Last in AFC in Turnover Differential
2002: Cincinnati 2-14, -15 (20 and 35) 2003- 8-8, +2 (24 and 22)
2003: Buffalo 6-10, -16 (18 and 34) 2004- 9-7, +10 (39 and 29)
2004: Oakland 5-11, -17 (18 and 35) 2005- 4-12, -4 (19 and 23)
2005: New York 4-12, -10 (24 and 34) 2006- 10-6, -3 (22 and 25)
2006: Oakland 2-14, -20 (23 and 43) 2007- 4-12, -11 (26 and 37)
2007: Baltimore 5-11, -17 (23 and 40) 2008- 11-5, +13 (34 and 21)
2008: Denver 8-8, -17 (13 and 30) 2009- 8-8, +7 (30 and 23)
2009: Oakland 5-11, -13 (20 and 33) 2010- 8-8, -2 (24 and 26)
2010: Buffalo 4-12, -17 (22 and 39) 2011- 6-10, +1 (31 and 30)
2011: Pittsburgh 12-4, -13 (15 and 28) 2012- 8-8, -10 (20 and 30)
2012: Kansas City 2-14, -24 (13 and 37) 2013- 11-5, +18 (36 and 18)
2013: Houston 2-14, -20 (11 and 31)
Saturday, April 12, 2014
2013 NFL Teams: Record in 1-Score Games
Dallas- 5-5
Washington- 2-7
Philadelphia- 4-3
New York- 4-3
Green Bay- 4-5-1
Minnesota- 4-4-1
Chicago- 6-6
Detroit- 4-6
New Orleans- 6-4
Tampa Bay- 2-5
Atlanta- 4-7 *should be 4-8, SF game in week 16 was one score game until late pick-6
Carolina- 5-2
San Francisco- 4-3
Seattle- 7-3
Arizona- 5-3
St. Louis- 1-3
Indianapolis- 6-1
Houston- 2-9
Tennessee- 6-5
Jacksonville- 4-2
Denver- 4-3
Kansas City- 3-4
San Diego- 4-7
Oakland- 2-4
Pittsburgh- 2-5
Baltimore- 6-5
Cincinnati- 5-3
Cleveland- 2-5
New England- 7-4
Miami- 6-4
Buffalo- 4-4
New York- 5-1
Really Good
Indianapolis- 6-1
New York- 5-1
Seattle- 7-3
New England- 7-4
Carolina- 5-2
Really Bad
Houston- 2-9
Washington- 2-7
Atlanta- 4-7 *should be 4-8, SF game in week 16 was one score game until late pick-6
Tampa Bay- 2-5
Cleveland- 2-5
Pittsburgh- 2-5
San Diego- 4-7
Washington- 2-7
Philadelphia- 4-3
New York- 4-3
Green Bay- 4-5-1
Minnesota- 4-4-1
Chicago- 6-6
Detroit- 4-6
New Orleans- 6-4
Tampa Bay- 2-5
Atlanta- 4-7 *should be 4-8, SF game in week 16 was one score game until late pick-6
Carolina- 5-2
San Francisco- 4-3
Seattle- 7-3
Arizona- 5-3
St. Louis- 1-3
Indianapolis- 6-1
Houston- 2-9
Tennessee- 6-5
Jacksonville- 4-2
Denver- 4-3
Kansas City- 3-4
San Diego- 4-7
Oakland- 2-4
Pittsburgh- 2-5
Baltimore- 6-5
Cincinnati- 5-3
Cleveland- 2-5
New England- 7-4
Miami- 6-4
Buffalo- 4-4
New York- 5-1
Really Good
Indianapolis- 6-1
New York- 5-1
Seattle- 7-3
New England- 7-4
Carolina- 5-2
Really Bad
Houston- 2-9
Washington- 2-7
Atlanta- 4-7 *should be 4-8, SF game in week 16 was one score game until late pick-6
Tampa Bay- 2-5
Cleveland- 2-5
Pittsburgh- 2-5
San Diego- 4-7
NFL Over/Under- 2013 Analysis
Arizona Cardinals - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 5½ (+120) (6-10) W (+600)
Under 5½ (-150)
Atlanta Falcons - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 10 (+105) (10-6) L (-250)
Under 10 (-135)
Baltimore Ravens - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (-115) (11-5) L (-500)
Under 8½ (-115)
Buffalo Bills - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 6½ (+110)
Under 6½ (-140) (5-11) W (+360)
Carolina Panthers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7 (-125) (9-7) W (+400)
Under 7 (-105)
Chicago Bears - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (-130) (9-7) L (-500)
Under 8½ (EVEN)
Cincinnati Bengals - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (-130) (9-7) W (+380)
Under 8½ (EVEN)
Cleveland Browns - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 6 (-115)
Under 6 (-115) (6-10) W (+220)
Dallas Cowboys - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (-115) (9-7) L (-500)
Under 8½ (-115)
Denver Broncos - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 11½ (-105)
Under 11½ (-125) (11-5) L (-500)
Detroit Lions - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7½ (-125)
Under 7½ (-105) (7-9) W (+480)
Green Bay Packers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 10½ (-130) (11-5) L (-500)
Under 10½ (EVEN)
Houston Texans - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 10½ (-115)
Under 10½ (-115) (8-8) W (+430)
Indianapolis Colts - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (-105)
Under 8½ (-125) (8-8) L (-500)
Jacksonville Jaguars - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 5 (-115)
Under 5 (-115) (4-12) W (+430)
Kansas City Chiefs - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7 (-130) (8-8) W (+380)
Under 7 (EVEN)
Miami Dolphins - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7½ (-135) (8-8) W (+370)
Under 7½ (+105)
Minnesota Vikings - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7½ (-105) (8-8) L (-500)
Under 7½ (-125)
New England Patriots - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 11½ (-105) (12-4) W (+480)
Under 11½ (-125)
New Orleans Saints - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 9½ (-115) (10-6) W (+430)
Under 9½ (-115)
New York Giants - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 9 (-115) (9-7) L (-250)
Under 9 (-115)
New York Jets - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 6½ (+110)
Under 6½ (-140) (3-13) L (-500)
Oakland Raiders - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 5½ (+120)
Under 5½ (-150) (2-14) W (+330)
Philadelphia Eagles - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7 (-115)
Under 7 (-115) (5-11) L (-500)
Pittsburgh Steelers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 9 (-115) (10-6) L (-500)
Under 9 (-115)
San Diego Chargers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7½ (EVEN) (9-7) W (+500)
Under 7½ (-130)
San Francisco 49ers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 11½ (-105)
Under 11½ (-125) (11-5) L (-500)
Seattle Seahawks - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 10½ (-130) (13-3) W (+380)
Under 10½ (EVEN)
St. Louis Rams - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7 (-115) (8-8) T (+0)
Under 7 (-115)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 7½ (-130)
Under 7½ (EVEN) (5-11) W (+500)
Tennessee Titans - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 6½ (-105)
Under 6½ (-125) (4-12) L (-500)
Washington Redskins - 2013 Regular Season Win Total
Over 8½ (+110)
Under 8½ (-140) (8-8) W (+360)
Where Does the House Want Me To Go With My Money? 10-12
ARZ- over 5.5 Loss for House
ATL- over 10 Win for House
BAL- no preference 8.5 *Baltimore finished at 8-8, example of a tricky team to bet on
BUF- over 6.5 Win
CAR- under 7 Win
CHI- under 8.5 Loss *Although they probably deserved to go better than 8-8, Vegas=right
CIN- under 8.5 Win
CLE- no preference 6
DAL- no preference 8.5 *Another example of team tricky to bet on
DEN- over 11.5 Loss
DET- under 7.5 Loss *Similar to CHI, a team that should've won an extra game or two
GB- under 10.5 Loss
HOU- no preference 10.5
IND- over 8.5 Loss
JAC- no preference 5
KC- under 7 Win
MIA- under 7.5 Win
MIN- over 7.5 Win
NE- over 11.5 Loss
NO- no preference 9.5
NYG- no preference 9
NYJ- over 6.5 Loss
OAK- over 5.5 Win
PHI- no preference 7
PIT- no preference 9
SD- over 7.5 Loss
SF- over 11.5 Loss
SEA- under 10.5 Win
STL- no preference 7
TB- under 7.5 Loss
TEN- over 6.5 Loss
WSH- over 8.5 Win
DVOA Analysis
2013 DVOA Observations
Seattle- 13-3, 1st in Total DVOA, 7th-1st-5th
1st in Weighted DVOA, 17th hardest schedule, 12.8 pyth wins, 13.0 est wins, 19th in variance
Denver- 13-3, 2nd in Total DVOA, 1st-15th-21st
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 31st hardest schedule, 11.7 pyth wins, 14.1 est wins, 8th in variance
2012 DVOA Observations
Baltimore- 10-6, 8th in Total DVOA, 13th-19th-1st in Offense, Defense, ST
11th in Weighted DVOA, 16th hardest schedule, 9.4 pyth wins, 9.2 est wins, 24th in variance
San Francisco- 11-4-1, 4th in Total DVOA, 5th-3rd, 20th
5th in Weighted DVOA, 3rd hardest schedule, 11.4 pyth wins, 12.5 est wins, 31st in variance
New England- 12-4, 3rd in Total DVOA, 1st-15th-4th
3rd in Weighted DVOA, 21st hardest schedule, 12.7 pyth wins, 13.4 est wins, 11th in variance
Atlanta- 13-3, 10th in Total DVOA, 12th-12th- 16th
13th in Weighted DVOA, 27th hardest schedule, 11.2 pyth wins, 9.1 est wins, 17th in variance
Analysis: Atlanta had all the makings of a paper tiger. They outplayed their pythagorean record by 2 wins and were not even that stout in any category. They also had one of the easiest schedules. It isn't surprising went you go back to see that with a couple major injuries, the Falcons were a prime contender to dramatically regress in 2013.
