Stop with "Schedule is Hard"--Analytics says it BS

[Manther]

 

 

Math.

 

The end.

Well played

[Big Turk]

 

So if analytics are so super awesome, why do teams fail in the NFL Draft?

 

Analytics is just another fancy application like what the sharps used to do when they published gambling books on how to win at X, Y, or Z. It STILL does not guarantee jack and it doesn't guarantee our schedule is EASIER either... it's just a trend and nothing more.

Because there are so many things that can't be measured...work ethic...how much they accept coaching or think they know it all...injuries...being put in a bad scheme fit and being asked to do things they can't do well...how much money changes them...who they associate with once they have money...

 

I'd say 30-35% of NFL players who are viewed as "failures" are mostly scheme fit failures

Edited July 4, 2017 by matter2003

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Because there are so many things that can't be measured...work ethic...how much they accept coaching or think they know it all...injuries...being put in a bad scheme fit and being asked to do things they can't do well...how much money changes them...who they associate with once they have money...

 

I'd say 30-35% of NFL players who are viewed as "failures" are mostly scheme fit failures

 

So the very idea that there is a system for success in professional football, analytics, is really a bogus idea. Like gambling, you can increase the odds of success POSSIBLY, but the odds are still the odds. You can never predict whether or not you get a Curtis Martin or a Shawne Merriman... a Warren Sapp or an Albert Haynesworth... an Andrew Luck or a JaMarcus Russell. Injuries... mental issues... drug issues... it just cannot be defined to be sure.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

Patriots have no tape on the New Bills.

We have the advantage, and yes i am serious.

Thank you for this, I haven't laughed that hard in a few months.

[atlbillsfan1975]

It happens each season. Mediocre teams everyone expects will be better, aren't. Good teams from the previous year turn out to be one year wonders. And then there are injuries that decimate a team. The thing I use to root for back in the 90's was for a team to win before they played the Bills. I like playing a team after a win more than after a loss. Unless it is the browns from the past 3 years.

[zonabb]

Well, as someone who sat through my share of graduate stats courses, I'll call BS on this. One season's worth of data is what any stats 101 student is taught to ID as spurious or in laymen's term's, cherry picking. Any moron with a Excel, two variables, and some barely passing understanding of correlation can run this analysis. The results only tell us about last season. One year in the entire history of the NFL. No more, no less. If you want to run with that proof as of anything well, I have some East Side property for a few hundred thousands I'll sell you.

 

And because it's written by a biased Bills fan masquerading as a "reporter" whose education and experience with statistical analysis is unstated, I'd suggest not taking this with anything more than a giant grain of rose colored salt. Beyond that, without going way down the rabbit hole, correlation is a useless method to tell us anything about what causes wins. Strength of schedules doesn't cause wins or losses... remember, correlation doesn't equal causation. A more robust method (some form of regression) that takes into account actual factors playing a significant roll in wins and loss, like I don't know, draft and free agency acquisitions/losses, games lost to injury, turnovers, offensive statistics, defensive statistics, etc. would tell us more about wins than this garbage analysis.

[Thurman#1]

 

https://www.buffalor...n-metric-stupid

"The correlation coefficient between a team’s preseason strength of schedule and their eventual winning percentage is -0.0861. If you want mathematical proof that the slate for a team going into a season has almost nothing to do with how the season will turn out, well, there you go."

Meaning there is absolutely NO---let me say that again for all thsoe "off season schedule readers" out there---NO!!! correlation to a "tough" schedule before the season starts to a tough schedule when the season is playing out.

In fact, if anything, it shows there might be a correlation to it being the OPPOSITE----teams with alledgedly hard schedules end up with easier schedules than thought, and vise versa

So let's stop talking about the how "tough" the schedule looks because as I have been saying for years, it's BS, and analytics just proved it.

 

 

 

 

Well, of course not. Of course how good the team is is going to have a great deal more impact on their record than projected strength of schedule.

 

Duh.

 

The question isn't whether projected strength of schedule correlates to wins. It's whether projected strength of schedule correlates to actual strength of schedule and how strongly. And how actual strength of schedule correlates to wins and how strongly.

