No-mentum required

[convertedpatsfan]

Lots of talking heads talk about the importance of momentum going into the playoffs, but I was wondering how much truth there is to that. As it turns out, it used to matter quite a bit, but seems much less important lately.

First, what would you consider momentum? Winning your last 2 games before the play-offs? Your last 3? What's a point where a team builds momentum to sustain them through 3 or 4 playoff games?

So I looked at 3 measures in the past 20 years of winners:

- result of last game
- longest streak to end season (and type)
- record over last 4 games (last quarter of the season)

2014 - Patriots: L/1L/3-1
2013 - Seahawks: W/1W/2-2
2012 - Ravens: L/1L/1-3
2011 - Giants: W/2W/3-1
2010 - Packers: W/2W/2-2
2009 - Saints: L/3L/1-3
2008 - Steelers: W/1W/3-1
2007 - Giants: L/1L/2-2
2006 - Colts: W/1W/2-2
2005 - Steelers: W/4W/4-0
2004 - Patriots: W/2W/3-1
2003 - Patriots: W/12W/4-0
2002 - Bucs: W/1W/3-1
2001 - Patriots: W/5W/4-0
2000 - Ravens: W/7W/4-0
1999 - Rams: L/1L/3-1
1998 - Broncos: L/1L/2-2
1997 - Broncos: W/1W/2-2
1996 - Packers: W/5W/4-0
1995 - Cowboys: W/2W/2-2

Last game: Super Bowl winners have gone 14-6 in their last game, which may speak to momentum. But recent history shows it's not that important, as winners went 4-4 in the last 8 Super Bowls. Some of those losses have to do with resting players, so can't read too much into this. But at the very least, it doesn't seem like a strike against.

Streak: Only 5 teams have put together a win streak of 3 wins or more in a row going into the play-offs and won a Super Bowl, and only 1 team in the past 10 years has done this (Pittsburgh 2005). Or roughly the same number of teams with a 3 game losing streak (Saints 2009). If we go by definition of a win streak being 2 wins in a row, only 9 of the past 20 Super Bowl winners have done that. However, only 1 team has won with a losing streak of 2 or more (Saints 2009).

Record last month: 11 of 20 teams had a winning record over the last 4 games of the season. However, that means 9 teams didn't. So being hot doesn't seem to matter much, however being cold doesn't help. Only 2 teams have a losing record during that period and then win a Super Bowl. Interestingly, both of those have happened in the past 5 years.

So what does this tell us?

Nothing conclusive really. One can explain some of the last week losses due to holding back after clinching. And sometimes they can argue they are actually wins (Giants loss in 2007 often referred to as a moral victory).

And we can't really gauge the importance of streaks unless we factored in all the hot teams at the end of the season. For example, how many teams like the 2014 Steelers who won their last 4 games then not gone on to win a Super Bowl? Quite frankly, I am too lazy to work through all that data.

But at the very least, it shows, especially recently, that a significant win streak or a hot December/January are not necessary to win it all. And recent history shows you don't even have to be a winning team to do so.

This doesn't mean we'll succeed in the post-season, nor does it guarantee we will fail. We will win or lose on other factors, not momentum.

 

[fightingirish595]

I don't bye into momentum. See what I did there?

If not what I'm saying is I feel like the bye week destroys momentum

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't care about momentum. I care that New England and Denver are two of THE biggest home field advantages in the NFL, with both teams being much, much tougher at home. I think Vegas would give each team FOUR points at their home field...that's an EIGHT point swing, maybe a difference of 30 percentage points in likelihood to win a NE-Denver Conference Championship. Denver was NOT winning at Gillette, and the Patriots are most likely not winning in Denver should that scenario play out. That is as big a deal as it gets...8 points...that's probably as big a swing as not having Brady!

Any other team as the #1 seed and I am not so fuming mad. Denver is also our house of horrors and always has been.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I don't care about momentum. I care that New England and Denver are two of THE biggest home field advantages in the NFL, with both teams being much, much tougher at home. I think Vegas would give each team FOUR points at their home field...that's an EIGHT point swing, maybe a difference of 30 percentage points in likelihood to win a NE-Denver Conference Championship. Denver was NOT winning at Gillette, and the Patriots are most likely not winning in Denver should that scenario play out. That is as big a deal as it gets...8 points...that's probably as big a swing as not having Brady!

