Win/Loss Record: Is it Really the Best Indicator of Progress or Regression?

[darrelgreenie]

Can you truly judge a team's progress on win/loss record?

I think the way a team is playing during a 1 season snapshot is almost as important as record W/L record.

You can tell if a team is trending up or down based on the way they're playing.

But, when you look at a group of seasons like a 4-5 season snapshot then W/L i believe tells the whole story.

With certain teams, I'd say it's a crap shoot. Look at Carolina......Certain factors didn't help... Fox being in his last year is a big one, no quarterback whatsoever is another.

For me its coaching and talent.

There are severals ways to win but i think in general you need a combination of coaching and talent.

But, both go in cycles.

12-4 was there high water mark w/ coaching and talent their window to win it all was that one season.

I think they had execellent talent when they were talent overcame average coaching.

But, eventually talent wans (without strong FO guidance) and average coaching (actually even good coaching) gets stale.

And you're being a lame duck coach only makes matters worse i believe the player who naturally will begin to tune out coaches when they're losing may subconsciously tune them out even more in a lame duck situation.

I believe they have a QB in Clausen but imo bad teams can't develop a QB you can't have a "franchise" QB on a sinking team.

I think the development of franchise QB is accomplished by a FO vision that stems to the coaches but specifically the OC.

They went into the season w/ 2 QBs Moore and Clausen and you know the old cliche if you have 2 QBs you don't have one.

So was there an uptrend here? Or was it a sudden change? I'd say sudden change, followed by an uptrend to that next level

Sudden change being Sean Peyton in combo w/ Drew Brees and Reggie Bush.

But it was the way w/ which Peyton used Brees and Bush that imo was the difference.

Outstanding coaching then w/ Gregg Williams they had top level coaching on both sides of the ball.

In sum: coaching

[ECU-ALUM]

I don't believe that we're a better team right now at 5-8 than we were last year at 4-12. I really don't. But I do think our direction is better. It's not what I expected us to do, and I'm not thrilled with a lot of the decisions that have been made, but we certainly have a better direction than we had last year... But right now, this minute, I don't think the team is any better.

As much as it pains me to say it I think you're right about where we are as a team right now. I haven't seen a lot of difference between this year and last year...play-calling is questionable, the Defense is not getting a consistent pass rush, and the O-Line is (at best) a hit or miss proposition.

In terms of direction...I wonder which way this team is heading? Will the Front Office ever do a full-rebuild job from the ground up or will we continue to see the same thing that we've been seeing year after year of trading picks and signing vets?

[chipwhich]

Win/Loss record is meaningless with regards to progress or regression.

Although our record is better than last year, we haven't progressed.

[Aireskoi]

Can good quarterback play swing a team that fast? It's obviously not ALL the quarterback... But it's quite a coincidence.

I really think it's the key factor. Imagine if the Dolphins would have gotten Breese, and the Saints ended up with Culpepper, or whoever. Would the Saints still be a perennial loser? Would they be Superbowl Champions? Would Sean Peyton be looking for a job? Who knows, because they got their QB and the rest is history.

[MassSkinsFan]

Ultimately win/loss record is a good indicator of success, but it is not the best indicator DURING the rebuild/retool/adjustment period. Other things factor in during that time, including strength of schedule, margin of victory/loss, ability to successfully build our repertoire by executing more and more plays properly, and a few of the intangibles such as executing with discipline, team spirit and ability to continue to play flat-out in the face of adversity.

For our Skins I have no idea whether they're improving their ability to execute the playbook since I don't have a copy. But, I think for the most part we're seeing this team more "in the game" each week, we're seeing a more disciplined approach, and we're seeing a team with fight. I haven't seen those things around here in a while.

Our W/L record will be interesting to track, and a good indicator of progress, after this year. We should see some improvement next year with marked improvement in 2012 (especially when compared to 2009 and 2010), if we're seeing the Skins being resurrected.

One other thing - every team faces different challenges, and that further complicates the question. In our case we have so many personnel gaps that I think a turnaround will take longer than it ought to. Not only do we have gaps with starters, but as we've seen this year and last, we lack depth and this is a significant problem since you must expect injuries throughout the season. We need to develop a full roster, not just our starters (cue Gary Guyton). As the Skins work on improving their mastery of their schemes, they will also be trying to find quality starters and subs. As those people are added, there will be some regression as they learn the systems. This will ultimately take a little more time than it would if we had a solid core that just needed good coaching and better systems.

