ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs An analysis of franchise momentum: The Chiefs' Dow Jones Average. (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=216061)

Gadzooks 11-29-2010 12:54 AM

Me like Chargers and stuff... That was a painfull read.

Rain Man 11-29-2010 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing (Post 7208988)
Ok...I'm stupid...by why do you do this: " I then add it to 99 percent of the score of the previous week."?

The multiplier itself (99%) is kind of arbitrary, but in essence what it does is create a cumulative score that accounts for every game played up to that date, but games played longer ago are worth less. So this week's game is worth 100 points, last week's is worth 99 points, the game two weeks ago is worth 98.01 points (.99*.99) and so on. A game played 40 years ago is thus still counted, but it's worth almost nothing at this point, whereas it was still worth a fair bit 39 years ago.

-King- 11-29-2010 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 7208999)
The multiplier itself (99%) is kind of arbitrary, but in essence what it does is create a cumulative score that accounts for every game played up to that date, but games played longer ago are worth less. So this week's game is worth 100 points, last week's is worth 99 points, the game two weeks ago is worth 98.01 points (.99*.99) and so on. A game played 40 years ago is thus still counted, but it's worth almost nothing at this point, whereas it was still worth a fair bit 39 years ago.

Ohhhhhhh gotcha. How long did it take you to do all this? That's hundreds of games you had to figure out. Did you have a computer program to help you?
Posted via Mobile Device

Rain Man 11-29-2010 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing (Post 7209010)
Ohhhhhhh gotcha. How long did it take you to do all this? That's hundreds of games you had to figure out. Did you have a computer program to help you?
Posted via Mobile Device


I had to pull down every score to every game in Chiefs history. Thanks to our friends at profootballreference, it only took 2 or 3 hours if I remember right. I then set up some formulas in a spreadsheet to develop the index. Now it's relatively fast to update it.

I'd like to do this for every team, but that initial time investment has stopped me. The Raiders are buried somewhere in this thread, but that's the only other team I've done so far.

-King- 11-29-2010 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 7209016)
I had to pull down every score to every game in Chiefs history. Thanks to our friends at profootballreference, it only took 2 or 3 hours if I remember right. I then set up some formulas in a spreadsheet to develop the index. Now it's relatively fast to update it.

I'd like to do this for every team, but that initial time investment has stopped me. The Raiders are buried somewhere in this thread, but that's the only other team I've done so far.

And this is why you're everybodies favorite poster (well at least tied with FAX). Good work
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu 11-29-2010 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 7208924)
I'm not sure if this means anything, other than whether a coach was better than the coach before him. While one can argue that Haley's turnaround is on par with Schottenheimer's turnaround in 1989, I think the real indication is that Schottenheimer and Haley are both good coaches who took over for horrendous coaches.

The more you look at it, the Schottenheimer and Haley situations are very, very similar. At this point, it looks like Haley may have just had a slower Year One but has otherwise done just what Marty did in the Great Miracle of 1989 and 1990.

...

Before Haley took over, the previous coach's last two seasons were 4-12 and 2-14. Haley's first year was another 4-12, and right now he's on pace for a 10-6 or 11-5 second year. He did this with a new GM at the helm.

Kind of eerie, isn't it?

While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley.

Rain Man 11-29-2010 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 7209223)
While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley.

Yeah, that's a good point. And in the only words of defense I'll ever say for Herm, he and Tom Wiggin both inherited teams whose best players were either immediately retiring or had just retired. I think that made a difference for those two as well, shifting blame from Vermeil, Cunningham, and Stram (yes, Stram), who should have been replacing those players and didn't. While Stram is obviously golden, the decline in talent his last three years was precipitous, and he had more than enough time to reload before the whole thing collapsed.

I think Stram and Vermeil (and to a lesser extent Marty) were all milking the last reserves of their key veterans at the end, and then left as the ship went down.

patteeu 11-29-2010 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 7209474)
Yeah, that's a good point. And in the only words of defense I'll ever say for Herm, he and Tom Wiggin both inherited teams whose best players were either immediately retiring or had just retired. I think that made a difference for those two as well, shifting blame from Vermeil, Cunningham, and Stram (yes, Stram), who should have been replacing those players and didn't. While Stram is obviously golden, the decline in talent his last three years was precipitous, and he had more than enough time to reload before the whole thing collapsed.

