Welcome to PatsFans.com

Suspicious Results in Repeat Games

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Metaphors, May 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    If you go through all the Pats games from 2000-2006, there are 38 times (including pre-season and post-season) where the Pats played a team for the 2nd time in the same season (or 3rd time with Jets in 2006). I'm not including games across seasons because if you don't change signs during the off-season, there is no helping you.

    Looking at all games where the offense gained significantly (> 7 points...easier to analyze than yards gained) in the repeat performance, there are only 15 instances of "suspicious" games. I didn't include pre-season since it is hard to draw any conclusions from them.

    Dropping the games where the scoring differential can be explained by home field, events (Bledsoe injury and Milloy situation) or just team suckage (2000 Pats), you are left with 8 games in 7 years...5 where the Pats offense got significantly better in the later meeting, 3 where the opponents got better:

    Pats Advantage
    2004 NYJ: 13-7 win at home, 23-7 win at NY
    2004 PIT: 20-34 loss at PIT, 41-27 win at PIT (playoffs)
    2005 BUF: 21-16 win at home, 35-7 win at BUF
    2006 BUF: 19-17 win at home, 28-6 win at BUF
    2006 NYJ: 24-17 win at NY, 14-17 loss at home, 37-16 win at home (playoffs)

    Opponent Advantage
    2002 NYJ: 44-7 win at NY, 17-30 loss at home
    2005 MIA: 23-16 win at MIA, 26-28 loss at home
    2006 MIA: 20-10 win at home, 0-21 loss at MIA

    That's it. I believe you can explain away all of the Pats improvements. The PIT games are easy due to the 2 special teams TDs. The opponent games get a little more difficult to understand the differentials, but that is another story.

    If anyone can find statistical evidence that the Pats offense improved significantly in repeat performances, I'd love to hear it.
  2. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    I think you have to remove the 2005 Mia game from the analysis. We were playing to lose.
  3. ALP

    ALP Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,430
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -0

    Ha, all these idiots whine about that....pathetic
  4. JoePats

    JoePats Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    To make this significant, you'd have to prove that other repeat matchups don't fluctuate like this.

    Look at the Jets last year:

    Pats killed them in first meeting
    Pats win close game the 2nd time

    Jets beat Fish by 3 in first meeting
    Jets win at Miami 40-13 in second meeting

    I'd say the Pats stuff you listed is nothing more than random distribution.
  5. blackglass3

    blackglass3 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    4,794
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Damn near everything is an "Any Given Sunday" type of thing...I think SB42 proves that.
  6. SVN

    SVN Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    22,571
    Likes Received:
    37
    Ratings:
    +67 / 0 / -0

    there is really not much need for analyzing this so thoroughly. Simple fact-its not a video game or some artifical intelligence mechanism where some computer trains itself over a period of time. Its real humans playing a sport so all the video stuff is of minimal consequence at best.
  7. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My point was that the results don't reflect what Specter is implying (surprise, surprise). 7 years have having a "significant advantage" but that "advantage" doesn't appear to have any statistically significant impact on results. The exercise wasn't necessary for folks with half a brain, but it does provide some factual basis refuting the unfounded and unexamined accusation that the tapes resulted in enhanced Pats offensive performances on the field.
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,556
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +429 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I agree with the premise here but a simple point is - if you play a team the second time in a season, of course you will change your signals or you're flat out stupid. Oh, and stealing signals is legal anyway.
  9. jbb9s

    jbb9s Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    A few comments here:

    (A) who cares what the result is of the action; its irrelevant. If you are caught cheating on the SATs and you still get a 900, does they say "well what the hell, we wont punish you"? Of course not, this is an irrelevant thread.

    (B) There is a record out there, something like 20-2 going against a quarterback for the second time within the same season.
  10. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    If the Pats were a below .500 team that consistently missed the playoffs, would this story even exist? Your comment is irrelevant.

    That would be relevant if this thread was about the Pats record in repeat games. It isn't. It is about the Pats offensive productivity in repeat games. If increased production did consistently occur, then you could examine if that translated into wins...and eventually into championships. Since that didn't occur, the team's record is moot.
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  11. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    You have half a brain (and likely significantly more) and aren't buying what Specter is peddling. I was looking to see if there was a significant statistical linkage to offensive production in repeat games. Since nobody knows how the tapes were used, any response to the "tainted championships" would be opinion...which would be no more valid than the opposing side. There is no way you can look at the game results objectively and come to any conclusion except:

    A) The Pats derived limited gameday benefit from the taping
    B) The Pats knew exactly what defenses were throwing at them but were so inept they couldn't take advantage
  12. ALP

    ALP Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    7,430
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +28 / 0 / -0

    look, for u guys who say his point is irrelevent...it is not

    Specter accusses the pats of having an advantage, that advantage is supposed to lead to more wins, and better offensive production

    well, show me that advantage at work, and then we can argue about the pats having an advantage

    from everything i have heard, the pats can have EVERY defensive signal, and its not gonna help em jack squat
  13. Afterlifemobile-86

    Afterlifemobile-86 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh, piss off you little troll.....
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>