Projecting Regression in the NFC North

[Dantés]

"You are what your record says you are."

One of football's favorite maxims.

If this is meant to mean that your record is what it is, in a literal sense, then this phrase is so obvious that it borders upon being meaningless.

If this is meant to say that your record is always an accurate reflection of what type of team you are, then it's one of the biggest lies in the sport.

I would suggest a more accurate platitude: "If you want to win it all, you have to be good, and you have to be lucky." When it comes to performance in the NFL, skill and performance are major factors, and luck is another.

So how do we try to account for luck? As it turns out, there are certain measures of a team that can help us understand if they were particularly lucky or unlucky in a given season. The ones I believe to be most informative are:

• Seven Point Game Record: This refers to how a team performs, record wise, in games decided by 7 or fewer points. Certainly there can be a skill to winning close games, but generally speaking, league wide, really good or really bad results in this metric tend to regress towards the mean.
• Injury Luck: Some players are particular prone to get injured, and some teams seem to collect more than your average number of these players. So this isn't completely random. But certainly having a really healthy or a really unhealthy season has more to do with luck than skill.
• Fumble Statistics: Some consider TO margin in general to be a random statistic, but I don't think that's quite accurate. Avoiding interceptions and fumbles is often controlled by the skill and performance of the player and the team. Similarly creating the environment where takeaways are likely is often controlled by the team. But what happens once a fumble occurs is pretty much determined by luck. So once the ball was on the turf, was the team lucky or unlucky in terms of recovery? This may seem minor, but turnovers are so impactful that this can account for a game or two all on its own.
• Pythagorean Differential: Pythagorean Win Expectation is a metric that uses point differential to determine how many wins would be most likely for a given team. For example, a team with a dead even scoring differential (say that they scored and gave up exactly 275 points) could have 10+ wins or 10+ losses in any given year, but over time, those teams are going to end up at 8-8 on average. So how did the team actually perform in relationship to the PWE? Did they overachieve or underperform?

**Disclaimer** I am not making the case in this thread that NFL outcomes are random or that these measures prove beyond doubt what will happen in 2020. Factors within the team's control (personnel, coaching, etc.) are still easily the biggest and most influential when it comes to determining a team's record. All I am saying is that certain metrics are prone to regress towards the mean and can help us make educated guesses about what will happen to a team's record in the upcoming season, while still heavily considering things that are not random, like personnel and coaching.

 

[Dantés]

2019 Record: 3-12-1

7 Point Record: The Lions were a collective 3-7-1 in games decided by a touchdown or less. Their wins were decided by 3 points, 3 points, and 5 points. Three of their losses were decided by 3 points or fewer, and five of their losses by 4 points or fewer. A win rate of 32% is low, but not dramatically low.

Injury Luck: According to Football Outsiders' Adjusted Games Lost, the Lions rated a 87.8 in 2019, 24th in the league (higher rank = healthier). This low ranking doesn't even really capture it, as the Lions lost Stafford for about half the season, and he was playing some of the best football of his career. When he went down, they were 3-4-1.

Fumble Statistics: The Lions recovered 11 fumbles and lost 8, for a +3 margin. This is the only metric that would favor negative regression.

Pythagorean Differential: By point differential, the Lions' win expectation was 6.1. This means that they underachieved that expectation by 2.6 games.

Other Factors: The Lions' roster stagnated this off-season. For every major addition, there was a complementary departure and the coaching staff comes back in tact. They are a perfect subject for this exercise in that the factors within their control are basically status quo.

Conclusion: The metrics favor positive regression for the Lions more than any team in the division. They were reasonably unlucky in one score games, they had bad injury luck, and they unperformed against their point differential. Apart from these factors, the team is basically identical to the 2019 version.

2020 Prediction: Figuring on health for Stafford and better performance in one score games, I would guess that the Lions at least double their 2019 win total. Unfortunately for Patricia and Detroit, double would still mean a paltry 6-10 record. 5 to 9 wins are within their range of likely outcomes. The low end probably gets everyone fired; the high end probably means they run it all back in 2021. I'll officially go with 7-9.

 

[Dantés]

2019 Record: 8-8

7 Point Record: The Bears were 6-3 in games decided by 7 or fewer points last season. The three losses were by 7 points, 3 points, and 1 point.

