http://grantland.com/features/nfl-stats-predicting-success/ For those who don't want to read, Bill Barnwell makes arguments both for and against why we were lucky/unlucky last year, and essentially concludes that the Jets will be the toughest team to predict on how they'll finish in the upcoming season. Reasons we were lucky last year: 1) Our point differential (Pythagorean Theory) was that of a 5 win team (meaning we overachieved by 3 wins last year) 2) We went 5-1 in close games (defined as one score or less), a statistic that fluctuates tremendously from year to year Reasons we were unlucky last year: 1) We had by far the lowest recovery rate of fumbles in the NFL at a paltry 30%; a statistic that fluctuates tremendously from year to year 2) We were top 5 in the league in defensive TDs allowed by our offense (Geno's pick 6's/fumbles)
3 and 4 are the reasons I wanted the Jets (and have wanted the Jets) to get a QB who protects the ball better for years. Boyd and Vick weren't exactly what I had in mind.
An argument can def be made for being lucky and unlucky. The only thing I'll say is we were a different team when guys like Holmes, Winslow and Kerley were healthy. And Geno was a different QB. If those 3 guys were healthy and productive the entire season (or most of it) the Jets win at minimum 10 games.
You can nitpick at every teams wins and losses and pinpoint where they got lucky or unlucky. But with the Jets it seems like when we lose we just got beat and there was no doubt about it. But when we win it's either the other team was missing players/they were banged up. Or we got lucky. The Tampa game wouldn't have had to come down to Geno getting shoved out of bounds if Rex didn't dial up that stupid blitz in the first place. The 2nd NE game wouldn't have come down to a controversial flag in OT on a field goal if the refs didn't call a ticky tack penalty on Hill's TD. But despite those happening we still won. Good teams always capitalize on the other teams mistakes or they make their own luck.
Barnwell is awesome and those points are right on. I'd say the Jets are really hard to predict going into the season as well. What a wacky season last year was. The points differential thing is the scariest part of all for me. It doesn't seem like much but once I started paying attention I was amazed at how meaningful that stat is... If 2 teams are 4-4 at the midway mark and one team is ahead in p/d and the other is behind, the team ahead almost always will finish with a better record. The point being is that they are the better team overall. The same holds true in baseball and basketball and stuff. What we saw last year with the Jets was insane. The p/d was ugly and went against the norm. I personally don't think they were an 8-8 team last year at all, but Rex Ryan teams have a way of being so consistently inconsistent that you can almost throw statisical analysis out the window.
Think about the 2011 Jets where the wheels came off in Baltimore, blowout wins (Wash, KC, Jax) the B.S. Tebow loss in Denver and the painful Giants loss & last season collapse. That team only had 2 losses all year of 20+ points. Compare that to last year's Jets. with 4 losses of 20+ points, 0 blowout wins, 5 wins of one score or less, and flukey (admit it) wins vs. TB and NE... Both teams finished 8-8. You want to tell me last year's team was just as good as the 2011 team overall? Not a chance in hell. But.. that's why they play the games and thats why last year's team was so crazy overall.
Look at the Pats "wins" last season. They easily could have been 8-8 or 9-7 or 6-10: Week 1:Bills 23-21 (Pats kick field goal closing seconds of the game) Week 2: Jets 13-10 (clyde gates has 9 drops including a Td) Week 6: New Orleans 30-27 (Saints intercepted pass with 2:16 left in the game and leading 27-23, somehow they found a way to lose this game. I remember hearing bad holding penalty not called down the final drive.) Week 12: Denver 34-31 OT (The score had Denver leading 24-0 at half time) Week 13: Houston 34-31 (Houston led 31-28 in 4th quarter) Week 14: Cleveland 27-26 (With 1 min left in the game the Pats score a TD to make the game 26-20 Cleveland; Pats secure the onside kick (questionable touching before 10 yard line); get a ticky-tack pass interference call with 35seconds left that takes them to Cleveland goal line, and walk in on the next play). Pats are not as good as people think they are. Mad love from the media, NFL, etc.
The problem with judging the Jets by Pythagorean expectation (point differential section) is the Bengals score skews things, plus the Jets typically either play teams close, or get really blown out. The reason for this is for years the Jets offense has been pretty good at playing with a lead, and pretty bad at playing catchup due to turnovers at the QB position.
That's one of the things that actually has been consistent in the RR era: turnovers. particularly from the QB position.
The difference all those wins (outside of the Jets win) was Tom Brady. Of course they aren't that great besides him, but because he consistently wins those games, I'd say he deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point. Because of that, those aren't really flukey wins, those are Tom Brady wins.