[Old Bay]

I think the saying 'you are what your record is' is quite valid. But I also think there's a certain 'feel' to a team as well. Their may be no real valid way in determining that feel, but everyone has it. What I mean is that you often hear people talk about how they have a certain record but circumstances have lead them to such a record. How a team got where it did is a valid methodology to try and understand how good a team truly is. Just like this year, I've heard people say that despite their records, the Bears, Bucs and Lions all looked different than their record suggested. In the end though, this will play out over several years. That's hard to ask of fans anymore, but I think it's true. Though the league is one of parity now, there is still some consistency and this comes through front office structures mostly.

[UK Redskins Fan]

I think there are two distinct issues with using the Win/Loss record to evaluate progress:

1 - Win/Loss record is a mediocre way of measuring performance over the course of a 16 game season

It is not enough games to get a definitive measurement of how good a team is and, year on year, a team's record can vary through a number of factors that are outside the team's control eg Strength of schedule, injuries to key players, good fortune in close games etc etc

2 - Progress is not the same as Performance anyway

Progress can take the form of giving rookies playing experience though they might not hit their prime for another five years. Changing schemes and formations can also be a form of progress which results in reduced performance in the short term. These forms of progress are always hard to measure at the time because they are designed to yield benefits at some point in the future.

[KDawg]

So there seems to be a consensus that W/L is an indicator, but not necessarily the best...

There also seems to be a consensus that W/L is more valid over time than it is in a single season sample size. I tend to agree... But like everything there are exceptions to the rules... Look at Gibbs II. Back and forth the whole way.

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 09:34 AM ----------

2 - Progress is not the same as Performance anyway

Progress can take the form of giving rookies playing experience though they might not hit their prime for another five years. Changing schemes and formations can also be a form of progress which results in reduced performance in the short term. These forms of progress are always hard to measure at the time because they are designed to yield benefits at some point in the future.

I was waiting for this response. Perfect. Excellent, excellent post.

[Mursilis]

I disagree. If you look at record over time, perhaps there's an indication. But, using us (and I really didn't want to use us because people will avoid answering the question)...

I don't believe that we're a better team right now at 5-8 than we were last year at 4-12. I really don't. But I do think our direction is better. It's not what I expected us to do, and I'm not thrilled with a lot of the decisions that have been made, but we certainly have a better direction than we had last year... But right now, this minute, I don't think the team is any better.

I agree with you regarding this year's team not being better, but I'm not sharing your faith on the direction of the franchise. You could be right, and I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I'm not holding my breath either. I think Shanahan is slightly overrated as a coach, and as a Redskins fan, I've seen this "we've turned the corner" stuff before, only to lapse back into mediocrity. I remember the return of Gibbs. I certainly thought he'd turn us into a contender virtually overnight, but all this team ever got out of those 4 years was a single playoff win. I remember thinking he gets a pass for 2004, since he needed time to implement his system and build the team he wanted to run, and by 2005 we'd see a contender, which is what we saw that season. For 2006, we thought we'd be a serious SB contender, but instead we got 5-11, and the team's been mediocre since. And this is why it seems like I've seen this show before. My standard for this team having truly changed is this - two seasons above .500 in a row. Once that happens, then you can tell me something's been built here. Until then, they're just another mediocre team.

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 09:53 AM ----------

I'd say that a good quarterback with the right pieces can swing a team...

I'd say an elite quarterback with "meh" pieces can swing a team...

There is absolutely a must in the "pieces" sense... But the better the QB, I feel the less pieces you need. But it's still a team game.

It's a QB-driven league. An elite QB is practically a guaranteed .500 season or better, but yes, he's going to need help. As Baltimore has demonstrated, an average QB can win if the team itself is great, but the easiest way to being a year-in, year-out contender is to find a franchise QB. Of course, that's like saying the easiest way to riches is finding a diamond mine - the "finding" is the tricky part.

[KDawg]

I I think Shanahan is slightly overrated as a coach, and as a Redskins fan, I've seen this "we've turned the corner" stuff before, only to lapse back into mediocrity.

I agree with this sentiment. All I'm saying is I think the direction we're headed is better than what it was before. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of the direction we're headed. Just that it's an improvement

Once that happens, then you can tell me something's been built here. Until then, they're just another mediocre team.

