2013 Patriots: Battle Tested

[ivanvamp]

Looking at the Patriots from 2001 to the present, I discounted the two non-playoff seasons (2002, 2008) and wanted to see how they did during the playoff seasons in terms of point differential. I am wondering if playing a lot of close games actually had some sort of payoff in the post season.

First, here are the point differentials:

2001 (11-5, won SB): +6.2
2003 (14-2, won SB): +6.9
2004 (14-2, won SB): +11.1
2005 (10-6, lost in divisional round): +2.6
2006 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +9.3
2007 (16-0, lost in SB): +19.7
2009 (10-6, lost in WC): +8.9
2010 (14-2, lost in divisional round): +12.8
2011 (13-3, lost in SB): +10.7
2012 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +14.1
2013 (10-3 so far): +4.8

Clearly, this is one of the lowest point differentials for the Pats over this time frame. Next, let's look at the number of close games. Two categories: close (+/- 8 points….or one possession games) and very close (+/- 3 points).

Year: close (record) - very close (record)
2001: 6 (3-3) - 3 (3-0)
2003: 9 (8-1) - 2 (1-1)
2004: 4 (3-1) - 2 (1-1)
2005: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2006: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2007: 4 (4-0) - 3 (3-0)
2009: 7 (2-5) - 3 (0-3)
2010: 5 (5-0) - 3 (3-0)
2011: 8 (5-3) - 2 (1-1)
2012: 8 (4-4) - 3 (0-3)
2013: 10 (7-3) - 7 (6-1)
TOTAL: 75 (51-24, .680) - 34 (22-12, .647)
TOTAL (minus 2013): 65 (44-21, .677) - 27 (16-11, .593)

So the first thing to notice is that the Patriots have played a much higher percentage of close or even very close games this year, compared with previous seasons. 7 out of 13 games have been within a field goal. And they are an amazing 6-1 in those games.

In their three SB-winning seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 games (14-5, .737)
Very Close: 7 games (5-2, .714)

In their five SB-appearance seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 31 games (23-8, .742)
Very Close: 12 games (9-3, .750)

In their seven seasons where they reached the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 46 games (33-13, .717)
Very Close: 17 games (12-5, .706)

In their three seasons where they did not reach the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 (11-8, .579)
Very Close: 10 (4-6, .400)

Can a case be made that the more battle tested they were, the more likely they were to advance deeper into the playoffs? It's not an exact 1-to-1 relationship (i.e., there were seasons where the advanced further performing worse in these kinds of games, etc.), but the overall trend is pretty interesting.

So this year they've played 10 close games, going 7-3 (.700), and they've played an incredible 7 very close games, going 6-1 (.857). I submit that this will actually be a benefit to the team as they hit the playoffs.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Looking at the Patriots from 2001 to the present, I discounted the two non-playoff seasons (2002, 2008) and wanted to see how they did during the playoff seasons in terms of point differential. I am wondering if playing a lot of close games actually had some sort of payoff in the post season.

First, here are the point differentials:

2001 (11-5, won SB): +6.2
2003 (14-2, won SB): +6.9
2004 (14-2, won SB): +11.1
2005 (10-6, lost in divisional round): +2.6
2006 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +9.3
2007 (16-0, lost in SB): +19.7
2009 (10-6, lost in WC): +8.9
2010 (14-2, lost in divisional round): +12.8
2011 (13-3, lost in SB): +10.7
2012 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +14.1
2013 (10-3 so far): +4.8

Clearly, this is one of the lowest point differentials for the Pats over this time frame. Next, let's look at the number of close games. Two categories: close (+/- 8 points….or one possession games) and very close (+/- 3 points).

Year: close (record) - very close (record)
2001: 6 (3-3) - 3 (3-0)
2003: 9 (8-1) - 2 (1-1)
2004: 4 (3-1) - 2 (1-1)
2005: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2006: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2007: 4 (4-0) - 3 (3-0)
2009: 7 (2-5) - 3 (0-3)
2010: 5 (5-0) - 3 (3-0)
2011: 8 (5-3) - 2 (1-1)
2012: 8 (4-4) - 3 (0-3)
2013: 10 (7-3) - 7 (6-1)
TOTAL: 75 (51-24, .680) - 34 (22-12, .647)
TOTAL (minus 2013): 65 (44-21, .677) - 27 (16-11, .593)

So the first thing to notice is that the Patriots have played a much higher percentage of close or even very close games this year, compared with previous seasons. 7 out of 13 games have been within a field goal. And they are an amazing 6-1 in those games.

In their three SB-winning seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 games (14-5, .737)
Very Close: 7 games (5-2, .714)

In their five SB-appearance seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 31 games (23-8, .742)
Very Close: 12 games (9-3, .750)

In their seven seasons where they reached the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 46 games (33-13, .717)
Very Close: 17 games (12-5, .706)

In their three seasons where they did not reach the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 (11-8, .579)
Very Close: 10 (4-6, .400)

Can a case be made that the more battle tested they were, the more likely they were to advance deeper into the playoffs? It's not an exact 1-to-1 relationship (i.e., there were seasons where the advanced further performing worse in these kinds of games, etc.), but the overall trend is pretty interesting.

