Board index » Word on the Street... » Sports




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
The Fresh Prince wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
#2: Indianapolis ColtsImage
Record: 115-45 (.719) (1st)
Playoff Appearances: 9 (1st)
Playoff Wins: 9 (4th)
Super Bowl Appearances: 2
Super Bowl Wins: 1
Consistency Rank: 3rd


Consistent NFL success has resided in both the Hoosier Dome and Lucas Oil Field. The Broncos and Eagles may edge the Colts in the consistency ranking, but no team has a better regular season record, and no team has qualified for the playoffs more frequently. What turned the Colts from a perennial laughingstock to the powerhouse they are today? There are some debatable ancillary answers (Jim Irsay, Tony Dungy, Bill Polian), but the one defining factor is the only quarterback to have started every game in the decade for the same team. Peyton Manning has a sure ticket to Canton, and he will receive serious debate for years as quite possibly the greatest quarterback to ever play the game.

There is still one imperfection that keeps the Colts from the ultimate position. Like the Eagles, the team has earned a reputation of choking when it counts the most. Painful playoff losses have dotted this franchise (the infamous 41-0 Jets game, back to back losses to both the Patriots and Chargers, and most recently feeling the wrath of Tracy Porter). Though Manning does have one Super Bowl win, comparisons to Dan Marino in both the positives and negatives may never go away.

Still, as long as Manning is in charge there’s no reason why the Colts won’t stay competitive. Though Brett Favre may be forever ingrained as the guy who just wouldn’t quit, Manning is an iron man in his own right, and he will certainly threaten the records of Favre and other greats before him.


The Colts only had 1 Super Bowl appearance in the last decade.

this super bowl counted, 00 one didn't. cause of the structure of the football season.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
All games credited to the year the regular season began are included.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 8393
Good work, GH. I like how you worked in that the Broncos still own the Pats. That was slick.

I was also appreciative, if somewhat surprised, that you didn't mention Spygate.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:52 pm
Posts: 2647
Location: Where gila monsters meet you at the airport
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Nick, looking at your spreadsheet, why did you rank the Giants above the Ravens? The Ravens had a better record by 4 games, 2 more playoff wins, and the Giants only had one additional SB appearance to their credit.
I think I remember agonizing over the two, and giving the Giants the edge for that extra SB appearance.


I probably would have given the Ravens the nod, if only because they beat the Giants in one of those Super Bowls. But they're clearly very even.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
Thanks for the analysis GH. It was fun.


At the risk of getting bitched and moaned at, I will say that the spreadsheet sort of illustrates my concern about the consistency ranking. Particularly when you compare these teams:

rank, # of wins
Redskins (#31) 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10
Broncos (#1) 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 13

Redskins (#31) 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10
Chargers (#18) 1, 4, 5, 8, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14

Bills (#32) 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9
Rams (#14) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 10, 12, 14

Patriots (#11) 5, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 14, 14, 16
Broncos (#1) 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 13

No pun intended, but the consistency rankings don't seem at all consistent, or sensical. The Bills and the Redskins were very consistent in their mediocrity. The Chargers and Rams were extremely inconsistent in winning and losing. The Patriots fairly consistently won A LOT, whereas the Broncos were consistently just above average. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it, and it seems to serve the same purpose as the overall record but in a more strange and confused way.

Thoughts? Do you think the consistency rankings you came up with accurately portray the teams relative consistency?

I don't mean to belabor the point, and it doesn't diminish the fact that this was a very enjoyable exercise, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Did you read my explanation in the second post, Ben? The goal was to order them with the consistently good on top, the inconsistent in the middle, and the consistently bad at the bottom. Also, I knew it wouldn't be perfect, and I prefixed that a few times in the write ups themselves. For example, the reason the Pats ranked only #11 is, ironically, because of that 16-0 season, and the same held true to the Lions for that 0-16 season. It was just a guide to help me in certain scenarios.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Temporary Secretary
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:51 am
Posts: 43609
Location: My city smells like Cheerios
Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
Thanks for the analysis GH. It was fun.


