Resting starters (and forfeiting games) may end up working out well for some team this year (time will tell). But generally speaking, I think the risk of losing the ability to perform at a very high level due to time off is greater than the risk of injury to otherwise healthy players.
Food for thought: 3 of the last 4 Superbowl Champs did not have a bye week in the playoffs. Perhaps rest is overrated.
about 2 years ago
MaPatsFan
15 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Thanks for the nod...
but I flunked math…it’s actually 3 out of the last 4.
2008 Steelers – bye week
2007 Giants – no bye
2006 Colts – no bye
2005 Steelers – no bye
2004 Pats – bye week (this is were I screwed up, I forgot we had a bye in ’04)
I think the overall point still stands, because the four teams that get byes in the playoffs are the ones that should be going deepest into the playoffs and winning Superbowls.
"If you know how to cheat, start now." - Earl Weaver
Decade in Review.
13 of the last 20 Super Bowl participants DID have bye weeks.
2009 – Steelers (W, bye) v. Cardinals (L, no bye)
2008 – Patriots (L, bye) v. Giants (W, no bye)
2007 – Colts (W, no bye) v. Bears (L, bye)
2006 – Steelers (W, no bye) v. Seahawks (L, bye)
2005 – Patriots (W, bye) v. Eagles (L, bye)
2004 – Patriots (W, bye) v. Panthers (L, no bye)
2003 – Raiders (L, bye) v. Bucs (W, bye)
2002 – Patriots (W, bye) v. Rams (L bye)
2001 – Ravens (W, no bye) v. Giants (L, bye)
2000 – Rams (W, bye) v. Titans (L, no bye)
All of the Pat’s SB wins came off byes. Of course, their two losses in the past two decades ALSO came with bye weeks.
So, although 75% of Super Bowl winners in the past 4 years didn’t have byes, just under the same percent of Super Bowl participants in the last decade DID have byes.
the real stat
is whether the teams slacked off in the last week or so.
going into a bye in sync isn’t a bad thing.
"These players, a lot of other people didn't believe in them, but they believe in themselves. And that is all that matters."- Bill Belichick
But a team can't be in TOO much of a funk if it makes it to the SB.
So it stands to reason that your chances of getting to the SB are better if you have a bye, regardless of momentum, since 60% of “New Millenium” (What do we call last decade? I can’t figure that out) SB participants had byes, while only 33% of playoff participants have byes.
I would love to see a lineup, though, of bye teams’ performances in the playoffs along with their performances over, say, the last 4 games of the season. Would be telling, methinks.
True...
but the teams that get the byes are the teams that have been better throughout the season and they should be going deeper into the playoffs. I don’t think a bye in the playoffs hurts a team’s chances of getting to the SB, but it may not be as big a help as is assumed either.
But the real question is the wisdom of resting otherwise healthy starters in late-season “meaningless” games in order to prevent injuries. There is one team in the past decade that is notorious for doing that, and I notice they only time they won a SB was when they didn’t have a good enough record during the regular season to earn a bye. It could just be a coincidence though.
"If you know how to cheat, start now." - Earl Weaver
The teams that 'win' a bye week are presumably the best teams around (obviously)
so it seems a little anomalous to me that the previously best teams get knocked out so often – 40% of the time at least one of the best teams of the season doesn’t make the Superbowl? That’s remarkable. I’m not saying that a bye week is a bad thing – I suspect it helps teams get healthy as often as it destroys their momentum – but it suggests that earning a bye week could be seen as a double-edged sword.
It could well be that there are just some coaches, coaching staff and team rosters that are psychologically geared to work well with bye weeks, and some that just aren’t. The Pats (unsurprisingly) do well with bye weeks. I suspect that is entirely due to Hoodie and the type of players Hoodie likes. Belichick gets an extra week to scheme up defences and mismatches, and the players he likes are hard-nosed workers who won’t slack off for a week or lose focus. In contrast, pick a team like the Cowboys, who haven’t had success. Their key players are often the media-hungry, prima-donna types who don’t cope well with a loss of structure or discipline. Maybe that’s the difference, in which case, were I a coach with superstar prima-donnas, I would loathe earning a bye week.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
not the Colts or the Chargers
Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum!
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life
Very good point
I’m glad to see the Pats didn’t rest their starters after 1 quarter as it is almost just giving up and letting the other team win. The Patriots show heart and I really admired their game vs. the Texans.
by dolphinsinbuffalo on Jan 4, 2010 8:06 PM EST reply actions
Does a bye round hurt? HECK NO!
The population of recent SB participants is just too small for any statistical analysis, sorry. If you go back to 1978, n=64, but even that’s pretty marginal. You could look at bye round success alone, and get home-field records in the divisional rounds over 15 years, and that would be 60 games, all relatively recent.
But just think of it this way. Let’s say the bye round really isn’t a good thing, and that it’s best to be the road team in the divisional round. Maybe this is because of momentum, or because you know who to prepare for (which would only be true if the advantage held for the 3 vs 6 winner but not the 4 vs 5 winner), or whatever. But let’s give the road team 60% to win in the divisional round alone. It’s still better to get the #2 seed than #3 in that case, because the #3 has to win two games with an edge, while the #2 only has to win one game at what we’re stipulating to be a minor situational disadvantage.
So yeah, this Chargers fan is very happy with the #2 seed, and content with the decision to rest starters in Week 17 (obviously, resting starters doesn’t have to mean laying down). Sure, the “what if we give it away again?” bug has the back of my head, but y’all have “if we beat the Ravens, we gotta go 3000 miles for another playoff game” and I wouldn’t trade, thanks. That still doesn’t mean I understand Caldwell’s Folly, or any other deliberate momentum-killer: even if you think it doesn’t matter, you owe it to the game to play to win. But I think you’d be crazy not to take a bye round and a home elim game over home and road elim games.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 6, 2010 11:30 AM EST reply actions
Back in 1978 (just a year you threw out there),
or in the ‘70s as a decade, were teams resting their players two weeks before the end of the season? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m guessing not.
You’re right about a team not wanting to travel 3000 miles and three time zones for a playoff game. Last time the Patriots did that they beat the Chargers, had more than half the team come down with the flu from the airplane travel, and run out of gas to lose in the last half against the Colts. It’s a scenario I’d rather them not repeat, but that’s the track they’re on now – having to fly out to San Diego to face the hottest team in the NFL.
The bye week and homefield advantage is worth every effort to get it (if a team can) in the regular season
Keep the faith!
I used 1978 'cause that was when the 16-week season/12-team playoffs started.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 6, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
But my point was two-fold:
1) Never trust any statistical analysis of superbowl teams, because there’s no way to get a sufficient population in a relevant time window; and
2) Even if it’s better to be the road team in the divisional round, it’s almost certainly better to earn the bye round and play with any plausible disadvantage than to have to win a WC game and be the road team in the divisional round.
Test for #2: I’m assuming that for WC games in the aggregate, the chance of a home team win does not exceed 60% (maybe for a given game, but not for WC games on the whole). For Div games in the aggregate, the chance of a road team win certainly does not exceed 60%. If they’re both at that upper 60% limit, the #3 or #4 seed has a 36% chance of making the championship game, while the #1 or #2 seed has 40%. If it’s more like 60% and 55% (much more plausible), then it’s 33 vs. 45. If it’s even-money (which is to say that coming off a bye vs an opponent coming off a win is bad enough to negate HFA), then it’s 50% vs. 30%. So even a substantial edge for the road team in the divisional is only enough to even the odds overall if the road team got lucky and drew a chump in the previous round.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Jan 6, 2010 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit at gmail.com
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
