An EXCELLENT link for those who try to use the Pats play in a weak AFCE

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Saying “the AFCE is weak” is dumb because each division each year pretty much plays out as follows:

- Division winner (or tied for most wins)
- Closest challenger
- Mediocre-to-bad 3rd place team
- Doormat

Aside from the Pats always being at the top, the teams filling out the order changes year to year. So with so much in flux and a decent chance that teams can be good one year and mediocre-to-bad the next, a team’s “easy path” to a division title really hinges on how well the closest challenger does. I took a look at most wins vs. runner up win totals in each division to see if there are any easy paths for certain teams…

Since 2002 when Houston rounded out the current 32 teams and the current division alignment was put in place, here is the average wins of the division winner and of the division runner-up (winner, runner-up):

AFCN: 11.27, 9.91
AFCS: 11.32, 9.68
AFCW: 11.14, 9.41
NFCE: 11.11, 9.32
AFCE: 11.90, 9.15
NFCS: 11.30, 9.05
NFCN: 11.22, 8.94
NFCW: 10.68, 8.68

For the 30 teams in this time period that either had or tied for most wins in their division in a year (Detroit and Buffalo never did this), Tennessee’s division wins had the highest average number of wins by its runner-up with 10.75. The lowest was Washington with its runner-up average win total hitting 8. The Pats were 17th with 9.06.

If I change the time period to 2011-2018 when the Pats reeled off 8 straight visits to the AFCCG, the numbers change and the argument that the Pats have an easier path to the division title gets stronger:

AFCW: 11.00, 9.92
NFCW: 11.89, 9.89
AFCN: 11.20, 9.80
NFCN: 11.11, 9.22
AFCS: 10.22, 9.00
NFCE: 10.75, 8.88
NFCS: 11.30, 8.80
AFCE: 12.38, 8.50

For the 26 teams in this time period that either had or tied for most wins in their division in a year, KC’s division wins had the highest average number of wins by its runner-up with 11. The lowest were 5 teams tied with 8. The Pats were the tied with Philly for the 2nd lowest value at 8.5.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Deus Irae]

Facts:

• AFCE has been the best division in football since re-alignment - 99% of that is due to the Patriots
• AFCE has been the least competitive division as one team has dominated throughout- virtually all other divisions have teams switching positions regularly
• AFCE teams 2-4 have generally been middle of the pack in out of division records to comparable teams in the other divisions
• The AFCE has been weaker the past few years and it has made pundits think that it has been this putrid for the entire run which is untrue
• The fact that the Pats have rarely had a team truly fighting for a division title has certainly helped them in this run but it would have been extremely successful in any of the other divisions and they would have created more "Jets, Bills or Dolphins" if they played elsewhere (ie: Bengals would not have made the playoffs nearly as much if the Pats had replaced the Steelers during their run and their team would have been perceived as much worse)

The Patriots are successful against bad teams, good teams and great teams year after year. The fact this remains a topic for them vs almost the exact same scenario that the Manning Colts or the Montana 49ers went through is what is bizarre.

Imagine being the Saints. The Saints had a pair of 12 win seasons,and an 11 win season, that resulted in nothing more than wild card berths. In fact, the Saints made the playoffs 4 times in six years during that run of 1987 - 1992, but they were still never anything more than second fiddle to that 49ers team. The closest the AFCE has offered to that is the Jets, and we all know how relatively pathetic that was. That "next best" consisted of a 3 year stretch with win totals of 9/9/11.

 

[mosslost]

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty


"Since Bill Belichick took over as coach of the New England Patriots, the team has gone on an incredible run. As it stands right now they don't have a losing record against any team in the NFL. In fact outside of the Panthers (3-3) and the Giants (3-3), they have a winning record against every other team"


Conference Win - Loss Win Percentage
AFC 195 - 67 0.744
NFC 63 - 22 0.741

Division W - L - T Win Percentage
AFC South 41 - 10 0.804
NFC South 17 - 5 0.773
AFC North 33 - 11 0.750
NFC West 15 - 5 0.750
AFC East 88 - 30 0.746
NFC North 17 - 6 0.739
NFC East 14 - 6 0.700
AFC West 33 - 16 0.673

Denver?

