<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return  

In-the-Hunt Futility Stats, Week 8, Bengals v. Seahawks

October 26 2011 at 8:32 PM
No score for this post

  (Login psychostats)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
from IP address 107.10.83.42

Last season Seattle demonstrated how badly off the criteria for these stats can be. The Seahawks were truly "in the hunt" all season long. They made it to the playoffs. Won their division. Won a playoff game! All with a 7-9 record in the regular season.

As shown in the table below, the adopted criteria says the Seahawks were in the hunt only 14 weeks. It just goes to show that genuine competitiveness depends on many factors. More than can be captured by two simple rules. (Can't be more than one game below .500; can't have more than seven losses.) Yet to compare across seasons, we need criteria that are consistent. Across 20 years everything should average out, hopefully giving us a fair comparison between teams.

Now on to this week's match-up: Week 8, Bengals versus Seahawks, 1991-2010.


Standard Preamble/Overview

- Weeks "in the hunt for a winning season" serves as a rough proxy for playoff contention. And thus for fans' hopes and happiness. We ultimately want a championship, right? [For 2010 and Seattle, it's very rough indeed.]

- To be in the hunt, a team can be no more than one game below .500 with no more than seven losses.

- During the season, a team can fall out of the hunt and then climb back in.

- An example running won-loss record for five weeks: 1-0, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3. This team was in the hunt after Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 5 (total = 4).

- Bye weeks are counted like any other week in the season. For example, the Bungs get a freebie if a bye comes while they're still in it. Why? This is all about the fans' experience. (By the way, there were two byes in '93.)

- Adjusted "percent weeks in the hunt" throws out the first week, as all teams get an automatic freebie.

- The time period covers Mike Brown's ownership on the Cincinnati Bengals franchise, counting only complete seasons (1991-2000).

- Tables compiled from data on pro-football-reference.com.


Bengals versus Seahawks

Bengals (repeat of graph shown in earlier posts):

[linked image]


Seahawks:

[linked image]


Quick Comments

- The Seahawks were "in the hunt" 63% of the time overall (based on adjusted percentage). Compare to a paltry 30% for the Bengals.

- For each decade the Seahawks were much better: 71% versus 48% (2001-2010) and 55% v. 12% (1991-2000). All percentages are adjusted.

- The Seahawks enjoyed a 7-year run with 100% in-the-hunt results. The Bengals of course never managed back-to-back seasons with 100% results.

- How many times did the Seahawks hit 0% (adjusted)? Once. How many times did the Bengals? Seven.


A Note on the Game

At 2-4, the Seahawks are trying to climb back into the hunt with a win against the Bengals. The Bengals will be there for awhile at 4-2. Another reversal of fortune in this strange season.


Previous posts

Week 1 Browns:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1315628376/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bengals+v-+Browns

Week 2 Broncos:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1316235434/last-1316245390/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bengals+v.+Broncos

Week 3 49ers:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1316971735/last-1316989401/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bengals+v.+49ers

Week 4 Bills:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1317510076/last-1317588395/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bengals+v.+Bills

Week 5 Jaguars:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1317874042/last-1318191775/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bengals+v.+Jaguars

Week 6 Colts:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1318568112/last-1318800268/In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Week+6%2C+Bengals+v.+Colts

Week 7 (Bye) Raiders:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/90650/thread/1319171302/last-1319225895/Bye+Week+Special-+In-the-Hunt+Futility+Stats%2C+Bungs+v.+Raiders

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

OldSchoolerFan
(Login oldschoolerfan)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
98.208.105.168

Is Matt Hasselback underrated?

No score for this post
October 27 2011, 1:11 AM 

Let's take a look:

At 34, he has the 3-3 Titans in the playoff hunt. Hmmmmmm--that's funny. I thought they were supposed to be a real sh*tty team this year. They are competitive.

When he was Seattle, it seemed that he had the Seahawks in the hunt or in the playoffs every year he was healthy.

Made the Super Bowl with a semi-sub par team--and almost won it all.


Hasselback is very serviceable. His 83% QB Rating is decent. His TD to INT ratio is acceptable (186 to 134). And he's annually a winner.

Right now, I'd definitely take Hasselback over a rookie (Jake Locker) any ole day. At least the Titans know better--that in big games, you take a veteran over a rookie every day and three times on Sundays.

Right, Mike Brown?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What do the Bungles have as an option at QB? Ole pick 6 from the Raiders--Gradkowski, who was unable to beat out a rookie as the starter.

Not good.





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   


(Login psychostats)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
67.249.87.61

Re: Is Matt Hasselback underrated?

No score for this post
October 30 2011, 6:50 PM 

With the way Dalton is playing, would we be better off with a vet? Maybe Jay Gruden really did find a perfect guy for his system. I agree about the backup situation. If Dalton goes down for any length of time, uh oh.

The Bungs are 5-2 after eight weeks. To fall out of the hunt, they would have to lose their next five games. In the hunt eleven weeks, minimum, guaranteed. Only three seasons were better in the past 20 years: 2005, 2006, and 2009.

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

murf
(Login murf129)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
74.83.23.146

Re: Is Matt Hasselback underrated?

No score for this post
October 31 2011, 9:49 AM 

You guys are hillarious.


http://murf-seriously.blogspot.com/

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   


(Login psychostats)
MikeBrownSucks.com Forum Moderator
67.249.87.61

Re: Is Matt Hasselback underrated?

No score for this post
October 31 2011, 3:07 PM 

The point on which Falc and I agree is that the Bungs need a better backup QB. You think that's hilarious, Murf? I thought you were a big time Dalton fan?

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

OldSchoolerFan
(Login oldschoolerfan)
Approved MikeBrownSucks.com Members
98.208.105.168

Point more indepth

No score for this post
November 1 2011, 12:13 AM 

"The point on which Falc and I agree is that the Bungs need a better backup QB. You think that's hilarious, Murf? I thought you were a big time Dalton fan?"



At least Psycho saw right through me. LOL!!!!

Murf--and think about this--what if factor:

If Dalton goes down.

Yikes. That means you go 5-11 for the year with Ole Pick 6. I see through this team, why can't you?





"So he got fired? Big deal. It's happened to the best of us. So he got kicked out of his house by his 400 lb'ed wife?!?!? That's probably better for him anyways."-OldSchooler on ChrisMBHater's absence

 
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   
Current Topic - In-the-Hunt Futility Stats, Week 8, Bengals v. Seahawks
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return