.

I would be more interested in the regular season win loss record of all those teams in those 16 SBs rather than their SOS.

Well yeah, I agree the stat is meaningless. But I was just pointing out- if you're going to post a stat- at least post it ACCURATELY, which wasn't done.

 

[jimnance]

Oh no? Where do we rank in that case?

Again, to get an accurate ranking, youd have to subtract all the Pats games from all their opponents. Then figure the DVOA from there. I guarantee you its higher than#32. Besides which, DVOA is a bogus stat anyway

 

[mosslost]

Well yeah, I agree the stat is meaningless. But I was just pointing out- if you're going to post a stat- at least post it ACCURATELY, which wasn't done.

I get what you are saying. Think about the difference between going 16-0 or 0-16, same schedule either way. If you go 0-16, your "SOS" is plus 16 wins that it is if you go 16-0. The stat has no real meaning. It is the correlation that the OP mentions that I do think bears further investigation.

Take 2011. (grrr) Pats 13-3, Giants 9-7. So there is 4 less wins on the Pats "schedule" then the Giants right there.

 

[jimnance]

I get what you are saying. Think about the difference between going 16-0 or 0-16, same schedule either way. If you go 0-16, your "SOS" is plus 16 wins that it is if you go 16-0. The stat has no real meaning. It is the correlation that the OP mentions that I do think bears further investigation.

Take 2011. (grrr) Pats 13-3, Giants 9-7. So there is 4 less wins on the Pats "schedule" then the Giants right there.

Exactly

 

[mosslost]

Exactly

SOS does not really matter I am thinking after having thought it through. The fact is if you go "15-1" you not only have obliterated your opponents, but you have also obliterated your own "SOS" stat.

The things that matter that are not captured by "SOS":

-When you played the Steelers, was Ben in or out?
-When you played Denver, was it home or away?
-When you played Oakland, was Carr in or out?

These are harder to quantify without just doing deeper data analysis. This thread has actually convinced me that SOS is not an important stat.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

The word "statistics" uses 250% more letters than writing "stat." If the time used to write those extra letters were used to grow golden rice we would cure world hunger.

 

[jimnance]

SOS does not really matter I am thinking after having thought it through. The fact is if you go "15-1" you not only have obliterated your opponents, but you have also obliterated your own "SOS" stat.

The things that matter that are not captured by "SOS":

-When you played the Steelers, was Ben in or out?
-When you played Denver, was it home or away?
-When you played Oakland, was Carr in or out?

These are harder to quantify without just doing deeper data analysis. This thread has actually convinced me that SOS is not an important stat.

NFL football is by far the hardest pro sport to quantify with stats. Almost no nfl stats can be taken at face value- there's so many variables and so many moving parts- the sheer volume of players on the field alone; and they're all dependent on each other.

Then factor in a team like the Pats that morphs both their O and D every game to exploit opponents weaknesses; Pats are very difficult to quantify with stats.

But I know one thing: they are the best balanced team in the nfl- with both a top offense and top defense- and unlike so many other years- they're pretty healthy; they are arguably both the most physically and mentally tough team in the nfl; I have NEVER felt more confident going into postseason - and that includes 2007.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

By Jeff Sagarin's formulas we have the #32 SOS but still rank #1 due to other factors. About a 2 pt. Neutral field favorite over the Cowboys.

NFL Ratings Page

 

[mosslost]

NFL football is by far the hardest pro sport to quantify with stats. Almost no nfl stats can be taken at face value- there's so many variables and so many moving parts- the sheer volume of players on the field alone; and they're all dependent on each other.

Then factor in a team like the Pats that morphs both their O and D every game to exploit opponents weaknesses; Pats are very difficult to quantify with stats.

But I know one thing: they are the best balanced team in the nfl- with both a top offense and top defense- and unlike so many other years- they're pretty healthy; they are arguably both the most physically and mentally tough team in the nfl; I have NEVER felt more confident going into postseason - and that includes 2007.

Right. I feel confident too, with the caveat that anything can always happen in single elimination (2010 best horrific example for me)

 

[Flash]

Strength of schedule isn't as important as health going into the Playoffs. The team that ends up winning it usually turns out to be the healthiest team going into the Playoffs, which we weren't last year with our decimated O-line.

 

[MassPats38]

Strength of schedule can admit posers into the show. This SI article discusses the subject (opining it is not as big a deal as some might make of it).

When the team is the Pats, with a coaching staff and veterans who have lived in the playoffs and have been AFC finalists for 10 of the last 15 years, I seriously doubt it matters. Health and matchups determine the outcome. Who cares if the fans of every other team watching that freight train roll over their teams think the regular season schedule wasn't as difficult?

 

[1960Pats]

Exactly. Strength of schedule doesn't make the team; the team makes the strength of schedule.

That's an idea that could go around in circles. The team does make their strength of schedule but it depends entirely upon the strength of the teams they play. This season, the teams that matched up with the AFCS and NFCW absolutely had an easier schedule than the teams who matched up with the AFCW and NFCE, no matter what any of the records of those teams may be.

 

[turkeyneck]

That's an idea that could go around in circles.

True enough.