Who Got Lucky This Year? A Dash of Clint Eastwood, A Pinch of High-School Geometry
You've got to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky?
Well, do ya, punk?
Like it or not, luck is a part of sports. The bank shot from half court to win a game. The blooped broken-bat single. The tip for a pick-six interception. All of these can break the heart of fans who can't come to grips with the idea that sometimes, for whatever reason, the ball doesn't bounce in their preferred direction.
You've probably heard one fan say to another, "Well, you guys got lucky." In fact, many fans accused the Denver Broncos of this very thing in Week 1 on the last play of the game (the tipped touchdown to Brandon Stokley if you're living on planet Al Davis). But what they are really saying is, "You didn't deserve to win."
While I disagree with this assessment, luck does happen. But more importantly, we can approximate luck, not just on one play, not just on a few bad calls at the end of the game, but over the course of the season. And we can do it with such little math that even a Raiders fan (with some Cliff's Notes) can grasp it.
Going Back to High School
Let me take you back to high school, and I don't mean the ugly dress or cummerbund you wore to your prom. Let me take you back to high-school geometry.
Bill James, the who-is-your-daddy of baseball sabermetrics, discovered a nice little equation that does an excellent job of predicting a team's winning percentage in baseball over a 162-game schedule. According to professor Wayne Winston, between 1980-2006, the equation was off on average by only 2% per team. That's an average of only 3 games per year. In a schedule as long as Major League Baseball's, that's quite impressive.
The equation that James came up with is remarkably similar to the famous Pythagorean Theorem, so similar in fact, that James called the result of his equation a team's "Pythagorean Wins." Hence the geometry reference. Here was his original equation:
Runs Scored2
_________________________
Runs Scored2 + Runs Allowed2
James later came back and said that the exponent should really be about 1.81, but at that point, no one cared too much. They had a nice little tool to determine those teams that won or lost more games than they should have. In other words, they could now quantify luck.
It didn't take long for others to take this equation and apply it to other sports like football. Daryl Morey, a real stats guy, and now General Manager for the Houston Rockets, developed a similar equation for the NFL to predict wins, which is currently used by The Football Outsiders today:
Points Scored2.37
___________________________
Points Scored2.37 + Points Allowed2.37
The reason I point this out is that many people associate The Football Outsiders with developing this predictive tool, but Morey and James are its creators.
Morey's equation is also very accurate. Over a 16-game season, it predicts winning percentage within about 6%. That's less than 1 game per year. And it does a better job of predicting future wins than current win-loss models when back tested.
Morey tested his exponent of 2.37 over a 10-year period. I decided to do a little research myself and I back tested the equation over an even longer period of 23 years, and found that the best exponent for predicting winning percentages over that same period was actually 2.61.
Now that we've exhausted all the geometry that you'll ever need to know to watch football again, let's apply our equation to this year's teams. We'll use our new equation based on 23 years of data:
Points Scored2.61
______________________
Points Scored2.61 + Points Allowed2.61
This equation will allow us to compare how many games a team won with how many games they "should" have won.
