2nd round vs. same opponent IS tough

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

3) the number us significantly skewed by week 17 division games against teams that wouldn’t otherwise beat us when the patriots have nothing to play for and rest starters.
5 such games is the difference between .676 and .743 and I can think of 4 off the top of my head.

They have only lost three rematch games in week 17. '05 Miami, '14 Buffalo, and '15 Miami.

I don't think the '15 rematch with Miami qualifies here as a "rest your starters" game. They were playing for homefield advantage and were playing like absolute garbage going in. They got beaten soundly in a place where they get beat quite often (relatively speaking.) Even if you remove all three games from the equation, they would be .704, still way below their average.

 

[Ring 6]

They have only lost three rematch games in week 17. '05 Miami, '14 Buffalo, and '15 Miami.

I don't think the '15 rematch with Miami qualifies here as a "rest your starters" game. They were playing for homefield advantage and were playing like absolute garbage going in. They got beaten soundly in a place where they get beat quite often (relatively speaking.) Even if you remove all three games from the equation, they would be .704, still way below their average.

They definitely didn’t olay to win. They ran the ball something like 18 of the first 20 plays. Due to health belichick was happy with the bye. The 15 dolphins would not have beaten the 15 patriots straight up.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting stat buried in a muddled article today:

The Belichick Patriots have a 50-24 (.676) record in repeat meetings vs. the same opponent in a single season, which looks good but is significantly below their overall .743 winning percentage. I was a little surprised since they're generally such a strong second-half team, both in terms of games and seasons.

Possible reasons that come to mind:

1. Opponents have a chance to address weak points exposed by the Pats' game plan in game 1
2. The stat could be skewed by the number of those names that were playoff games, meaning the average opponent is stronger.
3. ?

I’m not sure these numbers are right.
I just went through (and could maybe have miscounted) but I have 38-15 in the regular season in 2nd games vs the division. (Thus is vs 40-15 in the first meeting so the not trying in week 17 explains it all)

However this would mean they are 12-9 in playoff rematches and since they are 25-9 overall in the playoffs this seems wrong.

 

[NashuaPats]

People make fun of Cutler all the time... for understandable reasons. I don't, I can't. He's the only big time athlete with type 1 diabetes that I'm aware of. I don't have the disease, but I'm very familiar with it since my mother had it. I'm aware of the physical destruction it causes and to a lesser extent, mentally too. There's a reason no other successful athlete has it. I think he gets a bad rap and his disappointing career may very well be a result of his disease which is consistently overlooked or ignored.

 

[Danger Zone]

... I think he gets a bad wrap and his disappointing career may very well be a result of his disease which is consistently overlooked or ignored.

Maybe, but he has the worst luck and/or body language I've seen in a football player.

 

[Wheelman]

People make fun of Cutler all the time... for understandable reasons. I don't, I can't. He's the only big time athlete with type 1 diabetes that I'm aware of. I don't have the disease, but I'm very familiar with it since my mother had it. I'm aware of the physical destruction it causes. There's a reason no other successful athlete has it. I think he gets a bad wrap and his disappointing career may very well be a result of his disease which is consistently overlooked or ignored.

Cutler is not that good. So you can add Charlie Kimball to that list. Both average at what they do in their sport.

Cutler gets a bad wrap because he's stupid! 1st read not open? **** ****! scramble! do anything but look at my wide open 2nd or 3rd read!

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Another intestering but related fact. Brady is the third most winningest QB at Buffalo, including their QBs.

 

[FCB02062]

No they didn’t.

The game was in 05, Mr Perfect. Belichick called timeout and deliberately had Matt Cassell throw a 2 pt conversion into the end zone seats, thus giving the Patriots an L and getting Jacksonville as an opponent as opposed to Pittsburgh...

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Interesting stat buried in a muddled article today:

The Belichick Patriots have a 50-24 (.676) record in repeat meetings vs. the same opponent in a single season, which looks good but is significantly below their overall .743 winning percentage. I was a little surprised since they're generally such a strong second-half team, both in terms of games and seasons.

Possible reasons that come to mind:

1. Opponents have a chance to address weak points exposed by the Pats' game plan in game 1
2. The stat could be skewed by the number of those names that were playoff games, meaning the average opponent is stronger.
3. ?

The gap is even greater if we are eliminating the 2000 season and just going with the Tom Brady Patriots. Brady has a .776 winning percentage, .100 points higher than the .676 in rematches. Of course, you'd have to smooth out that .676 number as well to account for the non-Brady games, but I can't imagine it would be vastly different.

On the other hand, one factor that could skew the stats (to some degree) is that @Miami happens to be one of their thorns and is included in this smaller sample size. The Brady seasons where they played their second game away against Miami are 2004, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, and 2016. Their record in those games is 1-5 (and their only win was when they played Miami's backup last year!) @Miami happens to be a fairly large part of this sample size, accounting for 8% of their rematch games, whereas it's just 2.7% of Brady's overall game count. I don't know why they often play poorly in Miami (and Denver), but those two venues can effect data and percentages if they are isolated with a smaller group.

If you were to remove the @Miami rematches, their record is 49-19, a .720 winning percentage. Still not there but accounting for half of the percentage and reaching some explanations outside of their coaching advantages/preparation waning in the second matchup.