Denver- 13-3, 2nd in Total DVOA, 2nd-5th-13th
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 31st hardest schedule, 12.5 pyth wins, 14.7 est wins, 4th in variance
Houston- 12-4, 11th in Total DVOA, 16th-4th-32nd
19th in Weighted DVOA, 26th hardest schedule, 10.2 pyth wins, 8.3 est wins, 20th in variance
Analysis: Houston was very similar to Atlanta. They were very overrated to start the year, they had one of the easiest schedules, and they regressed towards the end of the year. They completely outplayed their record as well.
Green Bay- 11-5, 5th in Total DVOA, 3rd-8th-18th
4th in Weighted DVOA, 9th hardest schedule, 10.5 pyth wins, 11.8 est wins, 27th in variance
Seattle- 11-5, 1st in Total DVOA, 4th-2nd-3rd
1st in Weighted DVOA, 4th hardest schedule, 12.5 pyth wins, 13 est wins, 18th in variance
Analysis: Their 4th hardest schedule, and underperformance in wins explains how they improved by 2 wins in 2013
Kansas City- 2-14, 32nd in Total DVOA, 31st, 30th, 22nd
32nd in Weighted DVOA, 18th hardest schedule, 2.5 pyth wins, 2.4 est wins, 16th in variance
Analysis: KC had a minus 24 turnover rating, and then in 2013 they had a +18
2011 DVOA Observations
New York- 9-7, 12th in Total DVOA, 7th, 19th, 15th
14th in Weighted DVOA, 4th hardest schedule, 7.8 pyth wins, 9.1 est wins, 20th in variance
New England- 13-3, 3rd in Total DVOA, 3rd, 30th, 5th
3rd in Weighted DVOA, 23rd hardest schedule, 11.9 pyth wins, 12.2 est wins, 6th in variance
San Francisco- 13-3, 6th in Total DVOA, 18th, 3rd, 2nd
8th in Weighted DVOA, 32nd hardest schedule, 12.3 pyth wins, 10.8 est wins, 4th in variance
Baltimore- 12-4, 7th in Total DVOA, 13th, 1st, 30th
10th in Weighted DVOA, 24th hardest schedule, 11.2 pyth wins, 10.6 est wins, 31st in variance
2010 DVOA Observations
Green Bay- 10-6, 4th in Total DVOA, 7th, 2nd, 26th
4th in Weighted DVOA, 15th hardest schedule, 12.1 pyth wins, 10.9 est wins, 15th in variance
Pittsburgh- 12-4, 2nd in Total DVOA, 5th, 1st, 16th
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 9th hardest schedule, 12.1 pyth wins, 12.1 est wins, 12th in variance
Chicago- 11-5, 14th in Total DVOA, 28th, 4th, 1st
10th in Weighted DVOA, 18th hardest schedule, 9.5 pyth wins, 8.3 est wins, 30th in variance
Analysis: Chicago was simply lucky to get a first round bye and then face a 7-9 Seahawks team; their pyth win was 9.5 and est wins was 8.3, they over performed
New York- 11-5, 6th in Total DVOA, 16th, 5th, 5th
7th in Weighted DVOA, 5th hardest schedule, 9.8 pyth, 10.1 est wins, 28th in variance
Analysis: Their ranking in variance was on full display against the Patriots that year; they were at their worst in a 45-3 Monday Night loss in December, but then at their best in a 28-21 win at Gillette a month later in the divisional round
New England- 14-2, 1st in Total DVOA, 1st, 21st, 8th
1st in Weighted DVOA, 7th hardest schedule, 12.6 pyth, 14.6 est wins, 17th in variance
2009 DVOA Observations
New Orleans- 13-3, 6th in Total DVOA, 2nd, 17th, 28th
13th in Weighted DVOA, 23rd hardest schedule, 11.8 pyth, 11.2 est wins, 17th in variance
Indianapolis- 14-2, 8th in Total DVOA, 6th, 16th, 19th
14th in Weighted DVOA, 17th hardest schedule, 10.9 pyth, 11.1 est wins, 15th in variance
2008 DVOA Observations
Pittsburgh- 12-4, 4th in Total DVOA, 21st, 1st, 23rd
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 3rd hardest schedule, 11.8 pyth wins, 11.3 est wins, 8th in variance
Arizona- 9-7, 21st in Total DVOA, 15th, 21st, 28th
22nd in Weighted DVOA, 27th hardest schedule, 8.0 pyth wins, 7.2 est wins, 29th in variance
Seattle- 13-3, 1st in Total DVOA, 7th-1st-5th
1st in Weighted DVOA, 17th hardest schedule, 12.8 pyth wins, 13.0 est wins, 19th in variance
Denver- 13-3, 2nd in Total DVOA, 1st-15th-21st
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 31st hardest schedule, 11.7 pyth wins, 14.1 est wins, 8th in variance
2012 DVOA Observations
Baltimore- 10-6, 8th in Total DVOA, 13th-19th-1st in Offense, Defense, ST
11th in Weighted DVOA, 16th hardest schedule, 9.4 pyth wins, 9.2 est wins, 24th in variance
San Francisco- 11-4-1, 4th in Total DVOA, 5th-3rd, 20th
5th in Weighted DVOA, 3rd hardest schedule, 11.4 pyth wins, 12.5 est wins, 31st in variance
New England- 12-4, 3rd in Total DVOA, 1st-15th-4th
3rd in Weighted DVOA, 21st hardest schedule, 12.7 pyth wins, 13.4 est wins, 11th in variance
Atlanta- 13-3, 10th in Total DVOA, 12th-12th- 16th
13th in Weighted DVOA, 27th hardest schedule, 11.2 pyth wins, 9.1 est wins, 17th in variance
Analysis: Atlanta had all the makings of a paper tiger. They outplayed their pythagorean record by 2 wins and were not even that stout in any category. They also had one of the easiest schedules. It isn't surprising went you go back to see that with a couple major injuries, the Falcons were a prime contender to dramatically regress in 2013.
Denver- 13-3, 2nd in Total DVOA, 2nd-5th-13th
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 31st hardest schedule, 12.5 pyth wins, 14.7 est wins, 4th in variance
Houston- 12-4, 11th in Total DVOA, 16th-4th-32nd
19th in Weighted DVOA, 26th hardest schedule, 10.2 pyth wins, 8.3 est wins, 20th in variance
Analysis: Houston was very similar to Atlanta. They were very overrated to start the year, they had one of the easiest schedules, and they regressed towards the end of the year. They completely outplayed their record as well.
