PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Do Pre-Season Records Matter?


petegz28
08-13-2012, 07:53 PM
Ok, this is from 2006 but still applies, generall speaking. Chart on the link http://www.twominutewarning.com/preseason-matter.htm

More preseason wins = more regular season wins on average! Preseason results do seem to matter in that teams with three or more preseason victories are markedly better than teams with fewer wins, and the rare teams which go winless in preseason are indeed facing trouble in the regular season as well [well, excepting last year when both the Colts and Chiefs did okay...]

Another way to make the case that teams with wins in the exhibitions may be primed for good seasons is that teams which won three or more games went on to win 10+ games in the regular season 38% of the time, whereas of the teams which were winless or had just one win in the exhibition season, only 25% were able to post double digit wins.

The next logical progression for our research though is to break out the teams by their prior season performance, and we'll do that using our traditional "G-A-P" criteria where a Good team gets 10+ wins, an Average team gets 7 to 9 wins, and a Poor team has less than 7 wins.

The good prior-year teams end up winning over two games fewer the next season (the “nowehere to go but down” syndrome), but see little correlation between preseason results and regular season wins.

A very strong division here -- prior season average teams that post three or more preseason wins have averaged 9.2 wins and have hit the magic 10 win mark 44% of the time, while prior season average teams with less than three preseason wins have averaged 7.2 regular season victories and only made the 10+ level 26% of the time!
At the same time 3+ preseason win teams have had bad regular seasons only 21% of the time, while fewer preseason wins has coincided with a tough year 45% of cases! So view this class as one where preseason records are important!

There's only modest evidence that poor teams with good preseason records stand a better shot of being competitive in the regular season. What leads to the big turnaround for the sadsacks of the previous season is a subject deserving of its own article.
From the above then we can conclude with the following:

Preseason wins are generally a positive sign for a team
Good teams can succeed regardless of their preseason, but see less dropoff in wins with better exhibition results
Average teams are much better prospects if they post three or more preseason wins
We will follow the scores through the preseason to give an update on which teams to watch for based on this research!

aturnis
08-13-2012, 07:54 PM
OMG GO AWAY!

lcarus
08-13-2012, 07:56 PM
Preseason doesn't mean crap. It can vary how long you play certain starters, how long the opponent plays its starters, etc. Also it can vary how a certain team in a certain year approaches the preseason, how their opponent approaches the preseason. So many factors determine who wins or loses a preseason game.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 07:58 PM
Preseason doesn't mean crap. It can vary how long you play certain starters, how long the opponent plays its starters, etc

Over the 9 year span that this chart references "average teams", which is what we were last year and arguably the year before seem to have a fairly significant statistical correlation in pre-season record vs. regular season record.

prior season average teams that post three or more preseason wins have averaged 9.2 wins and have hit the magic 10 win mark 44% of the time, while prior season average teams with less than three preseason wins have averaged 7.2 regular season victories and only made the 10+ level 26% of the time!
At the same time 3+ preseason win teams have had bad regular seasons only 21% of the time, while fewer preseason wins has coincided with a tough year 45% of cases! So view this class as one where preseason records are important!

Brock
08-13-2012, 07:58 PM
Preseason doesn't mean crap. It can vary how long you play certain starters, how long the opponent plays its starters, etc

Preseason does mean crap. Demonstrably so.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:02 PM
Preseason does mean crap. Demonstrably so.

You are correct. According to this study they do. For the top tier teams the others are right, it means little. For a team coming off of a 7-9 record 3+ pre-season wins gives you a 20%+ better chance of winning 10 games than less than 3 wins.

CoMoChief
08-13-2012, 08:04 PM
I'm just answering the thread title.

NO. starting week 1 everyone starts out 0-0.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:05 PM
I'm just answering the thread title.

NO. starting week 1 everyone starts out 0-0.

Did you read the study? You might think otherwise is all I am saying.

