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




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
=============================HEADER POST==================================

Excel spreadsheet of all stats: http://www.theskyiscrape.com/nick/NFL2000s.xls

#32: Detroit Lions
#31: Cleveland Browns
#30: Houston Texans
#29: Buffalo Bills
#28: Cincinnati Bengals
#27: Kansas City Chiefs
#26: Washington Redskins
#25: San Francisco 49ers
#24: Jacksonville Jaguars
#23: Atlanta Falcons
#22: Oakland Raiders
#21: Arizona Cardinals
#20: Miami Dolphins
#19: Dallas Cowboys
#18: St. Louis Rams
#17: Chicago Bears
#16: Carolina Panthers
#15: New York Jets
#14: Tampa Bay Buccaneers
#13: Minnesota Vikings
#12: Seattle Seahawks
#11: San Diego Chargers
#10: Denver Broncos
#9: Tennessee Titans
#8: New Orleans Saints
#7: Green Bay Packers
#6: Baltimore Ravens
#5: New York Giants
#4: Philadelphia Eagles
#3: Pittsburgh Steelers
#2: Indianapolis Colts
#1: New England Patriots


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
In the spirit of Nick's general sports decade thread, I thought it would be interesting to take a stab at ranking all of the NFL teams by their performance throughout the decade. I have done so, and for another small RM project, I decided that I'll do a short write up of each team, how their decade went, and why I ranked them where I did. With one exception, I kept my criteria simple:

--Regular season record
--Number of playoff appearances & wins
--Number of Super Bowl appearances & wins
--Consistency

That last one is the complicated one. I didn't feel that teams that were generally bad through the last ten years but had one lucky year within that span should get an uneven benefit. Thus, I ranked the teams using a formula that puts the consistently good teams at the top, the inconsistent ones in the middle, and the consistently bad ones at the bottom. If you're really interested in the ugly math, reveal the spoiler.

Spoiler: show
The best way to measure consistency is by standard deviation. Unfortunately, standard deviation does not yield negative numbers, which is essential to differentiate between consistently good and bad. Thus, I had to make some adjustments to get the approximate measurement I wanted. Here were the steps I took:

1. Get the standard deviation of wins for each team.
2. Get the pure deviation of each team based on the average of all teams' standard deviations. This is done by taking the difference between the team's standard deviation and average of all the standard deviations: Avg(StdDev(All))-StdDev(Team)
3. Normalize the pure deviation to numbers relevant to how many wins and seasons there were in the decade. To do this, I did the following. I multiplied the result in Step 2 by the average overall number of wins (8), and then added to that figure the average wins the team actually experienced in the decade (wins divided by 10 for all teams except the Texans, who are divided by eight). Formula: Team Wins/Years Played + Step 2 result * 8
4. To flip consistency into a bad number for the bad teams, multiply by -1 if the team's regular season percentage is less than .500


My goal is to hopefully reveal these one a day, concluding around the Super Bowl. However, the playoffs this year could screw this plan up, so we shall see what happens. The first four or five are locked in stone, however, and I'll reveal those for sure before the round of playoffs this weekend.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:36 pm
Posts: 25824
Location: south jersey
pats
steelers
colts
eagles

everyone else

_________________
Feel the path of every day,... Which road you taking?,...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
See you in another life, brother
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm
Posts: 13165
Gender: Male
Colts
Pats

_________________
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
-- John Steinbeck


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
pats #1 in greatness.
lions #1 in awfulness.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
#30 - Houston Texans

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
I strongly disagree about the importance of consistency throughout a decade. Football is about championships, and championships are a measure of a single season. To me, it is much more important the number of times a team approaches, or reaches, a championship. The number of seasons they have at 9-7 instead of 5-11 really doesn't make that much difference to me. I'm not sure if this would even make any difference in the rankings... all I'm saying is I think it's natural for teams to have bad seasons, unless you're the Patriots or Colts.

How are you going to rank a team like the Eagles or Chargers? This should be interesting.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Buffalohed wrote:
I strongly disagree about the importance of consistency throughout a decade. Football is about championships, and championships are a measure of a single season. To me, it is much more important the number of times a team approaches, or reaches, a championship. The number of seasons they have at 9-7 instead of 5-11 really doesn't make that much difference to me. I'm not sure if this would even make any difference in the rankings... all I'm saying is I think it's natural for teams to have bad seasons, unless you're the Patriots or Colts.
The reason I'm using it is to mainly assist in differentiating between the non-Super Bowl winning teams. You obviously can't contrast a thing between two teams that don't have that same thing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:36 pm
Posts: 25824
Location: south jersey
Buffalohed wrote:
How are you going to rank a team like the Eagles or Chargers? This should be interesting.

id put them somewhere around 4-7 w/ the giants and ravens in the mix.

_________________
Feel the path of every day,... Which road you taking?,...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 25452
Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son
Gender: Male
Consistency should definitely be rewarded. As much as I hate the eagles their string of seasons with a certain amount of wins/playoff appearance is pretty ridiculous.

_________________
Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.

Always do the right thing.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
Orpheus wrote:
Consistency should definitely be rewarded. As much as I hate the eagles their string of seasons with a certain amount of wins/playoff appearance is pretty ridiculous.



for sure, and that makes them better than a team like, lets say, the bears, or cardinals, etc... teams that had a good season or two, but not the consistancy...

but the question comes in... does that make them better than the ravens? a team that won the super bowl, but had a couple of more down years?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
also...