I think Stram and Vermeil (and to a lesser extent Marty) were all milking the last reserves of their key veterans at the end, and then left as the ship went down.

Yeah, I think that's a pretty normal occurrence for a coach that's had a decent run as they try to give it one last shot. The unusual situation was Herm's. He had to know that going for a complete rebuild was pretty risky for his Chiefs' coaching career (although maybe he thought he'd get 2 years instead of just 1). IMO, he and Carl really did the franchise a favor with that last act.

Dave Lane 11-29-2010 01:46 PM

Herm didn't know he was a head coach till Pioli fired him. Then he said "Oh thats why I was here!"

Rain Man 11-22-2011 02:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I remembered this and thought I'd update it.

When Vermeil got the team our franchise index was at +5.43, and after some up and down seasons Dickie V. left it at +4.98. The franchise peak during his era was +9.29 at the end of Week 17 of 2003, just before...you know...Colts. The franchise low point during his era was -0.89 at the end of Week 17 of 2002 after a loss to the Raiders left us at 8-8.

Herm placed his unsteady hand at the helm with a franchise rating of 4.98. The franchise peak during his era was 7.44 at the end of Week 12 of his first season, after a win over the Broncos put us at 7-4 (recall that there was a bye week in there). Then he pointed the car south. The franchise low point during his era was an astounding -16.60 in his final game, after a loss to the Bengals put us at 2-14.

Hobo Haley then took over at -16.60 and has had a wild ride. The franchise continued its descent through Week 16 of his first year, bottoming out at -22.66 after a loss to the Bengals put us at 3-12. Then came 2010 and we began climbing. The week before the playoffs we were at -14.46 with a 10-6 record despite a loss to the Raiders that week. We are currently at -17.57 - losses in the last two weeks have dropped Todd's regime into negative territory.

Titty Meat 11-22-2011 03:39 PM

Hey Rainman thanks for everything you do for the board. Between this and that simulation league you're running you are awesome!

OnTheWarpath15 11-22-2011 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 8133219)
I remembered this and thought I'd update it.

When Vermeil got the team our franchise index was at +5.43, and after some up and down seasons Dickie V. left it at +4.98. The franchise peak during his era was +9.29 at the end of Week 17 of 2003, just before...you know...Colts. The franchise low point during his era was -0.89 at the end of Week 17 of 2002 after a loss to the Raiders left us at 8-8.

Herm placed his unsteady hand at the helm with a franchise rating of 4.98. The franchise peak during his era was 7.44 at the end of Week 12 of his first season, after a win over the Broncos put us at 7-4 (recall that there was a bye week in there). Then he pointed the car south. The franchise low point during his era was an astounding -16.60 in his final game, after a loss to the Bengals put us at 2-14.

Hobo Haley then took over at -16.60 and has had a wild ride. The franchise continued its descent through Week 16 of his first year, bottoming out at -22.66 after a loss to the Bengals put us at 3-13. Then came 2010 and we began climbing. The week before the playoffs we were at -14.46 with a 10-6 record despite a loss to the Raiders that week. We are currently at -17.57 - losses in the last two weeks have dropped Todd's regime into negative territory.

So according to this, we're in worse shape than when Haley/Pioli took over.

LMAO

Rain Man 11-22-2011 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 8133473)
So according to this, we're in worse shape than when Haley/Pioli took over.

LMAO

Sadly, yes. That kind of surprised me.

It seems like there are three kinds of coaches: ones that plunge into an abyss, ones that immediately go up, and ones that run more or less breakeven. So far, Todd is looking like the third type, which disappoints me since I want to see him succeed.

whoman69 11-22-2011 04:58 PM

Surprising how fleeting the success of a playoff season is. Will we ever see 30 again. Its going to take a lot of years to get there. Oh what a QB could do here.

Rain Man 12-30-2012 06:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Update. I'm sad to say that according to this measure we are at the lowest point in franchise history, even worse than the end of the Gansz era and the ineptitude of the 1970s and 1980s. You are safe to make the claim that there has never been a worse time to be a Chiefs fan.

See the opening post for the description, and I've also included the updated graph both here and there.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.