An analysis of franchise momentum: The Chiefs' Dow Jones Average.
 

Many of us speak of the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s and warn you young bucks that it could be worse.

Well, it's pretty bad, and I started wondering just where we stand relative to the Dark Ages. So I developed an algorithm.

Here's how it works. Starting with Day 1 of the franchise, I looked at every regular and post-season game in our history. Each week I did the following:

A win is worth 1 point and a loss is worth -1 point.
I then add it to 99 percent of the score of the previous week.

In this way, it creates a long tail showing the momentum of the franchise, because a win or loss shows up the next week at 99%, the following week at 99% of that, and so on. So it more or less traces a path of the long-term goodwill or badwill built up by the franchise over time as every single game in history continues to ripple through the Chiefs' space-time continuum.

I made a couple of adjustments, too. I made a playoff game worth 3 points for a win and -3 for a loss, and I also added or subtracted 1 point at the end of each regular season depending on whether or not we made the playoffs. These points get tossed in with the rest of the scores.

The Chiefs Dow Jones can thus be positive or negative, with a positive number indicating more good times than bad, and negative representing, of course, times like now where we are killing our pack animals for food and the dead are carted away in wheelbarrows.

What I found is shown in the accompanying graph. The numbers don't really mean anything but are more of an abstract measure. Some key elements of the timeline include:

1. After some early positive and negative fluctuations, the Chiefs found themselves with a positive Dow of 0.08 in Week 2 of the 1962 season, after a 26-16 win over the Raiders to go 2-0. The Dow would remain positive for the next 15 years after that win. Go, Lenny!

2. With significant assistance from the AFL championship win in 1962, the Chiefs Dow Jones passed +10.0 for the first time in Week 1 of the 1963 season as the Chiefs blasted the Broncos 59-7. However, by Week 5 the Chiefs were 2-2-1, having just lost to the Buffalo Bills 35-26, and they wouldn't see the 10.0 point mark again until a 32-24 win over the Jets in Week 12 of the 1966 season, on their way to the loss in Super Bowl I. So the 1962 championship more or less created the little spike you see in the early days.

3. The Chiefs' star rose rapidly after that, with with the Dow surpassing +20 on Week 12 of the 1968 season. A 24-10 win over the Houston Oilers put the Chiefs at 10-2, and they went on to a 12-2 record but a humiliating playoff loss.

4. 1969 was of course a banner season. After ending 1968 with an index of 19.49, the Chiefs blew through the season with an 11-3 record and three postseason wins, including Super Bowl IV. We ended the season at a then-record Dow of +33.48.

5. We actually beat the Dow record briefly in 1970, though as you can see from the graph, we were topping out and struggling to stay at that level. At the end of Week 12 of the 1970 season the Dow stood at 33.61. We were 7-3-2 at that point, having just beaten the pushover Denver Broncos 16-0 and with the Super Bowl win still fresh. However, losses to Oakland and San Diego the following two weeks kept us out of the playoffs.

6. The team was still strong, though. I'm girding myself for neg rep from milkman, but the high water for the Kansas City Chiefs franchise actually occurred not upon the Super Bowl win, but rather at the end of Week 14 in 1971, as we prepared for a playoff game. The Dow at this point was at 33.63 and the Chiefs were a powerful team of winning veterans. We were 10-3-1 and had just beaten the Buffalo Bills and their young running back O.J. Simpson by a score of 22-9. While we'd missed the playoffs the previous year, we'd made it the two years before that and of course still had the Super Bowl in recent memory.

Of course, we would have our beating hearts ripped out and eaten the following week on Christmas Day, starting a horrific multi-decade decline that is the curse of Garo Yepremian.

7. From that high point of 33.63, we began a terrible, terrible decline, both long and rapid. A 23-16 loss to the Bengals in Week 5 of 1972 dropped us below 30 for good, and a 14-7 loss to the Chargers in Week 9 of 1974 dropped us below 20 points for the first time since Week 3 of the 1969 season. A 28-20 loss to Oakland to end the 1975 season dropped the index below 10.0.

8. In Week 4 of 1977 the Dow actually fell below zero, meaning that the franchise's cumulative memory was now negative. On that day, the Chiefs fell to 0-4 with, ironically, a 23-7 loss to the Broncos.

