TRUST or BUST?

PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE MATTERS

Is it really true? Post Season experience provides you with a Post Season advantage? You hear it all the time. On ESPN, from players, coaches, and all over from fans. Dynasties seem to be an indication that teams that do it once can do it again. The Patriots incredible post-season record seems to be a testament to this age old adage.

However, as much as people argue this, I have always felt that though there may be a correlation, playoff experience is NOT the CAUSE of good post season performance. The whole point of statistics is to discover CAUSATION. This causes this. Correlation is just a relationship. To learn about how correlation DOES NOT IMPLY causation, READ THIS. Correlation can certainly suggest causation, and can even be a predictor for it, but the data must be better analyzed for true causation. Another important and basic principle of statistics is that their accuracy increases as the data sample available also increases. Individual examples, though possibly intreging, ARE NOT to be trusted as the rule. Your sample must be as large as reasonably possible.

My arguemnt is that good teams win the playoffs, or in other words, good regular season teams are good post season team. If you are a team consistently good in the regular season, you will likely find playoff success as well. This is backed by looking at recent playoff seeding, which is determined by regular season play. Historically, top seeds do a better job of winning in the post season. I can guarantee you this. If you win the SuperBowl one year, but fail to make the playoffs the next year by having subpar regular season performance, you will be guaranteed to win ZERO post season games that following year ;) Regular season play causes you to join the playoffs.

We often like to point out exceptions as the rule. In 2005, home field advantage (top seeds) were destroyed. For the first time, a team seeded lower than #4 (since the AFL/NFL merger) won the Super Bowl (the Steelers, a #6 seed). Despite all the mention of the importance of playoff experience, I have yet to find a solid, statisically backed argument by any professional analyst that proves the claim. Yet it seems the majority of fans buy into this cliche. It seems almost crazy with all the stats run at ESPN, they haven't made a critical attempt to argue some of these traditional beliefs.

You will read arguments like the two following posts taken from actual conversations I had in an online forum:

"IF it was just ONE or TWO former players, coaches or players then coaches turned sports analysts that said that, then yes. But when they ALL say it's true, then it must be true. And since they LIVED and PLAYED through it, then yes, I'm going to take their word for it over some sports writer who never played a down, inning or period in pro sports." (Anonymous)

"But when they ALL say it's true, then it must be true."

Dan Dierdorf says, "(On quarterbacks having playoff experience making a difference): I think it makes a difference not just for quarterbacks, but for everybody. It is totally different when you’re in the playoffs, unless you’ve been there before, you have a tendency to get a little wide-eyed, the throat gets awfully dry and the heart beats a little out of control. It is easy to have happen. Experience is a big factor when it comes to the playoffs…"

Shannon Sharpe says: "…(On quarterbacks having playoff experience making a difference): You need someone who has been there before, is not easily fazed by it all and takes care of the football. That’s what a veteran quarterback does that has been there. They realize how valuable that football is. They don’t put their teams in harms way. If you lose the turnover battle, 98% of the time, you’re going to lose the game, especially in the playoffs…"

I certainly hope, especially in the case of the second statement, that we don't just accept what a majority says as the truth, especially when it comes in the form of an emotional argument like Dierdorf. An expert in statistics can calculate within a small percentage if PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE really determines future winners. A football coach can't. Most people do not know or recognize the difference between a correlation and causation. Why would I trust a non-statistician to tell me playoff experience CAUSES future playoff wins? What of the first time a team wins a championship? There is a prime example in recent history of a QB new to the playoffs winning the whole thing on his first try, amongst others:

I will IN NO WAY argue that EXPERIENCE doesn't make a difference. I will, however, argue that Post Season experience is no different than regular season experience. It is the volume of experience itself that matters. You do play better teams in the playoffs, and I believe stronger competition can make you better. But then there is always one team that goes home a loser? And why? Because in general, they got beat by the better regular season team.

"Tom Brady had no postseason experience when he started New England's run of three Super Bowl titles in four years. Kurt Warner led St. Louis to a Super Bowl victory in his first playoff appearance. Jake Delhomme had started two NFL games in four seasons before signing with Carolina as a free agent. He got the Panthers to the Super Bowl in his first year." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060111/ai_n15985164)

Having done a bit of research myself, I have found some information regarding playoff experience in other sports (hockey and baseball) which I can't imagine vary too much from those for another team sport like football (the difference being that Football playoff advancement is based on a single win instead of a series of games played against the same team -- too bad we don't have the time or the durability for that ;)).