Green Bay- 11-5, 5th in Total DVOA, 3rd-8th-18th
4th in Weighted DVOA, 9th hardest schedule, 10.5 pyth wins, 11.8 est wins, 27th in variance
Seattle- 11-5, 1st in Total DVOA, 4th-2nd-3rd
1st in Weighted DVOA, 4th hardest schedule, 12.5 pyth wins, 13 est wins, 18th in variance
Analysis: Their 4th hardest schedule, and underperformance in wins explains how they improved by 2 wins in 2013
Kansas City- 2-14, 32nd in Total DVOA, 31st, 30th, 22nd
32nd in Weighted DVOA, 18th hardest schedule, 2.5 pyth wins, 2.4 est wins, 16th in variance
Analysis: KC had a minus 24 turnover rating, and then in 2013 they had a +18
2011 DVOA Observations
New York- 9-7, 12th in Total DVOA, 7th, 19th, 15th
14th in Weighted DVOA, 4th hardest schedule, 7.8 pyth wins, 9.1 est wins, 20th in variance
New England- 13-3, 3rd in Total DVOA, 3rd, 30th, 5th
3rd in Weighted DVOA, 23rd hardest schedule, 11.9 pyth wins, 12.2 est wins, 6th in variance
San Francisco- 13-3, 6th in Total DVOA, 18th, 3rd, 2nd
8th in Weighted DVOA, 32nd hardest schedule, 12.3 pyth wins, 10.8 est wins, 4th in variance
Baltimore- 12-4, 7th in Total DVOA, 13th, 1st, 30th
10th in Weighted DVOA, 24th hardest schedule, 11.2 pyth wins, 10.6 est wins, 31st in variance
2010 DVOA Observations
Green Bay- 10-6, 4th in Total DVOA, 7th, 2nd, 26th
4th in Weighted DVOA, 15th hardest schedule, 12.1 pyth wins, 10.9 est wins, 15th in variance
Pittsburgh- 12-4, 2nd in Total DVOA, 5th, 1st, 16th
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 9th hardest schedule, 12.1 pyth wins, 12.1 est wins, 12th in variance
Chicago- 11-5, 14th in Total DVOA, 28th, 4th, 1st
10th in Weighted DVOA, 18th hardest schedule, 9.5 pyth wins, 8.3 est wins, 30th in variance
Analysis: Chicago was simply lucky to get a first round bye and then face a 7-9 Seahawks team; their pyth win was 9.5 and est wins was 8.3, they over performed
New York- 11-5, 6th in Total DVOA, 16th, 5th, 5th
7th in Weighted DVOA, 5th hardest schedule, 9.8 pyth, 10.1 est wins, 28th in variance
Analysis: Their ranking in variance was on full display against the Patriots that year; they were at their worst in a 45-3 Monday Night loss in December, but then at their best in a 28-21 win at Gillette a month later in the divisional round
New England- 14-2, 1st in Total DVOA, 1st, 21st, 8th
1st in Weighted DVOA, 7th hardest schedule, 12.6 pyth, 14.6 est wins, 17th in variance
2009 DVOA Observations
New Orleans- 13-3, 6th in Total DVOA, 2nd, 17th, 28th
13th in Weighted DVOA, 23rd hardest schedule, 11.8 pyth, 11.2 est wins, 17th in variance
Indianapolis- 14-2, 8th in Total DVOA, 6th, 16th, 19th
14th in Weighted DVOA, 17th hardest schedule, 10.9 pyth, 11.1 est wins, 15th in variance
2008 DVOA Observations
Pittsburgh- 12-4, 4th in Total DVOA, 21st, 1st, 23rd
2nd in Weighted DVOA, 3rd hardest schedule, 11.8 pyth wins, 11.3 est wins, 8th in variance
Arizona- 9-7, 21st in Total DVOA, 15th, 21st, 28th
22nd in Weighted DVOA, 27th hardest schedule, 8.0 pyth wins, 7.2 est wins, 29th in variance
Analyzing Stanley Cup Champions- Futures Bets
Analysis
2013 Chicago Blackhawks
2012 Los Angeles Kings
- seeding doesn't really matter
- 7/8 a top 4 seed
- points don't really matter
- all have + goal differential
- all have penalty kill above 80%
- usually have to be in top 10 in scoring, LA Kings were exception
- if there is weak scoring, there has to be superb goaltending and vis versa
- Combined Total should be below 32, risking it if it's not below 15 or so
- should have a goalie that ranks high in GAA
Out of the Mix
Goal Differential
Goal Differential
Toronto, Detroit, Ottawa, Florida, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Washington, Carolina, New Jersey, New York Islanders, Minnesota, Dallas, Winnipeg, Nashville, Phoenix, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton
Combined Total Lower than 32
Boston- 7 (5 and 2)
Tampa Bay- 22 (11 and 11)
Montreal- 28 (22 and 6)
Pittsburgh- 11 (4 and 7)
New York- 28 (18 and 10)
Columbus- 25 (7 and 18)
St. Louis- 5 (2 and 3)
Chicago- 14 (1 and 13) *penalty kill lower than 80%
Colorado- 20 (6 and 14)
Anaheim- 11 (3 and 8)
San Jose- 13 (9 and 4)
Los Angeles- 30 (29 and 1)
Goalie High in GAA and Save Percentage
Ben Bishop- TB (3rd in GAA, 2nd in SV%)
Tuuka Rask- BOS (5th in GAA, 4th in SV%)
Jonathan Quick- LA (8th in GAA, 28th in SV%)
Marc-Andre Fleury- PIT (10th in GAA, 12th in SV%)
Jaroslav Halak- STL (11th in GAA, 23rd in SV%)
Carey Price- MON (12th in GAA, 8th in SV%)
Jonas Hiller- ANA (13th in GAA, 18th in SV%)
Corey Crawford- CHI (14th in GAA, 20th in SV%)
Anti Niemi- SJ (16th in GAA, 26th in SV%)
Henrik Lundqvist- NYR (17th in GAA, 15th in SV%)
Semyon Varlamov- COL (19th in GAA, 9th in SV%)
Sergei Bobrovsky- COL (23rd in GAA, 15th in SV%)
Next Analysis: Regular Season Performance of Stanley Cup Champions Against Playoff Quarterfinalists, Semifinalists, Conference Finalists, and Conference Champions WithTheir Primary Goalie
2012 LA
Quarterfinalists: 10-14 -3
Semifinalists: 4-2 +6
Conference Finalists: 4-2 +3
Conference Champions: 0-1 -1
Total: 18-19 +5
2011 BOS
Q: 8-9 +10
S: 6-1 +11
CF: 3-2 +5
CC: 1-0 +2
Total: 18-12 +28
Combined Total Lower than 32
Boston- 7 (5 and 2)
Tampa Bay- 22 (11 and 11)
Montreal- 28 (22 and 6)
Pittsburgh- 11 (4 and 7)
New York- 28 (18 and 10)
Columbus- 25 (7 and 18)
St. Louis- 5 (2 and 3)
Chicago- 14 (1 and 13) *penalty kill lower than 80%
Colorado- 20 (6 and 14)
Anaheim- 11 (3 and 8)
San Jose- 13 (9 and 4)
Los Angeles- 30 (29 and 1)
Goalie High in GAA and Save Percentage
Ben Bishop- TB (3rd in GAA, 2nd in SV%)
Tuuka Rask- BOS (5th in GAA, 4th in SV%)
Jonathan Quick- LA (8th in GAA, 28th in SV%)
Marc-Andre Fleury- PIT (10th in GAA, 12th in SV%)
Jaroslav Halak- STL (11th in GAA, 23rd in SV%)
Carey Price- MON (12th in GAA, 8th in SV%)
Jonas Hiller- ANA (13th in GAA, 18th in SV%)
Corey Crawford- CHI (14th in GAA, 20th in SV%)
Anti Niemi- SJ (16th in GAA, 26th in SV%)
Henrik Lundqvist- NYR (17th in GAA, 15th in SV%)
Semyon Varlamov- COL (19th in GAA, 9th in SV%)
Sergei Bobrovsky- COL (23rd in GAA, 15th in SV%)
Next Analysis: Regular Season Performance of Stanley Cup Champions Against Playoff Quarterfinalists, Semifinalists, Conference Finalists, and Conference Champions WithTheir Primary Goalie
2012 LA
Quarterfinalists: 10-14 -3
Semifinalists: 4-2 +6
Conference Finalists: 4-2 +3
Conference Champions: 0-1 -1
Total: 18-19 +5
2011 BOS
Q: 8-9 +10
S: 6-1 +11
CF: 3-2 +5
CC: 1-0 +2
Total: 18-12 +28
2013 Chicago Blackhawks
- *Lockout
- 1 seed, Best Record in NHL
- 2nd in scoring, 1st in goals against, 5th in shots taken, 4th in shots against, 2nd in save percentage, 30th in penalty minutes, 26th in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 3
- Goalies (R. Emery and C. Crawford) ranked 2nd and 3rd in GAA, both tied for 11th in shutouts, C.Crawford tied for 5th in save percentage
Playoffs
- 6th in scoring, 4th in goals against
- +16
- 8 seed
- 95 points
- 40 wins, 34 ROW, 15 OTL
- 6-9 Shootout Record
- +15 Goal Differential
- 194 gf, 179 ga
- 5-2-3 coming into playoffs in last ten
- 16.9 power play%, 87% penalty kill
- 33-20-11 vs West
- 29th in scoring, 2nd in goals against, 11th in shots taken, 5th in shots against, 3rd in save percentage, 14th in penalty minutes, 15th in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 31
- Goalie (J. Quick) ranked 2nd in GAA, 1st in shutouts, 5th in save percentage
- 1 top 20 in points (A. Kopitar), 0 top 40 in goals, 1 top 10 in assists (A. Kopitar), 2 top 25 in face-offs (A. Kopitar and J. Stoll), 1 top 10 in face-offs (A. Kopitar)