Injury Luck: Chicago's 65.4 rated them 13th in Adjusted Games Lost-- a little better than average.

Fumble Statistics: The Bears were +2 in this regard, losing 7 fumbles and recovering 9.

Pythagorean Differential: By point differential, the Bears' win expectation was 7.4. So technically, they were the least bit lucky to end up at 8, but that's such a small difference that it's basically negligible.

Other Factors: The Bears' big swing this off-season was to bring in Nick Foles, who will almost certainly replace Mitch... until he gets hurt. I guess we can also look forward to Nagy shocking the league by going "5 tight"-- spreading the defense out with five mediocre tight ends.

Conclusion: The Bears were a pretty "honest" 8-8 team, but unfortunately for them the metrics favor negative regression just slightly more than positive. Many people expected a lot more out of them last season, and I think given their underwhelming season, many of those same people would expect that they were very unlucky. But that wasn't the case. They are really relying on Nick Foles to come in and save the day, which is a dubious hope to say the least.

2020 Prediction: I am predicting that the Bears go 7-9 in 2020. Nick Foles is a pretty strong candidate to get hurt behind that offensive line, and really he's just not very good. With a sub .500 season, I would guess that they blow the whole thing up, getting rid of Pace, Nagy, Trubisky, and Foles, and start the whole thing over.

 

[Dantés]

2019 Record: 10-6

7 Point Record: The Vikings were 2-4 in games decided by less than 7 points.

Injury Luck: The 25.6 adjusted games lost ranked Minnesota 1st overall-- meaning that by FO's accounting, they were the healthiest team in the league.

Fumble Statistics: The Vikings were +2 in this regard, recovering 14 and losing 12.

Pythagorean Differential: This was very nearly spot on, as the Vikings' expected win by scoring differential was 10.2, and they won 10 games.

Other Factors: Minnesota, more than any other team in the division, will be impacted heavily by real changes to their personnel. At this point in the off-season, they've lost Stefon Diggs, Everson Griffen, Linval Joseph, Xavier Rhodes, Trae Waynes, Mackensie Alexander, and Stephen Weatherly. The additions they were able to make to counter these losses have been minimal.

Conclusion: The Vikings have two metrics that stand out, but they work in different directions. They were fairly unlucky in close games, and could have reasonable ended up a 12 or 13 win team. On the other hand, they had incredible injury luck, which was so extreme that it's sure to see negative regression. Despite these seemingly equally counter-acting factors, I would argue that negative regression is far more likely given the personnel losses.

2020 Prediction: Not seeing a really strong indicator towards positive or negative regression, I think the personnel losses with end up pushing the record down by 1-4 wins. I am going to go with 8-8 as my official prediction. While it wouldn't be a guarantee, an 8-8 finish could result in Zimmer and possibly Spielman being shown the door.

 

[Dantés]

2019 Record: 13-3

7 Point Record: The Packers were 6-1 in seven point games in 2019. This is the most extreme result in the division last year.

Injury Luck: At 65.6, the Packers were near league average at 14th overall. However, I think they were better off in this regard than the metric would lead one to believe, as a guy like Lane Taylor was a big chunk of the "games lost." He was going to be replaced regardless.

Fumble Statistics: Despite being +11 in TO margin, the Packers were actually -2 in fumbles, losing 9 and recovering 7.

Pythagorean Differential: By scoring differential, the win expectation for the Packers last year was 9.2 wins. This is largely because two of their three losses were by big margins (15 pts @LAC and 29 pts @SF). This would mean that they were +3.8 in this regard, also the most extreme outcome within the division.

Other Factors: Green Bay's roster isn't markedly different. The biggest transition points are at RT and LB. At RT, they moved on from the better, but less durable player, and at LB they moved on from the lesser, but more durable player. Year two in this offense has traditionally yielded some pretty big gains around the league in the past.

Conclusion: Green Bay is a likely candidate for some significant negative regression. Particularly, they overachieved in 7 point games and thus they significantly exceeded what you'd expect from a team with their scoring differential.

2020 Prediction: One would hope that progress on offense within the system would help counteract the negative regression that would seem to be coming. Even so, I am going to predict 10-6 in 2020. I think 9 to 12 wins are reasonable predictions.