9. The fall did not stop there. In Week 6 of 1978 we fell to an index below -10 with a loss to the Buccaneers, and the low point of that era occurred with a loss to San Diego in Week 4 of 1980, when our index fell to -18.64.

10. Marv Levy stabilized the franchise a bit, temporarily pulling the index above -10.0, and then Mackovic came in. He didn't do quite as well as Marv as the Chiefs started sliding again, but his playoff spot in 1986 got the index to -10.28 before the playoff loss.

11. Mackovic was fired, and Gansz came in and started digging. An ugly loss to Seattle in Week 2 of 1988 took the index below -20.0 for the first time ever. By the time he left, the index was at a then-record -23.35 as 1988 drew to a close.

12. In 1989 a holy trinity came to town: Carl Peterson, Marty Schottenheimer, and Derrick Thomas. It took a few games to catch fire, though, and the low point of the Chiefs franchise occurred when a 21-17 loss to the Bengals took the index to an all-time pre-Pioli low of -24.41. However, things began looking up, and by the end of 1989 the index had risen to -19.74.

13. Bam, bam, bam. Faster than Derrick Thomas beating a left tackle, the Chiefs' fortunes rose. As they headed into a heartbreaking playoff loss to the Dolphins in 1990, the index was up to -10.14. In Week 7 of 1993, a young Will Shields and an old Joe Montana had resurrected the franchise, getting above 0 for the first time since 1977 with a 17-14 win over the Chargers as part of a 5-1 start to the season. Two playoff wins would push the index to 9.30.

14. In Week 8 of 1995, a 21-7 win over the Broncos would push the index above 10 for the first time since 1975.

15. The high water mark of the Peterson/Schottenheimer/Thomas era was the end of Week 16 of the 1997 season, when the index stood at 19.07. However, the theft of the playoffs the next week by a salary-cap-cheating team signalled the fall of Rome and its helmet-haired emperor.

16. In Week 1 of the 1999 season, coach Gunther Cunningham lost to the Bears and their "high-fangled trickery" and the index fell below 10.0. The index was at 5.43 when Gunther got his walking e-mails.

17. Dick Vermeil took over a team in crisis, and the index actually fell below zero three times in his early years, Week 13 of 2001 and Weeks 3 and 17 of 2002 as he struggled to stay above zero. However, he then assembled the greatest offensive show in Kansas City history and things looked up.

18. The high point of the Vermeil era was a 9.29 index at the end of the 2003 regular season, just before we entered the puntless game in Indianapolis. When Vermeil left, the index was back down to 4.98.

19. Enter Herm. He actually managed to increase the index for 16 weeks, rising to 7.16 before the embarrassing playoff loss to Indianapolis that dropped his first-year index to 4.08. From there on out it was downhill, with the index dropping below zero in Week 13 of 2007 after a 24-10 loss to the Chargers. A 30-27 loss to the Buccaneers in Week 9 of 2008 dropped the index below -10.0, and when Herm's work was finally done in 2008 the index stood at a frightful -16.60.

20. Haley arrived, and muddled about a bit. He got us as high as -14.45 the week before his playoff game, but then a bad 2011 dropped his cumulative reign into negative growth, as he was fired at an index of -18.04.

The Crennel era began with a little positive momentum, but then the bottom dropped out. Down, down, down in that burning ring of fire. Then further down. And further. As the 2012 season came to a close, the week 15 loss to the Raiders took the franchise to its lowest index in history. Then the Colts game dragged it down further. And finally, the Broncos game took us even further into uncharted territory. As of today, the Chiefs' index is at the lowest point in franchise history, at an astonishing level of -26.09.

That is truly impressive.

How many hours did it take you to compile all of this data? 4? 5?

This is why I think that if there was a time-per-post metric, Rain Man would have about 10 times the amount of the next highest poster.

Penny stock time. Mutual funds have long told us to go **** ourselves.

Oh, and another thing. We'll drop to the lowest point ever at the end of this season, unless we some how manage to win 5 of our last 11 games or so.

I could see this happening. Quite a few bright spots that we could talk about in this already uplifting thread.

Thanks. It did indeed take about 6 hours to put together. I finished a few work deadlines and had some time tonight.


