Why 2K? Top seeds dropping like flies in new century of sports

[patsfan13]

Interesting article about the problems #1 seeds are having in winning championships in the major sports.

Part of the reason for this change is the superior opponents in the Divisional Round. From 1983 to '99, the top seed's opponent in this round won 59.2 percent of its regular season games, while on average outscoring its opponents by 2.2 points per game. Just one of these 17 teams won more than 10 games (1996 San Francisco 49ers). Since 2000, the average Divisional round opponent for the top seed won 67.4 percent of its regular season games, and had an average scoring differential of 6.6 points per game. Eight of those 12 teams won at least 11 games.

Read more: Chicago Bulls the latest to prove that regular season success means less in the playoffs - The Bonus - SI.com

I still want the Pats to have the best record and beat the odds.

 

[brdmaverick]

I think it's funny when there are articles claiming that the number one seeds don't have it easy, thus almost implying that a team should not want the top seed. Despite perhaps their less dominance in sports these days, they still post the best percentages for post season success.

 

[kudzif]

A team always wants to win as many games as it can , but it's pretty obvious that what only matters is winning enough to get in the playoffs and peaking late season.
In the NFL especially i now have more confidence in a team that goes into the playoffs hot even if they are 8-8 than i do a number 1 seed.

 

[Bill B.]

Parity. The top teams are all close in talent. Some teams can dominate a division in the regular season but in the playoffs, all teams are good. In football it's a little different because it's one loss and you are out. As we all know in football the best team doesn't always win. In a seven game series the better team usually dominates. If they are even and it goes to 7 games, then it usually goes to the home team, but not always. I know it's a cliche, but "That's why they play the games."

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Most #1 seeds nowadays are still very flawed teams. Last year us and GB had a couple of historically bad pass defense yet made top seeds, GB almost went undefeated. In the 90s and before it seemed like there were more dominant favorites like the early 90's Cowboys, 94 49ers, 96 Packers, 98 Broncos, 99 Rams just to name a few that I've personally seen (I started following football only around 1990), those teams were far better and complete than the top seeds you get nowadays. And I'd imagine the same can be said about the teams from the 70's/80's that didn't have a salary cap or FA to deal with. Since the 'parity era' the only top seeds to do well were the '03 and '04 Pats ('04 was a 2 seed but still a heavy favorite along with the Steelers) and they may be in the same category as some of those teams I listed. And even though the '07 Pats didn't win it all, they still did make the super bowl so I'd say that's doing pretty well. That team was a certified juggernaut. I guess the '09 Saints are the only team to really disprove my theory. But for the most part there just aren't that many great complete teams anymore, you can earn a top seed without being all that amazing, and the 'any given Sunday' concept is more relevant now than ever.

 

[Ron Sellers]

I clicked on the link and didn't get further than the name Scott Kacsmar. The guy is an over the top Colts fan who takes any and every opportunity to talk down about the Patriots - which is one thing if you're a local writer, but in my opinion has no place in national publications like SI. I didn't bother to read the article but I'm sure he wrote more about the Patriots losing than any other team.


The thing is that if you are comparing the number one seed to all other seeds combined it shouldn't be all that surprising that a number one seed doesn't win all the time, or even the majority of the time. My guess is that #1's are still winning more often than #2's, who win more often than #3's, etc.


If the day comes when #6's have a higher winning percentage than #1's over a large enough sample size, then I'll sit up and take notice. Until then I'll presume Kacsmar is doing what he does best: taking statistics and twisting them to support a pre-conceived biased opinion, rather than objectively looking at stats with an open mind to reach an unbiased conclusion.

 

[ivanvamp]

I clicked on the link and didn't get further than the name Scott Kacsmar. The guy is an over the top Colts fan who takes any and every opportunity to talk down about the Patriots - which is one thing if you're a local writer, but in my opinion has no place in national publications like SI. I didn't bother to read the article but I'm sure he wrote more about the Patriots losing than any other team.


The thing is that if you are comparing the number one seed to all other seeds combined it shouldn't be all that surprising that a number one seed doesn't win all the time, or even the majority of the time. My guess is that #1's are still winning more often than #2's, who win more often than #3's, etc.


If the day comes when #6's have a higher winning percentage than #1's over a large enough sample size, then I'll sit up and take notice. Until then I'll presume Kacsmar is doing what he does best: taking statistics and twisting them to support a pre-conceived biased opinion, rather than objectively looking at stats with an open mind to reach an unbiased conclusion.

Here is the data in the NFL from 2001-2011....

Average Regular Season Record by Seed
#1: 13.4-2.6 (.835)
#2: 12.1-3.9 (.759)
#3: 10.8-5.1 (.678)
#4: 9.8-6.2 (.611)
#5: 10.6-5.4 (.662)
#6: 9.6-6.3 (.606)

Playoff Records by Seed
#1: 26-20 (.565)
#2: 23-18 (.561)
#3: 21-21 (.500)
#4: 19-21 (.475)
#5: 14-21 (.400)
#6: 18-20 (.474)

Conference Championships by Seed
#1: 10
#2: 5
#3: 2
#4: 2
#5: 1
#6: 2

SB Titles by Seed
#1: 2 ('03 NE, '09 NO)
#2: 4 ('01 NE, '02 TB, '04 NE, '08 Pit)
#3: 1 ('06 Ind)
#4: 1 ('11 NYG)
#5: 1 ('07 NYG)
#6: 2 ('05 Pit, '10 GB)

SB Records by Seed
#1: 2-8
#2: 4-1
#3: 1-1
#4: 1-1
#5: 1-0
#6: 2-0

Long story short, the odds still very much favor the #1 seed to get to the Super Bowl, but once there, it's pretty much a crapshoot.

