Do Late Season Wins Carry Momentum?

[8181]

From my friend who is a fan of the Washington Redskins.

Do Late Season Wins Carry Momentum?

By Mark Yusko

As odd as it may seem, many fans in the Washington DC were actively rooting for the Washington Redskins to lose. It is commonly known as the "Suck For Luck" movement around the United States. The idea was to position themselves for a brighter future, the team needed to grab a potential gamebreaking quarterback such as Andrew Luck. To gain the draft pick required to complete this transaction, a team would need to have the worst record in the NFL. The "Suck For Luck" movement happened in mostly cities with mediocre or horrible teams, including, ironically enough, the San Francisco 49ers.

The flipside to all of this are the fans who would never accept that losing may actually be beneficial to a team. The primary argument is that winning breeds more winning. Basically, the laws of momentum were being applied to professional football. Does this hold true?

Notice anything? You shouldn't.

It should show barely any correlation between the last four wins of the season and how it affects the win count of the next season. However, there is a very slight correlation.

Yup, if you win your last four games of the season, you can expect to lose almost an entire game the next season. If you lose your last four, you can expect to win an extra half of a game.

However, the reason for this is most definitely the fact that when you are on top, you have nowhere to go but down. The vice-versa holds true, when you're at the bottom, you have nowhere to go but up.

So are wins important in a losing season? In this age of free agency and coaching changes, not very.

In contrast, here is the graph of win differential after three seasons (which consists of only data from the 2008 season).

What this graphs tell us, based on the 2008 season, is that teams that won zero games to finish the season actually averaged two more wins after three season while teams that won four games to finish the season averaged almost a minus four game differential.

Is losing beneficial? Over a 3-year term based on the 2008 season, it looks that way.

[HeluCopter29]

They give false hope if you're on a bad team but you never want you're guys tanking.

[ddub52]

The Packers won the last 4 games of their season last year then won 13 in a row this year

[scruffylookin]

It's a good point. In this day and age of free agency and roster turnover it means nothing.

In the old days when rosters were slower to change it made more sense of a carryover from year to year. But now, no way.

[Jumbo]

I think the OP presents some conflations and false premises, but the data, if valid, is interesting even if immaterial beyond being a curiosity. I'm hoping it's obvious why I make that last comment.

A thread format note to make is the OP is constructed like a reference to an article but there is no link (and I consider that no link may exist since we are given no idea as to the author's intended use/venue for this writing).

[Califan007 The Constipated]

However, the reason for this is most definitely the fact that when you are on top, you have nowhere to go but down. The vice-versa holds true, when you're at the bottom, you have nowhere to go but up.

There's all sorts of wrong with the way they did their analysis, beginning with the part I quoted.

The next reason is because of this part:

What this graphs tell us, based on the 2008 season, is that teams that won zero games to finish the season actually averaged two more wins after three season while teams that won four games to finish the season averaged almost a minus four game differential.

So the only teams that were compared were those who went 0-4 or 4-0?...Why?

Third, shouldn't the study only compare losing teams, and leave winning teams out of the equation? For one, as stated above, a 1-15 team finishes the season 0-4 and then goes 3-13 the following year...that's a 2-game improvement. Meanwhile, a team that goes 13-3 and ends the season 4-0 goes 12-4 the following season...that's a 1-game detriment. That skews the results.

In the scenario I painted above, instead of saying "the team that was winning at the end of the season kept winning the following season", this analysis would say "The team that was winning at the end of the season lost more games the following season, so there was no carry over".

Finally, why the last 4 games?...Why not the last 5 or the last 3?

Let's just look at a few losing teams--the Cardinals and the Bills, mainly because they were the two teams alphabetically on the list of losing teams lol...both teams had multiple consecutive losing seasons. Let's see how they ended their seasons over the last 4 games (since that's the number of games this writer used)...and let's look at ALL the records, not just the 0-4 and the 4-0 ones.

Cardinals:

2001: 7-9,

Last four: 2-2

2002: 5-11

2002: 5-11

Last four: 1-3

2003: 4-12

2003: 4-12

Last four: 1-3

2004: 6-10

2004: 6-10

Last four: 2-2

2005: 5-11

2005: 5-11

Last four: 1-3

2006: 5-11

2006: 5-11

Last four: 2-2

2007: 8-8

2007: 8-8

Last four: 2-2

2008: 9-7

Bills:

2005: 5-11

Last four: 1-3

2006: 7-9

2006: 7-9

Last four: 2-2

2007: 7-9

2007: 7-9

Last four: 1-3

2008: 7-9

2008: 7-9

Last four: 1-3

2009: 6-10

2009: 6-10

Last four: 2-2

2010: 4-12

2010: 4-12

Last four: 2-2

2011: 6-10

You know what I noticed from that? Two things:

1) That neither of these teams had a winning record over the last 4 games...