Any other team as the #1 seed and I am not so fuming mad. Denver is also our house of horrors and always has been.

I'm not looking forward to a trip to Denver either, but it might not happen. Here's the last 10 years of home-field advantage, split up by round:

2014: 3-1, 3-1, 2-0
2013: 1-3, 3-1, 2-0
2012: 3-1, 3-1, 0-2
2011: 4-0, 3-1, 1-1
2010: 1-3, 2-2, 1-1
2009: 2-2, 3-1, 2-0
2008: 2-2, 1-3, 2-0
2007: 2-2, 2-2, 1-1
2006: 4-0, 2-2, 2-0
2005: 1-3, 2-2, 1-1

The second subset is what is interesting. Those are the teams who have byes and host the game, yet every year, at least 1 of them loses to a team that played the week before and is on the road. And Peyton Manning owns 4 of those losses, plus 2 additional 1-and-dones in the wildcard round.

As the weather gets colder, Manning gets worse. He's gone 1-and-out 6 times in the past 10 years. So I wouldn't worry about Denver just yet. I think we need to focus on ourselves first. Getting healthy will help.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm not looking forward to a trip to Denver either, but it might not happen. Here's the last 10 years of home-field advantage, split up by round:

2014: 3-1, 3-1, 2-0
2013: 1-3, 3-1, 2-0
2012: 3-1, 3-1, 0-2
2011: 4-0, 3-1, 1-1
2010: 1-3, 2-2, 1-1
2009: 2-2, 3-1, 2-0
2008: 2-2, 1-3, 2-0
2007: 2-2, 2-2, 1-1
2006: 4-0, 2-2, 2-0
2005: 1-3, 2-2, 1-1

The second subset is what is interesting. Those are the teams who have byes and host the game, yet every year, at least 1 of them loses to a team that played the week before and is on the road. And Peyton Manning owns 4 of those losses, plus 2 additional 1-and-dones in the wildcard round.

As the weather gets colder, Manning gets worse. He's gone 1-and-out 6 times in the past 10 years. So I wouldn't worry about Denver just yet. I think we need to focus on ourselves first. Getting healthy will help.

Those numbers show the conference championship being won 14 out of 20 times (70%) by the home team. That is a huge F'ing number. As I had said in my previous post, it's a swing of maybe 30 percentage points, but actually this data would make it a swing of 40 percentage points.

 

[AzorianPats]

Id rather go into the playoffs on a winning streak no question, but i seen this team go on a 8 game winning streak in 2010 to lose to the Jets in the divisional.

Im optimistic, becausr unlike 2013, where we were decimated with key players on IR, we have a good chunk of guys coming back in time for the playoffs.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Those numbers show the conference championship being won 14 out of 20 times (70%) by the home team. That is a huge F'ing number. As I had said in my previous post, it's a swing of maybe 30 percentage points, but actually this data would make it a swing of 40 percentage points.

Slow down there.

First, home teams have a natural advantage. Since 1990, they've won 57% of the time regardless of who takes the field.

Second, in the playoffs, the home team is the one that usually had the better season anyways, so generally they're the better team to begin with. So they should win more games regardless of field.

Third, you're using a really small sample size. One game changes and the win percentage is 65%, or your expected 30 points. 2 games and we're back at the 57% of home teams winning anyways. The larger sample size of all play-off games puts us back at 61%.

I'd rather have home field than not. It is definitely an advantage. But we may have it anyways if Peyton does his usual 1-and-done act. And if not, it's not insurmountable. If this team plays the way it's capable of, it won't matter. And if it doesn't, it won't matter.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Slow down there.

First, home teams have a natural advantage. Since 1990, they've won 57% of the time regardless of who takes the field.

Second, in the playoffs, the home team is the one that usually had the better season anyways, so generally they're the better team to begin with. So they should win more games regardless of field.

Third, you're using a really small sample size. One game changes and the win percentage is 65%, or your expected 30 points. 2 games and we're back at the 57% of home teams winning anyways. The larger sample size of all play-off games puts us back at 61%.