I was surprised at the result. We've mythologized the 70s and 80s, but it's just about been matched in the current era. Of course, the decline from the early 70s through about 1980 is still epic. We're low now, but Carl's peak didn't match the dizzying heights of Hank's peak, so it wasn't as big a fall to get here.

I suggest sending this data to the Chiefs so that they can use this in an upcoming marketing strategy.

KC Chiefs: Buy low.

Amazing analysis. You have the W-L data of EVERY chiefs game ever? Good shit.

Id love to see that excel file.

Here's the Excel file if anyone wants to peruse it.

Oh, and hey, someone does.


If anyone looks at this file, note that the defensive turnovers for the final game of the season are often missing, because it was hard to grab it when I was copying game scores. Other than that, everything is complete.

Carl also had to raise us out of the depths. I think by looking at this that if Carl started at zero like Hank did, Carl would actually have had a higher peak. I know that's blasphemy of course.

I downloaded it... looks impressive. Good stuff man...

That's a really good point. Carl had an increase of about 44 points during his first 9 years, which is more than the 33 points that we had in the 60s. Carl gave back about 20 points of it later, but if he had driven James Dean's car off Deadman's Curve in 1977 he would be beloved in Chiefsland today.

I suspect that there's increasing resistance as one gets higher and higher indices, though, and that the 60s crew was up in the stratosphere where it would be hard to keep getting higher scores. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong then I think the key to keep moving up would be postseason success. I'd kind of like to tackle this for some other teams now too, to see how they stack up.

That's the best line I've read on here in a long time. LOL


PhilFree:arrow:

Oops, I meant 1997.


1977 might work too, though.

Awesome work. I think this comes pretty close to capturing the fan sentiment at any given time.

BUT...

I think to get a cumulative perspective of the history of the franchise, you should integrate the area under the curve.

The Carl Peterson era has a very similar area above the curve as the desperate period in the '70's and '80's have below the curve. They essentially cancel one another out. What the current times are doing are eating into the glory years. We are still positive as a franchise, but are quickly burning up our legacy built through domniation of the old AFL.

I really feel for the fans that have no zero recollection of the true glory years. I tuned in during the '69 season, but those few years made the best of the Marty years pale by comparison.

Looking closer, the area under the Carl Peterson years is distinctly less than the area below the terrible times.

I've said it before on the planet, but this is a good place for another summation and it feels appropriate.

my dad was 12 years old when we won the super bowl. I'm now 26 years old (I'll be 27 by the end of the season, right before the super bowl). it's easy as a 'younger fan' (I don't feel old) to be jaded these days--the chiefs have given me a lot of pretty good moments (beating the niners of steve young, beating the dolphins big and seeing marino's red-ass stare, a last second bomb to kennison to beat the packers, quite a few good memories), but we haven't climbed the ultimate mountain in the nfl--I cried, literally wept like a little girl, after the 1995 playoff game. after the 1997 playoff loss to the stinking goddamned broncos (which I still haven't gotten over, I'm pretty sure I'd kick john elway in the balls if I ever met him), I was depressed (like, probably clinically) for five months. the loss to the colts in 2003 was just one in another long line of dissapointments.

have no doubt about it--I'm absolutely jaded about the chiefs these days. I don't have any real glory days to hold onto, the 90's were good, but it's hard to be sustained with as many dissapointments as we had. I remember being young and truly believing it was gonna happen 'next year.' I'm truly sick of next year. I'm sick of my only real respite being dominating a madden franchise for a few years before I get sick of it. I'm to the point that I kinda believe the only super-bowl victory and dynasty I'll ever see as a chiefs fan is a cheesy video game produced one. it's a ****ing travesty.

it's absolutely depressing. we're the cubs of the nfl, we're the (old) red sox of the nfl. we're a joke.

I'm not sure we should integrate the area under the curve because I think the formula itself is handling that aspect of it.

However, just for grins, if you look at the area under the curve, you get an area of ....

2,170 win-games from 1960 up to December 24th, 1971.

1,370 win-games from Christmas 1971 through Week 3 of 1977 (the last positive day of the era)

-805 win-games through Week 12 of 1981 (the first trough)

-1138 from Week 13 of 1981 through the end of the season and Mackovic in 1986.

-593 during the Gansz era

-826 from the 1989 through the end of the Montana era in 1993 (they were still pulling us up from the depths)

966 from 1994 through the end of the Marty era in 1998

311 during the Gunther era

244 during the Vermeil era

-64 during the Herm era

-95 so far during the Haley era


That would put us at about +1,540 cumulatively if my quick in-head adding is right.