The Luckiest
Here are the results from the new equation, ranked from the unluckiest team (Baltimore Ravens) to the luckiest (Indianapolis Colts):
| NFL Team | Points Scored | Points Against | Net Points | Actual Pct | Predict Pct. | Differential | Wins | Projected Wins | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore Ravens | 391 | 261 | 130 | 56.30% | 74.17% | -17.87% | 9 | 11.87 | (2.87) |
| New York Jets | 348 | 236 | 112 | 56.30% | 73.37% | -17.07% | 9 | 11.74 | (2.74) |
| New England Patriots | 427 | 285 | 142 | 62.50% | 74.18% | -11.68% | 10 | 11.87 | (1.87) |
| San Francisco 49ers | 330 | 281 | 49 | 50.00% | 60.34% | -10.34% | 8 | 9.65 | (1.65) |
| Washington Redskins | 266 | 336 | -70 | 25.00% | 35.21% | -10.21% | 4 | 5.63 | (1.63) |
| Green Bay Packers | 461 | 297 | 164 | 68.80% | 75.91% | -7.11% | 11 | 12.14 | (1.14) |
| Houston Texans | 388 | 333 | 55 | 56.30% | 59.84% | -3.54% | 9 | 9.58 | (0.58) |
| Detroit Lions | 262 | 494 | -232 | 12.50% | 16.04% | -3.54% | 2 | 2.57 | (0.57) |
| Dallas Cowboys | 361 | 250 | 111 | 68.80% | 72.29% | -3.49% | 11 | 11.57 | (0.57) |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 244 | 400 | -156 | 18.80% | 21.58% | -2.78% | 3 | 3.45 | (0.45) |
| Kansas City Chiefs | 294 | 424 | -130 | 25.00% | 27.77% | -2.77% | 4 | 4.44 | (0.44) |
| St. Louis Rams | 175 | 436 | -261 | 6.30% | 8.45% | -2.15% | 1 | 1.35 | (0.35) |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 368 | 324 | 44 | 56.30% | 58.23% | -1.93% | 9 | 9.32 | (0.32) |
| Carolina Panthers | 315 | 308 | 7 | 50.00% | 51.47% | -1.47% | 8 | 8.23 | (0.23) |
| Miami Dolphins | 360 | 390 | -30 | 43.80% | 44.80% | -1.00% | 7 | 7.17 | (0.17) |
| Atlanta Falcons | 363 | 325 | 38 | 56.30% | 57.17% | -0.87% | 9 | 9.15 | (0.15) |
| Denver Broncos | 326 | 324 | 2 | 50.00% | 50.40% | -0.40% | 8 | 8.06 | (0.06) |
| Minnesota Vikings | 470 | 312 | 158 | 75.00% | 74.45% | 0.55% | 12 | 11.91 | 0.09 |
| Seattle Seahawks | 280 | 390 | -110 | 31.30% | 29.63% | 1.67% | 5 | 4.74 | 0.26 |
| Buffalo Bills | 258 | 326 | -68 | 37.50% | 35.19% | 2.31% | 6 | 5.63 | 0.37 |
| Chicago Bears | 327 | 375 | -48 | 43.80% | 41.16% | 2.64% | 7 | 6.59 | 0.41 |
| Arizona Cardinals | 375 | 325 | 50 | 62.50% | 59.23% | 3.27% | 10 | 9.48 | 0.52 |
| Philadelphia Eagles | 429 | 337 | 92 | 68.80% | 65.25% | 3.55% | 11 | 10.44 | 0.56 |
| New York Giants | 402 | 427 | -25 | 50.00% | 46.07% | 3.93% | 8 | 7.37 | 0.63 |
| Cleveland Browns | 245 | 375 | -130 | 31.30% | 24.77% | 6.53% | 5 | 3.96 | 1.04 |
| New Orleans Saints | 510 | 341 | 169 | 81.30% | 74.09% | 7.21% | 13 | 11.85 | 1.15 |
| Tennessee Titans | 354 | 402 | -48 | 50.00% | 41.78% | 8.22% | 8 | 6.68 | 1.32 |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 305 | 291 | 14 | 62.50% | 53.06% | 9.44% | 10 | 8.49 | 1.51 |
| San Diego Chargers | 454 | 320 | 134 | 81.30% | 71.36% | 9.94% | 13 | 11.42 | 1.58 |
| Jacksonville Jaguars | 290 | 380 | -90 | 43.80% | 33.06% | 10.74% | 7 | 5.29 | 1.71 |
| Oakland Raiders | 197 | 379 | -182 | 31.30% | 15.34% | 15.96% | 5 | 2.46 | 2.54 |
| Indianapolis Colts | 416 | 307 | 109 | 87.50% | 68.85% | 18.65% | 14 | 11.02 | 2.98 |
For those of you who don't want to spend a lot of time looking at this table, the most important columns are the last 3. These are the actual wins, the predicted wins from the equation, and the variance, which is essentially how many more games a teams should have won or lost.
Denver & The Turning Point
Our own Denver Broncos are a good example. They scored 326 points and gave up 324. Their actual record was 8-8, or 50%. The equation projected their wins at 8.06 and their winning percentage at 50.40%. So one would have to say the Broncos were neither more lucky nor unlucky than they should have been.