 

[jah]

I've been banging this table for some time now. We always seem to assume seeing an opponent twice = advantage Pats but the Jets, Giants, Broncos, and Ravens have made a nonbeliever out of me.

 

[jah]

Also a factor is that the second Miami is usually there and of all division opponents we have done worse in Miami

This is the only thing about scheduling that ever raises my suspicion. My gut tells me that the Pats have to play in Miami in September more often than the Dolphins come to Gillette in December.

I don't really think this is on purpose, but I did notice it.

 

[BTTA]

Normally it would be tempting to think this could be a loss this week with a much bigger game next week and the Dolphins already having seen the Patriots, and no Gronk this game... but I think after the pile on and attacks from the media about the Gronk incident - I think the Pats have plenty of motivation to kick the snot out of the Dolphins right in front of their fans.

I think there is a greater chance they lose this Sunday than next Monday. And FWIW, I don't think professional athletes, particularly the Pats, need or respond to anything as trivial as the media response to Gronk's adventure. That's noise they intentionally block out, and wouldn't rise to the level of significance even if they heard it.

 

[brdmaverick]

Great point, I should have considered the game 16 factor. And of course, none of the possibilities are mutually exclusive.

Right to increase the probability of a marquee match week 17 is always a division game. Most of the time it seems to be meaningless.

 

[brdmaverick]

No they didn’t.

I think he meant the 2005 season.

Maybe they didn't try to lose, but by playing Matt Cassel and having Doug Flutie kick dropkick extra points it was clear they weren't too concerned with winning.

 

[Ring 6]

The game was in 05, Mr Perfect. Belichick called timeout and deliberately had Matt Cassell throw a 2 pt conversion into the end zone seats, thus giving the Patriots an L and getting Jacksonville as an opponent as opposed to Pittsburgh...

You are wrong.

 

[brdmaverick]

So, basically, if the Bills, Jets and 'Fins could each play 3-4 games a season against the Pats, by the end of the 4th meeting, they might have figured out how to be decent teams?

Good thing the Pats only play them twice, then, giving them an entire off-season to completely forget/ignore the lessons they learned.

OH man, I know you are kidding but don't get me started with those kinds of people who think that way.

Every year when a playoff game features a matchup of divisional rivals in which one team went 2-0 during the regular season, indoubtedly there will be at least one analyst who confidently says......

" (insert 0-2 here) will win this game because it's tough to beat a team three times in one season."

Is it tough to beat one team three times in one season? Yes, it is (all things equal, a 12.5% chance of this happening), but that's not really the situation being presented here.

Instead, the probability question becomes, what are the odds one team wins all three GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY WON THE FIRST TWO?

All things being equal, the probability of winning all three is 50%. But the reality is that the teams probably aren't equal, and the 2-0 team is 2-0 because they are better. So the odds would actually be greater than 50% for them to win the third game.


Let me use a more drastic example to make my point.

If the Pats beat the Bills 26 straight times, what are odds that they win the 27th game? PRETTY FRIGGIN GOOD.

But you'll have that one misinformed, dope analyst say "no, I'm taking the Bills because it's tough to beat a team 27 straight times"

 

[Observer]

It’s not surprising. The higher percentage is against the whole league and the lower is mainly AFC east. We all know that the AFC east is better than the league average.

It would be more interesting to see the winning percentage in the first matchup vs the second matchup.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Wouldn't it be tough for both teams?

 

[supafly]

OH man, I know you are kidding but don't get me started with those kinds of people who think that way.

Every year when a playoff game features a matchup of divisional rivals in which one team went 2-0 during the regular season, indoubtedly there will be at least one analyst who confidently says......

" (insert 0-2 here) will win this game because it's tough to be a team three times in one season."

Is it tough to beat one team three times in one season? Yes, it is (all things equal, a 12.5% chance of this happening), but that's not really the situation being presented here.

Instead, the probability question becomes, what are the odds one team wins all three GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY ONE THE FIRST TWO?

All things being equal, the probability of winning all three is 50%. But the reality is that the teams probably aren't equal, and the 2-0 team is 2-0 because they are better. So the odds would actually be greater than 50% for them to win the third game.


Let me use a more drastic example to make my point.

If the Pats beat the Bills 26 straight times, what are odds that they win the 27th game? PRETTY FRIGGIN GOOD.

But you'll have that one misinformed, dope analyst say "no, I'm taking the Bills because it's tough to beat a team 27 straight times"

There are numbers somewhere that prove your point in regards to a divisional opponent winning both games in the regular season, then going on to win the 3rd in the playoffs, as well.

I don’t remember what they were a few seasons ago or what they are now, but I do remember looking it up several years ago. You are definitely right. I want to say that the team who won the first two went on to win the third about 2/3 of the time.

 

[brdmaverick]

There are numbers somewhere that prove your point in regards to a divisional opponent winning both games in the regular season, then going on to win the 3rd in the playoffs, as well.

I don’t remember what they were a few seasons ago or what they are now, but I do remember looking it up several years ago. You are definitely right. I want to say that the team who won the first two went on to win the third about 2/3 of the time.

I still remember some guy on FOX picking the Giants in 2007 (against the Cowboys) b/c it's tough to win 3 times, and gloating when the Giants won.