Again, though, I'm thinking that the calculations are more or less the cumulative, more so than the area under the curve. I could be wrong, though.

I'm impressed and depressed all at once, Rainman. You are quite the statistician. You put a new face on the quagmire that we know as the Dallas Texans...er...Kansas City Chiefs. And you also managed to remind me just how eroded my math skills have become. :doh!: I want to be like you when I grow up. :)

No, you are right. I tried to integrate the area under the curve and came out with a peak in 1977, like you did. That is definitely not right. Your initial formula definitely has a cumulative component. I'll have to look at it again when I'm fresh. Your graph is not going to make for pleasant dreams tonight, that's for sure.

Rain Man, I don't if you hear this enough but you are one the best additions to this message board if not THE best.

Thank you for being you.

Thanks for the compliments, guys. I wasn't sure if people would find this interesting or not, but I sure do. Like I said, I'd like to do this for other teams now, other than the fact that it takes a while to get the data put together.

Wow. Really impressive. Rep.

One question, though.

If a playoff loss is worth -3 than wouldn't it be the same point-wise, with this math, to lose one more regular season game and miss the playoffs?

(-3 for playoff loss)+(1 bonus point for playoff appearance) = (-1 for loss)+(-1 for not making the playoffs)

That doesn't seem right to me.

Moreover, say the Niners don't beat the Donks and Denver goes to the playoffs rather than KC, wouldn't Herm's Chiefs have gained one point essentially for not appearing in the playoffs?

Assuming I'm not missing something (big assumption), this would indicate that a team is the same or possibly even worse if it blows it in round one of the postseason rather than missing altogether. Does anyone think that? I know it's heartbreaking but I'd still rather make the playoffs.

Good observation. My playoff bonuses are completely arbitrary and I agonized over them. My main question was, "Is a 1 and done better than not making the playoffs at all?" The obvious response is that it's better to make the playoffs and lose, but at the same time a bunch of 1 and dones is depressing, as we all know.

My compromise solution is to assume that making the playoffs requires a good record, so to some extent a 1 and done season will still be positive in the big picture. But what really makes a difference is winning a playoff game. Otherwise, a 1 and done somewhat deflates the season.

So you're right. It's a bigger hit at the end of the season to lose your first playoff game than it is to not make the playoffs. However, it was probably still a successful season overall since you won enough games to get into the playoffs. Winning playoff games is the real driver, though.

I also tried to think of something related to how many years since you've been in the playoffs, but couldn't think of a good way to build that in conceptually. It was big to get in in 1986, but at the same time the team wasn't that great so as a fan we knew the odds were against us.

Feel free to tweak the formulas.

OH no. I've avoided doing real math since my senior year of high school and you're not going to trick me into that one.

I figured you had a pretty good explanation. I deem it acceptable. Carry on.

Sell MORTIMER!!! SELL!!!!!

Jesus Rain Man. Wow. It looks like you've got some extra brainpower just sitting around. Why don't you go tackle the national deficit? Surely you could hammer that out in a few hours. Anyway good stuff. VERY interesting.

And it does make sense that we are approaching an all time low. I read somewhere we are approaching a Tampa Bay level of multi-year ineptitude. Goddamn, it is physically painful being a Chiefs fan.

Correct. Eventually they would have had to go undefeated to continue growth. And that is much tougher than going from 2-14 to 8-8 for example. It would have been tougher for the glory days fellas to continue growth than it was for Carl. You know, without Arthur Anderson doing the books.

I was thinking the same thing. I would have graduated it. Like 1 Playoff win or a first round bye would be +3, 2 playoff wins would be +4, winning the AFC Championship game would be +5, and the Super Bowl would be +10. I would think a multiplier for the Super Bowl is appropriate. Conversely, a first round loss would be -5, second round loss -4, AFC Championship loss -3, and Super Bowl loss -2. That would just make more sense, because of the added weight of the playoffs.

But I certainly don't care enough to change around your spreadsheet.

Again this is good shit. Much rep.

Rain man you the man.

The sad part is visualizing in graph form how low Herman ****ing Edwards took this team.

