|
|
|
| Quote: |
Here is what I found: I took a look at the most recent 5 seasons in the NFL, and their accompanying preseasons. I decided I would compare the winners of Preseason Week 3 games to their win totals for the season. 2015 In 2015, the teams who won their preseason Week 3 game were the following: Bengals, Bills, Broncos, Browns, Cardinals, Chiefs, Colts, Dolphins, Eagles, Jets, Lions, Patriots, Redskins Seahawks, Texans Vikings The combined wins of these 16 teams was 148. The combined wins of the other 16 teams was 108. 2014 The combined wins of the 16 2014 winning teams was 132. The combined wins of the other 16 teams was 123. 2013 The combined wins of the 16 2013 winning teams was 147. The combined wins of the other 16 teams was 108. 2012 The combined wins of the 16 2012 winning teams was 134. The combined wins of the other 16 teams was 121. 2011 The combined wins of the 16 2011 winning teams was 142. The combined wins of the other 16 teams was 114. Summary You have probably been able to see this if you've followed along this far, but according to this data, there is indeed a correlation between Preseason Week 3 results and Regular Season results. In EVERY one of the past 5 seasons, the Preseason Week 3 winners netted more victories in their schedule during the regular season. In 2015, Preseason Week 3 winners netted 37% more wins during the regular season In 2014, they netted 7.3% more. In 2013, 36.1%. 2012, 10.7%. 2011, 24.6%. |
| Quote: |
| tl;dr In the most recent 5 NFL seasons/preseasons, NFL Teams who win their Preseason Week 3 game net 23% more wins in the regular season, equating to almost 2 more wins on average per team. Additionally, playoff teams are made up no less than 50% each year of Preseason Week 3 winners, the average being 63.33%. |
I'd be more interested in seeing how the teams that held a halftime lead in that 3rd game ended up doing the rest of the way. But it's still interesting.
Giants don't usually play like complete dog shit in this coming game but it seems more often than not they don't inspire much confidence in any pre-season, especially under coughlin.
I still think it's impossible to truly quantify these results into anything conclusive but what else are we gonna talk about...
Given the state of the Giants the last five years, perhaps the only important parts of preseason are how our third-stringers play since they will all be starters by week 4.
What matters are the drives when the first team is out there.
I'd be much more interested to see the same analysis as done above, but counting the score at halftime as the final.
This is the most important point. Week 3, and only Week 3, should be somewhat indicative of a team's fortunes because their starters are going to see significant time. Week 1, the starters barely touch the field. Week 2, they're still knocking off rust and not playing much. Week 3, they're inching closer to the regular season, see actual time, and players who are on the bubble are expending maximum effort to avoid cuts. This is where you start to get a real feel for what a team might look like.
Most telling of this is that in the past five years, about two-thirds of playoff teams won their third preseason game and in no season did fewer than half the playoff teams win.
4/5 won in week 3. Only loss was....
2011 New York Giants.
4/5 won in week 3. Only loss was....
2011 New York Giants.
And, even there, looking back, Giants outgained Jets 327-233 in a 17-3 loss. Offense moved the ball for 21 first downs but shot itself in the foot. Jets got one TD after a long kickoff return and another after blocked FG by backup Giant kicker.
The result in that kind of game is easier to dismiss as irrelevant than one in which you get physically dominated and outplayed.
I know very nothing about statistics so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like a small data set to me. It's the records of all 32 teams over 5 years, i.e. a set of 160, or 80 in each group (winners and losers of week 3 preseason games for each season) all composed of 16 games. Or look at is this way - if you have 80 people in 2 groups - A and B - each flip a coin 16 times, that's 1,280 coin flips per group. Surely the chances of Group A getting a heads total 23% higher than group B is extremely small? There might be some confounding variable in there that we're not thinking about but it seems like it being down to pure chance is unlikely.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4wwwwi/yes_there_is_actually_a_correlation_between/d6ayzs5 - ( New Window )