So this year they've played 10 close games, going 7-3 (.700), and they've played an incredible 7 very close games, going 6-1 (.857). I submit that this will actually be a benefit to the team as they hit the playoffs.

The key question for any NFL team heading into the playoffs is, can they take a punch? Because in the playoffs they will be punched around by tough opponents. This team has demonstrated that they are not only resilient during the games but also overcoming injuries to achieve a remarkable 10-3 record. If it weren't for the blown non-calls against the jets and panthers, they would be 12-1.

 

[dales804]

I believe the Texans were like 5-0 in close games during the regular season last year and we know how that turned out. It's all about matchups in the NFL. I believe this team can still get the job done but the defense, I think, will need to be healthy (as it's capable of now) and step up to give the offense perhaps a greater margin of error. I have looked at the "battle tested" scenario, too, and my take away is that it gives the Patriots a confidence that they can win any game.

 

[Triumph]

So this year they've played 10 close games, going 7-3 (.700), and they've played an incredible 7 very close games, going 6-1 (.857). I submit that this will actually be a benefit to the team as they hit the playoffs.

Just like a baseball team that more often than not pulls out the win in the bottom of the 9th or extra innings. Theres a mystique about a team like that and the players dont play scared. Its a confidence.

We know a baseball team like that.

Also, with the exception of Miami, all the remaining games could be played in foul weather which favors NE.

 

[Kontradiction]

They have definitely had their fair share of close games, and know how to compete with them. That said, there are still a couple of match-ups with teams that will be in the playoffs that I would very much like to avoid.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Looking at the Patriots from 2001 to the present, I discounted the two non-playoff seasons (2002, 2008) and wanted to see how they did during the playoff seasons in terms of point differential. I am wondering if playing a lot of close games actually had some sort of payoff in the post season.

First, here are the point differentials:

2001 (11-5, won SB): +6.2
2003 (14-2, won SB): +6.9
2004 (14-2, won SB): +11.1
2005 (10-6, lost in divisional round): +2.6
2006 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +9.3
2007 (16-0, lost in SB): +19.7
2009 (10-6, lost in WC): +8.9
2010 (14-2, lost in divisional round): +12.8
2011 (13-3, lost in SB): +10.7
2012 (12-4, lost in AFCCG): +14.1
2013 (10-3 so far): +4.8

Clearly, this is one of the lowest point differentials for the Pats over this time frame. Next, let's look at the number of close games. Two categories: close (+/- 8 points….or one possession games) and very close (+/- 3 points).

Year: close (record) - very close (record)
2001: 6 (3-3) - 3 (3-0)
2003: 9 (8-1) - 2 (1-1)
2004: 4 (3-1) - 2 (1-1)
2005: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2006: 7 (5-2) - 3 (2-1)
2007: 4 (4-0) - 3 (3-0)
2009: 7 (2-5) - 3 (0-3)
2010: 5 (5-0) - 3 (3-0)
2011: 8 (5-3) - 2 (1-1)
2012: 8 (4-4) - 3 (0-3)
2013: 10 (7-3) - 7 (6-1)
TOTAL: 75 (51-24, .680) - 34 (22-12, .647)
TOTAL (minus 2013): 65 (44-21, .677) - 27 (16-11, .593)

So the first thing to notice is that the Patriots have played a much higher percentage of close or even very close games this year, compared with previous seasons. 7 out of 13 games have been within a field goal. And they are an amazing 6-1 in those games.

In their three SB-winning seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 games (14-5, .737)
Very Close: 7 games (5-2, .714)

In their five SB-appearance seasons, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 31 games (23-8, .742)
Very Close: 12 games (9-3, .750)

In their seven seasons where they reached the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 46 games (33-13, .717)
Very Close: 17 games (12-5, .706)

In their three seasons where they did not reach the AFCCG, here were their numbers in close and very close games:

Close: 19 (11-8, .579)
Very Close: 10 (4-6, .400)

Can a case be made that the more battle tested they were, the more likely they were to advance deeper into the playoffs? It's not an exact 1-to-1 relationship (i.e., there were seasons where the advanced further performing worse in these kinds of games, etc.), but the overall trend is pretty interesting.

So this year they've played 10 close games, going 7-3 (.700), and they've played an incredible 7 very close games, going 6-1 (.857). I submit that this will actually be a benefit to the team as they hit the playoffs.

I agree that it helps them now, but imo the bigger impact will be long term, as the young players are developing the character of winners, and that was the exact same dynamic the dynasty early in the 2000's had. Knowing that they can make the most important plays when it matters is a great psychological advantage for them and should continue to come into play for these teams for the rest of Brady's career. They are going to continue to contend for the next 3-4 years at least and this kind of edge can help put them over the top.

 

[TonyTucker]

That's the frustrating part. They're battle tested for all sorts of games/weather, but I think it's just too many injuries to overcome. As another poster said, it's more for the future.