This is incredible. I don't understand all this stuff, but I'll take you at your word...send this to One Arrowhead Drive and see what they say about it...

Pretty amazing stuff...

Really, really stellar and excellent analysis Rain Man. I always thought in my gut that the '71 Chiefs were, up and down the lineup, the best team assembled in KC in spite of that season ending, 6 quarter loss to Miami in the Christmas Bowl game.

And, this 2009 team seems about as bad as those Dark Ages teams from the 75-89 era, so I'd have to say that your analysis is right on the mark, and remarkable.

Kudos from a person who absolute abhors stats and such.

I have saved this for future reference. A few trips down memory lane does soften the mental kicks in the gut that any true fan of the term endures these days. . .

I have stored this file away for future reference.

grazie

Rain Man

I realize it was a tremendous effort on your part. This shows some glaring issues.

Would it be possible to chart successful franchises such as Pittsburgh, Dallas starting from the same period?

I love how Lamar thumbed his nose at Lombardi and set the stage for the AFL. I just feel his tight hand on the bucks was the single reason for the mediocre squads the Chiefs have fielded.

Thanks

The net gain in the 90's rivaled that of our peak in the early 70's. The lesson to be learned from that is we should bring back Marty. :D

I'd actually really like to do that.

If anyone has time to pull the data down for me for any franchise, I'd appreciate it. PM me and I'll show you what I did. It took me maybe an hour to pull the Chiefs down. It might be longer for older NFC teams and less for younger teams.

When did the 16 game season go into effect? That also gave Peterson a couple more games/season to pad his record during the strong years and would've presumably added a few more points to the Hank teams as well.

Bottomline - great post; we suck hard right now.

This is truly impressive work, sir. I would rep you more if I could.

I was wondering if you had the time to create a graph (only) for a successful team, such as the Steelers over the same course of the Chiefs existence. If not them, then somebody like the Pats (curious to see how their graph looked when they went 16-0) who faced hard times as well for a while.

I would like a great team to measure our ineptitude by, you know, to put things into perspective.

Also, is a super bowl win worth +3 or is it more? Is a super bowl berth worth points regardless of win? Something like +3 for appearing in the Super Bowl, but -5 for losing, thus a net of -2 or +7 for loss/win. Seems a franchise that even makes it to the Super Bowl (and loses) has something more to hang their hats on than the teams that do not make it.


This is just another side note:
It would be cool to go back and find the attendance records for each home game, probably would need to be done as a percentage of the capacity of the stadium, for example 77,000 out of 78,000 is considered a sell out, but it is actually 98.72% full. It would be interesting to see at what point the fans give up on attending the games during one of our many long down turns, and at what point they begin to attend in force again (following a string of victories, a new hiring, etc...)

The 1971 team was the best, the 69 team would be even more if Dawson played the whole year. Livington replacing Dawson was like Cassel replacing Brady.

The Christmas Day Game if you look at it is pretty big one in the history of NFL. It kind of gets swept under the rug but if you look at it is pretty big. If the Chiefs win, more than likely they go to the Super Bowl against the Cowboys. That would mean they would have went to 3 of the first 6 Super Bowls, win it and the Chiefs are talked about as the team of that era instead of Green Bay. Hank Stram and Dawson's legacies would be even more iconic in NFL history. Not to mention our defense would get the credit that they never have really gotten in history. Dallas doesn't win that and more than likely aren't crowned America's Team, instead they are Super Bowl chokers. Miami took the momentum from a Super Bowl run to go undeafted in 1972, do they do that if they get beat in the playoffs the year before?

Its alot of ifs and buts, but it is something to think about.

I don't know if you can say the Chief's D of the glory years never got the recognition they deserved. Four players from that D have been inducted into the HOF and they are routinely mentioned as one of the top 10 defenses of all time. Johnny Robinson is probably the only other guy on that defense that deserved HOF consideration, IMO.

RM-

Rep. You really should write this up and send it to the Star. It is certainly better than 99% of the tripe you read in the fish wrap.

THat's an awesome idea...seriously!

I agree with that but the stupid 85 Bears and some others get alot more pub. If they had the one more Super Bowl victory, I guarantee you they would be even more highly thought of.

Let me weigh in by stating that the '71 Christmas Day game between KC and Miami was about the best NFL game I've ever seen, in spite of the outcome. I've never before or since experienced the emotional roller coaster highs and lows of that magnificent game and dare say, no other game comes close in matching it.