 

[Dantés]

So overall, I am guessing that the division stacks up:

1. Packers: 10-6
2. Vikings: 8-8
3. Lions: 7-9
4. Bears: 7-9

I would argue that negative regression is coming for the entire division, with the exception of Detroit, who could see a lot more luck in 2020.

What say you?

 

[Do7]

Packers 12-4
Vikings 9-7
Bears 7-9
Lions 6-10

I initially had the Packers at 11-5, but I think Rodgers is gonna go on a tear and be in the discussion for MVP.

 

[Dantés]

I think there's a real chance that after the 2020 season, Gutekunst/LaFleur are the only GM/HC combination to keep their jobs.

 

[OldSchool101]

Packers 11-5 GB’s schedule starts pretty tough, I can see us opening with a 3-3 record before finishing the rest of our games at 8-2. Or if not, starting 5-3, then finishing 6-2

Bears 9-6-1. That Mack trade is still hurting their limited draft improvement. Also Spriggs and Graham should only slow them down.

Vikings 9-7. Their secondary looks completely different and thus their pass Defense is just not going to be the same, in not a good way.

Detroit 7-8-1. Well. It’s still the Lions but with Okudah +Trufant washing Slay.. and a nice multi talented RB in Swift.

 

[C-Lee]

10-6 is most likely for sure

 

[Mavster]

Packers: 10-6 - The first eight games are brutal. And I don't expect we'll be as lucky with injuries in 2020

Bears: 6-10 - I believe they will be a bottom 5 offense yet again and the calls for Nagy's head will only get louder down in Chicago.

Vikings: 8-8 - Mediocre squad, decent coach.

Lions: 9-7 - I expect Detroit to surprise. Their offense could be really good

 

[Poppa San]

What say you?

someone needs to get out of the house and back to work. Interesting analyses.

Aren't one score games also indicative of teams relying on their defense by keeping the scoring down?
Four of the Packers' last 6 wins were by more than seven points. One other was a late TD by Washington after GB had had a 7 1/2 minute burn the clock drive in the fourth quarter to go up by 11 with <3 minutes left. I have problems though with needing last second field goals to beat Detroit twice.

 

[bigbubbatd]

NFL.com just ranked the top offenses in the NFL. The Packers were the only NFC North team in the top 15 as they landed at number 9. This isn't a good division and hard to argue it got any better this off season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...offenses-chiefs-ravens-pulling-away-from-pack

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Injuries are really going to be the determining factor here. If Rodgers, Adams, Jones, Alexander, and the Smiths stay healthy, then 10 wins is a possibility. If those guys miss any significant time (mainly Rodgers) then the team could lose an extra game or two (without Adams the passing game is Jones or bust and without Jones the running game is almost league average).

I do think one factor to keep in mind is that most teams also improve in the second year of a new coach (except the Bears, cause they have Trubisky) and the second year of MLF's offense might be better if he's smart about not trying to become the Titans right away.

 

[AmishMafia]

So why do you call it the Pythagorian differential?

There is a cause and effect here. You are dinging teams for winning close games. Its not random. Although some results can be attributed to the random bounce of a football, i think Rodgers is more likely to pull out a close win in the final minutes than Trubisky. Therefore, I would expect no regression in that statistic for the Packers.

Injuries likewise, may also be a result of training or over caution by the teams and not random.

Just some thoughts.

I think the Pack will 'regress' aka win fewer games, because it is very difficult to win in the NFL. However, i do expect the Packers r o be a better team this coming season. The defense will be more in tune. The offense will likely gel more.

 

[hasamikun]

NFL.com just ranked the top offenses in the NFL. The Packers were the only NFC North team in the top 15 as they landed at number 9. This isn't a good division and hard to argue it got any better this off season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...offenses-chiefs-ravens-pulling-away-from-pack

The division has huge potential but I doubt that this potential will be fully used this year.

The Packers will have a 2nd year offense, which normally promises a jump in quality. They went all-in on the offesive personnel and now have exactly the guys they for the offense to shine.
The defense is solid and although it hasnt changed much from a players perspective, the biggest improvement will need to come from coaching. defense will be solid but better coaching can elevate the defense into the Top 10. The talent is there. it may be the fan vision but Packers have the best overall roster in the division and more things speaking for an improvement than the other teams. I think 11-5 is realistic.