Completely agree. If you take the Bengals game out then the point differential says we should have won about 7 games and I reality that is close to where we were.
2013 was a completely "fluky" win season for the Pats. If anything is "gift wrapped" it would be New England's wins against New Orleans, Denver and Cleveland. The Pats are not that good, but they are "loved" by the media & NFL. The Jets are not that bad, but they are "hated on" by the media & NFL. We need a Championship and than everything changes.
Look at their losses: 1 TD loss in CIN week 5 3 point loss in NY week 7 4 point loss in CAR week 10 4 point loss in MIA week 14 They went 6-4 in one possession games. Yeah they overachieved last year compared to their point differential, but it wasn't like they were getting blown out in their losses. They just got the other side of the coin in their regular season losses. Good article by Barnwell though. The fumble recovery is something I kept on writing about thinking it would swing back in our favor last year, but it never did. To be that below the average is ridiculous, but hey it evened out with our close wins I guess. I think we have a shot to be like the Colts from last year. We lost one key player, Cromartie, but it's not like he played great last year. The hope is obviously that Dee replaced Cromartie and plays better and whoever slides into Dee's spot can do better that Dee overall last year. If only our first two picks pan out, I think that's an immediate upgrade to our secondary and offense if nothing else changes. To become like the Colts of last year, as always, comes down to the QB position and receiving core. If those two can be on the same page consistently, it really changes the Jets teams. The Jets are really hard to predict because of their overachieving last year (based on points differential) but the influx of talent and hopeful development of younger starters. If those two pan out, they can beat the trend, but if they don't pan out, we are looking at another average season.
You also have to consider if the p/d closeness is coming from both sides of the ball or if its really just one. The last 2 years they've given up about 370pts a year while scoring about 280 pts a year. That's about 100 pts more given up and 100 pts less scored than the '10 and '11 seasons (during which their + differential wasn't great either). The offense has been awful the past few years but the defense hasn't been as bad, and if you exclude the pts given up by the offense (as someone mentioned, the pick 6's, the fumbles that were returned for a TD or put the ball well withing FG range or knocking at the door for a TD) I think the D did its job. Lack of ball security, and an offense with the inability to score killed them way more then the D having "off" games and giving up points.
If I am being totally honest both the Jets and Pats had records that were better then what they should have been. We should have lost the Bucs game, and the 2nd Patriot game. We should have won the 1st Patriot game though so to me all year we stole 1 game and most likely should have been 7-9. The Pats like you said needed miracle comebacks against NO,Denver, and Cleveland, and Miami was giving them a beating too the 1st time until they came back. Realistically 2 of those should have been loses and the Pats should have been 10-6. Thats the funny thing about the NFL though. Unless you are the worst of the worst or the best of the best, you are going to have atleast 5 or 6 games that are so close that it essentially comes down to luck. The love the Pats get from the media still though is pretty funny if you ask me. The last Super Bowl they won was a decade ago and they were caught CHEATING. The Jets caught so much crap for weeks when the one assistant tripped the dolphins player, yet the Pats were caught CHEATING their way to Super Bowl wins and it's like it never happened. The sports media is just worried about catering to their celebrites. You saw the same thing at last years Super Bowl. All they did was talk about Peyton Manning and how great he was, and what another Super Bowl was going to do for his legacy, and failed to see what was right in front of them, which was that the Seahawks were a far superior team with arguably the greatest defense in NFL history.
I hate that argument though. The "if you take this out" argument. Why, so it makes the stats look better? The Bengals game was a important road game against a playoff team in our own conference. That should actually serve more as a barometer than most games.
That's probably true, but they've had problems with ball security and an offense that can't score since Rex took over, so that's actually something that has been consistent and not a fluke. I expect this year will be similar in that regard.
I'm thinking about it, and I wonder if an adjusted type points differential would be an effective stat. Bill says that offensive points given up via fumble recovery or pick 6 is basically random year to year. So I wonder if you adjust points differential for each team to the average offensive points given up each year if that would be a more accurate predictor than just pure points differential.
i disagree with the Tampa game. I was at that game. I remember watching replays later and the announcer quoted that the bucs had the worst starting offensive series in the history of football. Delay of game, time out, delay of game, time out, sack. If anything the Jets almost let that one slip away. The momentum was ours as soon as Geno threw that td to Winslow, actually probably when Landry had the pick. Geno, made a name for himself that day by keeping his composure (a rookies first start) and capping it off with a win. The kid can run. He just needs to tuck the ball away and get down.