DaneMcCloud
08-13-2012, 08:06 PM
Nothing matters

Fruit Ninja
08-13-2012, 08:07 PM
No, but the first string and 2nd need to play well. After that, it doesnt really matter all that much. IF our first team is dominating offensively and defensivly then the back end guys lose the game, its not a big deal.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:09 PM
No, but the first string and 2nd need to play well. After that, it doesnt really matter all that much. IF our first team is dominating offensively and defensivly then the back end guys lose the game, its not a big deal.

On the surface I tend to agree. However the pre-season records seem to be most impacting to teams coming off of an average season such as we are. So while they don't tend to matter for teams on the edges it seems there is a significant imapct to teams in the middle.

lcarus
08-13-2012, 08:10 PM
Preseason does mean crap. Demonstrably so.

Feel free to predict every teams regular season success based entirely on their preseason record. See how well you do.

JD10367
08-13-2012, 08:10 PM
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Preseason doesn't mean shit. They're games decided in the second halves by players who will either ride the bench or be cut.

JoeyChuckles
08-13-2012, 08:10 PM
The score in a single game doesn't even matter, let alone the win/loss record for an entire preseason. It's like judging how good an orchestra will be based upon the sound of their warm-up.

JoeyChuckles
08-13-2012, 08:12 PM
Preseason does mean crap. Demonstrably so.

Preseason does mean something. Just not preseason record.

DaFace
08-13-2012, 08:12 PM
Preseason scores don't mean much, but preseason performance matters at least a little.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:13 PM
Preseason scores don't mean much, but preseason performance matters at least a little.

Generally speaking doesn't performance tend to segue to score?

RustShack
08-13-2012, 08:13 PM
Pre Season doesn't matter at all in terms of regular season or Playoff run. It means little for proven good teams. But a team that has been bad for the last few years... a good showing in the pre season is a pretty positive sign going into the regular season.

DaFace
08-13-2012, 08:13 PM
Generally speaking doesn't performance tend to segway to score?

Not when your starters don't play more than a quarter.

DaneMcCloud
08-13-2012, 08:15 PM
Generally speaking doesn't performance tend to segway to score?

Segway? Is that like Subway?

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:16 PM
Segway? Is that like Subway?

I caught it after I typed it. Brainfart on me.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:17 PM
Not when your starters don't play more than a quarter.

I disagree to a slight extent.

JoeyChuckles
08-13-2012, 08:21 PM
The difference in our first preseason game was 10 points. Those last 10 points were scored off a Cyrus Gray touchdown run and a field goal after an interception by Abram Elam.

Those two plays determine our season success?

(Yeah, I know the flaws in that argument. But I bet that isn't any more flawed than the argument that preseason wins matter.)

Deberg_1990
08-13-2012, 08:22 PM
Rams went 4-0 last year. Of course it matters

OctoberFart
08-13-2012, 08:22 PM
All I know is the Lions when they were awful usually had winning record and the Colt's record is very post Trent Green Chief like.

Frazod
08-13-2012, 08:24 PM
The overall score? No. How your starters perform? Yes.

Que Card QB
08-13-2012, 08:24 PM
Yes. Using the Patriots as the AFC measure, with the exception of 2008, no Patriots team has gone 0for or even 1for in the last decade.

Last year it absolutely mattered for the Chiefs. It was a perfect example of how the preseason can hurt you by being unprepared for the regular season. We didn't play our first regular season game until what, 5 or 6 deep into it? Herman Edwards was the same, always using the regular season as extra preseason games.

This preseason team so far is like none I can remember. They were quick, prepared, and aggressive. There was nothing timid or "safe" about them unlike the past.

We shall see but there's no doubt they seem focused and driven.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:24 PM
The difference in our first preseason game was 10 points. Those last 10 points were scored off a Cyrus Gray touchdown run and a field goal after an interception by Abram Elam.

Those two plays determine our season success?