 

[ivanvamp]

FWIW, here's how NE has done as various seeds (2001-2011):

#1: 4 seasons, 7-3, 1 SB title, 3 AFC titles
#2: 2 seasons, 6-0, 2 SB titles, 2 AFC titles
#3: 1 season, 0-1
#4: 2 seasons, 3-2
#5: 0 seasons
#6: 0 seasons
TOT: 9 seasons, 16-6, 3 SB titles, 5 AFC titles

So again, getting a top 2 seed for the Patriots has been a major key to success.

 

[brdmaverick]

Here is the data in the NFL from 2001-2011....


Conference Championships by Seed
#1: 10
#2: 5
#3: 2
#4: 2
#5: 1
#6: 2

.

Enough said

 

[ivanvamp]

Enough said

Yep. Huge advantage to be one of the top 2 seeds.

Playoff record (2001-2011):
#1 and #2 seeds combined: 49-38 (.563)
#3, #4, #5, #6 seeds combined: 72-83 (.465)

Conference championships (2001-2011):
#1 and #2 seeds combined: 15 (out of 22 = 68.2%)
#3, #4, #5, #6 seeds combined: 7 (out of 22 = 31.8%)

So yes, you really do want to be a top 2 seed if you want to get to the Super Bowl. Conventional wisdom still applies in this case.

 

[Steve102]

SB Titles by Seed
#1: 2 ('03 NE, '09 NO)
#2: 4 ('01 NE, '02 TB, '04 NE, '08 Pit)
#3: 1 ('06 Ind)
#4: 1 ('11 NYG)
#5: 1 ('07 NYG)
#6: 2 ('05 Pit, '10 GB)

SB Records by Seed
#1: 2-8
#2: 4-1
#3: 1-1
#4: 1-1
#5: 1-0
#6: 2-0

In this age of parity, the 1-2 seeds generally are that way because they have excelled throughout the regular season. However, because the teams are so close now, and few true juggernauts, even a top 1-2 seed can get beat by a hot team and a bad match-up. There's very little difference between a 1-2 and a battle hardened 4, 5, or 6 that had a tough division schedule, or maybe a key injury during the regular season. There's a reason no one wanted to play the '11 or '07 Giants, '05 Steelers or the '10 Packers. They were better than their seeding.

 

[NSPF]

A team always wants to win as many games as it can , but it's pretty obvious that what only matters is winning enough to get in the playoffs and peaking late season.
In the NFL especially i now have more confidence in a team that goes into the playoffs hot even if they are 8-8 than i do a number 1 seed.

You mean like the Broncos?

 

[Ron Sellers]

You mean like the Broncos?

Broncos lost their last three in a row, including back-to-back games which they allowed 40+ points. The week before that it took OT to beat the Bears, who were without both Cutler and Forte. The week before that they gave up 32 points to the Vikings, who won only three games all year. During that five game finish to the regular season they turned the ball over 12 times.

Not exactly what one would characterize as "peaking late season".

 

[Gumby]

Here is the data in the NFL from 2001-2011....


Playoff Records by Seed
#1: 26-20 (.565)
#2: 23-18 (.561)

#3: 21-21 (.500)
#4: 19-21 (.475)

#5: 14-21 (.400)
#6: 18-20 (.474)

Conference Championships by Seed
#1: 10
#2: 5

#3: 2
#4: 2

#5: 1
#6: 2

SB Titles by Seed
#1: 2 ('03 NE, '09 NO)
#2: 4 ('01 NE, '02 TB, '04 NE, '08 Pit)

#3: 1 ('06 Ind)
#4: 1 ('11 NYG)

#5: 1 ('07 NYG)
#6: 2 ('05 Pit, '10 GB)

SB Records by Seed
#1: 2-8
#2: 4-1
#3: 1-1
#4: 1-1
#5: 1-0
#6: 2-0

Long story short, the odds still very much favor the #1 seed to get to the Super Bowl, but once there, it's pretty much a crapshoot.

Great stats work.


I put some spaces in there to show the breaks where -
- the top 2 seeds get the bye advantage
- the 3/4 seeds get the home-field advantage

By percentage wins in playoffs; it runs almost just as you would expect - (with the exception of the 6 seed.) with the % dropping at each seed and dramatic % drops between the advantage breaks.

The anomoly is those 6 seeds where you teams that got hot at the end of the year and were a lot more talented than their season long record would indicate (for example, GB) [or where the SB winner actually got handed at least one undeserved win by the refs (Pitt)].
Lesson learned - BYEs and HOME FIELD are king; but BEWARE the 6 seed.