Christian Petersen - Getty Images
The Cowboys missed the possible game winning field goal in overtime against the Cardinals. If only ...
"If only the Cowboys had won more close games, they would have made the playoffs."
How often have you heard or read that comment? After last season, in which the Cowboys managed just a 4-4 record in games decided by four points or less, I’m sure you’ve heard that sentence a lot. In fact, I’m pretty sure you hear that sentence a lot in just about any major sport.
And on the face of it, it makes sense. Had the Cowboys gone 6-2 in those close games, they would have made the playoffs. But they didn’t. The thing that type of wishful thinking ignores is that in a league like the NFL - a league that worships parity like others worship the Holy Grail - lots of games are close until the very end, yet the better teams routinely win those contests.
There were 125 of 256 regular season games, or almost half of all games, that were decided by a touchdown or less last year. And the teams that went to the playoffs won a lot of those games. Teams that did not go to the playoffs lost a lot of those games. It's really quite simple: good teams find ways to win close games, and the Cowboys simply weren't that good last year.
After the break, we quantify all of this a little further.
Let's first look at the most obvious stat, games decided by a small margin, and see how well the playoff teams conducted themselves last year. The table below shows the W/L records for close games split by playoff and non-playoff teams, and compares their records in close games against their overall record.
| Games decided by 3 points or less (50 of 256) |
Games decided by 7 points or less (125 of 256) |
Total Regular Season W/L | ||||
| 2011 | W/L | Percentage | W/L | Percentage | W/L | Percentage |
| Playoff teams | 23-13 | .639 | 58-32 | .644 | 134-58 | .698 |
| Non-Playoff teams | 27-37 | .422 | 67-93 | .419 | 122-198 | .381 |
The playoff teams in 2011 had a strong W/L record regardless of whether the games were close or not. The winning percentage dips slightly in close games, but is still significantly ahead of non-playoff teams. Similarly, while the non-playoff teams performed slightly better in close games, overall they struggled to win games, regardless of whether those games were close or not.
Like objects in the rearview mirror, a couple of these results may appear closer than they actually are: some of these scores could be games in which the losing team scored some garbage time points to make the score a little closer. So let's only look at the 101 games in which the score was within seven points at the end of the third quarter:
- Playoff teams: 57-31 (0.648)
- Non-Playoff teams: 58-84 (0.408)
Doesn't change the picture much, does it? But not all playoff teams are created equal. While the Saints and Ravens for example won every single game where the score was within one TD entering the fourth quarter, other teams like the Giants, Texans and Lions had a spotty record in these close games:
| 2012 Playoff teams W/L record in close games* | |||||
| Team | W/L | W/L % | Team | W/L | W/L % |
| New Orleans | 5-0 | 1.000 | San Francisco | 5-3 | 0.625 |
| Baltimore | 4-0 | 1.000 | Cincinnati | 6-4 | 0.600 |
| Pittsburgh | 6-1 | 0.857 | Atlanta | 4-3 | 0.571 |
| Green Bay | 4-1 | 0.800 | NY Giants | 5-5 | 0.500 |
| Denver | 8-3 | 0.727 | Houston | 4-5 | 0.444 |
| New England | 4-2 | 0.667 | Detroit | 2-4 | 0.333 |
| *Score differential of 7 points or less heading into 4th quarter | |||||
So as a general rule, it's probably fair to say that good teams find ways to win games, regardless of whether they are close or not - even if there are some teams that are an exception to that rule.
But one of these days, somebody is going to pop up somewhere close to you and say "If only team XYZ had won more close games, they would have made the playoffs."
