You mean AFC east..everybody has been knocking them off when it counts now for years. I still think Pittsburgh would and we probably would too in a playoff game. The division is a different story.
Wow, it's nice to see someone else point out the power of the effect of regression to the mean. The answer to your question is that 2 of the 22 teams that won 14+ games since the start of the 16 game season matched it the following year - the 1989-1990 49ers and the 2003-2004 Patriots (both teams were 14-2 in both of the years). Thus, it's not impossible, but it's very unlikely. This is a classic example of regression to the mean - a team that performs unusually well in a season probably had a bit of luck in doing it, and that luck is unlikely to repeat itself, precisely because it was luck (it works in the other direction with unusually poor performances as well). Another way to see this is as follows: of the 31 teams that won exactly 13 games in a season, none won more than that the following year, and the average number of wins for those teams was about 9.4 the following year; of the 18 teams that won exactly 14 games in a season, none won more than that the following year, and the average number of wins for those teams was about 9.7 the following year; and of the 4 teams that won more than 14 games in a season, none matched it the following year, and the average number of wins for those teams was about 10.5 the following year. This is exactly what would be expected - those were good teams, but they were almost certainly not as good as their records that year had indicated. This is also why Matt Cassel shouldn't criticized for the job he did in 2005 even though the Patriots won 5 fewer games than they did in 2004; of course he's not close to being as good as Brady, but the 11 wins the Patriots got that year are right about what would have been expected for a team that went 16-0 the previous year, so he didn't particularly hurt them. People are very uncomfortable with this large effect of randomness, and like to think that a team's record reflects its true abilities (especially a team that does very well), even though it's unlikely to be true. I was roundly criticized for making this exact same argument a year ago, when I said that it was very unlikely that the Jets would have the #1 scoring defense in 2010, precisely because they were #1 in 2009. The factor that exacerbates this pattern in the NFL is the shortness of the season. For an average team, it's about an even money bet that it will have at least 2 more wins or 2 fewer wins purely because of random chance, with absolutely no change in the quality of the team, simply because of the short season. That corresponds to +- .125 in winning percentage. Contrast that with baseball, where the roughly even money breakpoint is at least 5 more or fewer wins, which corresponds to only +-.031 in winning percentage. In a 16-game season it is definitely not the case that the best teams eventually bubble to the top.
somehow I pegged Statjeff as the guy to answer that question. I play with a fair amount of statistics... but Jeff just makes it look like I am stuck in Stats 101... He is definately right though from a stats standpoint, and a literal one. Its almost impossible to take a 14-2 team and improve. So many variables are in play, injuries personell changes... Hell even if a team actually improves its personnell for the long run, it may take a month to get fully acclimated and it may cost them a few games they wouldnt have lost the year before... So I think the Pats come back down to the 11-12 win total. Which means, if we step up our game and Sanchez avoids his midseason slump, we should be right there at the end of the season fighting for the division and possibly the conference....
Pats fans think they are building from last year....dead fucking wrong. Brady went 36 TD, 4 Picks. (2 against the Jets, 1 from a Hail Mary, another somewhere else) What are the chances Brady has anywhere near as good of a year as last year? no chance at all, absolutely none. Add the fact that the runningbacks didnt fumble last year either. The Patriots lived off of not turning the Ball over. You notice one turnover pretty much caused the Patriots to fold up completely? They couldnt face any type of adversity(the Patriots are very weak minded and have no guts at all), and when they did against the Jets they looked like a deer in the headlight. If Brady has a more typical year the Patriots wont be able to run away with nearly as many games as they did last year. I expect the Colts, Steelers, Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Chiefs, Chargers all to give this team a run for their money.
Who? Chad Ochocinco? Look. Brady couldn't stand Randy Moss and his route-running. Do you honestly think Brady will put up with an undisciplined route runner like Chad Ochocinco? He is worse than Moss in that regard - Carson Palmer couldn't trust Chad for a very good reason.
Great post, especially this quote, "People are very uncomfortable with this large effect of randomness, and like to think that a team's record reflects its true abilities (especially a team that does very well), even though it's unlikely to be true." That quote made me think of the Chargers season last year for some reason. #1 offense and #1 defense, and they ended up at 9-7.
Pats fans don't assume that Brady's regular season performance will improve to make this team better. IF we improve this year it will be through a better overall defense and better playoff performance from our offense (Brady + O-line in particular). I do understand that 14-2 would be unbelievably difficult to replicate, but my instinct tells me that the Jets' record was impacted just as much in a positive sense by "luck" and randomness as compared to the Pats. As difficult as it will be for Brady to repeat his 2010 performance, it will be just as hard for Sanchez to pull off 6 come-from-behind heroic victories (correct me if that number is wrong). Also, consider that the Patriots only won 5 out of 14 victories by one score (including +8 against Buffalo). The Jets won 6 out of 11 by a single score margin. The idea that the Pats will "come back to earth" because of the effects of randomness, yet the Jets are destined to improve seems a bit narrow minded to me.