 

Plus, as Zonabb says above, one season of data says very very little in terms of proof anyway.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Royale with Cheese]

I think you're nuts. This schedule is brutal. They're starting the year 0-2 with NE games. We can't count on AJ Green leaving the game in the 1st again when we play CIN. Not only are we playing the defending champions twice, but we're also playing the runner up. Every single team, except the Jets, has a better QB than we do.

 

I look at this schedule and the only two "should win," games are against the Jets.

 

I'ts brutal.

2015

Carolina Panthers 15-1

Denver Broncos 12-4

Both teams in Super Bowl

 

2016

Carolina Panthers 6-10

Denver Broncos 9-7

Both teams miss the playoffs.

 

Every year teams surprise or disappoint....every year.

2017 won't be any different.

We don't know how hard the schedule is until at least week 8 into the season.

You're crying now for the sake of crying.

[Augie]

2015

Carolina Panthers 15-1

Denver Broncos 12-4

Both teams in Super Bowl

2016

Carolina Panthers 6-10

Denver Broncos 9-7

Both teams miss the playoffs.

Every year teams surprise or disappoint....every year.

2017 won't be any different.

We don't know how hard the schedule is until at least week 8 into the season.

You're crying now for the sake of crying.

Can it PLEASE be our year to surprise? You know....in a GOOD way?

[QuoteTheRaven83]

It's ridiculous.

 

You don't know who will be good and who will suck before the season starts.... Unless your the Browns or Bills.

 

I know who'll be good and who'll be bad...

 

Good: Falcons, Patriots, Packers, Seahawks, Steelers, Raiders, Giants,

Bad: Bills, Browns, Bears, Rams, 49ers, Jets, Dolphins,

[boyst]

Denver isn't what they have been, I don't think. QB situation is not good. Very beatable playing in Buffalo.

the defense against our offense, i'm giving it to their defense no doubt about it. taylor isn't cam newton, he's far better. but they're still good enough to stop him.

[White Linen]

 

I know who'll be good and who'll be bad...

 

Good: Falcons, Patriots, Packers, Seahawks, Steelers, Raiders, Giants,

Bad: Bills, Browns, Bears, Rams, 49ers, Jets, Dolphins,

 

I could have sworn there were more teams

[3rdand12]

Thank you for this, I haven't laughed that hard in a few months.

good to find you actually have a sense of humor

[#34fan]

I respect analytics to a certain degree... However, looking ahead we face a lot of run-heavy teams... CAR, MIA, DEN, ATL, OAK (with a re-dedicated Marshawn Lynch)... We had the third-worst run defense in the league last

 

season.... Not sure if McDoomed changes that overnight... Hard to be an optimist when the blueprint for beating us is so simple... RUN THE DAMN BALL DOWN THEIR THROAT....

Edited July 5, 2017 by #34fan

[Augie]

I could have sworn there were more teams

And how many "good teams" will fail to make the playoffs? How many of the bad teams will surprise to some extent?

[Big Gun]

Patriots have no tape on the New Bills.

We have the advantage, and yes i am serious.

Not right now they don't but once the season starts they will have 11 weeks worth of tape and 4 preseason games of tape. I think that's more than enough for BB and TB.

[Thurman#1]

Well, as someone who sat through my share of graduate stats courses, I'll call BS on this. One season's worth of data is what any stats 101 student is taught to ID as spurious or in laymen's term's, cherry picking. Any moron with a Excel, two variables, and some barely passing understanding of correlation can run this analysis. The results only tell us about last season. One year in the entire history of the NFL. No more, no less. If you want to run with that proof as of anything well, I have some East Side property for a few hundred thousands I'll sell you.

 

And because it's written by a biased Bills fan masquerading as a "reporter" whose education and experience with statistical analysis is unstated, I'd suggest not taking this with anything more than a giant grain of rose colored salt. Beyond that, without going way down the rabbit hole, correlation is a useless method to tell us anything about what causes wins. Strength of schedules doesn't cause wins or losses... remember, correlation doesn't equal causation. A more robust method (some form of regression) that takes into account actual factors playing a significant roll in wins and loss, like I don't know, draft and free agency acquisitions/losses, games lost to injury, turnovers, offensive statistics, defensive statistics, etc. would tell us more about wins than this garbage analysis.