The Vikings lost way too much starting caliber personell to have a really good season. They mostly rely on rookies not to suck and that wont work. they had a good draft but QBs will pick that rookie filled defense apart. Rodgers and Adams gonna have a field day week 1. Same for the offense. Cousins is solid but wont elevate the offense. They also rely heavily on jefferson being good on offense. Other than that they only have Thielen and Cook and I dont see this as a good thing for them. I see a big regression coming. Vikings will have the worst record in the division.

The Bears mostly suck because they have a bad QB situation. Foles is injury prone and sucks in regular season. He isnt the solution but still better than Trubisky. The defense is legit as expected but the offense sucks. The still lacked draft picks due to the Mack trade and Free agency wasnt that good either. I can see them going 9-7 but I bet they will stay at 8-8.

The Lions have a really good team but completely rely on Stafford being healthy. If he is healthy, everything is possible for them. The defense is legit and offense has good talent. Patricia is a bad HC imo but Stafford can carry this. They are total wild card and from 3-13 to 10-6 I can see everything happen.

Of course predictions this early are kinda useless but its just how I see the rosters and teams at the moment.

 

[Dantés]

So why do you call it the Pythagorian differential?

There is a cause and effect here. You are dinging teams for winning close games. Its not random. Although some results can be attributed to the random bounce of a football, i think Rodgers is more likely to pull out a close win in the final minutes than Trubisky. Therefore, I would expect no regression in that statistic for the Packers.

Injuries likewise, may also be a result of training or over caution by the teams and not random.

Just some thoughts.

I think the Pack will 'regress' aka win fewer games, because it is very difficult to win in the NFL. However, i do expect the Packers r o be a better team this coming season. The defense will be more in tune. The offense will likely gel more.

I call it a Pythagorean Differential because it's the difference between actual win total and what scoring differential would say was the most likely win total using Pythagorean Expectation. The theory, as I referenced in the OP, is that a team with a certain scoring differential, over time, will average a certain win total. A team that's +/- 0 in a given season could theoretically be a 11-5 or 5-11, but over time, teams with that scoring differential are going to general hover right around 8-8.

Certainly, as I said from the beginning, the biggest factors controlling success and failure in the NFL are not random. The caliber of talent and the quality of coaching, the investment in training and the ability to develop skill, etc. However, random factors do influence things on the margins, and can be the difference in wins/losses in a given season. And because these certain factors tend to be random, they also tend to regress-- either positively, if a team was particularly unlucky, or negatively, if a team was particularly lucky.

I do agree that some teams could have better medical staffs and better strength and conditioning programs than others. However, I still think injuries are most largely driven by luck. Consider the Vikings' finish in AGL over the last four seasons: 30th, 11th, 12th, 1st. Did their training go from horrible to mediocre to excellent? Or did they go from terrible luck, to average, or particularly lucky? I would argue the latter.

I'm not dinging teams for winning close, per se. I am rather acknowledging that over time and across the league, having a really high or really low winning % in games decided by a touchdown or less regresses towards the mean.

That does not mean that a particular team, like the Packers, couldn't have some skill in winning close. The two are not mutually exclusive. GB could regress from an 86% win rate in such games while still being good at winning close. Because other factors, not as well controlled, do influence these outcomes. I think of the phantom calls against Trey Flowers in their 1 point win over Detroit, for example.

 

[AmishMafia]

I call it a Pythagorean Differential because it's the difference between actual win total and what scoring differential would say was the most likely win total using Pythagorean Expectation. The theory, as I referenced in the OP, is that a team with a certain scoring differential, over time, will average a certain win total. A team that's +/- 0 in a given season could theoretically be a 11-5 or 5-11, but over time, teams with that scoring differential are going to general hover right around 8-8.

Certainly, as I said from the beginning, the biggest factors controlling success and failure in the NFL are not random. The caliber of talent and the quality of coaching, the investment in training and the ability to develop skill, etc. However, random factors do influence things on the margins, and can be the difference in wins/losses in a given season. And because these certain factors tend to be random, they also tend to regress-- either positively, if a team was particularly unlucky, or negatively, if a team was particularly lucky.

I do agree that some teams could have better medical staffs and better strength and conditioning programs than others. However, I still think injuries are most largely driven by luck. Consider the Vikings' finish in AGL over the last four seasons: 30th, 11th, 12th, 1st. Did their training go from horrible to mediocre to excellent? Or did they go from terrible luck, to average, or particularly lucky? I would argue the latter.