 

[mosslost]

The Myth of the Easy AFC East, the Definitive Guide | Patriots Dynasty


"Since Bill Belichick took over as coach of the New England Patriots, the team has gone on an incredible run. As it stands right now they don't have a losing record against any team in the NFL. In fact outside of the Panthers (3-3) and the Giants (3-3), they have a winning record against every other team"


Conference Win - Loss Win Percentage
AFC 195 - 67 0.744
NFC 63 - 22 0.741

Division W - L - T Win Percentage
AFC South 41 - 10 0.804
NFC South 17 - 5 0.773
AFC North 33 - 11 0.750
NFC West 15 - 5 0.750
AFC East 88 - 30 0.746
NFC North 17 - 6 0.739
NFC East 14 - 6 0.700
AFC West 33 - 16 0.673

It is not a myth @ChessToCheckers

Actually this site misses some of the most important data that does actually support that the Division has been VERY easy cake walk for the Pats (tho the Pats themselves are the main reason for this in at least a couple of seasons in the last 20)

Here is the most misleading section:

>>data supporting the idea that the cutoff for making the playoffs is a 10 win season, we can compare each division by how many times they've had multiple 10+ game winners in the division

The "10 Win" data is meaningless. Where are the 12, 13, 14 and even 15 game winners, that all other divisions have had MULTIPLE teams win that many and have standout seasons quite a bit.

This has never happened in the AFC East in the BB era.

So let's talk about 11 wins? Only THREE times has an AFC East team besides the Pats win as many as 11 games, and one of those was our 2000 5 win season.

It is true that the Pats kept both the 2004 Jets, and the 2016 Dolphins from winning 12, b y beating them TWICE both years, leaving them with just 10, and in both cases if the other team had flipped that they would have been the AFCE champion and had a bye possibly.

But that type of "Pats causes it" only happened those two seasons.

The reality is, the argument is not about how the team plays against other divisions and all those stats in that article are actually irrelevant to this argument.

The real fact is that Pats have never had to be a wild card non-division winner team with a 12-4 record ever, which has happened to teams in every other division

(like the 12-4 Colts in 2008 with the Titans winning 13; GB 12-4 2002; 49ers 12-4 2002; JAX 12-4 2005; Ravens 12-4 2010; Steelers 12-4 2011; 49ers 12-4 2013; Raiders 12-4 2016; Chargers 12-4 2018; ALL NON DIVISION WINNERS)

And purposely left out all the 11-5 teams that had to a non-division winner wild card because that happened to us once, so I left it out. There are least 10 of those teams over the BB era as well.

The most relevant FACT to the FACT of the easy AFCE is that only THREE times in 20 years, has a team other than the Pats won 11 games. All other divisions are MUCH harder to win every single year. And teams have rise up years in ALL those divisions.

It is not a myth

 

[ChessToCheckers]

The division is not the reason the Pats are great but rather they are the reason the division sucks. It would happen to any division they were in.

After reading the linked article and examining all the variations it presented, I find this summary quite magnificent! Well said!

 

[mosslost]

After reading the linked article and examining all the variations it presented, I find this summary quite magnificent! Well said!

The article actually fails

 

[maust]

A few years back CHFF had a piece about finding a metric to compare the overall strength of one division to another. Without identical schedules relative parameters aren't all that easy to come by but they hit on one that was fairly telling. As a divisional win also begets a divisional loss, all divisions are inherently .500 against themselves. That makes measuring a division's average wins per team over time a viable metric for comparing one division's relative strength to another's. This thread got me to thinking about that as a logical comparative tool to determine just how weak the AFCE really is. After crunching the numbers for the past 10 years over my coffee this morning the results speak for themselves.

Divisional Average Wins Per Team for the ten years ending 2018:

AFCE: 8.35
NFCS: 8.25
NFCE: 8.15
NFCN: 8.15
AFCS: 7.97
AFCN: 7.75
AFCW: 7.65
NFCW: 7.20

I have to say there are some surprises, at least to me. I would have expected the AFCE to be in the middle of the pack somewhere around where the AFCS (which was not as bad as I thought) and the NFCN range. Off the top of my head going in I would not have suspected the NFCS to be ranked s high as it is nor the AFCS to have anything other than the NFCW breaking it's fall.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

A few years back CHFF had a piece about finding a metric to compare the overall strength of one division to another. Without identical schedules relative parameters aren't all that easy to come by but they hit on one that was fairly telling. As a divisional win also begets a divisional loss, all divisions are inherently .500 against themselves. That makes measuring a division's average wins per team over time a viable metric for comparing one division's relative strength to another's. This thread got me to thinking about that as a logical comparative tool to determine just how weak the AFCE really is. After crunching the numbers for the past 10 years over my coffee this morning the results speak for themselves.