Playoffs
- 3rd in scoring, 1st in goals against
- +27
2011 Boston Bruins
- 3 seed
- 103 points
- 46 wins, 44 ROW, 11 OTL
- 2-6 Shootout Record
- +51 goal differential
- 246/195
- 6-3-1 in last ten
- 16.2 power play%, 82.6% penalty kill
- 38-18-8 vs East
- 5th in scoring, 2nd in goals against, 3rd in shots taken, 29th in shots against, 1st in save percentage, 8th in penalty minutes, 6th in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 7
- Goalie (T. Thomas) ranked 1st in GAA, 2nd in shutouts, 1st in save percentage
- 1 top 40 in points (M. Lucic-39th), 1 top 30 in goals (M-Lucic-28th), 1 top 20 in assists (D. Krejci- tied for 10th), 1 top 5 in face-offs (P. Bergeron- 5th)
Playoffs
- 5th in scoring, 1st in goals against
- +28
2010 Chicago Blackhawks
- 2 seed
- 112 points
- 52 wins
- +62 goal differential
- 271/209
- 6-3-1 in last ten
- 17.7% power play, 85% penalty kill
- 41-17-6 vs West
- 3rd in scoring, tied for 5th in goals against, 1st in shots taken, 1st in shots against, tied for 23rd in save percentage, 25th in penalty minutes, 22nd in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 8
- Goalie (A. Niemi) ranked 4th in GAA, tied for 3rd in shutouts, tied for 19th in save percentage
- 1 top 20 in points (P. Kane-9th), 4 top 40 in points (J. Toews-35th, Duncan Keith-31st, Patrick Sharp-40th), 1 top 20 in goals (P-Kane- 19th), 2 top 20 in assists (P. Kane- 9th, D.Keith- 12th)
Playoffs
- 3rd in scoring, 5th in goals against
- +16
2009 Pittsburgh Penguins
- 4 seed
- 99 points
- 45 wins
- +25 goal differential
- 258/233
- 7-2-1 in last ten
- 17.2% power play, 82.7% penalty kill
- 35-22-7 vs East
- 6th in scoring, 17th in goals against, 18th in shots taken, 18th in shots against, 14th in save percentage, 18th in penalty minutes, 15th in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 23
- Goalie (M. Andre-Fleury) ranked 23rd in GAA, tied for 13th in shutouts, 21st in save percentage
- 2 in top 3 in points (E. Malkin- 1st, S. Crosby-3rd), 2 in top 20 in goals (E. Malkin- 14th, S. Crosby- 20th), 2 in top 2 in assists (E. Malkin- 1st, S. Crosby- 2nd)
Playoffs
- 2nd in scoring, 5th in goals against
- +15
2008 Detroit Red Wings
- 1 seed
- 115 points, Best Record in NHL
- 54 wins
- +73 goal differential
- 257/184
- 7-2-1 in last ten
- 20.8% power play, 84.0% penalty kill
- 47-19-6 vs West
- 3rd in scoring, 1st in goals against, 1st in shots taken, 1st in shots against, 13th in save percentage, 30th in penalty minutes, 23rd in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 4
- Goalie (C. Osgood) ranked 1st in GAA, tied for 9th in shutouts, 16th in save percentage (D. Hasek) ranked 4th in GAA
- 1 in top 10 in points (P. Datsyuk- 4th), 1 in top 10 in goals (H. Zetteberg- 5th), 2 in top 5 in assists (P. Datsyuk- 2nd, N. Lidstrom- 5th)
Playoffs
- 1st in scoring, 1st in goals against
- +31
2007 Anaheim Ducks
- 2 seed
- 110 points
- 48 wins
- +50 goal differential
- 258/208
- 5-3-2 in last ten
- 22.3% power play, 85% penalty kill
- 42-18-12 vs West
- 8th in scoring, 7th in goals against, 7th in shots taken, 5th in shots against, 6th in save percentage, 1st in penalty minutes, 1st in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 15
- Goalie (J.Sebastian-Giguere) 5th in GAA, tied for 7th in SV%, tied for 15th in shutouts
- 1 in top 20 points (T. Selanne- 11th), 1 in top 3 goals (T. Selanne- 3rd), 3 in top 40 assists (S. Niedermeyer- 19th, A. McDonald- 27th, T. Selanne- 39th)
Playoffs
- 4th in scoring, 3rd in goals against
- +13
2006 Carolina Hurricanes
- 2 seed
- 112 points
- 52 wins
- +34
- 290/264
- 5-3-2 in last ten
- 17.9% power play, 81.8% penalty kill
- 45-20-7 vs East
- 3rd in scoring, tied for 19th in goals against, 6th in shots taken, 12th in shots against, tied for 15th in save percentage, 26th in penalty minutes, 13th in penalty minutes against
- Combined Total: 22
- Goalie (C. Ward)- 46th in GAA, 43rd in SV%, didn't even play most of regular season
- 1 in top 10 in points (E. Staal- 7th), 3 in top 40 in points (J. Williams- 35th, C. Stillman- 35th), 1 in top 10 in goals (E. Staal- 8th), 3 in top 40 in goals (J. Williams- 33rd, R. Brind'Amour- 33rd), 1 top 20 in assists (E. Staal- 16th)
Playoffs
- 5th in scoring, 3rd in goals against
- +13
Current Odds
CHI 5/1- 1/20 5/1- 1/27 5-1- 2/3 5-1- 2/10 5-1- 3/3 11/2- 3/10 6/1- 3/17 5/1- 3/24 5/1- 3/31 6/1- 4/7
Why They Will Win
-best goal scoring in the league, combined total is just lower than 15, elite play-making and just enough goal tending/defense to get it done
Why They Won't Win
-shaky goal-tending and defense compared to last year, penalty kill lower than 80%
Why They Will Win
-best goal scoring in the league, combined total is just lower than 15, elite play-making and just enough goal tending/defense to get it done
Why They Won't Win
-shaky goal-tending and defense compared to last year, penalty kill lower than 80%
ANA 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/2 13/2 8/1 10/1 7/1 7/1
Why They Will Win
-great goal-scoring, goaltending/defense in top 10 and since they tend to blow teams out, that figure may be inflated a little bit, combined total is 11, they have play-making all across the board
Why They Will Win
-great goal-scoring, goaltending/defense in top 10 and since they tend to blow teams out, that figure may be inflated a little bit, combined total is 11, they have play-making all across the board
PIT 5/1 11/2 11/2 11/2 6/1 6/1 13/2 6/1 8/1 17/2
Why They Will Win
-combined total is 11, Crosby and Malkin are elite, Fleury is having a much better year this year, east is weak
Why They Won't Win
-no big weakness, they are much more solid across the board this year, the Bruins and Lighting could be stiff competition
Why They Will Win
-combined total is 11, Crosby and Malkin are elite, Fleury is having a much better year this year, east is weak
Why They Won't Win
-no big weakness, they are much more solid across the board this year, the Bruins and Lighting could be stiff competition
STL 6/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 5/1 9/2 4/1 4/1 4/1 9/2
Why They Will Win
-best combined total in the league, they have two good goalies, they can score, they have great defense
Why They Won't Win
-Halak is a tad overrated based on his low save percentage
Why They Will Win
-best combined total in the league, they have two good goalies, they can score, they have great defense
Why They Won't Win
-Halak is a tad overrated based on his low save percentage
BOS 8/1 8/1 8/1 8/1 8/1 7/1 6/1 9/2 7/2 13/4
Why They Will Win
-second best combined total in league, Rask is highly ranked in both categories, balanced goal-scoring, go four lines deep
Why They Won't Win
-Rask has been a little shaky at times
Why They Will Win
-second best combined total in league, Rask is highly ranked in both categories, balanced goal-scoring, go four lines deep
Why They Won't Win
-Rask has been a little shaky at times
SJ 10/1 9/1 9/1 9/1 9/1 8/1 7/1 5/1 7/1 10/1
Why They Will Win
-Solid across the board, great talent, solid combined total
Why They Won't Win
-Niemi isn't quite good enough to put them over the top
Why They Will Win
-Solid across the board, great talent, solid combined total
Why They Won't Win
-Niemi isn't quite good enough to put them over the top
LA 12/1 15/1 15/1 15/1 15/1 14/1 10/1 12/1 12/1 12/1
Why They Will Win
-Superb goal-tending, tremendous defense, just enough offensive talent