What might of been had the Chiefs prevailed that day? Certainly, NFL and Chief's history could and probably would be altered significantly and that's saying something. You make some compellingly interesting points on the outcome of that game, CC, and ones I haven't thought about before now.

That is good work. :clap:

Here's the Raiders' Index using the same rules.

A few things stand out:

First, the high point of Raider civilization dwarfs the high point of Chiefs civilization. Whereas the Chiefs topped out at slightly under 34, the Raiders topped out at 55.867 after a playoff win against the Colts in 1977. (They then lost the AFC Championship to the pre-cheating Broncos.) They almost matched it in Week 4 of the 1984 season when they started out 4-0 after winning the Super Bowl. (The smaller spike in between those two bigger spikes was a Super Bowl win in 1980.)

In fact, from Week 8 of 1975 through Week 7 of 1987, the Raiders lived at a level above the highest level ever achieved in Chiefsland.

But is there some good news in this story? Yes.

While the Raiders had a very high index for many years, they gave it all away and more from the mid-80s through the mid-90s, riding a mind-boggling 50-point drop. In Week 15 of the 1997 season, a 30-0 drubbing by our very own Kansas City Chiefs put the Raiders' index in the red for the first time since Week 10 of the 1967 season.

The Raiders came up for air after they went under, peaking at an index of 19.091 the night before they encountered the buzz saw of Jon Gruden's Buccaneers in the 2002 season's Super Bowl.

From that point, it's been a journey to the center of the earth as they've list nearly 50 index points AGAIN. They dropped below zero in Week 14 of the 2004 season, and my oh my. They currently stand at -30.580, which is 6 points below the worst index ever recorded by the Chiefs.

Here's an overlay of the two.

Awesome stuff RM but are you going to feel responsible for the sudden drop in CP membership activity after the depression sets in?

This just proves that this place is a living proof that misery loves company.

I am compelled to emerge from my hiding place to commend you, Rainman, on this fine piece of work. A stunning visual depiction of our collective ennui.
:clap: :clap: :clap:





now, back behind the drapes, no one look at my shoes.

You're clearly insane. Loved the algorithm.

Yes. And even though the current status of the team is nearly as low as it got in the late 80's, the fact that we haven't already been < -10.0 for the better part of 12 years this time makes it easier to bear assuming we pull out of it within the next few years, IMO.

Great work, Rain Man.

Can you do all 32 franchises now so we have something to compare to? :p

Ouch. It looks like the Chiefs are the Raiders without their glory years. I didn't need to see that.

As an update, our stock index now stands at -21.43, which is the second-lowest season-ending stock index in Chiefs history. (The low season-ending point was -23.35 as we ended the 1988 season.) Interestingly, if we had lost the final game against the Broncos, our index would have been -23.43.

As noted before, the low point of all time was Week 4 of 1989 when our index dropped to -24.41 following a 1-3 start. If we lose our first four games next year we'll drop below this mark.


I looked at another variable that I'll call hope. That variable is the change registered over the course of one season. Whereas the index captures total happiness, the Hope variable covers the change in happiness over the course of a year.

Not surprisingly, the best years are the championship years. The Hope variable was a +13.99 in 1969, indicating a very bullish outlook. The next two hope jumps were in 1962 (+11.66) and 1993 (+9.84). On the contrary, the years when hope dropped most dramatically were 2008 (-11.39), 1977 (-10.87), and 2007 (-9.30). This year was a -4.83, which is bad but not as bad as other years.

I think based on this we should call the Herm era the Era of Lost Hope.

This chart made me orgasm like Peter North after a week long hiatus from porn. Its a buttfucking work of art and you should be praised endlessly.

So you're saying we should have sold out stock high in 1971?

Missed this thread the first time Kevin, very nicely done. Well that is an understatement, my vocabulary will not do it justice.

It has been a long road.

Amazing work... would be cool to see the Broncos and Chargers... even the Seahawks for old time sake as an overall comparison. I'm not sure if you used the data from profootballreference.com or not, but if I could get you the data... just tell me how you did it.

That's why you don't buy stock in the Chiefs... or bet on them.



Sell MORTIMER!!! SEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

I think I'll keep throwing good money after bad until the day I die.

