Sagarin Stats, PATs a surprise

[JR4]

This is a site that I have followed for many years now.
The rating system has been pretty good over the years and tends to zero in
towards the latter part of the year.

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!
Even the Colts are not in top 16.
That means PATs 5 wins are against bottom dwellers.

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

USATODAY.com

 

[CheerforTom]

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!

The thing that makes stuff like this tricky is that if you take Denver as an example, they WERE a top 16 team until we crushed them, which made them plummet in most people's power rankings.

I agree that we need to play better teams to get a more complete sense of what we've got here in 2008, but to say that 20 teams are better than us is a stretch as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ScottieC]

This is a site that I have followed for many years now.
The rating system has been pretty good over the years and tends to zero in
towards the latter part of the year.

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!
Even the Colts are not in top 16.
That means PATs 5 wins are against bottom dwellers.

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

USATODAY.com

"is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense of accomplishment?"

Who cares, as long as we get into the Play-Offs.

We knew 8 months ago we had an "easy" schedule - and it's not our Fault the Colts and Chargers can't seem to put together two good games.

 

[mike_usagisan]

These power ranking lists and stats based on power ranking lists are pretty annoying. I mean, as a fan, I'd like the Pats to be near the top to take pride in the team, but really, they are meaningless information.

Other than wins, wins in the division, and wins in the conference, who really cares? And so far those numbers show us to be a lot better than #20.

 

[JoePats]

Don't really care, in fact it worked out since we were breaking in a new quarterback. If we had to play a tougher schedule in the first seven games who knows what would have happened.

 

[MassPats38]

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

The Redskins and Cowboys are a top 10 team and both lost to the Rams in the weeks preceding the Rams' loss to the Pats. The USA rankings do not address team streaks/trends in strength of schedule, and as the Giants proved last year that often times determines the strength of the competition. If the "strength of schedule" ranking this year shows anything, it is that it is not necessarily determinative of the level of competition (this year more than most). That looks to be a pretty big factor in the calculations.

I stand by my belief that most games this year are a crap shoot as inconsistency (and most teams have it) does not support predictability. Those calculations are based on assumptions on schedule and performance that may not determine outcomes of games.

 

[mgteich]

AN EXERCIZE
print the list and cover with black marker all the teams you care about, positively and negatively. When I do this, I find the power ratings are better predictors of future than won-loss records.
===========
Ultimately, I agree all that matters is winning the next game, winning the division and getting into the playoffs.

 

[mike_usagisan]

AN EXERCIZE
print the list and cover with black marker all the teams you care about, positively and negatively. When I do this, I find the power ratings are better predictors of future than won-loss records.

Maybe so, but would would I care about the power rankings for only half of the NFC and 24 blacked-out spots?

 

[Rob0729]

This is a site that I have followed for many years now.
The rating system has been pretty good over the years and tends to zero in
towards the latter part of the year.

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!
Even the Colts are not in top 16.
That means PATs 5 wins are against bottom dwellers.

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

USATODAY.com

Yet they have the Titans #1 even though they haven't played a top 10 team yet and only two top 16 teams (Baltimore at # 11 and Minnesotta at #15). Isn't that a double standard? Especially since the Giants at #2 has one less win and has played 2 top 7 teams. They have the Pats ranked behind teams with 2 less wins and three more losses.

This is why I think every power poll no matter how elaborate they want to get with their formulas are utter BS.

P.S. the Pats can only play the teams on their schedule. If they are 5-2 with 5 wins against bad teams it is because that is who is on their schedule.