Why They Won't Win
-terrible offense at times, Quick hasn't been as great; it was Shrivens who really stepped up
Why They Will Win
-Superb goal-tending, tremendous defense, just enough offensive talent
Why They Won't Win
-terrible offense at times, Quick hasn't been as great; it was Shrivens who really stepped up
TB 15/1 15/1 15/1 30/1 30/1 20/1 20/1 20/1 20/1 25/1
Why They Will Win
-Bishop is having a tremendous year in goal, the scoring is there, they will expect Stamkos to return, the East is weak
Why They Won't Win
-Not a great defense in front of Bishop, questions around health of Stamkos
Why They Will Win
-Bishop is having a tremendous year in goal, the scoring is there, they will expect Stamkos to return, the East is weak
Why They Won't Win
-Not a great defense in front of Bishop, questions around health of Stamkos
MON 20/1 25/1 25/1 35/1 30/1 25/1 20/1 20/1 20/1 25/1
Why They Will Win
-Price is great
Why They Won't Win
-not enough offense
Why They Will Win
-Price is great
Why They Won't Win
-not enough offense
NYR 20/1 20/1 20/1 22/1 25/1 23/1 25/1 25/1 20/1 20/1
Why They Will Win
-Lundqvist becomes elite again
Why They Won't Win
-not enough offense, not enough defense, Lundqvist hasn't been exceptional
Why They Will Win
-Lundqvist becomes elite again
Why They Won't Win
-not enough offense, not enough defense, Lundqvist hasn't been exceptional
COL 25/1 20/1 20/1 20/1 18/1 14/1 14/1 15/1 15/1 10/1
Why They Will Win
-offense is excellent, Varlamov can get it done
Why They Won't Win
-not enough defense in front of Varlamov
Why They Will Win
-offense is excellent, Varlamov can get it done
Why They Won't Win
-not enough defense in front of Varlamov
DET 30/1 30/1 30/1 50/1 40/1 40/1 40/1 50/1 50/1 35/1
VAN 30/1 45/1 45/1 70/1 50/1 300/1 100/1 300/1 300/1 none
WSH 40/1 45/1 45/1 65/1 45/1 70/1 60/1 60/1 60/1 100/1
OTT 40/1 50/1 50/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 300/1 500/1 none
PHI 40/1 40/1 40/1 30/1 30/1 28/1 28/1 28/1 28/1 25/1
COL 40/1 40/1 40/1 30/1 40/1 60/1 50/1 100/1 60/1 60/1
Why They Will Win
-Bobrovsky regains form and defense catches up to very productive offense
Why They Won't Win
-Bobrovsky isn't the same guy this year, defense isn't there
Why They Will Win
-Bobrovsky regains form and defense catches up to very productive offense
Why They Won't Win
-Bobrovsky isn't the same guy this year, defense isn't there
TOR 50/1 40/1 40/1 50/1 40/1 40/1 38/1 50/1 100/1 200/1
PHX 50/1 60/1 60/1 75/1 75/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 75/1 75/1
MIN 60/1 50/1 50/1 50/1 40/1 50/1 60/1 60/1 60/1 65/1
DAL 100/1 60/1 60/1 100/1 100/1 75/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 70/1
NYI 100/1 100/1 100/1 1,000/1 250/1 none none none none
CAR 100/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 200/1 200/1 200/1 500/1 none
NJ 100/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 80/1 100/1 100/1 200/1 100/1 100/1
NSH 500/1 300/1 300/1 300/1 300/1 none none none none
WPG 500/1 300/1 300/1 100/1 100/1 100/1 300/1 500/1 1,000/1 none
FLA 500/1 500/1 500/1 1,000/1 1000/1 none none none none
BUF 5,000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 none none none none
EDM 5,000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 none none none none
CAL 5,000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 5000/1 none none none none
Pyth Wins and Est Wins Analysis
Total Analysis
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.29 wins the year after (38)
Teams that substantially under performed: decreased by 2.28 wins the year after (39)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.23 wins the year after (17)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 2.11 wins the year after (18)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 2.93 wins the year after (14)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 1.57 wins the year after (7)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: decreased by 1.29 wins the year after (7)
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 2.79 wins the year after (14)
Teams Expected to Improve in order of biggest differential
HOU ATL WAS DET CLE TB MIN OAK
Teams Expected to Improve in order of most likely-least likely
Teams that under performed improve next year with the help of a quality/upgrade at quarterback
Examples: SEA in 2012 and 2013, NO in 2013
Candidates for 2014 improvement with this logic in order of most likely: ATL, DET, TB, all the other teams depend on who drafts quarterbacks
Teams Expected to Regress in order of biggest differential
NYJ IND NE NYG DEN BAL JAC
Teass that over perform regress next year because they have a mediocre quarterback
Examples: HOU in 2013, MIN in 2013
Candidates for 2014 regression with this logic in order of most likely: NYJ, BAL, NYG, NE, DEN, JAC depends on who they draft
2013
SEA- 12.8 (over 0.2
DEN- 11.7 (over 1.3- QB: Peyton Manning
CAR- 11.7 (over 0.3
NO- 10.8 (over 0.2
NE- 10.5 (over 1.5 QB: Tom Brady
SF- 11.5 (over 0.5
KC- 11.1 (under 0.1
PHI- 9.4 (over 0.6
CIN- 11.1 (over 0.4
ARI- 9.5 (over 0.5
CHI- 7.3 (over 0.7
SD- 9.2 (over 0.2
IND- 9.4 (over 1.6 QB: Andrew Luck
STL- 7.6 (under 0.6
PIT- 8.2 (under 0.2
DET- 8.5 (under 1.5 QB: Matthew Stafford
DAL- 8.2 (under 0.2
BUF- 6.7 (under 0.7
TB- 5.3 (under 1.3 QB: Mike Glennon
TEN- 7.5 (under 0.5
GB- 7.8 (over 0.2
BAL- 7.1 (over 0.9 QB: Joe Flacco
MIA- 7.5 (over 0.5
NYJ- 5.4 (over 2.6 QB: Geno Smith
ATL- 5.9 (under 1.9 QB: Matt Ryan
MIN- 6.1 (under 1.1 QB: Christian Ponder
NYG- 5.6 (over 1.4 QB: Eli Manning
CLE- 5.5 (under 1.5 QB:
WAS- 4.8 (under 1.8 QB: Robert Griffin
HOU- 4.2 (under 2.2 QB:
OAK- 4.9 (under 0.9 QB:
JAC- 3.1 (over 0.9 QB:
2012
SEA- 12.5 (under 1.5 2013: 13-3 (+2 wins
DEN- 12.5 (over 0.5
NE- 12.7 (under 0.7
SF- 11.4 (under 0.4
GB- 10.5 (over 0.5
CHI- 10.8 (under 0.8
NYG- 10.2 (under 1.2
BAL- 9.4 (over 0.6
WAS- 9.2 (over 0.8
ATL- 11.2 (over 1.8 2013: 4-12 (-9 wins
HOU- 10.2 (over 1.8 2013: 2-14 (-10 wins
CIN- 9.9 (over 0.1
CAR- 7.8 (under 0.8
MIN- 8.8 (over 1.2 2013: 5-10-1 (-5 wins
STL- 6.6 (over 0.4
DET- 6.4 (under 2.4 2013: 7-9 (+3 wins
DAL- 7.4 (over 0.6
PIT- 8.7 (under 0.7
NO- 8.2 (under 1.2 2013: 11-5 (+4 wins
TB- 7.9 (under 0.9
MIA- 7.1 (over 0.1
SD- 8.0 (under 1.0 2013: 9-7 (+2 wins
BUF- 5.7 (over 0.3
CLE- 6.1 (under 1.1 2013: 4-12 (-1 wins
IND- 7.2 (over 3.8 2013: 11-5 (= wins
ARI- 4.8 (over 0.2
NYJ- 5.3 (over 0.7
PHI- 3.9 (over 0.1
OAK- 4.1 (under 0.1
TEN- 4.6 (over 1.4 2013: 7-9 (+1 wins
JAC- 3.3 (under 1.3 2013: 4-12 (+2 wins
KC- 2.5 (under 0.5
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 4.6 wins the year after (5)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.0 wins the year after (6)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 1.75 wins the year after (4)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 9.5 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 2.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2 or more: stayed the same the year after (1)
Teams that under performed by 2 or more: increased by 3.0 wins the year after (1)
Case Studies
SEA- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: R. Wilson
QB in 2013: R. Wilson
Improvement: Yes
ATL- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Ryan
QB in 2013: M. Ryan
Regression: Yes, injuries, poor offensive line and poor defense were causes
HOU- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Schaub
QB in 2013: M. Schaub, C. Keenum
Regression: Yes