Here is a great article about Playoff Experience that I consider a great start to understanding statistics, and then a page that uses those statistics to question PLAYOFF EXPRIENCE (as seen in Hockey): http://www.puckerings.com/research/analysis.html ---- http://www.puckerings.com/research/playexp.html

Though PLAYOFF EXPERIENCE is a good predictor for future success, BEING A GOOD TEAM is the cause of the effect! I am working to find further evidence of this, but for now, we'll rely on the following statistics as the true cause and effect indicator.

Here's one for baseball, which seems pretty conclusive:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2000/2000/1006/803589.html

I have read a few short articles that CONTEND playoff experience matters in basketball, but there was little statistical evidence to back it up. Maybe someday each sport will figure it out.

Here are seeding stats of teams that have made it to the SuperBowl for the last 19 years (winner of 2008 not yet included). Note that tiebreakers can be used to determine seeds, so often a #1 and #2 (for example) could be equally matched, but just seeded differently. Still, a #1 seed, best performers in the regular season, appear to be the best performer in the playoffs. #1 and #2 seeds obviously get a bye, which means they have to win one less game, making their chances better than #3 - #6 seeds to begin with, but again, that is the reward a team gets for better regular season play -- NOT BECAUSE they have playoff experience from a prior year.

1990-1998 AFC NFC Total % Wins %
#1 SEED 7 11 18 47% 8 42%
#2 SEED 6 5 11 29% 6 32%
#3 SEED 2 1 3 8% 1 5%
#4 SEED 3 1 4 11% 2 11%
#5 SEED 0 1 1 3% 1 5%
#6 SEED 1 0 1 3% 1 5%
TOTALS 19 19 38 100% 19 100%

Running a trendline on a scatterplot and producing an R-Squared value for this table, you get .9916. This provides a very high level of confidence that this trend will continue into the future.

Another interesting thing to note. Low seeds that have made the SuperBowl (3-6) have appeared 9 times, and won 5 of those times. Once you make the SuperBowl, the odds seem to be about 50% of winning. Take that analysis a bit further. What data table would you expect to see with simple binomial distribution? If you get into the playoffs, you have six different positions -- seeds 1 through 6. What are the chances of winning if all games are 50%?

1-2 Seeds (have to win three games): 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8. There are four of these seeds, so there's a 50% chance, amongst the four, that they would win the SuperBowl!
3-6 Seeds (have to win four games): 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/16 (even though there are only twelve teams, you have to play your four games to win). There are eight of these teams. So, 8/16 = 50% chance of winning the SuperBowl. Right? Not really -- enter homefield advantage and the fact that seeding is a general reflection of superiority. 13 of 18 SuperBowls have been won by the top two seeds. That's well more than half. But, once a team makes it to the SuperBowl, the game is played in on a nuetral field. So, the 50% chance of winning hold much more true ONCE IN the SuperBowl.

In 2006 someone posted of the 14-2 Chargers: "What I don't get is the Chargers have a good season, hell a great season. But why do people forget that means nothing in the playoffs?" Well, he kind of sounds right since the Chargers dropped it in their first game of the playoffs. And who did they lose to? None other than the Patriots, a tested post season team. And then who won the whole thing? A Colts team that has been in the playoffs a lot lately. But what else have all these teams done? They've played great in the regular season for many years. And meanwhile, even the individual stats of the 2006 Post Season showed yet another #1 team making the SuperBowl (the Bears) and a #3 team winning, for the first time. Based on recent statistics (50% of SuperBowls have been won by a #1 seed), you might expect next year's SuperBowl winner will come from a #1 seed. Statistics, however, never claim that just because something is likely that it's going to happen. You've always got to keep an open mind. In fact I would readily admit my whole argument against this chiche is wrong if based on better analysis done by someone more qualified it was found to be different.

Top seeds have a better chance of making the SuperBowl and winning that lower seeds. This is statistically true not only for the last 17 years, but for at least the last 32 years. Though Any Given Sunday applies to every game played -- a low seed CAN beat a high seed -- the higher seeds, who have played better in the regular season, tend to win.

"Since home field advantage counted in the post-merger playoffs [31 years], 19 of the NFC’s top seeds, including Seattle last year, have reached the Super Bowl. Thirteen of the NFC teams were victorious." (Hall of Fame article; from FIRST TO FIRST) (now 32 years, and 20 NFC top seeds)

More than half the NFC top seeds have REACHED the SuperBowl.

