Ian Allan
I think Strength of Schedule is going to play a role in deciding fantasy football leagues this year.
A year ago, as you may recall, there was an unusually high number of teams with really easy or really tough schedules. I did a feature about it in the 2008 issue of Fantasy Football Index. If I hadn’t done that feature, I would have done something similar for the 2009, because the schedules again appear to be out of whack – lots of teams with either really easy or really tough schedules.
It’s a phenomena that’s been caused, I believe, by the shift in how schedules are drawn up. When the NFL went to the eight-division format, it created the rotational scheduling format, with each team playing 14 of its 16 games against teams from three divisions (6 games against its own division, plus 8 against the teams from two other division). So if the divisions, by chance, tend to get uneven, it creates big gaps in strength of schedule when those divisions happen to run into each other.
Below are the hardest schedules of the last 17 years. These are what teams were expected to face. Heading into last season, for example, the Steelers were to play a schedule against opponents with a combined win-loss record of 153-103, the hardest of any team in the last 17 years. But those opponents (counting a 5-11 record against Pittsburgh), wound up going 134-119-3, the 2nd-hardest schedule last year behind the Browns.
Anyway, when you look at the numbers entering the season, a whole bunch of 2009 teams project to play unusually difficult schedules – particularly teams in the NFC South, which will play not only six games inside that tough division, but also must play all eight teams in the two East divisions.
Not all teams will be affected. The Steelers managed to overcome a hard schedule last year and win the Super Bowl. But on average, a hard schedule tend to correlate with about a 10 percent drop in offensive production. So I’m confident you’ll see some of these teams affected.
HARDEST SCHEDULES, 1993-2009
Based on combined win-loss records of opponents entering the season:
W L T Pct.
153 103 0 .598 2008 Pittsburgh
152 104 0 .594 2008 Indianapolis
152 104 0 .594 2009 Miami
151 104 1 .592 2009 Carolina
151 105 0 .590 2009 New England
150 105 1 .588 2009 Atlanta
150 106 0 .586 2000 Buffalo
148 107 1 .580 2009 Tampa Bay
147 109 0 .574 2001 Minnesota
146 110 0 .570 1996 Green Bay
146 110 0 .570 1999 Oakland
146 110 0 .570 2000 Miami
146 110 0 .570 2009 Buffalo
145 110 1 .568 2009 NY Jets
144 112 0 .563 1996 San Diego
144 112 0 .563 2000 Indianapolis
143 113 0 .559 1996 Detroit
143 113 0 .559 1997 Dallas
143 113 0 .559 2000 NY Jets
143 113 0 .559 2008 Jacksonville
142 113 1 .557 2009 New Orleans
142 114 0 .555 1996 Chicago
142 114 0 .555 1996 Seattle
142 114 0 .555 2000 Minnesota
142 114 0 .555 2001 Tampa Bay
141 115 0 .551 1996 Kansas City
140 114 2 .551 1998 Pittsburgh
141 115 0 .551 2008 Baltimore
141 115 0 .551 2008 Minnesota
- Comments [7]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by Travis Billman | Jun. 11 at 07:43 AM
I remember last year in the magazine you suggested dropping expectations for the Pittsburgh's fantasy players, and lo and behold--below average production!! Kudos to you all! My question is, do you think that Pittsburgh players will be undervalued this year due to their production last year? I've seen a lot of people putting the Steelers skill positions WELL below last year's rankings. Do you think some of these players, and others like them could be bumped up in our rankings because of the unusually difficult schedule last year?
Posted by Timothy Scott | Jun. 11 at 09:15 AM
Ahh I'd have to disagree somewhat because two years ago SD was projected to play a hard schedule against the run and easy against the pass yet Tomlinson was huge that year and Rivers was mediocre. Last year it was the other way around w/ the schedules but Rivers had a great year and Tomlinson did little to nothing. Also, two years ago all of you supposedly professional journalists were saying Steven Jackson was going to be the #1 back because of his schedule and because of who he is. Yeh, anybody who knows anything about Jackson knows he's injury prone, STL's OLine is/was horrible and their defense is/was crap. I wish I had the time to start my own site because most of you guys don't know what you;re talking about...that includes ESPN and the NFL analysts.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Jun. 11 at 10:12 AM
I think Timothy Scott is painting with too broad of a brush. He's lumping all of fantasy analysts together, as if we all live in one building, work together and share the same thoughts. I did an extensive study of strength of schedule last year. In that article, I determined and outlined that while strength of schedule is significant -- tending to increase/decrese production by about 10 percent -- it is not a silver bullet. All teams with hard schedules don't have poor years, and all teams with easy schedules don't have good years. You're just tilting the odds. The Patriots, for example, were supposed to play the easiest of all schedules last year, and it of course didn't work out so well for them. In that study, I also illustrated that the best forecaster of production were strength of schedule charts based on wins and loss, not on specialized charts tailored to rushing and passing figures. Some readers still ask for those numbers, so I post them from time to time, but I advise against using those for forecasting purposes.
Posted by L DALE GANDER | Jun. 11 at 10:54 AM
I think it is important to understand that SoS doesn't turn bad teams into deep fantasy wells, or good teams into bad fantasy investments. Like the term "bust", it is all relative to what they're expected to do. Even at 10% fantasy production influence (which I think should be cut in half because that is a worst-case scenario number), you are talking about a 1200 yard back getting 1080, or a 3500 passer getting 3150. That is by no means undraftable, but maybe below expectations. Also, it may not affect every player on the team, but maybe only the role players or backups who see a different amount of garbage time. SoS doesn't make or break a player, but it can quiet your enthusiasm or disdain for him.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Jun. 11 at 04:13 PM
I believe 10 percent is about the average for the teams with the really hard numbers -- not the worst-case scenario. It does tend to make a difference. So of those backs like DeAngelo Williams, Michael Turner and the like, there's a good chance that one or two of them will dip severely in part because of scheduling. Did I just guarantee that both would be busts? I did not. It's just another factor, just like a running back undergoing knee surgery that sidelines him for the entire offseason. It's not guaranteed to be a factor, but it's one of the things you look at.
Posted by Travis Billman | Jun. 12 at 12:28 AM
My point had nothing to do with strength of opposition's run or pass defense, but the overall strength of the teams they were facing. The teams the Steelers were to facing were overall very strong. I think that can play a role in your fantasy draft. On the flip side, the Patriots had a historically easy schedule, lost their quarterback in the first game, and STILL went 11-5 with a backup that had never started a game!! Practically speaking, Ian, do you think the strength or weakness of a teams schedule last year should modify our outlooks on a guy's ranking this year? i.e. Matt Cassel's value may be inflated due to an easy schedule last year; Roethlisberger's value may be deflated due to a difficult schedule last year. Does this make sense? I'd be really interested to see the end of the year strength of schedule rankings that each team played against last year.
Posted by MICHAEL LONG | Jun. 12 at 02:14 AM
Maybe this will be covered in the magazine, but has the reliability of strength of schedule projections been looked at? You stated that Pittsburgh's schedule was supposed to be the toughest but ended up being second toughest. That makes the projection look pretty good. But over time and for all teams, how close are the projections to the actual results? A relatively close match makes this factor worth more attention.