2) Losing records over the last 4 games didn't help turn either team into winners, either the next season or the next 5+ seasons.

The argument about losing teams winning after being out of playoff contention isn't something as simplistic as "if we win the last 4 games we'll pick up right where we left off next season and keep winning". It's about seeing improvement and making it easier for players to "buy" into a coach's system and the way he runs things. Losing teams need that as much as they need a franchise QB. Players can't buy into something that shows no positive results, that don't give them a reason to believe they're heading in the right direction...and it's just as important that they see it in week 14 as it is in week 4.

[IONTOP]

These charts would only be relevant if there were no turnover and no draft.

If there is "momentum" to be analyzed critically it would be does losing the week before the bye week have any impact on the game the week after?

Because that is:

Mostly the same players

A shorter time frame

Take a reverse look at the Colts, imagine, the '11 Colts were the '10 Colts and all the sudden they sign a great player named "Peyton Manning", and they go [whatever their record was, I'm lazy], you'd say "Well they won 2 out of their last 3 games so obviously momentum played a factor" and I'd say "STFU, you're an idiot, they have one of the greatest QB's ever to play the game and that was their biggest weakness"

Flawed stats, I tell you, flawed stats...

[elkabong82]

The results are flawed because the data looks solely at the W-L column. What moves did each team make the following season? Which ones changed coaching staffs? etc. etc.

It does mention that the worse teams getting more wins could be attributed to having nowhere to go but up, but I don't think such is considered enough. A 2-12 team one season gets high draft picks, and with only 2 wins prior is in better shape to get extra wins the following season. A 9-7 team slipping to 8-8 is still preferential to a 2-14 team improving to 5-11.

This data also doesn't accurately reflect perennial winners/playoff and championship contenders.The Patriots, for example, win between 12 and 14 games typically each season. Them slipping one season from 14 to 12 wins would reflect negatively in the data, but that 12 win team could go further in the playoffs than the 14 win team. The proof being their undefeated regular season and Superbowl loss vs. their Superbowl victories with less regular season wins.

One could, and should argue, that those teams at the top consistently win each season, and their culture of winning is a better achievement than a team like the Colts who stunk, got a once in a generation QB, and then were the worst in football without him. Sure they may luck out with Luck, but Manning wasn't great from the get go, and the Colts will still have rebuilding to do. Plus, what would people say if this were a year where no Luck or Griffin were available? Meanwhile the Pats and Steelers, with solid all around team who didn't need a top 5 pick to get a franchise QB, are able to win some games and be competitive w/o their starter. Same goes with the Packers.

So if we miss out on Luck or RG3 this season, but wind up with a draft remarkably similar, in terms of success, to the '11 draft, then I won't be bothered. We may have to stick it out for another season with Rex or some other FA QB, but the following draft we'd have another shot at a QB, in a draft where the QB prospects aren't likely to be pegged at 2 top 3 guys and then high 2nd rounders, so we'd have a shot at our own Rodgers/Ben/Brees. The Packers had a smooth QB transition, but the Steelers built a good team that won games while suffering Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox before drafting Ben mid round, and the Saints suffered Aaron Brooks before being lucky enough to see Drew Brees hit the free agent market.

Eventually we'll get the right QB, and with good drafts and a culture of winning, that QB's likelihood of success is much greater and a much better certainty than hoping your 2-14 team's #1 draft pick QB turns the stinker team around magically, which is a rare occurrence. For every Colts team there is the Raiders with Russell, the Chargers with Leaf, possibly the Jets with Sanchez, the Titans with Vince Young, the Cards with Matt Leinart, etc. Sure the Lions are good now and got Stafford with a top pick, but they had to suck for years and will fall apart as soon as Stafford goes down, who has an injury history from seasons of playing behind a suspect line. The Rams got Bradford at #1, but he hasn't been able to make up for 45-52 crappy teammates. Cam has electrified the Panther's offense, but they still finished 6-10, only 1 game better than the Skins, because of a bad defense. Once Steve Smith (32) is gone, they are going to have to replace him, which won't be an easy task while also addressing their other holes.

In short, the quick fix may seem nice from the outside looking in, but those teams suffered leading up to and after that point, whereas teams built well all-around have lasted over the decade and/or are built to last now, because they took a QB when they had a realistic shot and when it was right for them, instead of panicking and focusing solely on QB to the detriment of the other 52 guys on the roster. Their QBs came to teams that already had a good situation, which greatly increased the odds of success for the QB, has made those teams nowhere near as reliant on the QB position as teams like Det, Car, and Indy, and that's because they had a culture of winning rather than sucking in order to land the top QB the following season.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Here's another completely crappy aspect of the analysis lol...