"In the AFC, 16 of the top seeded team made the Super Bowl but only six were crowned world champions." (Hall of Fame article; from FIRST TO FIRST) (now 32 years, and 16 top seeds)

Again, more than half of the AFC top seeds have REACHED the SuperBowl.

19 of the SuperBowls have been won by a top seed in the last 31 SuperBowls. Can you argue against #1 making it to the SuperBowl more often or that they win more often? You can point to #1 seeds not going to/winning the Superbowl for X amount of years, but is there any team that would purposely take a #2 or #3 seed in order to be in a better position to win? Nah. It doesn't work that way. The better regular season teams tend to win. Only one 6th seed has ever won. I believe only one or two 5th seeds...I could be wrong on that one.

Turns out, if you are doing what it takes to win, you probably have the stats to go with it, and you are PROBABLY the better team, and you have a better probability of winning. That said -- the Champs are the Champs, fair and square, disregarding any argument about "who is better". The Colts are to be congratulated for a job well done in 2006/07!

 

One of the only professional sports writers I've seen write an article about PLAYOFF EXPRIENCE is Phil Simms. As I can no longer find his linked article, I will provide it below:

Rivers' lack of 'playoff experience' not relevant

By Phil Simms
Special to SuperBowl.com

Phil Simms(Jan. 10, 2007) -- So let's see ... the four quarterbacks who are starting in the AFC playoff games this weekend include two guys who have started in the Super Bowl (Tom Brady and Steve McNair) and another who has led his team to four consecutive division titles (Peyton Manning).

Then there's Philip Rivers, who will be making his first postseason appearance Jan. 14 when the Chargers play host to the Patriots.

We always hear about this "playoff experience," and what a big factor it is. Well, maybe it is to some people, but not to me. I've been preparing my notes to call the New England-San Diego game on CBS this weekend, and I have written nothing about the importance of this being Rivers' first playoff game. It never crossed my mind.

Let's take a look at Rivers. He's a third-year player in the NFL, he took every offensive snap for the Chargers this season and he was a four-year starter in college who played in several big games during that time. He might have some jitters when the game starts, but that will go away quickly. He's not going to be out there thinking, "Wow, this is a playoff game, this is different."

I don't see experience being a factor the way it's talked about. If San Diego can block well and give Rivers time, then he'll have a solid game. And if Brady is pressured by San Diego's defense, then we'll hear all this stuff about the young guy doing better than the veteran. What will everyone say if that happens? "Rivers outdueled Brady."

Of course, if the Patriots win the game and they put a lot of pressure on Rivers -- what will they say? "Rivers can't react to the playoff pressure." I don't know about the playoff pressure, but I do know about the pressure of getting hit and hurried by the Patriots defense. And that is a factor no matter how much playoff experience you have.

Let's get physical

As I look at the Patriots-Chargers game in very general terms, I see two teams that have a lot in common. They're both bullies -- big teams that like to put physical pressure on you and let you know they are there. Throughout the Patriots' success this decade, they have shown that they enjoy the battle; they don't get tired of the battle.

San Diego has shown the same attitude in recent years. I would not think for a moment that they can't handle this kind of physical challenge. With guys like Luis Castillo, Jamal Williams, Shaun Phillips -- and, oh yeah, that Shawne Merriman guy -- do you think they're gonna get tired of the fight?

It's like the commercial that's been running with the Rock'em Sock'em™ Robots, only it's going to be for an entire game.

As much as we talk about the game changing, and the different style of today's athlete, it still really comes down to being really physical. Football is a tough sport, and it's a game of adversity -- something always goes wrong and you need to overcome.

It boils down to being physical. To throw an old cliché in the mix, it's about laying it on the line. That's how the Patriots and Chargers have reached this point, and it will be on display Sunday.

Super matchup in Superdome

There are many matchups that intrigue me as I look at the four games this weekend. One that stands out is this: Can either team pressure the quarterback in the Eagles-Saints game Jan. 13?

I have to admit, I expected the combination of head coach Sean Payton and quarterback Drew Brees to produce a very smart, ball-control offense in New Orleans. What we've seen instead is explosiveness.

Payton and Brees have had some games where they just destroy the opposition with their offense. Will they do that to Eagles? Or will Philadelphia's blitzing defense make them take a step back and play it a little safer?

