Fantasy Index Scheduletron -- strength-of-schedule analysis
Here’s a special version of the Strength of Schedule charts we like to kick out once in awhile. This one is a mixture of fact and opinion. It’s based not on how teams performed in 2010 or what they’ve done this year – but on how good I think they are.
For each team (and we’ve seen them all twice) I put down a projected win-loss record. This isn’t a forecast of how they’ll do this year, but a guess of how they would do if they played a typical schedule. The Saints and Falcons, for example, are 1-1, but they’re not 1-1 teams – those are playoff-caliber teams.
For each team, I put down a win-loss record (with the Patriots, Packers and Saints at the top, and teams like Indianapolis and Kansas City at the bottom).
Then I took those numbers and plugged them into the schedules that teams actually will play. I removed Weeks 1-2 (already gone), and I also clipped off Week 17, since most fantasy leagues are done at that time.
What I get is that Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Tennessee and San Diego project to play the easiest schedules. Those are the teams most likely to be helped along by who’ll they’ll be playing. (Maybe the Titans can parlay their schedule into a run at the AFC South championship).
Denver and the two New York teams project to play the hardest schedules.
EXPECTED STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE
Strength-of-schedule numbers, based on estimated actual quality of opponents. Some numbers have been rounded to make them more palatable to the eye (which is why some of the win-loss totals are a win off):
Win Loss Pct
87 121 .418 Pittsburgh
89 119 .428 Baltimore
91 117 .438 Tennessee
94 115 .450 San Diego
95 114 .454 Cincinnati
95 114 .454 Cleveland
96 112 .462 Arizona
97 112 .464 Houston
99 109 .476 New Orleans
101 107 .486 New England
101 107 .486 St. Louis
102 106 .490 Atlanta
103 106 .493 San Francisco
104 105 .498 Green Bay
104 105 .498 Seattle
105 104 .502 Washington
106 103 .507 Chicago
107 101 .514 Tampa Bay
108 101 .517 Oakland
108 101 .517 Philadelphia
108 100 .519 Carolina
109 100 .522 Dallas
110 98 .529 Buffalo
110 98 .529 Indianapolis
111 98 .531 Miami
111 98 .531 Minnesota
111 97 .534 Detroit
112 96 .538 Jacksonville
113 95 .543 Kansas City
114 94 .548 NY Jets
116 92 .558 NY Giants
118 90 .567 Denver
POWER RANKINGS
(Ball-park win-loss records, if teams were to play an average schedule).
W L T
13 3 0 New England
12 4 0 Green Bay
12 4 0 New Orleans
11 5 0 Baltimore
11 5 0 Philadelphia
11 5 0 Pittsburgh
11 5 0 San Diego
10 6 0 Atlanta
10 6 0 Chicago
10 6 0 Houston
10 6 0 NY Jets
9 6 1 Dallas
9 6 1 Detroit
9 7 0 NY Giants
8 7 1 Buffalo
8 8 0 Tampa Bay
8 8 0 Tennessee
8 8 0 Washington
7 8 1 Minnesota
7 8 1 Oakland
7 9 0 Cleveland
6 9 1 Arizona
6 10 0 Carolina
6 10 0 Miami
6 10 0 St. Louis
5 11 0 Cincinnati
4 11 1 San Francisco
4 12 0 Jacksonville
4 12 0 Kansas City
4 12 0 Seattle
3 12 1 Denver
3 13 0 Indianapolis
—Ian Allan
- Comments [3]
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 BILL REHOR | Sep. 23 at 01:08 AM
Ian, I love that you've done this (and done it so well) but I'm never quite sure what to do with this kind of information. For instance, if Denver loses a lot of games, they'll probably be throwing a lot more, so is that actually a good thing for Brandon Lloyd? Conversely, if Big Ben plays in a lot of blowouts like last week against Seattle, maybe he never even breaks a sweat (or 20 TDs). How does FFI apply this info? Is it really best only for running backs (who, as you've pointed out, are much more likely to score in wins rather than losses)?
Posted by Mark Adams | Sep. 23 at 01:44 AM
Shocking seeing the Colts ranked dead last at wins. What a demise. Also surprising seeing Pitt with only 11 wins and with the easiet schedule per your rankings. Terrible thing Pitt gets the easiest schedule being that I'm a Cowboy fan. Chicago at 10-6 might be a strech. I predict Buffalo to continue their rise and be better than 8-7-1. Poor, poor KC. I sure wish Dez Bryant would hurry up and get healthy. Jeez. I need him for the Cowboys and my FFL.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Sep. 23 at 03:36 AM
Bill: the point you raise is a good one. Strength of schedule plays a bigger role with running backs. I haven't totaled up the win/loss numbers for a couple of years, but in ballpark terms, teams tend to score about twice as many rushing touchdowns in games they win. And you're probably looking at something like 35-40 rushing yards per game, on average. The stat differences aren't as good with passing. I just opened up four of the summary files I have on seasons (2004-2007). For one of those seasons, LOSING teams averaged more passing yards. But in general, it's a slight edge to the teams that are winning with yards, and they finish with more touchdowns as well. In ballpark terms, about a half touchdown passe per game.