Divisional Average Wins Per Team for the ten years ending 2018:

AFCE: 8.35
NFCS: 8.25
NFCE: 8.15
NFCN: 8.15
AFCS: 7.97
AFCN: 7.75
AFCW: 7.65
NFCW: 7.20

I have to say there are some surprises, at least to me. I would have expected the AFCE to be in the middle of the pack somewhere around where the AFCS (which was not as bad as I thought) and the NFCN range. Off the top of my head going in I would not have suspected the NFCS to be ranked s high as it is nor the AFCS to have anything other than the NFCW breaking it's fall.

So with this data, what do we conclude? For example: If division A has teams finish with 12, 8, 6 and 6 wins (32 total) and division B has teams finish with 11, 11, 5 and 3 wins (30 total), which division is better? As your data suggests, division A is better, but really it's due to its doormats being less ****ty than division B's. Do we measure division strength by who has the better irrelevant bottom feeders? In my view, division B is better because the teams that actually matter are better collectively more than division A's. But YMMV.

Regards,
Chris

 

[maust]

So with this data, what do we conclude? For example: If division A has teams finish with 12, 8, 6 and 6 wins (32 total) and division B has teams finish with 11, 11, 5 and 3 wins (30 total), which division is better? As your data suggests, division A is better, but really it's due to its doormats being less ****ty than division B's. Do we measure division strength by who has the better irrelevant bottom feeders? In my view, division B is better because the teams that actually matter are better collectively more than division A's. But YMMV.

Regards,
Chris

I conclude that overall division A had a better record outside the division than did team B, making it's relative strength in comparison to others higher. Which was of course what was being measured. All teams matter in terms of being on someone else's schedule but in terms of what division would you rather be up against, some matter more than others. As always your thoughts are respected and not without reason but the over time factor plays into it as well, without it a team catching a lightning in a bottle 15-1/14-2 season can have a rising tide effect in a 1-3 season sample size.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Speaking of doormats...

Since 2002, if we rank all teams by average wins per season, the bottom 8 teams cleanly distribute to one team per division. The best of those 8? The Buffalo Bills, at 6.82 wins. Buffalo is also just one of two teams (Detroit) who hasn't won the division or even tied the division winner for wins. Buffalo has one 4-win season, one 5-win season, six 6-win seasons, four 7-win seasons, two 8-win seasons and three 9-win seasons.

Buffalo's motto: Our ceiling is low, but look how high our floor is!

Regards,
Chris

 

[maust]

Speaking of doormats...

Since 2002, if we rank all teams by average wins per season, the bottom 8 teams cleanly distribute to one team per division. The best of those 8? The Buffalo Bills, at 6.82 wins. Buffalo is also just one of two teams (Detroit) who hasn't won the division or even tied the division winner for wins. Buffalo has one 4-win season, one 5-win season, six 6-win seasons, four 7-win seasons, two 8-win seasons and three 9-win seasons.

Buffalo's motto: Our ceiling is low, but look how high our floor is!

Regards,
Chris

Since 1995 the Billdos have seen more marital aids on their field than playoff games so for decency's sake let's not go there. Think about the kids

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Since 1995 the Billdos have seen more marital aids on their field than playoff games so I for decency's sake let's not go there. Think about the kids

In 1994, the Pats went up to Buffalo late in the season and beat them 41-17. That loss officially eliminated Buffalo from the postseason, sparing the world from even the chance of watching Buffalo lose a 5th straight Super Bowl. God bless Drew and Tuna.

Regards,
Chris

 

[maust]

In 1994, the Pats went up to Buffalo late in the season and beat them 41-17. That loss officially eliminated Buffalo from the postseason, sparing the world from even the chance of watching Buffalo lose a 5th straight Super Bowl. God bless Drew and Tuna.

Regards,
Chris

And some years later Drew was traded there for a 1st rounder and proceeded to go 23-25 so let's not relegate his humanitarian efforts in keeping the Billdos off the big stage to a one off.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

And some years later Drew was traded there for a 1st rounder and proceeded to go 23-25 so let's not relegate his humanitarian efforts in keeping the Billdos off the big stage to a one off.

It bears repeating: God bless Drew!

Regards,
Chris

 

[varjao]

Doesn't matter how you twist the numbers it's a garbage division if you look at the picture from the past 10 years or going back to 2001.