*Sigh*......I'll never be able to retire at this rate.

I'd really like to do it for all the teams, and actually have it set up pretty good now. It'd be great if you or others could help. Anyone who wants to do this, here's the system. (The Broncos' index is going to be depressing to us Chiefs fans, though.)

Just take the enclosed spreadsheet and do the following:

Go into pro-football-reference, and year by year grab the schedule/record. It's the page that looks like this: http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/crd/2009.htm

You can select the whole thing with a careful click and drag, and then copy the whole thing into cells G through AA. This is the only time consuming part because you have to copy and paste each year individually. However, there's a linky thing at the top that will let you go directly to the next year's table.



It's very important to start with the first year of the franchise at the top of the spreadsheet and work your way down, with the most recent year last. For AFL legacy teams, that means you start with 1960. For other teams, you might be starting in 1920 or 1950 or 1976 or whenever the team was founded.

You then have to do the following:

1. Delete the bye weeks.

2. Cell F is nothing but a count, so it means nothing.

3. In Cell E, insert a 0 (zero) for non-playoff games, and a 3 for any playoff games.

4. Cell D is the number of years since a playoff appearance, but I ended up never using that, so you can ignore it.

5. Cell C is the main formula, so leave it alone.

6. Cell B is the Year. Just a bookkeeping thing.

7. Cell A is some random calculations. The ones at the end of each year are the Hope Calculations, which merely compare the stock index at the end of one year to the next year. There are some other random calculations in there that you can ignore. All of this is optional.

8. You'll need to define the data set to update the graph, or otherwise it might not include the whole time period. That function depends on the version of Excel you have. If you don't know how to do that, just upload the file to me and I'll update the graph.

If your team had more or fewer playoff appearances, you may need more or fewer rows. You can just copy the formula into any new rows you need.

If you have an old version of Excel the file may not open. Let me know.

Ok... I downloaded your spreadsheet, I'm going to need an hour or so for nothing but copy/paste... I'll do what I can to get this one (Denver) to you by Monday.

The Dungver,Faiders,Sandyeggo spreadsheet would be interesting

So true. Didn't need a spreadsheet to tell me this, though. :cuss: Herm!!!

I would be interested also to see the Patriots. They were so bad for so long it will be interesting how far up the last decade pushed them on these charts.

I bet Indy is higher than NE right now...

Update! Update!

Where?

Just keep applauding till Rain Man comes out for an encore.

Update! Update!

Where?

You asked for it, you got it. The funny thing is, I was just thinking about this a week or so ago and hoping I could find the file.

The Chiefs' stock index currently stands at -17.26. This is a notable increase from -22.42 at the end of 2009, which was one loss from being in the bottom ten indexes in Chiefs history (all of which had occurred between Week 9 of 1988 and Week 10 of 1989).

When Todd Haley took over the team, the index was at -16.60, so Todd is currently still negative for his career, but that'll happen when you go 4-12 your first year. In looking at the graph, you can see that we have apparently hit a floor in the market, so I would recommend buying Chiefs stock as a long-term buy.

Here's a graph of how the various Chiefs coaches have fared. We can see that only three coaches have produced a positive change in the index: Schottenheimer with an enormous gain, Stram with a strong gain, and Mackovic eked out a minor gain.

Herm presided over the largest drop in franchise history, at almost 22 points. Wiggin was somewhat equivalent, dropping 18 points in fewer games. (Bettis is an outlier considering he coached only 7 games.) Interestingly, though, Wiggin (and Bettis) took over a team that was already in free fall - Stram's teams had dropped 14 points between the Christmas 1971 game and Stram's departure. Wiggin and Bettis merely continued that trend until Levy began pulling out of the dive and Mackovic got the nose turned upward again. The Gansz thing was a failed experiment, producing equivalent results to Herm, more or less, before the Space Shuttle Schottenheimer launched.

As of this point, we can view coaches quite clearly in one of three camps:

Successes - Schottenheimer, Stram
Mediocres - Vermeil, Mackovic, Levy, Cunningham (though Cunningham is pushing the bottom edge)
Disasters - Wiggin, Bettis, Gansz, Edwards

Haley has proven (to date) that he's not in the first camp, and he's arcing upward.