In contrast, here is the graph of win differential after three seasons (which consists of only data from the 2008 season).

What this graphs tell us, based on the 2008 season, is that teams that won zero games to finish the season actually averaged two more wins after three season while teams that won four games to finish the season averaged almost a minus four game differential.

Is losing beneficial? Over a 3-year term based on the 2008 season, it looks that way.

This "analysis" is actually trying to say that the success of a team in 2011 is directly effected by whether or not the team went 0-4 or 4-0...over the last four games 3 years earlier lol :doh:...

What floors me is that if a team went 4-0 over the last four games in 2010, it doesn't count. ONLY whether or not the team went 4-0 back in 2008. WTF?

Of course, I had to wonder why th year 2008 was chosen to analyze how teams in 2011 have done. And the answer is two words:

Detroit Lions.

In 2008, the Lions went 0-16...which means they went 0-4 over the last four weeks.

Three years later, the Lions have gone 10-6 and are in the playoffs.

According to the asinine way in which this "analysis" was done, that 0-4 run back in 2008 was the reason the Lions are 10-6 now...and that whopping 10-game improvement gets credited to the "losing helps/0-4" side of the ledger.

But here's the thing: in 2010, the Lions went 4-0 over their last 4 games...But that played no role in 2011, nope lol...only the 2008 season did.

You heard right, folks...a 2-10 team won those last four "meaningless" games and ended up 6-10...absolutely ruined their draft spot, and set their team back at least 5-10 years in terms of rebuilding.

[CommanderDOOM]

Finishing with a worse record than the other bad teams gives u an advantage to pick ahead of said team giving u a chance to pick a better player. In some years a player ranked 4 could end up being a bum and a player ranked 24 could end up being a star. However, this year we have 2 QBs that are supposed to be 'John Elway' like.

[8181]

Some comments relayed by Mark

.NOTE THE FOLLOWING IS COPY AND PASTE PLEAE DON'T HATE ON ME:

ddub52: You're wrong. Do your research.

Califan007: 1. Teams that went 0-4, 1-3, 2-2, 4-0 were all compared. That's what the graphs are there for.

2. A chart containing the data requested has been attached.

3. 4 was chosen because twelve games into the season is usually when teams begin to be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs.

4. Choosing two teams is called cherrypicking.

5. This is my profession and I try to eliminate pre-conceived bias from actual analysis, which seems to be something you're failing to do.

a) There's no way to tell you what the 3-year differential is for the 2010 season without a time machine.

The Detroit Lions winning the Last 4 games of 2010 and what effect it has on the following season is included in the first and second graphs.

Iontop: I said as much in my conclusions.

elkabong82: Success in the NFL is measured by wins and ultimately Super Bowls. I've taken the liberty to see if there are any short-term and medium-term impacts (1 Year and 3 Year) from any potential momentum at the end of the season. The main argument from Redskins fans is that winning in a lost season is important due to creating a winning culture. The data shows that it is false.

Attached are charts presenting data that is relevant to what the posters were discussing.

Teams With 5 Wins or Less (2008-2010)

Teams That Finished With 4 Wins or 4 Losses (2008-2010)

[elkabong82]

sigh. why even post your friend's reply or create a thread on it when he's unwilling to actually discuss the topic? I took the time to reply to a detailed post with my own detailed points, yet it's completely disregarded.

All he did was look at W-L and applied zero context. I explained why that doesn't work in determining momentum, why you need to dig deeper. I went into good detail about it. All I get is a cliched response about wins and Superbowls as if I never discussed why one needs to go further than that.

Pretty lame and combined with his other responses it seems indicative of a predetermined conclusion and that the author doesn't want to debate his research. So I'm done with this thread since there's no actual discussion to be had and since the research doesn't understand the simple concept that momentum carry over can't be measured simply by the W-L column, that there is context to each team.

[War Paint]

I think for some losing teams, winning towards the end of a season can help with momentum and confidence. For other teams it's false hope. For example, I think a team like the Panthers would benefit from ending the season with some wins. They have a rookie QB that the organization, players, and fans want to believe in. Winning will help build confidence with their QB. He'll know that he can get it done and win some games. That confidence will most likely carry over to the following year.

A team like ours, with no franchise QB on the roster yet, winning will probably help the players buy into the system more, which is important, but it won't necessarily translate to momentum the following year. We need a potential franchise QB. If we do land one like RG3 and we end up mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, winning meaningless games is still very important for his development. I think a team like the Jaguars would be much better off having a mid-1st draft pick, but having good play from Gabbert than they are with a higher draft pick and dismal play from their rookie QB.

[8181]

From Mark:

elkabong82: What is your hypothesis? If you give me your hypothesis, I will test it with data. The hypothesis I was testing was: "Do late season wins carry momentum?" The measure I used was wins. If you believe there is a more relevant measure that should be tested, let me know. I'll be glad to test it.