Nothing has been built here yet. I'm not sure it will be. But again, we seem to have a little bit more of a direction than we have in years past. I just hope it's enough direction to do something with

[MassSkinsFan]

I agree with this sentiment. All I'm saying is I think the direction we're headed is better than what it was before. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of the direction we're headed. Just that it's an improvement

Yes, it was almost exactly a year ago that we took the first step. Bye Vinny!

[Conn]

KDawg, I'd argue that its not. Especially if you're rebuilding correctly, in the traditional sense.

I use a team like the Lions as an example. They're a team who, even thought they're sucking this year, are keeping games close, and competetive.

They're losing, but lets be honest....that's only good for their future. They'll get another top-5 draft pick and Matt Stafford back (again) next season.

If Stafford can stop getting injured, the amount of young talent on that team is ridiculous, and will be again after yet another ****ty year, and yet another draft full of high picks.

In their case, you have to look deeper than win-loss.

In my opinion, right now Lions fans have more to look forward to in the near future than we do....and I'd kill to have their roster.

[MartinC]

In sports, especially professional sports, you are what the scoreboard and your won loss record says you are. Over a single season you can have injuries, some bad/good luck etc which can effect won loss so it's not a great barometer of longer term progress or regression though. if you look over two or three years though it gives you a really good feel for what you are and which way you are heading.

[Oldfan]

I think there are two distinct issues with using the Win/Loss record to evaluate progress:

1 - Win/Loss record is a mediocre way of measuring performance over the course of a 16 game season

It is not enough games to get a definitive measurement of how good a team is and, year on year, a team's record can vary through a number of factors that are outside the team's control eg Strength of schedule, injuries to key players, good fortune in close games etc etc

2 - Progress is not the same as Performance anyway

Progress can take the form of giving rookies playing experience though they might not hit their prime for another five years. Changing schemes and formations can also be a form of progress which results in reduced performance in the short term. These forms of progress are always hard to measure at the time because they are designed to yield benefits at some point in the future.

I think the foregoing is an excellent answer. I have posted the following in a couple of threads related to this topic.

While the rankings at footballoutsiders.com are still a work-in-progress, they are more comprehensive and make more sense statistically than those at NFL.com based on yardage rankings. Prior to the Bucs game their Redskins rankings looked like this when comparing the 2009 team to this year's.

Offense:

2009 = #21

2010 = #24

Defense

2009 = #10

2010 = #25

Quarterback

2009 Campbell #20

2010 McNabb #23

Team

2009 #20

2010 #23

The DVOA includes strength of schedule adjustments, by the way.

[MassSkinsFan]

I think the foregoing is an excellent answer. I have posted the following in a couple of threads related to this topic.

While the rankings at footballoutsiders.com are still a work-in-progress, they are more comprehensive and make more sense statistically than those at NFL.com based on yardage rankings. Prior to the Bucs game their Redskins rankings looked like this when comparing the 2009 team to this year's.

Offense:

2009 = #21

2010 = #24

Defense

2009 = #10

2010 = #25

Quarterback

2009 Campbell #20

2010 McNabb #23

Team

2009 #20

2010 #23

This is some food for thought and could certainly indicate a loss of performance.

We can all agree that a good W/L record over time is one of the goals (with SB victories being the ultimate goal). But, as we know, stats and rankings don't necessarily correlate to W/L records. And, since we're agreeing that progress is something that requires time, comparing one year to the next might be a bit inaccurate; let's say we come on strong in our final three games and really improve in all these categories. If that happens it's possible we could show improvement from 2009 to 2010 in all areas except defense (though it's really very unlikely, it is theoretically possible). So, if your point is that we're not improving, I don't think there's enough evidence yet as you'd need to compare both seasons in their entirety.

If that's not your point I apologize in advance for my lack of reading comprehension.

[Oldfan]

This is some food for thought and could certainly indicate a loss of performance.

We can all agree that a good W/L record over time is one of the goals (with SB victories being the ultimate goal). But, as we know, stats and rankings don't necessarily correlate to W/L records. And, since we're agreeing that progress is something that requires time, comparing one year to the next might be a bit inaccurate; let's say we come on strong in our final three games and really improve in all these categories. If that happens it's possible we could show improvement from 2009 to 2010 in all areas except defense (though it's really very unlikely, it is theoretically possible). So, if your point is that we're not improving, I don't think there's enough evidence yet as you'd need to compare both seasons in their entirety.

If that's not your point I apologize in advance for my lack of reading comprehension.

