Weakest division(s) in the AFC?

[Southieinnc]

I'm just gonna skip the next 5+ pages, assuming its more back and forth about barely related items and just address this post.

First, it's hardly fair to go back 20 years, since the current system has only been in place for 13. Second, having one really good team in a division (i.e. conference champ) doesn't mean the entire division is good. Personally, I feel the best way to determine how good a division is overall, is to look at their non division games.

So, going back 13 years, here's how they rank (winning percentage wise, includes playoff games).

AFCE - .545
AFCN - .525
AFCS - .502
AFCW - .471

Now, since nearly every division has 1 team that has basically dominated it, here's how they rank without their top team.

AFCN (Pittsburgh)- .499
AFCE (New England)- .468
AFCS (Indianapolis) - .454
AFCW (San Diego) - .446

Other interesting facts:

1. New England has the highest in division winning percentage (.775). Indianapolis (.769) and Pittsburgh (.699) round out the top 3.
2. New England has the highest out of division winning percentage (.747). Indianapolis (.627) and Pittsburgh (.602) round out the top 3.
3. Cleveland has the worst in division winning percentage (.253). Oakland (.333) and Buffalo (.372) round out the top 3.
4. Oakland has the worst non-division winning percentage (.331). Cleveland (.400) and Buffalo (.438) round out the top 3.
5. The AFCW has 3 teams (Denver, Oakland & San Diego) who have better records against their division than they have outside it. The rest of the AFC has a total of 3 (Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & New England).
6. Without the 2011 season, Indianapolis has an astonishing 80% winning percentage versus division opponents.
7. The AFCW has the two closest teams in terms of record. Denver is 49-30 in division while San Diego is 48-31. At the same time San Diego is 77-64 non Division while Denver is 79-69. All told, their winning percentages over the last 13 years are separated by a mere .004.
8. No team, other than New England, has a winning record in any area (division, non-division, overall) in the AFCE. The same can be said about Indianapolis and the AFCS.

These are all good points. When using statistics. I am usually using them as a counter-point to those cherry picking statistics. Rarely is one correct and another method incorrect. Certain fans would use only 2012, for example. In response, I would only use 2013 stats. This may be "more correct" since it is most recent. Using the winner of AFC championship as a determining factor to judge strength is legitimate, although I recognize their are other legitimate and illegitimate ways to come to a conclusion. Leaving one division out of a poll of division strength or weakness is totally illegitimate.....

 

[Tgann69]

I'm just gonna skip the next 5+ pages, assuming its more back and forth about barely related items and just address this post.

First, it's hardly fair to go back 20 years, since the current system has only been in place for 13. Second, having one really good team in a division (i.e. conference champ) doesn't mean the entire division is good. Personally, I feel the best way to determine how good a division is overall, is to look at their non division games.

So, going back 13 years, here's how they rank (winning percentage wise, includes playoff games).

AFCE - .545
AFCN - .525
AFCS - .502
AFCW - .471

Now, since nearly every division has 1 team that has basically dominated it, here's how they rank without their top team.

AFCN (Pittsburgh)- .499
AFCE (New England)- .468
AFCS (Indianapolis) - .454
AFCW (San Diego) - .446

Other interesting facts:

1. New England has the highest in division winning percentage (.775). Indianapolis (.769) and Pittsburgh (.699) round out the top 3.
2. New England has the highest out of division winning percentage (.747). Indianapolis (.627) and Pittsburgh (.602) round out the top 3.
3. Cleveland has the worst in division winning percentage (.253). Oakland (.333) and Buffalo (.372) round out the top 3.
4. Oakland has the worst non-division winning percentage (.331). Cleveland (.400) and Buffalo (.438) round out the top 3.
5. The AFCW has 3 teams (Denver, Oakland & San Diego) who have better records against their division than they have outside it. The rest of the AFC has a total of 3 (Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & New England).
6. Without the 2011 season, Indianapolis has an astonishing 80% winning percentage versus division opponents.
7. The AFCW has the two closest teams in terms of record. Denver is 49-30 in division while San Diego is 48-31. At the same time San Diego is 77-64 non Division while Denver is 79-69. All told, their winning percentages over the last 13 years are separated by a mere .004.
8. No team, other than New England, has a winning record in any area (division, non-division, overall) in the AFCE. The same can be said about Indianapolis and the AFCS.

Lots of writing and stats and well written.What I use is simple I'll call it "playoffology".
(Ihave stated I am trying to be timely ,relevant , and not cherry picki I use back to 2008 as my backstop on time.)