[SWFLSkins]

Success in the NFL is measured by wins and ultimately Super Bowls. I've taken the liberty to see if there are any short-term and medium-term impacts (1 Year and 3 Year) from any potential momentum at the end of the season. The main argument from Redskins fans is that winning in a lost season is important due to creating a winning culture. The data shows that it is false.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Losing out certainly helped OUT Reheem Morris and will make the new coach look like a genius using your measuring stick.

[mzkp54]

Another issue that I see is that late season losses are often voluntary (i use the term loosely) for the perennial winners. The teams that have been red hot the first 12 weeks will often rest their starters for the playoffs late in the season when they've already clinched playoffs and/or seeding. So even though they will lose some of those last 4 games, they're still set up to make a solid run the following year. Unless that was addressed and I just didn't understand.

[terryb101]

The Packers won the last 4 games of their season last year then won 13 in a row this year

the packers are a good team, hope we are not comparing us to them

[The Rook]

I do know that winning the last four games can make a team keep a bad coach. Wayne Fontes anyone? How about Norval?

:helmet: The Rook

[Califan007 The Constipated]

the packers are a good team, hope we are not comparing us to them

This thread isn't about how good or bad the Redskins are, so I'm not sure where your response came from.

The thread is about whether or not winning "meaningless" games at the end of a poor season has any carry-over effect on the following season. So it's about all 32 teams, not just the Skins.

[8181]

From Mark:

ddub52: I'd like to apologize. You are correct when you include the playoffs.

mzkp54: That is a very valid factor.

[DeMarco Murray 29]

I cannot honestly answer this question. My team always finishes the year on a losing note .... hahahahahaha.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Califan007: 1. Teams that went 0-4, 1-3, 2-2, 4-0 were all compared. That's what the graphs are there for.

Two of the three graphs dealt only with teams that eithe went 0-4 or 4-0 over the last four games.

The one that dealt with all number of wins over the last four games, you said this about:

Notice anything? You shouldn't.

It should show barely any correlation between the last four wins of the season and how it affects the win count of the next season.

Your analysis should have ended there. Deciding to break them up into teams that either won their last four games or lost their last four games give a far more overly-simplistic take and adds zero of value to the data given by the first chart.

4. Choosing two teams is called cherrypicking.

Do you REALLY think you're going to see anything different if I used 20 teams instead of 2 teams? All that would have done would have made my post ridiculously--and unnecessarily--long. Find teams that went through about 5 or so years of consecutive losing seasons, and do what i did...I'm positive the results will be the same, which are the results you yourself presented in your first chart: that it would "show barely any correlation between the last four wins of the season and how it affects the win count of the next season."

It's just that presenting it the way I did gave far more clarity to that stance than your chart did.

5. This is my profession and I try to eliminate pre-conceived bias from actual analysis, which seems to be something you're failing to do.

Based on what...the fact that I disagreed with you or the fact that I did so sarcastically? lol...

And if anyone is paying you to do this level of analysis they're getting ripped off.

The Detroit Lions winning the Last 4 games of 2010 and what effect it has on the following season is included in the first and second graphs.

But in the last chart--the one I was talking about specifically, mind you--it does NOT consider how well the team did the season prior to their 2011 record. It states rather bluntly that the data is ONLY from 2008, and tries to allude to the idea that the team's win differential over the next three years sprung directly from those wins (or lack of wins) at the end of the 2008 season. It's as if you went backwards and diluted the importance of each prior chart with the next chart ...

And by the way, you didn't do the game differential correctly for that 3rd chart lol...Not to mention that both the Lions' going 0-16 in 2008 and the Colts' going 2-14 in 2011 after losing Peyton Manning for the year skew the results to a ridiculous degree. When I ran the numbers without each of those teams figured into the equation, the results were significantly different...

[8181]

Hey Califan he'll probably reply anyway, but all three graphs show breakdowns depending on whether you won 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 games labeled on the X-axis

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Hey Califan he'll probably reply anyway, but all three graphs show breakdowns depending on whether you won 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 games labeled on the X-axis

Yeah, I said that wrong...I meant the conclusions reached from the last two charts by segmenting out the 0-4 and 4-0 teams.

Still, the last chart excludes teams that had 1 win over their last four games in 2008, so on that end it's not complete anyway...which dilutes the analysis by definition.

[8181]

From Mark

Califan007: Let's simplify this. In your opinion, if you are eliminated from playoff contention, are late season wins beneficial? From my methods, which you highly disagree with, I found they are not beneficial and that losses actually correlate with win differential. If you believe there is a better method, please present results or present clear guidelines for me to perform the test. Personal attacks aside, I love the data analytics field.