During the season we could have applied this equation week-by-week in order to project how many wins they were going to get. For the 13-3 crowd, here is an approximation of how many games Denver was going to win after each of their games based on the equation:
| Week | Opponent | Projected-Bronco Wins |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Bengals | 12.9 |
| Week 2 | Browns | 15.1 |
| Week 3 | Raiders | 15.5 |
| Week 4 | Cowboys | 15.2 |
| Week 5 | Patriots | 14.3 |
| Week 6 | Charger | 13.8 |
| Week 7 | Bye | 13.8 |
| Week 8 | Ravens | 11.6 |
| Week 9 | Steelers | 9.9 |
| Week 10 | Redskins | 9 |
| Week 11 | Chargers | 7.2 |
| Week 12 | Giants | 8.4 |
| Week 13 | Chiefs | 9.8 |
| Week 14 | Colts | 9.1 |
| Week 15 | Raiders | 9 |
| Week 16 | Eagles | 8.8 |
| Week 17 | Chiefs | 8.1 |
My original projection for the Broncos was 10-6, and I even wrote a piece here, called "Why History Won't Have a Way of Repeating Itself," after Week 9 saying the same. You can now see why. After the game against the Steelers they were still on pace to be a 10-win team.
Week 10 was really the turning point for this season and where our equation began to point to the Broncos as an 8- or 9-win team. But, of course, you know this already, Broncos fans. For the first 8 weeks, however, this team was a 12-win team.
Implications for Upsets
I find it interesting that both the Jets and the Ravens were in a position to lose out on the playoffs. But according to the equation, both teams were "unlucky" this year and it could be argued that at least the Ravens should have had two more wins. So if someone tells you that the the Texans, Steelers, or Broncos deserved to be in the playoffs more than these two teams, you can set them straight. If anything, the Jets and Ravens should have been challenging for division titles. I will grant you, however, the Jets' figures were slightly skewed given they played teams resting starters in the last two weeks of the season.
A few more surprises came from applying this equation. First, the Saints, Chargers, and Colts were all "lucky" this season, getting more wins than they should have. I would not be at all surprised if two of these teams fall in the divisional round. And the team that should have had the most wins, the Green Bay Packers, ended up as a wild-card team.
Partly due to this equation, I picked the Jets, Cowboys, Patriots, and Packers to win this weekend. You can also see why the Ravens-Patriots game is the most difficult to pick. Both teams were unlucky this year and their projected wins were exactly the same.
Don't be surprised if the "unlucky" teams at the top of this list (Jets, Ravens, Patriots, and Packers) end up making noise in these playoffs. As I finish this piece, I see that both the Jets and the Cowboys have already done so. But for those with a little high-school geometry, it shouldn't have come as a shock.
There are no punks in geometry class.
30 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Now THESE are stats I can really get into TJ...
Are you planning a weekly update for the 2K10 season…I hope so!
-Richee
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
Hey BS, thanks! When you say update, what do you mean. I suspect the answer is yes.
Do you mean am I doing a weekly on the playoffs as well with stats?
Yes, I was just thinking of doing a playoff edition. This New England game is so interesting from a driver perspective, I am thinking yes.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
I was talking about next season...But please do, practice on the playoffs!
-Richee
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
by BroncoSense72 on Jan 10, 2010 9:45 PM MST up reply actions
awesome job TJ
Thanks for sharing this; gives me a lot to think about.
"Never give up! Never surrender!" Captain Peter Quincy Taggert in "Galaxy Quest"
"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It
Thanks, BShrou........t LOL
Let me know if new things come to light. Be happy to discuss any of it.
Since you are a bit of a stats geek like, I knew you might dig this.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Thanks Dude.
This is one of the first pieces on MHR that made me feel compelled to pull out my graphing calculator. Very interesting stuff.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
Girl, you don't need to be a 10, as long as you have a good smile and smell like bacon.
Engineers of the World...Unite!
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
And!!!! Dyslexics of the World
UNTIE!!!!!!!!!!
…………I am not apologizing for that joke…….seriously
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
Very interesting stuff TJ . I still feel the biggest mistake of this season by Josh was not playing Orton in the second half of the Skins game .
I always felt that luck was on our side up until that point because we always went for the win but in that game we pulled the plug and played not to lose .
Hoops, the Redskins game was a turning point for sure, also mentally in my opinion.
The numbers say so, but it also seems that mentally, fans sort of jumped at that point and the panic button was pushed.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Wow.
Most striking to me was Baltimore. I can’t stand them, but they also struck me as the most snake-bit I’ve watched in a while. Couldn’t get the calls, couldn’t get the bounces, etc.