Simply put: how many teams has a division put in the playoffs is my metric of strength.It's sound.
*example of a weak division is a division that regularly puts on 1 team in the playoffs.

So simple.

 

[Southieinnc]

Lots of writing and stats and well written.What I use is simple I'll call it "playoffology".
(Ihave stated I am trying to be timely ,relevant , and not cherry picki I use back to 2008 as my backstop on time.)

Simply put: how many teams has a division put in the playoffs is my metric of strength.It's sound.
*example of a weak division is a division that regularly puts on 1 team in the playoffs.

So simple.

It is simple and suffices. It is when you try to sell your opinion or troll that everybody disagrees with you.
This lame-ass troll poll is a perfect example.
You are a talent-less troll, soon to disappear. Your fellow Ravens fans will carry on without you. They are welcome here - even the trolls.

 

[Money]

I guess if I were a fan of a team whose the last 10 times making the playoffs were via the wild card, I personally wouldn't be so brazen like some of the Ratbird fans.

Good thing for the WC, hun?

Well the Ravens have won the AFC North 4 of the 8 times they have made the playoffs (since the league began), so I have to ask:

WTF are you talking about???

 

[blstoker]

These are all good points. When using statistics. I am usually using them as a counter-point to those cherry picking statistics. Rarely is one correct and another method incorrect. Certain fans would use only 2012, for example. In response, I would only use 2013 stats. This may be "more correct" since it is most recent. Using the winner of AFC championship as a determining factor to judge strength is legitimate, although I recognize their are other legitimate and illegitimate ways to come to a conclusion. Leaving one division out of a poll of division strength or weakness is totally illegitimate.....

Lots of writing and stats and well written.What I use is simple I'll call it "playoffology".
(Ihave stated I am trying to be timely ,relevant , and not cherry picki I use back to 2008 as my backstop on time.)

Simply put: how many teams has a division put in the playoffs is my metric of strength.It's sound.
*example of a weak division is a division that regularly puts on 1 team in the playoffs.

So simple.

The problem with just pointing to playoffs is many:

1 - These account for a tiny fraction of the games played (144 regular season games feature AFC teams, 6 post season games.)

2 - These account for only a fraction of the teams (only 6 of 16 AFC teams make the playoffs).

3 - They completely ignore (usually) the bottom 3 or three teams of the division. Is a division strong that has 2 playoff teams who are 11-5 and 10-6 (while the bottom two are 4-12 and 3-13) than the division who has teams that are 12-4 and 9-7 and only has one playoff team (but the bottom two are 8-8 and 7-9)?

4 - Strength of schedule is ignored. AFCN had 3 playoff teams last season, but each of those teams played a schedule that had at least 8 games against teams with a losing record (that's what happened when you play Cleveland twice and your non-division games are against the AFCS and NFCS). Yeah, they all made the playoffs, and managed to win only one game - and that was against a division opponent.

5 - Taking account of history is irrelevant. Taking numbers from 1995, 2002 or 2008 and using them as indicative of what's going on now is pointless, really. Though it's better than using years that no longer have even one active player still playing, even last year's situation has little to nothing to what these teams will do this year.

and on to other notes:

6 - All stats are cherry picked numbers. There is always something that could be added. To put ever possible number in an argument would make that argument too bulky to understand. Southie's 20 years is cherry picked, my 13 years is cherry picked and tgann's 7 years is cherry picked.

7 - Yes, leaving a division out of a poll makes it less legitimate. No matter how good a division is (or isn't) there will always be an opinion that it isn't that good and someone would legitimately vote for it (and yes, some would vote for it out of spite as well).

8 - And, yes, there are many ways to look at an opinion, and yes many have merit.

All right, my rant is officially over, and I only made it half a novel....

 

[Southieinnc]

The problem with just pointing to playoffs is many:

1 - These account for a tiny fraction of the games played (144 regular season games feature AFC teams, 6 post season games.)

2 - These account for only a fraction of the teams (only 6 of 16 AFC teams make the playoffs).

3 - They completely ignore (usually) the bottom 3 or three teams of the division. Is a division strong that has 2 playoff teams who are 11-5 and 10-6 (while the bottom two are 4-12 and 3-13) than the division who has teams that are 12-4 and 9-7 and only has one playoff team (but the bottom two are 8-8 and 7-9)?

4 - Strength of schedule is ignored. AFCN had 3 playoff teams last season, but each of those teams played a schedule that had at least 8 games against teams with a losing record (that's what happened when you play Cleveland twice and your non-division games are against the AFCS and NFCS). Yeah, they all made the playoffs, and managed to win only one game - and that was against a division opponent.