MIN- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: C. Ponder
QB in 2013: C. Ponder, M. Cassel
Regression: Yes
DET- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Stafford
QB in 2013: M. Stafford
Improvement: Yes, but not enough
NO- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: D. Brees
QB in 2013: D. Brees
Improvement: Yes
SD- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: P. Rivers
QB in 2013: P. Rivers
Improvement: Yes, new coaching hire helped as well
CLE- Under Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: B. Weeden
QB in 2013: B. Weeden, J. Campbell
Improvement: No, quarterback play wasn't strong enough
IND- Over Achieved in 2012, Stayed the same in 2013
QB in 2012: A. Luck
QB in 2013: A. Luck
Regression: No, stayed the same thanks to Luck
TEN- Over Achieved in 2012, Improved Slightly in 2013
QB in 2012: J. Locker, M. Hasselbeck
QB in 2013: J. Locker, R. Fitzpatrick
Regression: No, slight improvement, a little bit better quarterback play, but not good enough
JAC- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved Slightly in 2013
QB in 2012: B. Gabbert, C. Henne
QB in 2013: C. Henne, B. Gabbert
Improvement: Slight improvement, a little bit better quarterback play, weaker schedule
2011
GB- 12.2 (over 2.8 2012: 11-5 (-4 wins
NO- 12.4 (over 0.6
NE- 11.9 (over 1.1 2012: 12-4 (-1 wins
PIT- 11.1 (over 0.9 2012: 8-8 (-4 wins
HOU- 10.9 (under 0.9 2012: 12-4 (+2 wins
SF- 12.3 (over 0.7
BAL- 11.2 (over 0.8
ATL- 9.4 (over 0.6
PHI- 9.8 (under 1.8 2012: 4-12 (-4 wins
NYJ- 8.4 (under 0.4
DET- 10.1 (under 0.1
NYG- 7.8 (over 1.2 2012: 9-7 (= wins
TEN- 8.2 (over 0.8
DAL- 8.6 (under 0.6
CHI- 8.3 (under 0.3
SD- 8.7 (under 0.7
CIN- 8.6 (over 0.4
MIA- 8.5 (under 2.5 2012: 7-9 (+1 wins
SEA- 8.2 (under 1.2 2012: 11-5 (+4 wins
CAR- 7.4 (under 1.4 2012: 7-9 (+1 was
WAS- 5.7 (under 0.7
OAK- 6.1 (over 1.9 2012: 4-12 (-4 wins
BUF- 6.4 (under 0.4
DEN- 5.8 (over 2.2 2012: 13-3 (+5 wins- addition of Peyton Manning
CLE- 5.0 (under 1.0 2012: 5-11 (+1 wins
KC- 4.1 (over 2.9 2012: 2-14 (-5 wins
JAC- 5.3 (under 0.3
ARI- 6.9 (over 1.1 2012: 5-11 (-3 wins
MIN- 5.3 (under 2.3 2012: 10-6 (+7 wins
TB- 3.2 (over 0.8
IND- 3.2 (under 1.2 2012: 11-5 (+9 wins
STL- 2.3 (under 0.3
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (8)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.6 wins the year after (8)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (4)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 3.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2 or more: decreased by 1.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed by 2 or more: increased by 4.0 wins the year after (2)
Case Studies
GB- Over Achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: A. Rodgers
2012: A. Rodgers
Regression: Yes, injuries and other deficiencies caught up with them
NE- Over achieved in 2011, regressed slightly in 2012
2011: T. Brady
2012: T. Brady
Regression: Yes, but only slight
PIT- Over achieved in 2011, regressed slightly in 2012
2011: B. Roethlisberger
2012: B. Roethlisberger
Regression: Yes, injuries to Roethlisberger and others
HOU- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: M. Schaub
2012: M. Schaub
Improvement: Yes
PHI- Under achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: M. Vick, V. Young
2012: M. Vick, N. Foles
Improvement: No, injuries to Vick, inexperience from Foles, other deficiencies
NYG- Over achieved in 2011, stayed the same in 2012
2011: E. Manning
2012: E. Manning
Improvement: Stayed the same
MIA- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: M. Moore, C. Henne
2012: R. Tannehill
Improvement: Yes, slightly better quarterback play, a little bit more depth all around
SEA- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: T. Jackson
2012: R. Wilson
Improvement: Yes, better quarterback play
CAR- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: C. Newton
2012: C. Newton
Improvement: Yes, slightly, quarterback play wasn't a huge factor but losing in a bunch of close games was
DEN- Over achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: T. Tebow
2012: P. Manning
Regression: No, massive upgrade at quarterback
CLE- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: C. McCoy
2012: B. Weeden
Improvement: Yes, slightly because there wasn't a big upgrade at quarterback
KC- Over achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: M. Cassel, T. Palko, K. Orton
2012: M. Cassel, B. Quinn
Regression: Yes, terrible quarterback play
ARI- Over achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: K. Kolb, J. Skelton
2012: K. Kolb, J. Skelton, R. Lindley
Regression: Yes, terrible quarterback play
MIN- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: C. Ponder, D.McNabb
2012: C. Ponder
Improvement: Yes, quarterback play was more consistent
IND- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: K. Collins, D. Orlovsky, C. Painter
2012: A. Luck
Improvement: Yes, much better quarterback play
2010
NE- 12.6 (over 1.4 2011: 13-3, -1 wins
T. Brady- T. Brady
GB- 12.1 (under 2.1 2011: 15-1, +5 wins
A. Rodgers- A. Rodgers
BAL- 10.6 (under 1.4 2011: 12-4, +2 wins
J. Flacco- J. Flacco
NYJ- 9.8 (over 1.2 2011: 8-8, -3 wins
M. Sanchez- M. Sanchez
ATL- 11.4 (over 1.6 2011: 10-6, -3 wins
M. Ryan- M. Ryan
SD- 11.0 (under 2.0 2011: 8-8, -1 wins
P. Rivers- P. Rivers
NO- 9.3 (over 1.7 2011: 13-3, +2 wins
D. Brees- D. Brees
TEN- 8.5 (under 2.5 2011: 9-7, +3 wins
K. Collins/V. Young- M. Hasselbeck/J.Locker
TB- 8.7 (over 1.3 2011: 4-12, -6 wins
J. Freeman- J. Freeman
HOU- 7.1 (under 1.1 2011: 10-6, +4 wins
M. Schaub- M. Schaub
CHI- 9.5 (over 1.5 2011: 8-8, -3 wins
J. Cutler- J. Cutler
KC- 9.1 (over 0.9 2011: 7-9, -3 wins
M. Cassel- M. Cassel/T.Palko/K.Orton
DET- 7.8 (under 1.8 wins 2011: 10-6, +4 wins
M. Stafford- M. Stafford
CIN- 6.0 (under 2.0 wins 2011: 9-7, +5 wins
C. Palmer- A. Dalton
OAK- 9.0 (under 1.0 wins 2011: 8-8, = wins
J. Campbell/B. Gradkowski- C. Palmer/J. Campbell
JAC- 6.3 (over 1.7 wins 2011: 5-11, -3 wins
D. Garrard- B. Gabbert
DAL- 7.0 (under 1.0 wins 2011: 8-8, +2 wins
J. Kitna/T. Romo- T. Romo
DEN- 4.9 (under 0.9 wins 2011: 8-8, +4 wins
K. Orton- T. Tebow/K.Orton
SEA- 5.4 (over 1.6 wins 2011: 7-9, = wins
M.Hasslbeck- T. Jackson
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.22 wins the year after (9)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.8 wins the year after (10)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 3.5 wins the year after (4)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 2.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 1.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: no data
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 3.0 wins the year after (4)
2009
BAL- 11.6 (under 2.6 2010: 10-6, +1 wins
GB- 12.0 (under 1.0 2010: 10-6, -1 wins
NE- 11.7 (under 1.7 2010: 14-2, +4 wins
NO- 11.8 (over 1.2 2010: 11-5, -2 wins
IND- 10.9 (over 3.1 2010: 10-6, -4 wins
NYJ- 11.4 (under 2.4 2010: 11-5, +2 wins
SD- 11.3 (over 1.7 2010: 9-7, -4 wins
CIN- 8.4 (over 1.6 2010: 4-12, -6 wins
SF- 9.5 (under 1.5 2010: 6-10, -2 wins
TEN- 6.7 (over 1.3 2010: 6-10, -2 wins
WAS- 5.8 (under 1.8 2010: 6-10, +2 wins
JAC- 5.5 (over 1.5 2010: 8-8, +1 wins
OAK- 2.9 (over 2.1 2010: 8-8, +3 wins
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (7)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 1.0 wins the year after (6)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 1.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 3.0 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 1.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: decreased by 0.5 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 1.5 wins the year after (2)