 

Yea I'm confused by the Denver love.

 

If Lynch emerges then yes they will be a tough team, if he doesn't then they will be very mediocre.

 

 

Respect for Denver makes a ton of sense.

 

They have two third-year guys at QB, both in a very good position to show a lot of improvement.

 

They had nine wins last year with a second-year QB who'd never thrown a pass. This year that guy has a year's experience and the other guy probably is starting to understand what he's looking at.

 

There's very good reason to respect them and predict a considerably better outcome than here in Buffalo this year.

 

I know who'll be good and who'll be bad...

 

Good: Falcons, Patriots, Packers, Seahawks, Steelers, Raiders, Giants,

Bad: Bills, Browns, Bears, Rams, 49ers, Jets, Dolphins,

 

 

 

Heh heh heh heh.

[Buffalo Boy]

https://www.buffalor...n-metric-stupid

"The correlation coefficient between a teams preseason strength of schedule and their eventual winning percentage is -0.0861. If you want mathematical proof that the slate for a team going into a season has almost nothing to do with how the season will turn out, well, there you go."

Meaning there is absolutely NO---let me say that again for all thsoe "off season schedule readers" out there---NO!!! correlation to a "tough" schedule before the season starts to a tough schedule when the season is playing out.

In fact, if anything, it shows there might be a correlation to it being the OPPOSITE----teams with alledgedly hard schedules end up with easier schedules than thought, and vise versa

 

 

So let's stop talking about the how "tough" the schedule looks because as I have been saying for years, it's BS, and analytics just proved it.

[KOKBILLS]

 

https://www.buffalor...n-metric-stupid

"The correlation coefficient between a team’s preseason strength of schedule and their eventual winning percentage is -0.0861. If you want mathematical proof that the slate for a team going into a season has almost nothing to do with how the season will turn out, well, there you go."

Meaning there is absolutely NO---let me say that again for all thsoe "off season schedule readers" out there---NO!!! correlation to a "tough" schedule before the season starts to a tough schedule when the season is playing out.

In fact, if anything, it shows there might be a correlation to it being the OPPOSITE----teams with alledgedly hard schedules end up with easier schedules than thought, and vise versa

So let's stop talking about the how "tough" the schedule looks because as I have been saying for years, it's BS, and analytics just proved it.

 

 

Thank you...I've been saying this for years...No one knows preseason...It's just something for the talking heads to yap about...Crazy things always happen...Injuries are MAJOR wildcard...There's a reason why no one talks about preseason strength of schedule during the season...Because after a few weeks it all gets blown to hell...

[Buffalo Boy]

We play NE twice, I can predict those.... losses.

The NFC South is a good division. We would be lucky to come out with 2 wins .

By my way of thinking we already have 5 losses between those two.

Raiders... loss

Chiefs....,.loss

Broncos... loss

Do we beat Miami twice? 1 loss

Just like last year and the year before that.

We preseason prognosticators have unfortunately been correct far too often with this team😳

P.S. 6-10

Edited July 5, 2017 by Buffalo Boy

[Orlando Tim]

This thread cracks me up in many ways. I teach math to high school students and many of the students who do not understand the math in word problems say the math is wrong. While the data set is limited in what it means it is accurate and it a mathematical fact that using the previous year record to determine strength of schedule does not produce usable results.

[JM2009]

Yea I'm confused by the Denver love.

 

If Lynch emerges then yes they will be a tough team, if he doesn't then they will be very mediocre.

I agree. Denver is not scary anymore.

[Boatdrinks]

The Bills schedule is always hard. Two games are against Brady, half the games are on the road. In other words, it's hard because the Bills just aren't that good.

[Talley56]

 

 

 

Respect for Denver makes a ton of sense.

 

They have two third-year guys at QB, both in a very good position to show a lot of improvement.