5 - Taking account of history is irrelevant. Taking numbers from 1995, 2002 or 2008 and using them as indicative of what's going on now is pointless, really. Though it's better than using years that no longer have even one active player still playing, even last year's situation has little to nothing to what these teams will do this year.

and on to other notes:

6 - All stats are cherry picked numbers. There is always something that could be added. To put ever possible number in an argument would make that argument too bulky to understand. Southie's 20 years is cherry picked, my 13 years is cherry picked and tgann's 7 years is cherry picked.

7 - Yes, leaving a division out of a poll makes it less legitimate. No matter how good a division is (or isn't) there will always be an opinion that it isn't that good and someone would legitimately vote for it (and yes, some would vote for it out of spite as well).

8 - And, yes, there are many ways to look at an opinion, and yes many have merit.

All right, my rant is officially over, and I only made it half a novel....

Very good understanding of the topic. This should end it - though I'm sure it won't...

For the record, I'm ok with:
tgann's 7 year comparison. NE 5 wins - Balt 3 wins,
yours 13 year comparison. NE 7 wins - Balt 3 wins,
mine 20 year comparison NE 9 wins - Balt 3 wins,
we could also do just last year - only recent game..... NE = SB Champions - Ravens = speedbump.....

 

[Tgann69]

Very good understanding of the topic. This should end it - though I'm sure it won't...

For the record, I'm ok with:
tgann's 7 year comparison. NE 5 wins - Balt 3 wins,
yours 13 year comparison. NE 7 wins - Balt 3 wins,
mine 20 year comparison NE 9 wins - Balt 3 wins,
we could also do just last year - only recent game..... NE = SB Champions - Ravens = speedbump.....

most importantly u forgot 2-2 in the playoffs and the Ravens using NE as its place mat on the way to the Super bowl.the end.

 

[Southieinnc]

most importantly u forgot 2-2 in the playoffs and the Patriots using Ravens as its place mat on the way to the Super bowl.the end.

2-2 is the beginning. Next one is the tiebreaker.....

 

[Money]

It is what it is. Since 2008 (Flacco/Harbaugh era begins for Ravens) the Pats have the advantage, but it's damn close. If the Ravens didn't give up 2 14-point leads in January, it's a different story (3-1 in postseason trumps anything else). We also probably don't have all the Deflate-Gate threads on here. Think about that for a second...

 

[cdumler7]

It is what it is. Since 2008 (Flacco/Harbaugh era begins for Ravens) the Pats have the advantage, but it's damn close. If the Ravens didn't give up 2 14-point leads in January, it's a different story (3-1 in postseason trumps anything else). We also probably don't have all the Deflate-Gate threads on here. Think about that for a second...

Well if we are going to do some of that then what about the Ravens against the Broncos in 2012 when the Ravens won the Super Bowl. They should never have won that game. It took a hail mary play to make that run possible. The Ravens have had just as much luck go there way as against it.

 

[Tgann69]

2-2 is the beginning. Next one is the tiebreaker.....

Agreed.

 

[Money]

Well if we are going to do some of that then what about the Ravens against the Broncos in 2012 when the Ravens won the Super Bowl. They should never have won that game. It took a hail mary play to make that run possible. The Ravens have had just as much luck go there way as against it.

Oh...I don't think luck had anything to do with Patriots beating the Ravens. That's not what I was saying at all.

 

[cdumler7]

Oh...I don't think luck had anything to do with Patriots beating the Ravens. That's not what I was saying at all.

I more meant your whole if the Ravens didn't blow 2 14-point leads kind of thing. This is a league of "ifs." In the end though all that matters is the result.

 

[Money]

I more meant your whole if the Ravens didn't blow 2 14-point leads kind of thing. This is a league of "ifs." In the end though all that matters is the result.

I brought that up because there were a couple points in the game where I had already chalked it up as another playoff win against Brady and Pats. It just seemed like it was the Ravens' day.

 

[cdumler7]

I brought that up because there were a couple points in the game where I had already chalked it up as another playoff win against Brady and Pats. It just seemed like it was the Ravens' day.

I get that but as we know the game isn't over until the clock reads 0. Can't count those as victories or think they should have been victories because they weren't. Otherwise the Broncos won the Super Bowl in 2012 if that is the case as the Broncos SHOULD have won the game against the Ravens. If you are going to try and use those games then you should take away your Super Bowl win as you guys won a game you shouldn't have.