One question, though: isn’t the analysis at least a little self defeating? Bad luck can account for lost scoring opportunities, or, conversely. give the opponent better chances to score, thus factoring into the base variables in the formula. Baltimore is a great example, as they had a lot of ill timed (and some very questionable) penalties go against them, gave up some points or short-fields on fluky TO’s, and had a lot of huge dropped passes. Wouldn’t this then be an example of luck skewing the PF and PA reality?
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 10, 2010 11:06 AM MST reply actions
PO, Interesting.
In baseball, the sabermetrics guys say, “luck, bullpen management, manager decisions,etc.”
So yeah, here we might say, "stupid personal foul penalties, good/bad clock management, bad use of timeouts, fumble recovery rates, and other ‘luck’ ".
Sure, since points differential equates so highly with winning percentage, it’s no surprise, this is true. But it sure is an interesting big of math.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
I think maybe I stated the obvious...
…but then I don’t know, because the more I think about it, the more I confuse myself, which leads me make to a conclusion that I made long ago, which is that me and numbers roll on an entirely different plain. I guess I’m more philosopher than scientist. Stated otherwise, I’m a numbskull when it comes to this stuff— which is why I have grown to like your stuff so much. You explain it very well even when I don’t totally get it. Like I said before, I learn more about the game from your stuff than I’ve learned in a long, long time.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 10, 2010 11:36 PM MST up reply actions
The idea is that points....
is a bigger sample size than Wins, so therefore the point differential is a better indicator of “team ability” than record.
Luck is still a part of point differential, but due to the higher sample size, its hopefully less a factor than it is W-L differential. So what “expected wins” is giving you however is supposed to be a better approximation of actual “team skill” which includes talent, discipline, scheme, etc.
You could run a similar equation on yards for/against… actually, that would be really interesting to see how it compares.
You can have an acurate assessment of what they should win after each game.
That’s simple to figure out. The one thing it isn’t going to show us is a collapse at mid season. After our 6th game we were in deed looking at a 13-14 win season and there shouldn’t have been any doubt that they weren’t going to be 13-3. Calculating all of the measurables can only be concluded at the end of the session that your are measuring, any prediction of the outcome would e just that…A prediction and the LaLaLanders were absolutely correct in their thinking of a 13-3 season.
Hey bfree, I actually gave a response to warmick below that fits here too
I did use the word predictive pretty loosely…a bit on purpose:-)
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
To Almost Quote Eastwood Again
“Deserve’s got ‘almost’ nothin’ to do with it.”
There is always going to be the irrational side of football. The chaos of it. But if you put your team and yourself in the right place, you can hedge closer to luck. Like Stokley’s grab in the first game of the season. Was there a little bit of luck involved? Yes. But did the tip drills, scheming, and execution by Denver put Brandon in the right place? Hell yes.
When it comes to being informed about football and the Denver Broncos, it’s posts like these and people like you that make MHR a hedge in the right direction.
Thanks for doing the math TJ. Great post!
Thanks, Troy. The beauty of this equation is that it's pretty straightforward.
And I think it does give a framework from which we can—in those cases where our intuition says a team seems to be winning or losing more than usually—apply “luck.”
Thanks for reading as always.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
I’m not deliberately looking to be negative but
while this is certainly interesting, calling it a "predicter" is a misnomer. It is merely a matter of basing predictions on history. The longer the history the more "accurate" tends to be the hindsight "prediction" for each game. This is no different than any other statistic: The greater the sample the better the read. Implementing your formula reminds me of my GPS. It predicts the time to arrival pretty well as long as I stay within the speed limit and my present rate of speed. If I decide to alter that speed drastically (or make a pit stop) that estimate is, of course, way off. This doesn’t face the GPS any more than changes in fortune affects your formula, however. Like a politician, it merely changes its tune, completely ignoring its earlier "promise" as if it was never made. Good read though. I have always enjoyed math but you always manage to make it that more interesting.
Hey warmick, I don't see you are being negative, actually...admittedly, I use the word predictive pretty loosely here.
I should be clear about this however, with an example. This equation is “better” generally at predicting records in the following year than if you simply go by wins/losses. In other words, the Jets are more likely to be better next year than their 9-7 record. But simply going by wins and losses, we would say they are going to be 9-7. There are lots of factors, to be sure. As we’ve discussed. I found it interesting and funny that the equation would suggest the Raiders got a little lucky. But of course, they won’t stay with Russel at QB, so again, your argument against it being predictive is totally legit.