At the risk of getting bitched and moaned at, I will say that the spreadsheet sort of illustrates my concern about the consistency ranking. Particularly when you compare these teams:

rank, # of wins
Redskins (#31) 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10
Broncos (#1) 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 13

Redskins (#31) 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10
Chargers (#18) 1, 4, 5, 8, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14

Bills (#32) 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9
Rams (#14) 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 10, 12, 14

Patriots (#11) 5, 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12, 14, 14, 16
Broncos (#1) 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11, 13

No pun intended, but the consistency rankings don't seem at all consistent, or sensical. The Bills and the Redskins were very consistent in their mediocrity. The Chargers and Rams were extremely inconsistent in winning and losing. The Patriots fairly consistently won A LOT, whereas the Broncos were consistently just above average. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it, and it seems to serve the same purpose as the overall record but in a more strange and confused way.

Thoughts? Do you think the consistency rankings you came up with accurately portray the teams relative consistency?

I don't mean to belabor the point, and it doesn't diminish the fact that this was a very enjoyable exercise, I just want to hear your thoughts on this.


lol, consistently losing give you a lower consistency rating.

_________________
"No matter how hard you kill Jesus, he would always just come back and hit you twice as hard."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
ben bringing the lulz!

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
EllisEamos wrote:
ben bringing the lulz!

Have you seen your posts in the healthcare thread?

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
Green Habit wrote:
Did you read my explanation in the second post, Ben? The goal was to order them with the consistently good on top, the inconsistent in the middle, and the consistently bad at the bottom. Also, I knew it wouldn't be perfect, and I prefixed that a few times in the write ups themselves. For example, the reason the Pats ranked only #11 is, ironically, because of that 16-0 season, and the same held true to the Lions for that 0-16 season. It was just a guide to help me in certain scenarios.

Yes, I read the explanation, that win ratios above .5 sorted it top to bottom, and under .5 bottom to top. I'm not a statistician and I don't have a better suggestion for exactly how you should have calculated it, but I don't think this method gave good results. For example, the Broncos and Redskins had a pretty similar arrangement of seasons, yet they are ranked at entirely opposite ends of the spectrum. What it ends up doing is putting the consistently barely above average at the very top and the consistently barely below average at the very bottom.

Maybe you could have multiplied the win percentage (or the square to give it more weight) of the team by the inverse of the standard deviation. It seems like that would reflect consistently winning. Again I'm not a statistician, but I wonder how that would have turned out.

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Temporary Secretary
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:51 am
Posts: 43609
Location: My city smells like Cheerios
Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Did you read my explanation in the second post, Ben? The goal was to order them with the consistently good on top, the inconsistent in the middle, and the consistently bad at the bottom. Also, I knew it wouldn't be perfect, and I prefixed that a few times in the write ups themselves. For example, the reason the Pats ranked only #11 is, ironically, because of that 16-0 season, and the same held true to the Lions for that 0-16 season. It was just a guide to help me in certain scenarios.

Yes, I read the explanation, that win ratios above .5 sorted it top to bottom, and under .5 bottom to top. I'm not a statistician and I don't have a better suggestion for exactly how you should have calculated it, but I don't think this method gave good results. For example, the Broncos and Redskins had a pretty similar arrangement of seasons, yet they are ranked at entirely opposite ends of the spectrum. What it ends up doing is putting the consistently barely above average at the very top and the consistently barely below average at the very bottom.

Maybe you could have multiplied the win percentage of the team by the inverse of the standard deviation. It seems like that would reflect consistently winning. Again I'm not a statistician, but I wonder how that would have turned out.


the redskins had 5 losing seasons :|

_________________
"No matter how hard you kill Jesus, he would always just come back and hit you twice as hard."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
Mecca wrote:
Buffalohed wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
Did you read my explanation in the second post, Ben? The goal was to order them with the consistently good on top, the inconsistent in the middle, and the consistently bad at the bottom. Also, I knew it wouldn't be perfect, and I prefixed that a few times in the write ups themselves. For example, the reason the Pats ranked only #11 is, ironically, because of that 16-0 season, and the same held true to the Lions for that 0-16 season. It was just a guide to help me in certain scenarios.

Yes, I read the explanation, that win ratios above .5 sorted it top to bottom, and under .5 bottom to top. I'm not a statistician and I don't have a better suggestion for exactly how you should have calculated it, but I don't think this method gave good results. For example, the Broncos and Redskins had a pretty similar arrangement of seasons, yet they are ranked at entirely opposite ends of the spectrum. What it ends up doing is putting the consistently barely above average at the very top and the consistently barely below average at the very bottom.