 

[blstoker]

All right - strength of schedule. I did this two ways, and I'll share both.

I used only 2014 schedule. When winning a game, instead of getting a 1 in the win column I only added as much as the winning percentage of the losing team (i.e., beating NE got you .75 wins). Same with losing a game, except it's the losing percentage of the winning team (i.e., losing to Jacksonville got you .875 loses). To account for home field advantage, a loss at home was multiplied by 1.5 (i.e. losing to Jacksonville at home gave you 1.3125 loses) and wins on the road were also multiplied by 1.5 (i.e., beating Seattle at in Seattle gave you 1.25 wins). I did not include playoffs this time.

Alright - As point shares (win points - lose points):

New England 5.250
Denver 5.125
Indianapolis 3.188
Cincinnati 2.875
Pittsburgh 2.531
Baltimore 1.953
Buffalo 1.688
San Diego 1.661
Kansas City 1.438
Houston 0.109
Miami -0.185
Cleveland -1.500
New York -4.219
Oakland -5.031
Jacksonville -5.688
Tennessee -7.563

Total Division:
AFCN 5.859
AFCW 3.192
AFCE 2.534
AFCS -9.953

Division - Winner

AFCN 2.984
AFCE -2.716
AFCW -3.493
AFCS -13.141

Pittsburgh and Kansas City were both hurt losing to 2-14 teams at home (Pittsburgh would have been ahead of Indy and KC ahead of Cincy). Baltimore only lost to teams with winning records - but that also mean they won 8 of their 10 wins against weaker opponents and that hurt them in the overall score.

Winning Percentage (win points / (win points + lose points))

Denver - .818
New England - .794
Indianapolis - .738
Cincinnati - .679
Baltimore - .637
Pittsburgh - .627
San Diego - .611
Buffalo - .593
Kansas City - .578
Miami - .488
Cleveland - .404
New York - .231
Oakland - .196
Jacksonville - .124
Tennessee - .107

Total Division:
AFCN .589
AFCW .548
AFCE .538
AFCS .335

Division - Winner

AFCN .560
AFCW .461
AFCE .445
AFCS .219

What all this really says is, that last year, the AFC North was the best AFC division, but by best, that means they fielded the 4th 5th and 6th best teams and Cleveland wasn't so horrible to drag the rest down.

 

[Money]

I get that but as we know the game isn't over until the clock reads 0. Can't count those as victories or think they should have been victories because they weren't. Otherwise the Broncos won the Super Bowl in 2012 if that is the case as the Broncos SHOULD have won the game against the Ravens. If you are going to try and use those games then you should take away your Super Bowl win as you guys won a game you shouldn't have.

I truly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not using that game as anything. I certainly don't think the Pats won because of luck and I also am certainly aware of when a game is over (I'm not 5 y.o.). You are completely missing the point of the post (how close the rivalry has been since 2008...with the Pats having the edge at this point), but let's just chalk it up as a failure to communicate and move on.

 

[Tgann69]

Well if we are going to do some of that then what about the Ravens against the Broncos in 2012 when the Ravens won the Super Bowl. They should never have won that game. It took a hail mary play to make that run possible. The Ravens have had just as much luck go there way as against it.

Your kidding right?

What most forget is that without Trindon Holliday's 2 TD returns one on a punt and one on a kick return Denvr is never in the game. Then Peyton throws pick 6 to Corey Graham which was huge.

The Ravens should have won by more imo but poor special teams lay kept Denver in it bc Peyton did nothing.

 

[cdumler7]

Your kidding right?

What most forget is that without Trindon Holliday's 2 TD returns one on a punt and one on a kick return Denvr is never in the game. Then Peyton throws pick 6 to Corey Graham which was huge.

The Ravens should have won by more imo but poor special teams lay kept Denver in it bc Peyton did nothing.

Ok then let's look at that Pick Six and see there was some major pass interference where the receiver was being mauled but the refs decided to let it play.

Or the fact that the Broncos had only given up 2 passes of 40 yards or more all season then give up 2 in one game. The Broncos play like they have all year and that game is over. We could go at this all day but in the end both teams had some very lucky and very unlucky breaks go there way in that game.

 

[Money]

Ok then let's look at that Pick Six and see there was some major pass interference where the receiver was being mauled but the refs decided to let it play.

Or the fact that the Broncos had only given up 2 passes of 40 yards or more all season then give up 2 in one game. The Broncos play like they have all year and that game is over. We could go at this all day but in the end both teams had some very lucky and very unlucky breaks go there way in that game.