 

They had nine wins last year with a second-year QB who'd never thrown a pass. This year that guy has a year's experience and the other guy probably is starting to understand what he's looking at.

 

There's very good reason to respect them and predict a considerably better outcome than here in Buffalo this year.

 

 

 

Heh heh heh heh.

Not seeing it with Denver. Their QBs may have another year's worth of experience but none of them have proven anything. They lost both Kubiak and Phillips. I cannot stress how detrimental losing even one of the two will be. And they lost both. Barring a situation where maybe Lynch steps in at QB and proves to be a surprising stud I have actually been predicting a pretty disastrous year for Denver and I'll be surprised if it turns out any other way.

[Adam727]

I don't claim to be particularly smart, so I'll apologize in advance if I completely misunderstood something.

 

But in reading the article, that first chart appears to just compare pre-season estimated SOS to actual SOS. So the fact that the teams with the toughest pre-season SOS had easier regular season SOSs than the pre-season estimates seems to just show that over time most NFL teams revert to parity. It doesn't appear to mention what the actual SOSs turned out to be at all. If a team's pre-season SOS was .550 and their actual SOS ended up being .540 when the year was over, then it was easier than expected but still tougher than the average team that year.

 

The second chart with the dots seems to show that 14 teams with a .500 or easier pre-season SOS ended up with an 8-8 or better record and only 5 teams with a .501 or tougher pre-season SOS had an 8-8 or better record last year. Which would seem to indicate that last year teams with pre-season SOSs of .500 or less were almost 3x more likely to have 8-8 or better records than teams with tougher SOSs, which would seem to run counter to the author's argument.

 

I don't want to comment on the correlation coefficient the author mentioned because it doesn't appear to say how it was calculated, but the first two charts don't seem to make the author's point for him very well. (again unless I'm completely misunderstanding something)

 

It makes sense to me that a tougher schedule = less likely to win as many games. If the relationship between pre-season SOS and # of wins is actually negative does that mean a team that plays the team with the worst record the year before (Browns) twice a year statistically has a worse chance of making the playoffs than a team who plays the team that won the superbowl (Patriots) twice a year? That would seem odd if true.

 

I understand a lot can and will change before the season starts but I still would think playing NE, NE, Atlanta, Carolina, Oakland etc hurts our chances more than helps..

[GunnerBill]

That's not analytics, that's a useless bunch of elementary plots that wouldn't conclude any thing... ever.

 

Strength of schedule and it's impact on a given team must be individualized and nomrmalized so it's relative.

 

Strength of schedule based on prior results if impacting in any way, would surely impact the strong, weak and marginal teams quite differently- if at all.

This. Absolutely this. If people think the original post was "analytics" they don't understand what analytics means. It doesn't mean "anything with numbers".

[wilcoam]

Denver, who are not projected by most to be a playoff team in 2017, on the road, and in Buffalo, IMO is a winnable game

Then again I have to laugh at the thought that Brady and Bellicheck at looking at our new revamped D and in nay way being really concerned, lol

 

Last year they had to look at getting passes completed with pro bowl Zack, Gilmore, Robey-Colemen, and Graham on the field

This year it'll be Hodges, a rookie, the Browns injured first year starting safety, and Green Bay's backup CB/S, lol

 

Scheme aside helping what looks like on paper to be paper thin in talent, and lacking NFL starting exp, I would not be so cocky

Maybe this unheralded group surprises by the time we take on the Pats late in the season but its not something that's assured

What is more assured unfort is Brady completing alot of passes regardless

 

jc

[LeGOATski]

Consider that actual fluctuation that goes on year to year.

 

Between the teams that made the playoffs the previous year and those that do in the current year, there's usually a 2 or 3 team difference.

 

There's a little more fluctuation with the bottom rung teams.

 

I think you can still look at a schedule and if you see a bunch of playoff teams and above-average teams for the prior year, then you can make an educated guess at "strength of schedule."

 

It's not a big deal.

If you're an actual player on the team, though, you are much better served by optimism...