I think it's a much more interesting discussion to analyse the damage Brady and BB have done in this division and how they being so good makes almost impossible for the other teams inside the division to compete seriously. It's a chain of events over the years that makes these teams lose their minds and any management capability. And the Patriots could have that same damaging effect in other divisions? My bet is yes.

 

[InRodWeRust]

This may save everyone a lot of time:


And there's this too:

 

[borg]

Hmmm...I'm not sure that is fair to the division because you basically removed the division winner from the 23% equation. I think your conclusion needs more refining, but I don't know how to best articulate it.

I'm lying in bed last thinking about nothing in particular....and then viola..... I suddenly realized I effed up my playoff probability math....and I also figured out what you were inferring to about division winners.
So I'm going to take a final whack at it...and if someone has already posted this solution, my apologies for duplicating.

Probability of winning division ....1/4 = 25%
Probability of securing wildcard...2/16 = 12.5% (not 2/12)
Combined: 37.5%

Checking the math: 12 playoff teams / 32 NFL teams = 37.5%

Please forgive my dismissive attitude early. You deserved better from me.

 

[TB12GOATQB]

The AFC East being "the weakest division" and "6 automatic wins" is the lamest in a long line of lame excuses from the peasants. I used to get mad, and argue, then I'd laugh...now I yawn.

 

[primetime]

A few years back CHFF had a piece about finding a metric to compare the overall strength of one division to another. Without identical schedules relative parameters aren't all that easy to come by but they hit on one that was fairly telling. As a divisional win also begets a divisional loss, all divisions are inherently .500 against themselves. That makes measuring a division's average wins per team over time a viable metric for comparing one division's relative strength to another's. This thread got me to thinking about that as a logical comparative tool to determine just how weak the AFCE really is. After crunching the numbers for the past 10 years over my coffee this morning the results speak for themselves.

Divisional Average Wins Per Team for the ten years ending 2018:

AFCE: 8.35
NFCS: 8.25
NFCE: 8.15
NFCN: 8.15
AFCS: 7.97
AFCN: 7.75
AFCW: 7.65
NFCW: 7.20

I have to say there are some surprises, at least to me. I would have expected the AFCE to be in the middle of the pack somewhere around where the AFCS (which was not as bad as I thought) and the NFCN range. Off the top of my head going in I would not have suspected the NFCS to be ranked s high as it is nor the AFCS to have anything other than the NFCW breaking it's fall.

This seems to be driven by skew. The Patriots regularly go 13-3, 14-2, whatever, so it's not surprising it drives the average up over ten years, particularly in years where the other teams hover around 6 to 8 wins (or even bumble into 9 or 10). A year like 2015, where the Panthers finished 15-1 and no NFCS team finished worse than 6-10 will drive up the number but that was one year. The AFC North meanwhile usually had two to three highly competitive teams but also the Browns winning like 1 game every year.

I think it's reasonable to say the AFC East has been pretty bleak much of the last two decades. One need only look at the quarterbacks that came through. Outside of a few years of Chad Pennington and some week-to-week Fitzmagic, has there been a non-Patriots QB who was ever in the top half of the the league's starting QBs? The AFC South is really the only other division I can think of where QBs have been nearly as bad outside of one team, but it's not quite as bad. The Titans (McNair), Jaguars (Garrard for a year), and Texans (Watson) have all featured some good QB play, though none of them sustained and not at the same time.

That doesn't diminish the Patriots, of course.

 

[maust]

This seems to be driven by skew. The Patriots regularly go 13-3, 14-2, whatever, so it's not surprising it drives the average up over ten years, particularly in years where the other teams hover around 6 to 8 wins (or even bumble into 9 or 10). A year like 2015, where the Panthers finished 15-1 and no NFCS team finished worse than 6-10 will drive up the number but that was one year. The AFC North meanwhile usually had two to three highly competitive teams but also the Browns winning like 1 game every year.

I think you missed a large part of the point. The Pats do not 'regularly go 13-3, 14-2' in fact during the 10 years sampled they lost 4 or more 6 of them. The fact is the Pats ARE part of the AFCE, just as every other division winner and their record is part of theirs, it's not about teams it is about divisions. Again, every division is .500 against itself. What the stat measured was overall performance outside the division. If the troll's argument for New England's success is a weak division then how do they explain the AFCE's success outside the division? That the Pats numbers are part of the AFCE's performance doesn't diminish the effectiveness of division strength in the argument, it enhances it by taking in division performance completely out of the equation.