(Yeah, I know the flaws in that argument. But I bet that isn't any more flawed than the argument that preseason wins matter.)

It's about odds is all. That's all this study is about. Average teams with 3+ preseason wins have better odds of winning 10 games.

KcMizzou
08-13-2012, 08:24 PM
What matters to me is first team vs. first team. If the first team does well, and they end up losing 30-10, I don't care. If the first team looks shitty, and they end up winning 30-10, I don't care.

Everything after we go to backups is about the closest I (or most football fans) will get to scouting players, other than watching college football. The rest of the game is just looking for players who stand out and look better than the rest.

Simplicity
08-13-2012, 08:24 PM
I take a crap during Pre-Season games so I guess they mean a crap.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:25 PM
All I know is the Lions when they were awful usually had winning record and the Colt's record is very post Trent Green Chief like.

Right but as the chart showed teams on the edges (elite teams and poor teams) have a less statistical significane in their preseason records than average teams.

KcMizzou
08-13-2012, 08:25 PM
The overall score? No. How your starters perform? Yes.That's a hell of a lot more simple way to say it.

Zebedee DuBois
08-13-2012, 08:29 PM
Performance matters.

W-L in preseason does not.


edit: or what has already been said, but I did not read.

Simplicity
08-13-2012, 08:31 PM
Performance matters.

W-L in preseason does not.


edit: or what has already been said, but I did not read.

But performance promotes record... soooooo...?

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:40 PM
Let's put it in the perspective of just the Chiefs..

We have won 4 pre-season games since 2004. In 2003 we won 3 but one was the HoF game. We have gone to the playoffs 3 times including 2003. In 2006 were were 2-2 in the preseason and in 2010 we were 1-3. So out of our last 3 trips to the playoffs we did it only once wth a losing preseason record.

While preseason may not mean much I'd say less than 2 wins in the preseason doesn't put the odds in your favor of doing well in the regular season.

Zebedee DuBois
08-13-2012, 08:40 PM
But performance promotes record... soooooo...?

In the regular season, performance and record are tightly correlated.

In the preseason final score is not an indicator of starter performance - because the coaches are playing all the players - identifying the poor performers so they can be cut.

What I liked about the 1st game performance was the overall organization and execution.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 08:42 PM
In the regular season, performance and record are tightly correlated.

In the preseason final score is not an indicator of starter performance - because the coaches are playing all the players - identifying the poor performers so they can be cut.

What I liked about the 1st game performance was the overall organization and execution.

Here is where I slightly digress from the "it's all about the starters" mantra. If a team can field good starters and good backups it says a lot about the overall condition of a team, it's coaching and the talent level of the players they have assembled.

Simplicity
08-13-2012, 08:44 PM
In the regular season, performance and record are tightly correlated.

In the preseason final score is not an indicator of starter performance - because the coaches are playing all the players - identifying the poor performers so they can be cut.

What I liked about the 1st game performance was the overall organization and execution.

Thought we were speaking of the team as whole.

Munson
08-13-2012, 08:46 PM
Preseason wins don't mean shit.

I just want to see the players improve throughout the preseason.

Frazod
08-13-2012, 08:59 PM
Let's put it in the perspective of just the Chiefs..

We have won 4 pre-season games since 2004. In 2003 we won 3 but one was the HoF game. We have gone to the playoffs 3 times including 2003. In 2006 were were 2-2 in the preseason and in 2010 we were 1-3. So out of our last 3 trips to the playoffs we did it only once wth a losing preseason record.

While preseason may not mean much I'd say less than 2 wins in the preseason doesn't put the odds in your favor of doing well in the regular season.

In 2007 we backed into the playoffs and in 2010 we had ridiculously easy schedule. Went out with a whimper in round one both years. The 2006 team was far better than the 2007 team, and frankly last year's team was better than the 2010 team.

