NFL Outlook

[Alan Tongue]

I looked at the regular season record of teams in the NFL and compared them to the Pinny close. I converted Pinnys close to 100% and ran a simulation where the season was played 3000 times. For example, a team that closed at +167 every game should win 37.5% of their games, or 6 wins. If the NFL close really is efficient then this should provide a sort of guide as to if a team over or under performed.


In the 2016 season, Dallas’ closing prices pointed to a 9.0162 win season. They had 13 wins, so they outperformed the market by just under 4 wins. Oakland were priced to win 8.4412 games, and won 12. At the bottom end, the market had the Rams winning 8.0202 games, and they won 4. What I found was the teams that over performed the market the most regressed big time the following season. Dallas won 4 fewer games in 2017, while Oakland won 6 fewer. On the bottom end, Rams and Jags each won 7 more games. The below table ranks the teams by how much they outperformed the market in 2016, and their regression in 2017.



The 2015 season showed something similar. The 6 teams that outperformed the market the most cumulatively won 28 less games in 2016. Four of the bottom 6 won 19 more games the next season (Browns buck the trend every year, but when you go winless and a H2H is offered every game you are certain to underperform).



I looked back to the 2014, 2015 and 2016 seasons, and there were 16 teams that outperformed the Pinny close by at least 2 games in that season. 15 won fewer games the following season, by an average of 4.1875 games



On the other end, 18 teams under-performed the close, and only the Browns won fewer games the following season. The other 16 teams had 70 more wins (average 4.375).



So how did teams go from 2017 into 2018? Of the five teams where the difference was greater then positive 2 in 2017, one finished with 5 less wins, and three finished with 4 less wins. The final team (LAR) surprisingly won 2 more games. One the other end, the four teams that finished worse then negative all won more games this past season, with Houston and Cleveland winning 7 more games



And how does next season look? Here are the standings from the end of this season




Seattle, Tennessee, Dallas, Chicago and New Orleans should go backwards, while SF, TB Jacksonville and GB should have sharp increases.

 

[B.A.R.]

Outstanding.

 

[inZane]

Thanks for the post Alan, you da' man...

 

[VirginiaCavs]

I speculate that this has to be with luck evening out over time. So one team gets some lucky bounces (ie fumble recoveries) one year but not the next year. Kind of like how in baseball a starting pitcher's ERA and FIP tend to align over time. So I wonder how this applies to teams that underperform not because of bad luck but for mental/cultural reasons. Specifically i'm talking about the Jags. They didn't underperform market expectations out of misfortune, but because they had problems effort (culture).

Great stuff Alan thanks for sharing!

 

[Alan Tongue]

I speculate that this has to be with luck evening out over time. So one team gets some lucky bounces (ie fumble recoveries) one year but not the next year. Kind of like how in baseball a starting pitcher's ERA and FIP tend to align over time. So I wonder how this applies to teams that underperform not because of bad luck but for mental/cultural reasons. Specifically i'm talking about the Jags. They didn't underperform market expectations out of misfortune, but because they had problems effort (culture).

Great stuff Alan thanks for sharing!

thanks

I haven't looked at why. I am discounting things like injuries, schedules, etc as they would be factored into the price of an efficient market.

One thing could be the market slow to react at times. I was surprised to Dallas as an over-performed team. I think that was the season where they had a rookie QB and RB, and I suspect that the betting market and opposition coaches were slow to adjust. That may also be the reason behind the Rams not falling as expected last season - people underestimated McVay and expected Goff to regress back to Fisher Goff and not McVay Goff.

In the NFL I'm one of those guys that believe all the teams are equal, all are .500 teams. The what makes the difference is coaching and QB play. Good coaches and good QB's are at the top every season. Having one of them puts a team from mid-level to on the brink. Having neither makes you the Browns. Obviously variance plays a part. This can explain GB under-perfoming - a great QB, a shit coach who still coached like it was 2007. The market were pricing them as though McCarthy was competent.