The Saints' success has been about explosiveness on offense. But I also think that if the Eagles take that away and make them play ball-control offense, they can do that. But they will continue to go for the home run, too. Having a solid running game helps, as does the threat of rookie receiver Marques Colston.

A POST ABOUT THE PATRIOTS DYNASTY...does it take a good playoff team, or a good team, period?

And once you build up that kind of post season record...well, think about it. It would take a loss this year to get them to 12-2. Then 10 more post season losses, which means 10 years (at least) to get Brady back to 12-12. On the other hand, someone with experience like Shottenheimer (5-12) that has lasted many years (being a coach)...well, it would take only 2.333 playoff years (assuming two SB wins with a high seed and one more win in the 3rd year) to get back to even.

Of course, the playoffs are tougher games (playing teams that all have winning records). It would be easy to go back and see if the margin of victory in the regular season is substantially more or less in comparison to the playoff wins -- I should do that just to get an idea of what might be going on. Maybe if the playoffs are a bit more "squeaker" wins vs. the regular season, it would be easier to conclude they are simply always good ;) In such a case, winning 3 in a row is all it takes, and the Pats have done that PLENTY 'o times in the regular season. In fact, it's almost to be expected that they will have streaks of 3 in a row. The three times the Pats have won it's been with a playoff bye, which supports the idea that higher seeds are more likely to win (see other posts I've made on that).

Regular season:

2005 10-6. Won 1, Lost 1
2004 14-2. Won Three, 1st Round BYE #2 seed (SB Champs)
2003 14-2. Won Three 1st Round BYE, #1 seed (SB Champs)
2002 9-7 (didn't make playoffs)
2001 11-5 Won Three 1st Round BYE, #2 seed (SB Champs)

Something to note. The Pats have won 3 superbowls. They had #2, #2, and #1 seeds. The only loss they have came after a Wild Card week win in the divisional round. Very much in accord with typical stats for a good team -- result of good regular season performance.

The intangibles make players great, and the players help make their team great. Brady has a lot of the intangables. What he does in the regular season is mirrored in the playoffs. Being 12-1 (so far) isn't TOO far off from what he and his team typically do in regular seasons.
The three SuperBowl wins came after seasons of 11-5, 14-2, and 14-2. 3 more games to play for 16. The season they were 9-7 they didn't make it, and the season they were 10-6 they lost in the divisional round.

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by better the first time and better the second time, then. Explain how you can have crappier players and be a better team. Are you thinking of individual players and their stats or an "average" quality of players? I would say, decidedly, that the Patriots from 2001-2005 had a better team comprised of OVERALL better players than any other team. They didn't suck in the regular season and all the sudden "turn it on" any more in the post season than in the regular season.

Last I checked two of those Super Bowls included two 14-2 seasons. Winning 6 post season games in a row (well, in reality, 3 in a row, twice, a year apart) in those post-seasons hardly seems atypcial of a team winning 14 in the regular season.

They had a 6 game winning streak going into the 2001 post season, then won three more. They rode a 12 game winning streak into the 2003 post season. And they had two six game winning streaks in the 2004 season, heading into the playoffs with a 2 game winning streak.

So, winning 3 in a row after the regular season hardly seems an anomoly. They were/are a good team.

Then, in the season they went 10-6 and made the playoffs, they won one and lost one.

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by better when referring to the players and better when referring to the team. I think what you're saying is CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS on the other teams were "better" players (ie, stats, pro bowler, hyped), but that as a whole, the other teams were not as good. The sum of the parts makes the whole -- the average player on the Patriots has been better than the average player on these other big teams. That's why they continue to win after the regular season is over. They are a better team with better (now defined) players (and coaching contributes, too).

In the last couple years, the regular season wins have gone down a little, they suffered a loss in the playoffs (first time not seeded #1 or #2 -- extra game to play), they have suffered injuries, and even lost a couple games to INDY, a team they previously OWNED.

 

 

I think those facts...

are an example of why the argument about post season experience isn't valid. Teams that repeatedly win usually do so within an era. Other teams win one and disappear. If you look at the teams that win repeatedly, their CORE PLAYERS and coach are usually the same. They win because they are a good team that keeps things together and stays healthy. The Patriots are dominant right now -- they are also dominant in the playoffs. But it's because they are a good team, not because they've won before. And in saying a good team, I mean better than other teams that win one and forget to show up ever again.