DaFace
08-13-2012, 09:10 PM
From what I can tell, the issue here is that you're trying to evaluate magnitude of correlation which is a subjective thing. Do teams that perform well in the preseason tend to do well in the regular season? Sure, but it's a VERY weak correlation. It's pretty common for teams to go 4-0 in the preseason and bomb the rest of the way, and it's not uncommon for teams to go 0-4 in the preseason and do fine.

So, while you always want to see the team do well at this point, it isn't a big deal either way. It's far more important, IMO, for the starters to look sharp than it is for the team to win the game.

petegz28
08-13-2012, 09:12 PM
From what I can tell, the issue here is that you're trying to evaluate magnitude of correlation which is a subjective thing. Do teams that perform well in the preseason tend to do well in the regular season? Sure, but it's a VERY weak correlation. It's pretty common for teams to go 4-0 in the preseason and bomb the rest of the way, and it's not uncommon for teams to go 0-4 in the preseason and do fine.

So, while you always want to see the team do well at this point, it isn't a big deal either way. It's far more important, IMO, for the starters to look sharp than it is for the team to win the game.

I disagree with this statement. It's uncommon to see a team go 0-4 in the preseason and then tear it up the regular season. While it does happen I wouldn't call it common. Common among the elite teams at they very best.

Reerun_KC
08-13-2012, 09:12 PM
No.

luv
08-13-2012, 09:15 PM
Isn't this a debate every year?

No, it doesn't matter. At least not beyond testing out players and plays from training camp against other teams doing the same thing before the regular season starts.

Reerun_KC
08-13-2012, 09:17 PM
It matters to fans with really small penises.

arrowheadnation
08-13-2012, 10:53 PM
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure our last preseason win (prior to Friday), was over a winless in the preseason Packers team in 2010 that went on to win the Superbowl that season.

KCrockaholic
08-13-2012, 10:59 PM
I don't care about the pre-season record. I care about seeing the players play well. That's what matters. And against ARZ the starters played terrific.

Dylan
08-14-2012, 12:20 AM
Win or lose - It is nice, but in the end it is about developing your young players and figuring out what your final 53 is going to be and improving. That's what it really is about - it's not about win or lose.

For the Giants its also about finding kick returners that are going to be reliable and catch the ball. And see if the backups can do a better job.

Just my opinion.

ChiefsNow
08-14-2012, 06:22 AM
Losing can become a habit.
Winning can become a habit.
With young players like the chiefs have, I think if they only see winning it has to be good for the psyche. Good for comraderie. Team spirit. Especially if it is Offense, defense, special teams, 1st team, 2nd team and 3rd team.

It has to be good for them and help them get off on the right foot. Just my opinion.

Spongeblack Bobtard
08-14-2012, 06:41 AM
I just want to see us show something. Last year was a mess. It was all about Haley trying to revolutionize training camp or something by basically not having one. He always had to be different. It was just like the three man playcalling system.

Back to my point... I just want to see something positive as a whole. I think we've already seen that this year. We didn't see it until week 3 or 4 of the regular season last year. I don't care if we win. I care more about staying injury free, getting in game shape, and fixing mistakes.

Predarat
08-14-2012, 06:58 AM
Maybe they should use pre season records as a lower level tie breaker, make the games more interesting.

Akron's#1ChiefsFan
08-14-2012, 07:02 AM
All I know is the Lions when they were awful usually had winning record and the Colt's record is very post Trent Green Chief like.

Exactly. I always bring up Joey Harrington's stats in preseason. He was the best QB in the league in preseason. One year, his completion percentage was around 85%. I think they won 3 games that year, and Harrington lost his job.

ChiefsNow
08-14-2012, 07:11 AM
Maybe they should use pre season records as a lower level tie breaker, make the games more interesting.

Not a bad idea.

Deberg_1990
08-14-2012, 07:16 AM
The Royals are usually the Champions of the Arizona Cactus League!

CoMoChief
08-14-2012, 07:34 AM
W-L record doesn't matter.