I agree that we need the full season to draw fair comparisons. However, many posters in other threads have already weighed in claiming that we've made great strides or claiming that Jason Campbell would not have won a single game this year, and so on. This ranking is the best objective evidence that those extreme opinions can be dismissed.

[Darth Tater]

W/L is a terrible indicator of progress or regress but it is also the easiest thing to look at. Unfortunately, the only people that know if there's any real progression/regression won't honestly say (ie, the coaches and players), so the next best indicator is how the team won or lost but that can get caught into too much subjectivity. Players and coaches usually can't brag or lay blame, even when the blame is justly deserved while fans are either feeling like they just got reamed or did the reaming. Here, we often see one person talking about how close a game was and some idiot repeats a version of the line "if if and buts were candy and nuts..." and the convo devolves from there. Every game is won or lost at the margin and to analyze progression/regression, we must look honestly at how small/large that margin (not points) was but try and you'll get slammed, especially by the candy and nuts crowd.

[MassSkinsFan]

I agree that we need the full season to draw fair comparisons. However, many posters in other threads have already weighed in claiming that we've made great strides or claiming that Jason Campbell would not have won a single game this year, and so on. This ranking is the best objective evidence that those extreme opinions can be dismissed.

But it's not the only evidence that counts IMHO.

I've not had time to look at points differential, but that would be something I suspect might tell a story. It seemed to me that last year we were out early in many more of the games than this year. That would indicate to me an improvement in our team.

I know it's not 100% objective, but that doesn't mean it's not valid - I have noticed that this year's team doesn't have the same "it's over before the opening kickoff" feel to it that last year's did. I actually believe they can come out and win (mostly) this year, even though the record doesn't reflect it.

Finally, given the downward trend of our team heading into this year, we can observe that a 5-8 mark is an improvement over what predictive trending would likely indicate we should be at: 1-12 or 2-11.

[boofMcboof]

If we are going to use W/L record for anything, we have to take into account the age of the team's core players and of course the trend of the last several years. The Redskins best players are at, or around the age of 30. A season has passed and they've gotten a year older. With our current record that's not good. Looking at the trend of the last 5 years it becomes bad.

[Oldfan]

...I've not had time to look at points differential, but that would be something I suspect might tell a story. It seemed to me that last year we were out early in many more of the games than this year. That would indicate to me an improvement in our team.

Last season, we were -70 in net points. This year we stand at -72 with three to play.

[MassSkinsFan]

Last season, we were -70 in net points. This year we stand at -72 with three to play.

Do you keep an extensive database on your PC? Because I'm just putting this together since that post and I'm only a little more than halfway there.

I'm hoping to look at a few other things besides net differential.

[Oldfan]

Do you keep an extensive database on your PC? Because I'm just putting this together since that post and I'm only a little more than halfway there.

No, but I had looked up the net points at the same time that I gathered the rankings form FO. I just didn't post it.

[GaryGreenMonk]

I don't think you can say definitively that a 5-11 or 6-10 team would be absolutely better/improved over the previous year with a record of 4-12. A couple more wins doesn't really mean the team has for sure improved overall.

now if you go from 4-12 to 8-8... then i'd think you'd have to say there was improvement there and couldn't deny it.

When you factor in schedule.. how the games were lost/won.. etc. there's a lot of factors. For example our first win over Philly was because Vick got knocked out early in the game.. had he not gotten injured, we probably don't win that game. Same can be said about the Titans game. Or coming in against a team already on their back up QB to start with. A win over Dallas with Kitna is not the same as a win over Dallas with Romo sits to pee.

I think you need at least 4 more wins than a previous season before you can really say that the team most definitely is improved as a generalization and using previous record as your only statistic.

[MassSkinsFan]

No, but I had looked up the net points at the same time that I gathered the rankings form FO. I just didn't post it.

Here's some other interesting information that can support your position (and is counter to my intuition): when you look at the game-by-game point differential for 2009 and 2010, both show downward trends, but the downward slope of 2010 is steeper than that of 2009. This would tell me that we've regressed during both seasons, but at a more rapid pace this year than last. I also tried "flattening" the data a bit to mitigate for blow-outs (I put a 14-point cap on over or under, which is arbitrary, but represents the magical "two scores" number) and it made very little difference to 2010, but actually improved 2009 a bit.

[ABSTRACT]

Records def do not indicate a team's progress. We need to have the worst record possible so that we can build for the future. That's my logic and it makes the most sense.