 

[roguepatriot]

Personally, I do not think it should come as a suprise that, although they are improving, the PATs are not a top 10 team at the moment. It would be a miracle, considering the injury list ( e.g. top 3 RBs hurt last week) for them to be so. Without an easier schedule this year I think are record would be similar to the colts or worse ( and in reality the COlts should be 2-5). Fortunately, because of that easier schedule so far, what is important is where the team is in November/December. This definitely is a team that is improving and starting to get a new identity, but arguing with Sagarin's stats for their performance over the whole season is a little different to me than with ESPn's talking clueless heads. The other good thing this season is I think there is no clear front-runner that will be impossble for a 10-6 team at the end of the season to be able to beat

 

[CheerforTom]

P.S. the Pats can only play the teams on their schedule. If they are 5-2 with 5 wins against bad teams it is because that is who is on their schedule.

This is very true as well. Last year until the Indy game all everyone said was "they haven't played a decent team yet!" and we ended up being one of best teams in history.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

AN EXERCIZE
print the list and cover with black marker all the teams you care about, positively and negatively. When I do this, I find the power ratings are better predictors of future than won-loss records.
===========
Ultimately, I agree all that matters is winning the next game, winning the division and getting into the playoffs.

Dude, you're on it all the time. A thinking fan can be passionate? Is it possible???

As they say in the movies, "I like your style, kid."

 

[jmt57]

If I'm not mistaken the Giants were in the 20's a week ago due to their strength of schedule and a loss to the Browns. So while Sagarin's mathematical formulas does remove subjectivity, it still leaves room for improvement when a team can have that large of a one-week fluctuation.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Putting the Pats 21st is absurd, even taking into consideration the soft schedule. You want to keep them out of the top-10? Fine, but 21st? Get real.

Regards,
Chris

 

[JR4]

Putting the Pats 21st is absurd, even taking into consideration the soft schedule. You want to keep them out of the top-10? Fine, but 21st? Get real.

Regards,
Chris

Chris, this is not some person deciding where to put the PATs. It is
strictly by the numbers. Now if you want to dispute the methodology
of how the ranking is determined then go for it.
All I can say after watching this site for years now, this is a pretty good
predictor especially by middle November on.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Kewl, we're dooooooommmmmmed. Now I can get on with enjoying each small victory, and philosophically shrugging off each small defeat as something that was not to be. It greatly simplifies things from here on out.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Chris, this is not some person deciding where to put the PATs. It is
strictly by the numbers. Now if you want to dispute the methodology
of how the ranking is determined then go for it.
All I can say after watching this site for years now, this is a pretty good
predictor especially by middle November on.

For the Pats:

RATING(RANK) = 18.76(21)
W = 5
L = 2
T = 0
SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 = 15.21(32)
VS top 16 = 0 0 0
ELO_CHESS(RANK) = 20.97(15)
PURE POINTS(RANK) = 16.50(23)

Where do these numbers come from? How is 18.76, 15.21, 20.97 and 16.50 calculated?

Regards,
Chris

 

[Imperator]

Sorry to go off topic for a minute but: what is with capitalizing every letter of the shortened nickname for the Patriots (The Pats), and saying PATs? Last time I checked, PAT was an acronym for Points After Touchdown.

Putting the Pats 21st is absurd, even taking into consideration the soft schedule. You want to keep them out of the top-10? Fine, but 21st? Get real.

Regards,
Chris

Agreed. You play the teams on your schedule. We're 5-2 heading into the season's halfway point. More then I can say for most teams.

 

[Sivy]

This is a site that I have followed for many years now.
The rating system has been pretty good over the years and tends to zero in
towards the latter part of the year.

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!
Even the Colts are not in top 16.
That means PATs 5 wins are against bottom dwellers.

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

USATODAY.com

I thought that the broncos were 4-2

 

[godef]

This is a site that I have followed for many years now.
The rating system has been pretty good over the years and tends to zero in
towards the latter part of the year.

The surprise is PATs even with a 5-2 record are 21st in the league!
Why?
Because PATs have not played a Top 16 team yet this year!
Even the Colts are not in top 16.
That means PATs 5 wins are against bottom dwellers.

So question comes up ... is PATs soft schedule giving us a false sense
of accomplishment?

USATODAY.com

I'm hoping it's just giving MC a chance to get up to speed.