But performance matters. What really matters is what happens when the starters are in.

luv
08-14-2012, 07:40 AM
The simple answer of "no" didn't end the thread?

Amnorix
08-14-2012, 07:41 AM
Preseason means absolutely nothing. One year the Pats went 4-0 in preseason and 2-14 or 1-15 (can't remember which, I try to blot it out of my mind) during the regular season. Yeah, it's completely meaningless.

Chiefnj2
08-14-2012, 07:43 AM
Depends on why you lose. If your first team isn't moving the ball and giving up 3 TDs in 3 drives, then it's probably significant.

KCtotheSB
08-14-2012, 07:46 AM
During the regular season, I am dialed into every Chiefs play and live/die with quite a number of plays.

During the playoffs, multiply that by 50.

During preseason, I watch the starters and then have the rest of the game on as background noise while I do something else.

So to answer your question: no.

Predarat
08-14-2012, 08:00 AM
It would be kind of cool if they extended the pre season and then have a pre season playoffs and pre season superbowl. 8 games for the regular pre season. Each division winner makes the pre season playoffs, no wildcards. 3 rounds. Start the Pre Season in late June after the NHL/NBA finals. Pre-Season Super Bowl happens on Labor Day.

durtyrute
08-14-2012, 08:03 AM
W-L record doesn't matter.

But performance matters. What really matters is what happens when the starters are in.

This, but what the backups do counts too.

Chiefshrink
08-14-2012, 08:25 AM
"Winning IS ALWAYS good, and NEVER GETS OLD":clap:

A winner usually wins most of the time and the more wins we have the more we win divisional titles, league championships and Super Bowls. And what better place to start the 'habit of winning' than the pre-season:clap:

The psyche is a very delicate instrument that must be cared for at all times and in competition the way to care for it properly is WINNING !!

JD10367
08-14-2012, 08:55 AM
This, but what the backups do counts too.

Not necessarily. For example, if a team comes out and struggles, their coach might keep the 1s in longer and by the 2nd quarter that teams 1s are against the other teams 2s and 3s. The 1s team now suddenly looks great and scores two TDs. It means absolutely nothing. There are so many variables in preseason (playing scrubs, playing bubble guys, trying goofy new plays, playing vanilla O and D, not playing 100% hard all-out, and ultimately not really caring about the final score).

Is a deeper team probably going to have more success? Maybe. Probably. Means nothing in terms of the final score. Means nothing in terms of the regular season record. Last year, the Rams went 4-0 and the Fins, Titans, Eagles, and Skins all 3-1; none of them made the playoffs.

Deberg_1990
08-14-2012, 09:16 AM
Not necessarily. For example, if a team comes out and struggles, their coach might keep the 1s in longer and by the 2nd quarter that teams 1s are against the other teams 2s and 3s. The 1s team now suddenly looks great and scores two TDs. It means absolutely nothing. There are so many variables in preseason (playing scrubs, playing bubble guys, trying goofy new plays, playing vanilla O and D, not playing 100% hard all-out, and ultimately not really caring about the final score).

Is a deeper team probably going to have more success? Maybe. Probably. Means nothing in terms of the final score. Means nothing in terms of the regular season record. Last year, the Rams went 4-0 and the Fins, Titans, Eagles, and Skins all 3-1; none of them made the playoffs.

Pretty much all this.

Im always amazed at how much fans "read" into the Preseason Games still. I think sometimes we as fans get blinded by the excitement of having real football again, that we lose our minds to reality.

Ill continue to say that Preseason Football is "Fools Gold"

loochy
08-14-2012, 09:17 AM
You are correct. According to this study they do. For the top tier teams the others are right, it means little. For a team coming off of a 7-9 record 3+ pre-season wins gives you a 20%+ better chance of winning 10 games than less than 3 wins.

The preseason wins do not GIVE a team a better chance of winning. The point is that better teams will win more games, whether they are preseason or regular season.