Edited July 5, 2017 by LeGOATski

[fansince88]

 

 

 

Let's get something clear at this juncture. IT'S A !@#$ING GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There is no "surrendering." There are no "warriors," or "heroes."

 

Football is a game.

 

Furthermore, you don't know Kim Pegula and she certainly doesn't give two craps about you. So stop pretending that you're "offended" because I called her a gold digger.

 

It's a game. That's it.

She is beautiful and young. He is much older and rich....I dont see how you could call her a gold digger....

[GunnerBill]

If I had to choose between Denver being good or a disaster, id go with disaster but probably some where in between.

Same but I see sub .500. 6-10ish.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

We play NE twice, I can predict those.... losses.

The NFC South is a good division. We would be lucky to come out with 2 wins .

By my way of thinking we already have 5 losses between those two.

Raiders... loss

Chiefs....,.loss

Broncos... loss

Do we beat Miami twice? 1 loss

Just like last year and the year before that.

We preseason prognosticators have unfortunately been correct far too often with this team

P.S. 6-10

 

Last year - we were to lose to the patriots twice, arizona, cinn, seattle, oakland, pittsburgh. In the end we got swept by NYJ and MIA which ended up costing us the playoffs. We won 3 of the 7 we were supposed to lose, and almost beat seattle. If we played better on defense against the jets and dolphins, we were in the playoffs.

Edited July 5, 2017 by dneveu

[fansince88]

Btw... hard schedule for a team that took days off for victory Monday and the coach told the players what they wanted to hear? Yes. We have a new coach and I think the preparation will be different. I see us battling through some of those guaranteed "losses"

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Btw... hard schedule for a team that took days off for victory Monday and the coach told the players what they wanted to hear? Yes. We have a new coach and I think the preparation will be different. I see us battling through some of those guaranteed "losses"

not defending Rex, but I can say that the players usually showed up at OBD on "victory Mondays"

[H2o]

19-0 Baby. Just like the Senator always said.

 

I saw someone take it a step further the other day and put 23-0 counting the preseason.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Teams definitely fluctuate from year to year. Carolina was 15-1 in 2015, and 6-10 last year. Yes they gutted the defense, but they also scored like 150 fewer points.

 

Miami had a -17 point differential, and finished 10-6.

 

Turnovers tend to fluctuate from year to year as well (NE is a notable exception, you basically get fired if you fumble). 13 teams committed fewer than 20 turnovers last year. 9 made the playoffs. Keep your turnovers down, you tend to keep yourself in games. KC and Oakland both were at +16 last year to lead the league, a small regression there towards the mean and neither teams record is as good.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Not seeing it with Denver. Their QBs may have another year's worth of experience but none of them have proven anything. They lost both Kubiak and Phillips. I cannot stress how detrimental losing even one of the two will be. And they lost both. Barring a situation where maybe Lynch steps in at QB and proves to be a surprising stud I have actually been predicting a pretty disastrous year for Denver and I'll be surprised if it turns out any other way.

 

They have good pieces if either of the QBs can prove to be competent. Sanders, Thomas, solid running game.

[fansince88]

not defending Rex, but I can say that the players usually showed up at OBD on "victory Mondays"

Yes they did. That said see MG quote now that he is a Patriot. Going from the Bills to the Patriots and the difference in practice is the difference in winning. The players wanted to put in the extra work. The leader was lazy. Edited July 5, 2017 by fansince88

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Yes they did. That said see MG quote now that he is a Patriot. Going from the Bills to the Patriots and the difference in practice is the difference in winning. The players wanted to put in the extra work. The leader was lazy.

Again not defending .. Whats MG going to say? The Pats are lazy?

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Again not defending .. Whats MG going to say? The Pats are lazy?

 

With the limited number of practices with and without pads, i imagine belichick demands all-out effort consistently.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

With the limited number of practices with and without pads, i imagine belichick demands all-out effort consistently.

Belicheat demands more than physical play on the field. He wants players to know how to read the field and provide the correct answer when he asks them.

Until the Bills offense proves it can win in a shootout nothing will change.

 

I'm not saying abandon the run, I'm asking for the Bills to be able to pass the ball when needed to and have success.