tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post7597236581224614826..comments2007-07-30T23:15:24.746-04:00Brian Burkenoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-18782087832610370732007-07-30T23:15:00.000-04:002007-07-30T23:15:00.000-04:00I'd be happy to help you out with filling in the rest of the stats to re-do the experiment. I've got sack, penalty, and fumble data going back to 1994.<BR/><BR/>I've found similar things with my data. My system predicts St. Louis as a riser in 1999 (1998: 5.5145 expected wins vs. 4 actual), but certainly nowhere near the 13-win level they achieved. The Titans were predicted to fall in 1999! New England and Philidelphia exceeded their expected wins in 2003 but were better in 2004. <BR/><BR/>The pattern I actually notice is that teams that exceed expected win totals of 12+ will win/get there the next year. 1997/8 Denver, 2003/4 New England, 2004/5 Pittsburgh. 2005/6 Seattle had injury problems, however, and did not match this pattern. Going by that, San Diego seems to be the leading contender for the 2007 championship (followed by Chicago and New England).<BR/><BR/>It seems that Super Bowl teams are good teams for several years that make an important off-season move or two that cause a jump in performance and/or they experience a low-probability hot streak.Derekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17941314072950152029noreply@blogger.com