And you want to hear something else interesting? Haley has produced the second-best start to a coaching career in Chiefs' history when you consider index change. While he's still slightly negative, every coach except Marty was more negative, even Hank Stram.

Index Changes in First 27 Games

Schottenheimer = +8.5
Haley = -0.7
Mackovic = -2.0
Cunningham = -2.8
Stram = -3.0
Edwards = -3.2
Bettis = -5.8 (7 games only)
Vermeil = -6.3
Gansz = -8.0
Levy = -8.8
Wiggin = -12.8

Thanks!

One more question. When we win the SB this season, will we still be in negative territory? I would hate to be all pumped about winning the SB, but have a negative Dow index put a big damper on everything.

Here's another interesting analysis.

I looked at each coach's first 27 games and last 27 games, and how the index changed. (I used 27 games because that's how many games Todd has coached.)

If you compare a coach's first 27 games to those of his predecessor, you can tell if his regime represented a step up from the previous regime (setting aside some uncontrollable factors like retirements).

If you compare a coach's last 27 games to his first 27 games, you can see whether he had the team on the right track. A positive difference means he was on the right track, and a negative means he was dragging them down.

1st 27 games Last 27 games
Stram -2.99 -9.51
Wiggin -11.77 -16.74
Bettis x -15.63
Levy -8.79 -0.85
Mackovic -2.02 1.17
Gansz -9.25 -8.69
Schottenheimer 8.55 -0.90
Cunningham -2.82 -5.64
Vermeil -6.30 2.00
Edwards -3.24 -19.52
Haley -0.67 x

We can see that Hank Stram started out mediocre with a clean slate, but the team was in freefall in his final years. (Obviously he had some great years in the middle, though.)

Wiggin took a team in freefall and made it worse immediately (his 1st 27 were worse than Stram's last 27), and made it even worse as time went on. Wiggin was obviously unsuccessful, but not as bad as his record would indicate given what Stram had been doing at the bitter end.

Bettis didn't coach 27 games, but obviously the freefall continued.

Levy's immediate impact was to slow down the fall, indicating that he was a better coach than his predecessor(s) of Wiggin and Bettis. In fact, his last 27 games were almost at breakeven. He was pretty clearly moving the team in the right direction.

Mackovic was initially a minor step back from Levy, but his final 27 games were better than his first 27 games, so he was a positive.

Gansz then took a team that was trending positive and totally cratered it from start to finish. He was obviously a horrific hire. Arguments can be made for both him and Herm as the worst coaching hire in Chiefs history.

Marty then took a team that was in a meteoric nose dive and IMMEDIATELY turned them significantly positive. That was an amazing turnaround. But by the time he left they were trending slightly negative. His time had come.

Cunningham did worse with the talent than Marty did, and he was getting worse by the time he left. The team was sliding negative strongly.

Vermeil actually did worse than Cunningham starting out. However, his last 27 games were notably better than his first 27, and were back in the black.

Herm took a team that was trending positively and immediately turned it negative. He then proceeded to absolutely destroy the team in a manner not seen since Caligula named a horse to the Roman Senate.

Haley took over a team that was positively subterranean and, while still slightly negative, has immediately stopped the dive.

If you compare each coach's 1st 27 games to his predecessor's last 27 games, here are the changes you get:

Haley = +18.85
Schottenheimer = +17.24
Levy = +6.84
Vermeil = -0.66
Mackovic = -1.17
Cunningham = -1.92
Wiggin = -2.26
Stram = -2.99
Edwards = -5.24
Gansz = -10.42

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 Schottenheimer took over, the previous coach's last two seasons were 4-12 and 4-12. Schottenheimer immediately took the team to 8-8 his first year, and then 11-5 the second year. He did this with a new GM at the helm.

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?

Winning the rest of our games, getting a first-round bye, and then winning the Super Bowl would still put us slightly negative at -1.3 points. However, winning the rest of our games, playing an extra first-round game, and then winning the Super Bowl would put us at a positive 1.7 points. Winning an extra playoff game is worth a lot. However, if we lose one regular season game and then win out (without a first-round bye) we'd still be at -0.2.

Nonetheless, that would be a pretty spectacular stock increase, so I'd be happy with it.

This is like algebra...my head hurts. BTW, I love lamp.

Ok...I'm stupid...by why do you do this: " I then add it to 99 percent of the score of the previous week."?

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

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

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