Isn't Chad Johnson's greatest skill supposed to be his route running? I believe the knock on him these days is that he's lost a step, and since he was never Randy-Moss fast in the first place, that really hurts him.
Also, I think many of us expect our regular season numbers to decline (for all of the reasons posted above), but are happy with that as long as we can translate regular season performance into the postseason.
Well Sanchez should improve because he is entering his 3rd season. Thats common logic...I dont think Sanchez will be worse than last year. Where he had like what? 4 games where he didnt even show up to play (Dolphins, Ravens, Packers, Patriots) If we had any type of offense in the first 3 games listed we would have been 14-2 also. I see what your saying though.
Brady has gone 10-6 both times after a surgery. Not sure how big this surgery was though... I have to say one more thing though, turnovers can kill the Patriots. Alot of teams can have a turnover, and move on and brush it off. It seems though when ever the Patriots turn the ball over, they fold up completely. The Patriots offense went from unstoppable to completely anemic after Brady through a pick in week 2 and the playoff game. Its like he gets scared to even throw the ball...
Youngest defense in the NFL... it is common logic that will improve as well. I just don't see the theory that the Pats were playing above their ability last year if the same can't be said for the Jets... I understand it statistically, but I can't point to more than 3 or so victories and say that we were really close to losing (Baltimore, SD, and GB come to mind). The Jets were seemingly magical in their ability to win those close games, which seems like a more obvious situation of a team having a record above their "true value" or whatever you want to call it.
I dont think the Jets were playing to their abilities all season. On paper we had a better roster than the Patriots, but during the regular season we struggled a lot while the Patriots breezed through most of their schedule. I think though, when the Jets finally reach their potential we proved we were hands down better than the Patriots. Better defense, offense, special teams. Our offense beat your defense, our defense beat your offense, and our special teams beat your special teams.
What you are essentially saying is that the few games where we turned the ball over were bad games for us... I don't need to be a statistician to draw a correlation there... we turned the ball over against top defenses when our offense wasn't clicking. Coincidentally, we didn't do well those games.
I guess the argument there is whether the Patriots were at THEIR potential during that game. We faced each other 3 time last season with two different outcomes, and none of them were particularly close. If you believe that last year's Divisional Championship game was an accurate reflection of both teams, at their potential, matching up against each other... then I guess that is why we expect different outcomes moving forward.
Well all I heard was that the Patriots were beyond ready and that they had 2 weeks to prepare, etc. Maybe all that trash talk from the Jets actually made the Patriots believe that they were inferior to the Jets but again that has to do with the Patriots being weak minded which comes from the coach imo. I honestly believe the Patriots walked into that game scared of the Jets and feared that they would lose. Its hard to explain though because we were beat by 42 points. On the other hand the Jets came into that game knowing they would win and that they were better, they came out with a ton of confidence. And why was Belichick freaking out when they were down 7-3 calling a fake punt? some say Chung called it, but others say Bill called it. I heard that Bill was freaking out on the sideline and thats why he called it...
Excellent post. And your posts only further embolden my two specific references to what I consider the secret to the Patriots success last year: 1) Their historically dominant turnover differential 2) Tom Brady's historically dominant 39TD, 4 interception season. I'll stick to what I wrote earlier in the summer, namely that the Patriots defense will almost definitely improve but their offense will just as assuredly come back down to earth.
I don't think the pats were scared or intimidated, they were overconfident and sloppy. You guys fell into the same trap after they "came out with a ton of confidence" as you say. Yeah we said that we were prepared and ready... as you guys did going into the game that your team lost by 42 points. As I remember, our offense would be nonexistent without our best deep threat, after already losing to you guys week 2. My point isn't to bash the jets or jet's fans... it's just that things have been kind of back and forth in the BB vs RR era, and I think you in particular are mistaken in making too much out of one game. 2011 AFC Championship game: Jets win 2011 Week 11: Pats win 2011 Week 2: Jets win 2010 Week 11: Pats win 2010 Week 2: Jets win
The Pats have had a top 10 offense literally every single year dating back to (and including) 2004. And that INCLUDES 2008. The specific numbers change, but I'm curious exactly what frame of reference you are talking about when you say "back down to earth". If our offense remains consistently dominant, and our defense improves... I think you see where our optimism comes from.