Maybe you could have multiplied the win percentage of the team by the inverse of the standard deviation. It seems like that would reflect consistently winning. Again I'm not a statistician, but I wonder how that would have turned out.


the redskins had 5 losing seasons :|

The Broncos had 6 winning seasons, the Patriots had 9

The Chiefs had 6 losing seasons and were 19th in consistency
The Raiders had 7 losing seasons and were 16th

:|

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
btw, thanks for posting your spreadsheet GH, it's fascinating

_________________
George Washington wrote:
six foot twenty fucking killing for fun


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 7:53 pm
Posts: 3320
Location: Wyoming
Gender: Male
Denver may have only had 6 winning seasons, but they only had one losing season. I think that counts for something.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Temporary Secretary
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:51 am
Posts: 43609
Location: My city smells like Cheerios
Gender: Male
you play to not lose the game

_________________
"No matter how hard you kill Jesus, he would always just come back and hit you twice as hard."


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Buffalohed wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
ben bringing the lulz!

Have you seen your posts in the healthcare thread?

Have you seen the rest of the posts in that thread?

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
So I was curious about playoff trends in the 1970s and 1980s just now.

Sometimes it's easy to forget how unequal the NFL was in the 1970s. The top six teams (Cowboys, Vikings, Rams in the NFC, Steelers, Dolphins, Raiders in the AFC) accounted for 77% of the playoff wins (PW) and 55% of the playoff appearances (PA). Add the next five teams (Colts, Oilers, Redskins, Broncos, 49ers), and it's 96% of PW and 73% of PA. Four teams failed to make the playoffs at all, and (as weird as it sounds today) two of those four are both of the New York teams. 14 teams (half the league) never won a playoff game.

The 1980s, on the other hand, were more equal than we might think. The 49ers (obviously) were the only true elite team (8 PA, 13 PW), but 13 teams had between 3 to 6 PW and 17 teams had in between 3 and 5 PA. Everyone made the playoffs at least once (though the 16 team playoff in 1982 helped the bottom feeders out) and 7 teams (one quarter of the league) didn't win a playoff game.

As for teams that sucked in both decades, we know some of these well (Lions, Cardinals, Saints, Bucs). But the two that always seem weird to me in this department are the Chiefs and, yes, the Packers.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:

As for teams that sucked in both decades, we know some of these well (Lions).



Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 8288
Green Habit wrote:
So I was curious about playoff trends in the 1970s and 1980s just now.

Sometimes it's easy to forget how unequal the NFL was in the 1970s. The top six teams (Cowboys, Vikings, Rams in the NFC, Steelers, Dolphins, Raiders in the AFC) accounted for 77% of the playoff wins (PW) and 55% of the playoff appearances (PA). Add the next five teams (Colts, Oilers, Redskins, Broncos, 49ers), and it's 96% of PW and 73% of PA. Four teams failed to make the playoffs at all, and (as weird as it sounds today) two of those four are both of the New York teams. 14 teams (half the league) never won a playoff game.

The 1980s, on the other hand, were more equal than we might think. The 49ers (obviously) were the only true elite team (8 PA, 13 PW), but 13 teams had between 3 to 6 PW and 17 teams had in between 3 and 5 PA. Everyone made the playoffs at least once (though the 16 team playoff in 1982 helped the bottom feeders out) and 7 teams (one quarter of the league) didn't win a playoff game.

As for teams that sucked in both decades, we know some of these well (Lions, Cardinals, Saints, Bucs). But the two that always seem weird to me in this department are the Chiefs and, yes, the Packers.

i grew up thinking the Packers were a laughing stock until Brett Favre

_________________
Sweep the leg!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:33 am
Posts: 35357
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Gender: Male
Contrary to what John Madden may say, the Packers were THE franchise of the 60s.

_________________
Winner, RM all-time NBA tourney. :D

Winner, 2008 US Pearl Jam fantasy league. :D

Everton FC: 3-1-5
Anaheim Webbed D's: 5-6-2
USC Football: 7-2
Denver Broncos: 3-5


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Board index » Word on the Street... » Sports


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:17 am