2008
PHI- 11.4 (under 2.4 2009: 11-5, +2 wins
BAL- 12.0 (under 1.0 2009: 9-7, -2 wins
TEN- 12.1 (over 0.9 2009: 8-8, -5 wins
CAR- 10.2 (over 1.8 2009: 8-8, -4 wins
SD- 10.3 (under 2.3 2009: 13-3, +5 wins
IND- 10.2 (over 1.8 2009: 14-2, +2 wins
GB- 9.0 (under 3.0 2009: 11-5, +5 wins
WAS- 7.0 (over 1.0 2009: 4-12, -4 wins
NO- 9.7 (under 1.7 2009: 13-3, +5 wins
MIA- 8.8 (over 2.2 2009: 7-9, -4 wins
ATL- 9.8 (over 1.2 2009: 9-7, -2 wins
DAL- 7.9 (over 1.1 2009: 11-5, +2 wins
JAC- 6.1 (under 1.1 2009: 7-9, +2 wins
ARI- 8.0 (over 1.0 2009: 10-6, +1 win
DEN- 6.1 (over 1.9 2009: 8-8, = wins
SEA- 5.3 (under 1.3 2009: 5-11, +1 win
KC- 4.2 (under 2.2 2009: 4-12, +2 wins
DET- 2.5 (under 2.5 2009: 2-14, +2 wins
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 1.55 wins the year after (9)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.44 wins the year after (9)
Teams that over performed 0.9-1.4: decreased by 1.6 wins the year after (5)
Teams that under performed 0.9-1.4: increased by 0.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that over performed 1.5-1.9: decreased by 0.66 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed 1.5-1.9: increased by 5.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed 2.0 or more: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that under performed 2.0 or more: increased by 3.2 wins the year after (5)
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.29 wins the year after (38)
Teams that substantially under performed: decreased by 2.28 wins the year after (39)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.23 wins the year after (17)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 2.11 wins the year after (18)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 2.93 wins the year after (14)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 1.57 wins the year after (7)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: decreased by 1.29 wins the year after (7)
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 2.79 wins the year after (14)
Teams Expected to Improve in order of biggest differential
HOU ATL WAS DET CLE TB MIN OAK
Teams Expected to Improve in order of most likely-least likely
Teams that under performed improve next year with the help of a quality/upgrade at quarterback
Examples: SEA in 2012 and 2013, NO in 2013
Candidates for 2014 improvement with this logic in order of most likely: ATL, DET, TB, all the other teams depend on who drafts quarterbacks
Teams Expected to Regress in order of biggest differential
NYJ IND NE NYG DEN BAL JAC
Teass that over perform regress next year because they have a mediocre quarterback
Examples: HOU in 2013, MIN in 2013
Candidates for 2014 regression with this logic in order of most likely: NYJ, BAL, NYG, NE, DEN, JAC depends on who they draft
2013
SEA- 12.8 (over 0.2
DEN- 11.7 (over 1.3- QB: Peyton Manning
CAR- 11.7 (over 0.3
NO- 10.8 (over 0.2
NE- 10.5 (over 1.5 QB: Tom Brady
SF- 11.5 (over 0.5
KC- 11.1 (under 0.1
PHI- 9.4 (over 0.6
CIN- 11.1 (over 0.4
ARI- 9.5 (over 0.5
CHI- 7.3 (over 0.7
SD- 9.2 (over 0.2
IND- 9.4 (over 1.6 QB: Andrew Luck
STL- 7.6 (under 0.6
PIT- 8.2 (under 0.2
DET- 8.5 (under 1.5 QB: Matthew Stafford
DAL- 8.2 (under 0.2
BUF- 6.7 (under 0.7
TB- 5.3 (under 1.3 QB: Mike Glennon
TEN- 7.5 (under 0.5
GB- 7.8 (over 0.2
BAL- 7.1 (over 0.9 QB: Joe Flacco
MIA- 7.5 (over 0.5
NYJ- 5.4 (over 2.6 QB: Geno Smith
ATL- 5.9 (under 1.9 QB: Matt Ryan
MIN- 6.1 (under 1.1 QB: Christian Ponder
NYG- 5.6 (over 1.4 QB: Eli Manning
CLE- 5.5 (under 1.5 QB:
WAS- 4.8 (under 1.8 QB: Robert Griffin
HOU- 4.2 (under 2.2 QB:
OAK- 4.9 (under 0.9 QB:
JAC- 3.1 (over 0.9 QB:
2012
SEA- 12.5 (under 1.5 2013: 13-3 (+2 wins
DEN- 12.5 (over 0.5
NE- 12.7 (under 0.7
SF- 11.4 (under 0.4
GB- 10.5 (over 0.5
CHI- 10.8 (under 0.8
NYG- 10.2 (under 1.2
BAL- 9.4 (over 0.6
WAS- 9.2 (over 0.8
ATL- 11.2 (over 1.8 2013: 4-12 (-9 wins
HOU- 10.2 (over 1.8 2013: 2-14 (-10 wins
CIN- 9.9 (over 0.1
CAR- 7.8 (under 0.8
MIN- 8.8 (over 1.2 2013: 5-10-1 (-5 wins
STL- 6.6 (over 0.4
DET- 6.4 (under 2.4 2013: 7-9 (+3 wins
DAL- 7.4 (over 0.6
PIT- 8.7 (under 0.7
NO- 8.2 (under 1.2 2013: 11-5 (+4 wins
TB- 7.9 (under 0.9
MIA- 7.1 (over 0.1
SD- 8.0 (under 1.0 2013: 9-7 (+2 wins
BUF- 5.7 (over 0.3
CLE- 6.1 (under 1.1 2013: 4-12 (-1 wins
IND- 7.2 (over 3.8 2013: 11-5 (= wins
ARI- 4.8 (over 0.2
NYJ- 5.3 (over 0.7
PHI- 3.9 (over 0.1
OAK- 4.1 (under 0.1
TEN- 4.6 (over 1.4 2013: 7-9 (+1 wins
JAC- 3.3 (under 1.3 2013: 4-12 (+2 wins
KC- 2.5 (under 0.5
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 4.6 wins the year after (5)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.0 wins the year after (6)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 1.75 wins the year after (4)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 9.5 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 2.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2 or more: stayed the same the year after (1)
Teams that under performed by 2 or more: increased by 3.0 wins the year after (1)
Case Studies
SEA- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: R. Wilson
QB in 2013: R. Wilson
Improvement: Yes
ATL- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Ryan
QB in 2013: M. Ryan
Regression: Yes, injuries, poor offensive line and poor defense were causes
HOU- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Schaub
QB in 2013: M. Schaub, C. Keenum
Regression: Yes
MIN- Over Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: C. Ponder
QB in 2013: C. Ponder, M. Cassel
Regression: Yes
DET- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: M. Stafford
QB in 2013: M. Stafford
Improvement: Yes, but not enough
NO- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: D. Brees
QB in 2013: D. Brees
Improvement: Yes
SD- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved in 2013
QB in 2012: P. Rivers
QB in 2013: P. Rivers
Improvement: Yes, new coaching hire helped as well
CLE- Under Achieved in 2012, Regressed in 2013
QB in 2012: B. Weeden
QB in 2013: B. Weeden, J. Campbell
Improvement: No, quarterback play wasn't strong enough
IND- Over Achieved in 2012, Stayed the same in 2013
QB in 2012: A. Luck
QB in 2013: A. Luck
Regression: No, stayed the same thanks to Luck
TEN- Over Achieved in 2012, Improved Slightly in 2013
QB in 2012: J. Locker, M. Hasselbeck
QB in 2013: J. Locker, R. Fitzpatrick
Regression: No, slight improvement, a little bit better quarterback play, but not good enough
JAC- Under Achieved in 2012, Improved Slightly in 2013
QB in 2012: B. Gabbert, C. Henne
QB in 2013: C. Henne, B. Gabbert
Improvement: Slight improvement, a little bit better quarterback play, weaker schedule
2011
GB- 12.2 (over 2.8 2012: 11-5 (-4 wins
NO- 12.4 (over 0.6
NE- 11.9 (over 1.1 2012: 12-4 (-1 wins
PIT- 11.1 (over 0.9 2012: 8-8 (-4 wins
HOU- 10.9 (under 0.9 2012: 12-4 (+2 wins
SF- 12.3 (over 0.7
BAL- 11.2 (over 0.8
ATL- 9.4 (over 0.6
PHI- 9.8 (under 1.8 2012: 4-12 (-4 wins
NYJ- 8.4 (under 0.4
DET- 10.1 (under 0.1
NYG- 7.8 (over 1.2 2012: 9-7 (= wins
TEN- 8.2 (over 0.8
DAL- 8.6 (under 0.6
CHI- 8.3 (under 0.3
SD- 8.7 (under 0.7
CIN- 8.6 (over 0.4
MIA- 8.5 (under 2.5 2012: 7-9 (+1 wins
SEA- 8.2 (under 1.2 2012: 11-5 (+4 wins
CAR- 7.4 (under 1.4 2012: 7-9 (+1 was
WAS- 5.7 (under 0.7
