I've been reading "Pro Football Prospectus" this week. It has some good information in it, but it's a little technical and isn't quite as accessible as the companion publication, "Baseball Prospectus."
Anyway, the authors put together a chart of the likelihood of a team making the playoffs with a particular record. In other words, if a team is 5-3, what are the odds that it will reach the postseason?
When I saw that, I thought it would be fun to see how the Bills' season progressed. As we know, the Bills' hopes unraveled like, well, a $3 sweater. Here's the week by week report:
1. Win - Seattle - 54.3%
2. Win - Jacksonville - 65.2%
3. Win - Oakland - 79.5%
4. Win - St. Louis - 88.0%
5. Loss - Arizona - 80.6%
6. Win - San Diego - 87.3%
7. Loss - Miami - 76.7%
8. Loss - N.Y. Jets - 69.3%
9. Loss - New England - 54.5%
10. Loss - Cleveland - 30.3%
11. Win - Kansas City - 50.0%
12. Loss - San Francisco - 28.6%
13. Loss - Miami - 10.3%
14. Loss - N.Y. Jets - 3.0%
15. Win - Denver - 6.8%
16. Loss - New England - 0.0%
If the Bills had beaten Cleveland to go to 6-4, their chances would have improved to 66.3 percent.
Ouch.
Showing posts with label Buffalo Bills 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buffalo Bills 2008. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
The year in review, at a glance
I had an idea while spending more than three hours to drive about 100 miles through the snow from Toronto to Buffalo Saturday night after covering the lacrosse game there. Heck, you gotta think about something while crawling along the QEW at 30 miles per hour.
Start with the premise that a 16-game schedule isn't the best way of determining a team's relative strength, because it's such a small sample size. Let's take a look at the Bills' season in order of the records of the teams they played, and how they did against them:
Wins:
Denver - 8-8
San Diego - 8-8
Jacksonville - 5-11
Oakland - 5-11
Seattle - 4-12
St. Louis - 2-14
Kansas City - 2-14
Combined: 34-78
Losses:
New England - 11-5
New England - 11-5
Miami - 11-5
Miami - 11-5
Arizona - 9-7
N.Y. Jets - 9-7
N.Y. Jets - 9-7
San Francisco - 7-9
Cleveland - 4-12
Combined: 86-62
The divisional rivals get counted twice because they played them twice. What jumps off the page when you look at the Bills' season this way?
Yes, they didn't beat a team that had a winning record all year. They also played six, count them, six teams that lost at least 10 games each. And San Francisco wasn't exactly a powerhouse either.
As 7-9 seasons go, and the Bills have gotten really good at that particular record (three in a row), this looks like a terribly soft one. You play teams that lose 10 times, you ought to win about all of them. Heck, you beat those six teams, split the rest, and finish 10-6. That might not be a playoff team, at least this year, but it looks like a good-sized step forward.
In other words, the Bills had what has to be considered a terribly weak schedule in 2008, and they didn't capitalize on it. They can't be that lucky in scheduling next year, in all probability. If you are counting on improvement in 2009, it seems like Buffalo is going to have to be a much better team just to tread water at 7-9 again.
Start with the premise that a 16-game schedule isn't the best way of determining a team's relative strength, because it's such a small sample size. Let's take a look at the Bills' season in order of the records of the teams they played, and how they did against them:
Wins:
Denver - 8-8
San Diego - 8-8
Jacksonville - 5-11
Oakland - 5-11
Seattle - 4-12
St. Louis - 2-14
Kansas City - 2-14
Combined: 34-78
Losses:
New England - 11-5
New England - 11-5
Miami - 11-5
Miami - 11-5
Arizona - 9-7
N.Y. Jets - 9-7
N.Y. Jets - 9-7
San Francisco - 7-9
Cleveland - 4-12
Combined: 86-62
The divisional rivals get counted twice because they played them twice. What jumps off the page when you look at the Bills' season this way?
Yes, they didn't beat a team that had a winning record all year. They also played six, count them, six teams that lost at least 10 games each. And San Francisco wasn't exactly a powerhouse either.
As 7-9 seasons go, and the Bills have gotten really good at that particular record (three in a row), this looks like a terribly soft one. You play teams that lose 10 times, you ought to win about all of them. Heck, you beat those six teams, split the rest, and finish 10-6. That might not be a playoff team, at least this year, but it looks like a good-sized step forward.
In other words, the Bills had what has to be considered a terribly weak schedule in 2008, and they didn't capitalize on it. They can't be that lucky in scheduling next year, in all probability. If you are counting on improvement in 2009, it seems like Buffalo is going to have to be a much better team just to tread water at 7-9 again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)