1.Pats
2.Colts
3.Steelers
4. Eagles
5. Ravens
6. Giants
7. Titans
8. Packers
9. Chargers
10. Broncos
11. Tampa
12. Seattle
13. Minnesota
14. New Orleans
15. Dallas
16. Chicago
17. Miami
18. Carolina
19. Arizona
20. Jacksonville
21. Falcons
22. Jets
23. Bengals
24. St. Louis
25. Washington
26. Oakland (says a lot that a superbowl team from the decade is this low...)
27. 49ers
28. Chiefs
29. Texans
30. Browns
31. Buffalo
32. The Mighty Honolulu Blue and Silver


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm
Posts: 20537
Location: The City Of Trees
Well, I think we all know who's dead last, so let's just get the misery out of the way:

#32: Detroit Lions Image
Record: 42-118 (.263) (32nd)
Playoff Appearances: 0 (T-30th)
Consistency Rank: 20th


The decade began on an ominous note for the Lions. They had just concluded an acrimonous relationship with Barry Sanders, one of the franchise's greatest players in history, by successfully forcing him to repay his signing bonus after abruptly retiring. However, this sour note would be nothing compared to the ten years that awaited. Eight of them can be directly attributed to a name that may elicit more curses than Claude Lemieux in the Motor City: Matt Millen. Under his leadership as general manager, none of the pieces came even close to fitting with each other. The coaches (Marty Mornihweg, Steve Mariucci, Rod Marinelli) and players (Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams) were nothing short of mitigated disasters.

Owner William Clay Ford was roundly and frequently criticized for not firing Millen, even as the losing seasons kept piling up. When Ford finally pulled the plug on Millen in the middle of the 2008 season, it was too late to pull out of the death spiral. That year, the Lions achieved the ultimate humiliation in modern NFL history: the 0-16 season. The new regime of Tom Lewand as GM and Jim Schwartz as head coach will guide fans out of a decade to forget, but early returns are not promising: 2009 offered a 2-14 campaign, which included giving the 1-15 Rams their only win of the season.

To conclude with an aside, you may be wondering why the Lions registered a merely below average ranking of 20th in consistency. The answer was that the 0-16 season was so bad that it shot the deviation from the 4.2 average wins per season through the cellar. Take away 2008, and the 9-7 2000 season, and the Lions would rank second to last in that category.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Image

i'm going to enjoy these. thanks GH.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
Of Counsel
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am
Posts: 37778
Location: OmaGOD!!!
Gender: Male
I always like to remind Lions fans that in 2007, the week 10 match-up between the 6-2 Giants and 6-2 Lions was the marquee game of the week, featuring what most considered to be a possible playoff preview.

The Lions lost to the Giants and began a run of 1 win out of the next 26 games and 3 of the next 40 (and counting).

_________________
Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am
Posts: 17078
Location: TX
nm. lol @ the lions.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 8393
This is gonna be good.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:36 pm
Posts: 25824
Location: south jersey
edzeppe wrote:
also...

1.Pats
2.Colts
3.Steelers
4. Eagles
5. Ravens
6. Giants
7. Titans
8. Packers
9. Chargers
10. Broncos
11. Tampa
12. Seattle
13. Minnesota
14. New Orleans
15. Dallas
16. Chicago
17. Miami
18. Carolina
19. Arizona
20. Jacksonville
21. Falcons
22. Jets
23. Bengals
24. St. Louis
25. Washington
26. Oakland (says a lot that a superbowl team from the decade is this low...)
27. 49ers
28. Chiefs
29. Texans
30. Browns
31. Buffalo
32. The Mighty Honolulu Blue and Silver

just glancing at this, id say the packers are a bit too high and carolina a bit too low. i still have nightmares about the panthers beating the eagles though so i may be biased

_________________
Feel the path of every day,... Which road you taking?,...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:55 pm
Posts: 1461
Location: PA
edzeppe wrote:
also...

1.Pats
2.Colts
3.Steelers
4. Eagles
5. Ravens
6. Giants
7. Titans
8. Packers
9. Chargers
10. Broncos
11. Tampa
12. Seattle
13. Minnesota
14. New Orleans
15. Dallas
16. Chicago
17. Miami
18. Carolina
19. Arizona
20. Jacksonville
21. Falcons
22. Jets
23. Bengals
24. St. Louis
25. Washington
26. Oakland (says a lot that a superbowl team from the decade is this low...)
27. 49ers
28. Chiefs
29. Texans
30. Browns
31. Buffalo
32. The Mighty Honolulu Blue and Silver


Buffalo is pretty low here. They had 6 seasons where they won between 7 and 9 games, two seasons with 6 wins, one with 5 and one with 3. I'd say they were on the bad side of mediocre for most of the decade, but better than 31st.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: NFL Decadal Rankings
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
Stelly wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
also...

1.Pats
2.Colts
3.Steelers
4. Eagles
5. Ravens
6. Giants
7. Titans
8. Packers
9. Chargers
10. Broncos
11. Tampa
12. Seattle
13. Minnesota
14. New Orleans
15. Dallas
16. Chicago
17. Miami
18. Carolina
19. Arizona
20. Jacksonville
21. Falcons
22. Jets
23. Bengals
24. St. Louis
25. Washington
26. Oakland (says a lot that a superbowl team from the decade is this low...)
27. 49ers
28. Chiefs
29. Texans
30. Browns
31. Buffalo
32. The Mighty Honolulu Blue and Silver


Buffalo is pretty low here. They had 6 seasons where they won between 7 and 9 games, two seasons with 6 wins, one with 5 and one with 3. I'd say they were on the bad side of mediocre for most of the decade, but better than 31st.

i'm sure GH's formula has them higher, that was just edzeppe's attempt. not to worry.

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 300 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 15  Next

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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:05 pm