OAK- 6.1 (over 1.9 2012: 4-12 (-4 wins
BUF- 6.4 (under 0.4
DEN- 5.8 (over 2.2 2012: 13-3 (+5 wins- addition of Peyton Manning
CLE- 5.0 (under 1.0 2012: 5-11 (+1 wins
KC- 4.1 (over 2.9 2012: 2-14 (-5 wins
JAC- 5.3 (under 0.3
ARI- 6.9 (over 1.1 2012: 5-11 (-3 wins
MIN- 5.3 (under 2.3 2012: 10-6 (+7 wins
TB- 3.2 (over 0.8
IND- 3.2 (under 1.2 2012: 11-5 (+9 wins
STL- 2.3 (under 0.3
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (8)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.6 wins the year after (8)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (4)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 3.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2 or more: decreased by 1.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed by 2 or more: increased by 4.0 wins the year after (2)
Case Studies
GB- Over Achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: A. Rodgers
2012: A. Rodgers
Regression: Yes, injuries and other deficiencies caught up with them
NE- Over achieved in 2011, regressed slightly in 2012
2011: T. Brady
2012: T. Brady
Regression: Yes, but only slight
PIT- Over achieved in 2011, regressed slightly in 2012
2011: B. Roethlisberger
2012: B. Roethlisberger
Regression: Yes, injuries to Roethlisberger and others
HOU- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: M. Schaub
2012: M. Schaub
Improvement: Yes
PHI- Under achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: M. Vick, V. Young
2012: M. Vick, N. Foles
Improvement: No, injuries to Vick, inexperience from Foles, other deficiencies
NYG- Over achieved in 2011, stayed the same in 2012
2011: E. Manning
2012: E. Manning
Improvement: Stayed the same
MIA- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: M. Moore, C. Henne
2012: R. Tannehill
Improvement: Yes, slightly better quarterback play, a little bit more depth all around
SEA- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: T. Jackson
2012: R. Wilson
Improvement: Yes, better quarterback play
CAR- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: C. Newton
2012: C. Newton
Improvement: Yes, slightly, quarterback play wasn't a huge factor but losing in a bunch of close games was
DEN- Over achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: T. Tebow
2012: P. Manning
Regression: No, massive upgrade at quarterback
CLE- Under achieved in 2011, improved slightly in 2012
2011: C. McCoy
2012: B. Weeden
Improvement: Yes, slightly because there wasn't a big upgrade at quarterback
KC- Over achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: M. Cassel, T. Palko, K. Orton
2012: M. Cassel, B. Quinn
Regression: Yes, terrible quarterback play
ARI- Over achieved in 2011, regressed in 2012
2011: K. Kolb, J. Skelton
2012: K. Kolb, J. Skelton, R. Lindley
Regression: Yes, terrible quarterback play
MIN- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: C. Ponder, D.McNabb
2012: C. Ponder
Improvement: Yes, quarterback play was more consistent
IND- Under achieved in 2011, improved in 2012
2011: K. Collins, D. Orlovsky, C. Painter
2012: A. Luck
Improvement: Yes, much better quarterback play
2010
NE- 12.6 (over 1.4 2011: 13-3, -1 wins
T. Brady- T. Brady
GB- 12.1 (under 2.1 2011: 15-1, +5 wins
A. Rodgers- A. Rodgers
BAL- 10.6 (under 1.4 2011: 12-4, +2 wins
J. Flacco- J. Flacco
NYJ- 9.8 (over 1.2 2011: 8-8, -3 wins
M. Sanchez- M. Sanchez
ATL- 11.4 (over 1.6 2011: 10-6, -3 wins
M. Ryan- M. Ryan
SD- 11.0 (under 2.0 2011: 8-8, -1 wins
P. Rivers- P. Rivers
NO- 9.3 (over 1.7 2011: 13-3, +2 wins
D. Brees- D. Brees
TEN- 8.5 (under 2.5 2011: 9-7, +3 wins
K. Collins/V. Young- M. Hasselbeck/J.Locker
TB- 8.7 (over 1.3 2011: 4-12, -6 wins
J. Freeman- J. Freeman
HOU- 7.1 (under 1.1 2011: 10-6, +4 wins
M. Schaub- M. Schaub
CHI- 9.5 (over 1.5 2011: 8-8, -3 wins
J. Cutler- J. Cutler
KC- 9.1 (over 0.9 2011: 7-9, -3 wins
M. Cassel- M. Cassel/T.Palko/K.Orton
DET- 7.8 (under 1.8 wins 2011: 10-6, +4 wins
M. Stafford- M. Stafford
CIN- 6.0 (under 2.0 wins 2011: 9-7, +5 wins
C. Palmer- A. Dalton
OAK- 9.0 (under 1.0 wins 2011: 8-8, = wins
J. Campbell/B. Gradkowski- C. Palmer/J. Campbell
JAC- 6.3 (over 1.7 wins 2011: 5-11, -3 wins
D. Garrard- B. Gabbert
DAL- 7.0 (under 1.0 wins 2011: 8-8, +2 wins
J. Kitna/T. Romo- T. Romo
DEN- 4.9 (under 0.9 wins 2011: 8-8, +4 wins
K. Orton- T. Tebow/K.Orton
SEA- 5.4 (over 1.6 wins 2011: 7-9, = wins
M.Hasslbeck- T. Jackson
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.22 wins the year after (9)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.8 wins the year after (10)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 3.5 wins the year after (4)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 2.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 1.4 wins the year after (5)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: no data
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 3.0 wins the year after (4)
2009
BAL- 11.6 (under 2.6 2010: 10-6, +1 wins
GB- 12.0 (under 1.0 2010: 10-6, -1 wins
NE- 11.7 (under 1.7 2010: 14-2, +4 wins
NO- 11.8 (over 1.2 2010: 11-5, -2 wins
IND- 10.9 (over 3.1 2010: 10-6, -4 wins
NYJ- 11.4 (under 2.4 2010: 11-5, +2 wins
SD- 11.3 (over 1.7 2010: 9-7, -4 wins
CIN- 8.4 (over 1.6 2010: 4-12, -6 wins
SF- 9.5 (under 1.5 2010: 6-10, -2 wins
TEN- 6.7 (over 1.3 2010: 6-10, -2 wins
WAS- 5.8 (under 1.8 2010: 6-10, +2 wins
JAC- 5.5 (over 1.5 2010: 8-8, +1 wins
OAK- 2.9 (over 2.1 2010: 8-8, +3 wins
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (7)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 1.0 wins the year after (6)
Teams that over performed by 0.9-1.4: decreased by 2.0 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 0.9-1.4: increased by 1.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed by 1.5-1.9: decreased by 3.0 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed by 1.5-1.9: increased by 1.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that over performed by 2.0 or more: decreased by 0.5 wins the year after (2)
Teams that under performed by 2.0 or more: increased by 1.5 wins the year after (2)
2008
PHI- 11.4 (under 2.4 2009: 11-5, +2 wins
BAL- 12.0 (under 1.0 2009: 9-7, -2 wins
TEN- 12.1 (over 0.9 2009: 8-8, -5 wins
CAR- 10.2 (over 1.8 2009: 8-8, -4 wins
SD- 10.3 (under 2.3 2009: 13-3, +5 wins
IND- 10.2 (over 1.8 2009: 14-2, +2 wins
GB- 9.0 (under 3.0 2009: 11-5, +5 wins
WAS- 7.0 (over 1.0 2009: 4-12, -4 wins
NO- 9.7 (under 1.7 2009: 13-3, +5 wins
MIA- 8.8 (over 2.2 2009: 7-9, -4 wins
ATL- 9.8 (over 1.2 2009: 9-7, -2 wins
DAL- 7.9 (over 1.1 2009: 11-5, +2 wins
JAC- 6.1 (under 1.1 2009: 7-9, +2 wins
ARI- 8.0 (over 1.0 2009: 10-6, +1 win
DEN- 6.1 (over 1.9 2009: 8-8, = wins
SEA- 5.3 (under 1.3 2009: 5-11, +1 win
KC- 4.2 (under 2.2 2009: 4-12, +2 wins
DET- 2.5 (under 2.5 2009: 2-14, +2 wins
Teams that substantially over performed: decreased by 1.55 wins the year after (9)
Teams that substantially under performed: increased by 2.44 wins the year after (9)
Teams that over performed 0.9-1.4: decreased by 1.6 wins the year after (5)
Teams that under performed 0.9-1.4: increased by 0.33 wins the year after (3)
Teams that over performed 1.5-1.9: decreased by 0.66 wins the year after (3)
Teams that under performed 1.5-1.9: increased by 5.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that over performed 2.0 or more: decreased by 4.0 wins the year after (1)
Teams that under performed 2.0 or more: increased by 3.2 wins the year after (5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)