I'd rather have home field than not. It is definitely an advantage. But we may have it anyways if Peyton does his usual 1-and-done act. And if not, it's not insurmountable. If this team plays the way it's capable of, it won't matter. And if it doesn't, it won't matter.

Tom Brady is 14-3 at home in the playoffs.
Tom Brady is 3-3 on the road in the playoffs.

Tom Brady is 8-2 overall at home against Peyton Manning.
Peyton Manning is 3-3 overall at home against Tom Brady including 3-1 in his last 4.

Tom Brady is 2-0 in the playoffs at home against Peyton Manning
Peyton Manning is 2-0 in the playoffs at home against Tom Brady

Since 2012, the Broncos are 2-0 at home against the Patriots.
Since 2012, the Patriots are 3-0 at home against the Broncos.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Patriots have a better chance in Denver than Denver does in New England.

But Denver has a better chance in Denver than New England does.

So....... here's what we want:

Wildcard Round
Pit over Cin
Hou over KC

Then the Pats get Houston at home while Denver gets Pittsburgh. I think we'd then end up with New England hosting Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship game.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Doesn't mean ****. Talent, coaching, matchups, health and making plays when they must be made is what matters.

Did regular season momentum help the Pats come back from being down 28-14 vs BAL or 24-14 vs SEA?

Pats had a ton of momentum in 2010 and dropped a big deuce.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The Patriots have a better chance in Denver than Denver does in New England.

But Denver has a better chance in Denver than New England does.

So....... here's what we want:

Wildcard Round
Pit over Cin
Hou over KC

Then the Pats get Houston at home while Denver gets Pittsburgh. I think we'd then end up with New England hosting Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship game.

I think KC beats Hou

 

[Rhodey]

The bottom line: the NEP have made things tougher on themselves, after being set up big time.

And losing the last 4 of 6 games is a big deal.

In fact, I hope the team is so pissed off about it...that they do something about it!

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Tom Brady is 14-3 at home in the playoffs.
Tom Brady is 3-3 on the road in the playoffs.

Tom Brady is 8-2 overall at home against Peyton Manning.
Peyton Manning is 3-3 overall at home against Tom Brady including 3-1 in his last 4.

Tom Brady is 2-0 in the playoffs at home against Peyton Manning
Peyton Manning is 2-0 in the playoffs at home against Tom Brady

Since 2012, the Broncos are 2-0 at home against the Patriots.
Since 2012, the Patriots are 3-0 at home against the Broncos.

That may be true, but Manning is also 4-7 in the playoffs (4-4 at home, 0-1 on the road, 0-2 neutral site) since his lone Super Bowl victory, including 3 one-and-dones.

And he will first have to prove he can win a playoff game in his reduced state before we see him. A weird quirk has the Steelers at #6 as perhaps the most dangerous team playing during wildcard weekend would end up in Denver if they win, or potentially the divisional rival Chiefs who have already beaten them once this year. They would love to see Houston, but I doubt that happens.

 

[holyredeemer]

Manning isn't the reason the Broncos have the first seed. All this talk about Manning this, Manning that is pretty pointless. If we go to Denver, we have to beat the Broncos. The game won't be on Mannings shoulders. It'll be on their run game & their D. Unfortunately for us, our run D has been poor, and our O has been even worse. None match up well against the Chiefs or Steelers, let alone the Broncos. This team has some serious soul searching to do. Getting a handful of players back is going to help, but if they give the effort they gave today, it won't matter.

Regardless of the outcome, I'm proud of this team, and its coaching staff. They've been facing adversity all ****ing year. With everything they've had stacked against them, they've never truly quit. I'm thankful that I'm a Patriots fan.

 

[jboston19]

I'm not a big believer in momentum, especially for a mentally tough team. I'm worried somewhat about so many of our injured being rusty upon return, but don't think the record over the past 6 games will affect the team.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

How about that momentum...?

 

[Schmo]

KC had a lot of momentum as the clock ticked down to 0:00

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Momentum into playoffs : One of the most overrated concepts

 

[Tom meets Kaepernick]

Having a bye was the most important aspect. If we lose 4 out of 6 games and had to play on Wild Card weekend, I don't think it ends well. Good thing we're always guaranteed for a bye!