|
CHFF Quality Stats dominate 2010 postseason
Cold, Hard Football Facts for February 9, 2011
 Fans and pigskin "pundits" obsess over the NFL seeding system each year, as teams jockey for higher seeds, home games and even homefield advantage throughout the playoffs.
But can we finally admit that seeds and even records are virtually useless indicators of playoff success? It certainly has been this way since the NFL adopted its latest playoff format in 2002. Seeds and team record actually do a very poor job of telling who's going to advance in each round. But certain indicators, especially certain Quality Stats, do an incredible job of highlighting who's going to advance.
First, look at the seeds of each Super Bowl competitor since the NFL went to its current playoff format during the 2002 season:
So here's what we got. Two No. 1 seeds have won Super Bowls since 2002. But so, too, have two No. 6 seeds. The first-round bye seems to hold little advantage anymore. Of the last six Super Bowl champions, four played in the wildcard round.
In 2010, teams with the higher seed went just 4-7 in postseason games; teams with the better overall record were just 5-6.
But here's something you can count on to identify playoff winners: the Cold, Hard Football Facts Quality Stats.
With only a couple exceptions, our Quality Stats were very, very good indicators of postseason success once again in 2010. Like we said on SI.com before the Super Bowl, Defensive Passer Rating is ALWAYS a great indicator of team success, and has been for about 70 years. The 2010 postseason was no different.
Teams with the better pass defense went 10-1 in the playoffs. And the team that topped Defensive Passer Rating all year, Green Bay, won the Super Bowl. In other words, no stat was a better indicator of postseason success than Defensive Passer Rating.
Passer Rating Differential, meanwhile, has shaped up to be the near-perfect indicator we expected it would be. We introduced the indicator in 2009, and watched the as the No. 1 Saints went on to win the Super Bowl. The Packers, No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential in 2010, made the indicator a perfect 2 for 2 identifying Super Bowl winners with their 31-25 victory over the Steelers Sunday.
Makes us look foolish, actually, for picking Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl. We should have stuck with our top indicators. But, like we said, the Cold, Hard Football Facts are perfect and flawless. It's the humans, from those that play the games to those here who have to take the data and make the picks, who are flawed.
Below is the 2010 postseason scorecard. It's the performance of each indicator correctly predicting the winner of each playoff game. Defensive Passer Rating topped the list. We also see that, overall, the old cliché that "defense wins championships" certainly held true in the 2010 playoffs.
Defensive indicators, from our Quality Stats to tried to true indicators like scoring defense, proved very accurate barometers of postseason success. Offensive indicators, from scoring offensive to our Offensive Hog Index, proved very inaccurate barometers of postseason success.
Defensive Passer Rating: 10-1
Passer Rating Differential: 9-2
Bendability: 9-2
Scoring Defense: 9-2
Total Defense: 9-2
Passing Yards Per Attempt: 8 and 3
Quality Stats Average: 8-3
Big Play Index: 7-4
Defensive Hog Index: 6-5
Scoring Offense: 5-6
Team Record: 4-5 (two opponents had same record)
Higher seed: 4-7
Scoreability: 4-7
Total Offense: 4-7
Offensive Hog Index: 3-8
|