I'm not dinging teams for winning close, per se. I am rather acknowledging that over time and across the league, having a really high or really low winning % in games decided by a touchdown or less regresses towards the mean.

That does not mean that a particular team, like the Packers, couldn't have some skill in winning close. The two are not mutually exclusive. GB could regress from an 86% win rate in such games while still being good at winning close. Because other factors, not as well controlled, do influence these outcomes. I think of the phantom calls against Trey Flowers in their 1 point win over Detroit, for example.

Okay. Thought you coined the term, but I looked and see its genesis.

 

[rmontro]

I initially had the Packers at 11-5, but I think Rodgers is gonna go on a tear and be in the discussion for MVP.

So you're saying he's going to be playing outside the system?

You are dinging teams for winning close games. Its not random. Although some results can be attributed to the random bounce of a football, i think Rodgers is more likely to pull out a close win in the final minutes than Trubisky.

I've always said good teams find ways to win, and bad teams find ways to lose.

I remember many games where I would be hoping one team would lose, and they'd be getting beat pretty handily by an inferior team. But I wouldn't let myself get my hopes up, because I knew the the crappy team would find a way to blow it. And sure enough, they would.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Aren't one score games also indicative of teams relying on their defense by keeping the scoring down?

I don't think so. Teams combined to give up 20.4 points per game when winning by seven or less points last season, only 2.4 below the season average for all teams.

There is a cause and effect here. You are dinging teams for winning close games. Its not random. Although some results can be attributed to the random bounce of a football, i think Rodgers is more likely to pull out a close win in the final minutes than Trubisky. Therefore, I would expect no regression in that statistic for the Packers.

Here's a link to an interesting article taking a more in-depth look at one score games last season. According to it the Packers weren't particularly lucky in 2019.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-all-close-nfl-wins-were-actually-close/

FWIW before last season Rodgers was 35-34-1 in games decided by seven or fewer points in his career.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Packers will not go 13-3 again, but this division isn't good. 10 wins will take it this year. Like I posted in the schedule thread, 11-5.

 

[Mondio]

bunch of pessimists, 19-0 is not regression by any means

 

[bigbubbatd]

I am sure there is a better thread but the Vikings made a huge splash trading for Ngakoue. They lost Joseph in the off season. Got Pierce but he opted out due to covid and now got Ngakoue. This is a step up for sure. They did lose a 2nd and potentially 4th to do it. Ngakoue is a free agent after this year. Not sure how the Vikings find the cap for him and cook

 

[lambeaulambo]

Packers 10-6...no four leaf clover this season. Did AR no favors by not getting a WR2 for him to expand the offense, and I think LaFleur might be in hot water if they do worse than 10-6. I am not all in yet on this idea of a TN Titan offense with a future HOF QB that still has some gas left in the tank.
Vikings 10-6...had an outstanding draft, and are well coached...even w Kazoo Cousins this team has scary potential to contend.
Bears 10-6...I know this is fortuitous but if Foles stays healthy and breathes life into the offense, it is a good bet they go above .500.
Lions 8-8...Stafford while very good at some point will start slowing down as he has had a few bad injuries. The big question is on Defense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

10 wins seems like a decent baseline expectation.

This year more than any other is a coaches and veterans game. Ordinarily, the first 3 or 4 games across the league tend to be pretty sloppy as teams sort things out, establish their "character" as the story goes, or not. With so little work and no preseason that could extend further into the season than ordinarily.

It would stand to reason that new coaching staffs and systems, first time starting QBs, or young teams in general relying on youth for impact are at a disadvantage early on more so than is typical. Even those teams that let some impact players leave in free agency and brought in others could take a little more time to gel.

In this regard, the Packers are in a better position than most. Second year for the HC and offensive system, third year for the defense. The only rookie that might be starting is Martin but I wouldn't call that a lock. Even if he does, 3-down play would be a big stretch. QB is obviously not an issue. Maybe Deguara if by "start" we mean the first play of the first game is a 2-back set but that really doesn't count. Other than Bulaga, nobody has been lost that one would be concerned about.

Without scrutinizing these factors for the opponents in the first half of the season, it could add up to more wins early than might be expected otherwise.

While the little possums walk early and the big ones walk late, early wins count just as much as late ones in deciding who gets to the playoffs and what the seeds look like.