So, no problem. I knew when I wrote this that it would have some legitimate criticism as a predictive tool at an individual game level, so really, I have to say, good comments.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
True that one player could change the course of a team in one direction or the other.
The Atlanta Falcons were 4-12 in 2007 with a point differential of -155, then in 2008 the were 11-5 with a +66 differential. Kind of hard to predict what a team does from year to year based solely on the formula above. Correct? There are changes that have to factor into the equation. The Broncos for instance could pick up a couple of players that can help this team to a 13-3 season, we won’t actually know it until it happens. But with improvements to the roster some predictions can be made just by the talent they have. Great post TJ and sorry if I’m undermining this, I’m not trying to I just see things as they happen without calculating it out.
Bree, exactly. I would never use this as a predictive tool, except in the middle of the season
say, after about 4 to 5 games. Then I could start drawing some conclusions. The Broncos were a major oddity.
This is why I was able to predict the Jacksonville meltdown. They has more points against than points scored and yet they had already had 7 wins. I knew this could not keep up as a result of the equation. So, yeah, I think one could say if a team’s roster stayed relatively intact, more use for it. This is why I think you will see the Jets and Ravens with 11 to 12 wins next year.
But for Oakland, it would be difficult because of the QB chance, like you point out with Atlanta.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
Its a better starting point for prediction however.
Knowing better that Team X was better than Team Y in year 1 lets you better understand how offseason moves, strength of schedule differences, etc. are likely to impact them next year.
For example, lets say you have a team that was really “unlucky” in point differential in year 1, but has an easier schedule next year along with a solid offseason filling their needs, etc. That would be a better bet for success in year 2 than the playoff team that had a “lucky” season, but had a tougher schedule and no real movement in the offseason.
No predictor is sure-fire… even the best ones are only explain about 40% of the variation in year-to-year (FootballOutsiders has looked at lots of metrics, from W-L, to Pythag wins, to their own DVOA, etc.). This is why pre-season power rankings tend to be ridiculous….
one of my most used sayings at work: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
Pythag wins is something I consider to be a “useful” model of team ability.
the variance
gives fodder to critics who say that the broncos are way too predictable. :-)
great stuff as usual, dude. statistics and i go together like courney love and dave grohl but you’ve got a great way of slathering the deep fried crust all over those nasty things. delish!
LOL ox, I would say Kurt Cobain and Courtney as well, from all that I've read.
Did you ever see the Gus Van Saint movie? It hardly had any dialog.
"But I hate the way our identity has changed..Kyle Orton might not be the flashiest quarterback, but the guy is a winner, and that formula worked for us. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth." --Brian Urlacher
VanSant's been blackballed
for directing that all time “are we talking about the same movie because the one i saw sucked” classic, “good will hunting.”
but dangit, now you’ve piqued my interest…
also
assuming that penalties are directly correlated to “bad luck” (and that the inverse is also true), i went and retrieved this statistical gem of teams with the highest ypg in penalties. guess my assumption was misguided. maybe the broncos actually need more penalties…
Team Penalty YPG
1. Green Bay 66.6
2. Baltimore 65.2
3. Philadelphia 56.9
4. Dallas 56.2
5. Arizona 55.4
6. Cincinnati 54.0
I'd pass.
It might be the most frustrating and annoying movie I’ve ever watched. Not only do they not talk, but you can never get a good view of anything either. Its avant garbage…IMO, of course.
So this is war...misfortune at every bend in the road. Misery and murdered mules and sudden death in a ditch.-- Rick Atkinson
by PredominantlyOrange on Jan 11, 2010 8:25 PM MST up reply actions
Very interesting
I think if the following variables were true:
- no injuries developing to any player on any team,
- opponents used the same schemes when playing your team,
- the season was comprised of many more games than just 16, and
- the ball bounced the same way in weeks 2-17 as it did in week 1,
then week 1’s performances of each team would more accurately predict the rest of the season. Unfortunately, stuff just happens, right?
Thanks Dude.
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche
one...minor...correction
2-17 should say 2-?
"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche

by 








