Frosty
08-14-2012, 09:36 AM
For example, if a team comes out and struggles, their coach might keep the 1s in longer and by the 2nd quarter that teams 1s are against the other teams 2s and 3s. The 1s team now suddenly looks great and scores two TDs. It means absolutely nothing.

I watched the Baltimore/Atlanta game the other day. Flacco looked like dogshit the first few drives while the Falcons had their starters in. They pulled their starters after that and Baltimore kept their starters in and Flacco drove the offense down to score.

Starter verses starter, the Falcons led 14-0 but ended up losing 31-17. Perfect example of what you were talking about, I think.

Chiefnj2
08-14-2012, 09:46 AM
IIRC KC's first string offense didn't score until the 4th preseason game when the Packers were resting their 1st team.

Nzoner
08-14-2012, 09:56 AM
Ill continue to say that Preseason Football is "Fools Gold"

The only instance I recall that seriously opposed that was the late 90's Vikings ('98 I believe) started 4-0 in preseason and went on to a 15-1 regular season only to lose to the Falcons in the NFC Championship.

Mr. Laz
08-14-2012, 10:15 AM
record, no.
performance, yes.

CoMoChief
08-14-2012, 10:20 AM
Keep in mind last preseason we were treating live games as if they were conditioning drills in practice.


Fuck Todd Haley......crazy bastard. He should have gotten fired after the horrible historically bad 0-3 start.

durtyrute
08-14-2012, 10:22 AM
record, no.
performance, yes.

This!!! I don't care what string we are playing or what string we play against. For the last eleventy million preseasons all of our strings have looked like one big knotted, tangled mess. At least this year we looked like a real team. Yea it doesn't actually matter if we when or not, but it is a competitive sport and it is nice to win. Especially, when you kick the snot out of someone the way we were doing the other night. Yea, they may suck, but how often do the Chiefs beat the teams we are supposed to?

durtyrute
08-14-2012, 10:28 AM
Keep in mind last preseason we were treating live games as if they were conditioning drills in practice.


Fuck Todd Haley......crazy bastard. He should have gotten fired after the horrible historically bad 0-3 start.

I still can't agree with this. I don't blame Todd for the preseason. He tried something and it didn't work. If it would have people would be sucking his dick to this day. It makes more sense to play the starters more and more as the preseason goes on even through the final game. The whole two series, one quarter, one half, two series shit doesn't even make sense.

If Todd wouldn't have already lost the team, I think it would've worked. These are grown men playing a kids game for a living, they should already know how to tackle and pass and catch.

Now, the shitty play calling and keeping Cassel even more confused than he already is and the weird line ups I''ll put that on Haley.

bricks
08-14-2012, 10:31 AM
I think it makes a difference as far as preparation goes.

Last year gave us that indication. Imo the Chiefs poor play from preseason carried over into the beginning season.

King_Chief_Fan
08-14-2012, 10:38 AM
The Raiders say no!
They have won many a preseason game only to be the biggest loser in regular season

Stewie
08-14-2012, 10:39 AM
Record?...... Record?...... You wanna talk about my record?
Your basketball team's record.
OH!

Mr. Laz
08-14-2012, 10:39 AM
I still can't agree with this. I don't blame Todd for the preseason. He tried something and it didn't work. If it would have people would be sucking his dick to this day. It makes more sense to play the starters more and more as the preseason goes on even through the final game. The whole two series, one quarter, one half, two series shit doesn't even make sense.

If Todd wouldn't have already lost the team, I think it would've worked. These are grown men playing a kids game for a living, they should already know how to tackle and pass and catch.

Now, the shitty play calling and keeping Cassel even more confused than he already is and the weird line ups I''ll put that on Haley.

trying something and not having it work and losing the team are both reasons a coach gets blamed

durtyrute
08-14-2012, 10:49 AM
trying something and not having it work and losing the team are both reasons a coach gets blamed

You are correct, sir. I never really looked at it like that.