So just for the sake of argument, and to have a little fun, let's assume all 2012 NFL teams had turned half of their close game losses (lost by seven points or less) into wins. And let's call the resulting W/L record the 'Wishful Thinking' record. Here's what the league standings would have looked like :
| Team | 2012 Record |
2012 Close Games record |
Wishful Thinking |
Team | 2012 Record |
2012 Close Games record |
Wishful Thinking |
|
| New England | 13-3 | 4-2 | 14-2 | NY Giants | 9-7 | 5-3 | 11-5 | |
| NY Jets | 8-8 | 3-2 | 9-7 | Dallas | 8-8 | 4-5 | 11-5 | |
| Miami | 6-10 | 2-5 | 9-7 | Philadelphia | 8-8 | 2-5 | 11-5 | |
| Buffalo | 6-10 | 3-5 | 9-7 | Washington | 5-11 | 3-5 | 8-8 | |
| Pittsburgh | 12-4 | 5-2 | 13-3 | Green Bay | 15-1 | 5-1 | 16-0 | |
| Baltimore | 12-4 | 4-2 | 13-3 | Detroit | 10-6 | 5-3 | 12-4 | |
| Cincinnati | 9-7 | 5-5 | 12-4 | Chicago | 8-8 | 4-3 | 10-6 | |
| Cleveland | 4-12 | 3-6 | 7-9 | Minnesota | 3-13 | 2-9 | 8-8 | |
| Houston | 10-6 | 4-4 | 12-4 | New Orleans | 13-3 | 4-1 | 14-2 | |
| Tennessee | 9-7 | 5-4 | 11-5 | Atlanta | 10-6 | 4-3 | 12-4 | |
| Jacksonville | 5-11 | 3-5 | 8-8 | Carolina | 6-10 | 1-5 | 9-7 | |
| Indianapolis | 2-14 | 1-5 | 5-11 | Tampa Bay | 4-12 | 4-3 | 6-10 | |
| Denver | 8-8 | 7-4 | 10-6 | San Francisco | 13-3 | 6-2 | 14-2 | |
| San Diego | 8-8 | 3-5 | 11-5 | Arizona | 8-8 | 8-5 | 11-5 | |
| Oakland | 8-8 | 7-2 | 9-7 | Seattle | 7-9 | 2-5 | 10-6 | |
| Kansas City | 7-9 | 6-4 | 9-7 | St. Louis | 2-14 | 1-5 | 5-11 |
Assuming 10 wins get you into the playoffs, 11 NFC teams and 8 AFC teams would have made the playoffs in this scenario last year. Heck, look closely at the standings above and you'll notice that there are only four teams left in the entire league with a losing record. The NFL is designed from the ground up to built on close games and the league designs the rules of the game so that games stay close
So next time time somebody comes at you with a "had my team won more close games" argument, there really is only one answer that's appropriate.
"Duh."
0 recs | 26 comments
The tea
Rohpuri - February 22, 2012 via mobile
Uh premature send again
The teams that win close games argument takes the captain obvious award.
Interesting how if every team won half the close games they actually lost, the standings still stay the same. The take away point, it’s not the number of close games you win that make or break your season, it’s the number of wins by more than 7 points you can put up. That comes down to field a team with better talent, and designing plays to put that talent in position to perform at a high level so you can maximize that talent. Am I wrong?
Rohpuri - February 22, 2012 via mobile
Haha well duh.
Perfect end.
Joe21 - February 22, 2012
I think the parity thing is key
the difference between playoff teams and a lot of the pretenders is obviously much smaller than people think it is. I won’t use the Giants as an example because I really think they were playing much better defense at the end of the season. But even they had a remarkable series of bounces go their way in close games in the playoffs.
Since most teams were in the playoffs if they win close ones, I would take it a step further and say a lot or even most of those close ones (and therefore getting in) came down to just a small handful of plays…. so chance played a much bigger role than most fans are willing to concede. We prefer “you make your own luck” and “seize destiny” because it reflects the human desire to control things rather than be subjected to randomness. Sort of a deterministic vs. stochastic psychological model. But I think in an age of parity, we also have accept chance as a constant team mate, and maybe more important than a lot of the things we talk about.
dunkman - February 22, 2012
4-4 in close games
to match 8-8 on the year. And that is with a flawed offensive line and secondary. Dallas is close
AustonianAggie - February 22, 2012
I've made this point several times as well
I don’t buy the line that Dallas has too many holes to fill. They really weren’t that far off considering their results against the eventual playoff teams. The key is to figure out which positions will provide the most payoff for upgrade. Clearly CB has been targeted by the Gm and coaches, and maybe interior o-line.
dunkman - February 22, 2012
Secondary and interior OL without question
Even if only those positions are upgraded, the Cowboys will be much better team in 2012 without a doubt.
Terry - February 22, 2012
That's my sense as well
but maybe pass rush and TE too. The missing information is how they scouted themselves, but since they’ve openly discussed the interior and secondary, I feel pretty good about those guesses.
dunkman - February 22, 2012
but they only beat one playoff team, dunk
Their eight wins were largely against bad teams. They were 1-4 against playoff teams
rabblerousr - February 22, 2012
Ah, but that's the point
of the final four, Dallas played three. Which one could they not have beaten:
- NE
- NYG
- SF
I submit to you they could have beaten any of them, with very minor roster improvements.
dunkman - February 22, 2012
some major blown leads influence that record
one good cb could have well been the difference between losing to the Giants (game 1) and Lions and beating both. Then we are 3-2.
The team played like crap at the end of the year, so I doubt we would’ve done anything in the playoffs, but the first 13 weeks? We absolutely played like a playoff team imo.
foyesboys - February 22, 2012
very true
Most teams with OLs and defenses as bad as the Cowboys finish with losing records the majority of the time.
Terry - February 22, 2012
Exactly what my first thought was.
The team needs to improve, especially in relationship to the rest of the NFC East. If the Cowboys can improve two more wins next season, then they should make it to the post season. And we all know what that can lead to.
Tom Ryle - February 22, 2012
Ever the cock-eyed optimist, Tom.
Because the Giants did it (twice) has NO correlation to whether Dallas or any other team can do it. It only shows it is mathematically POSSIBLE. Let’s win the division. That alone will be difficult mathematically.
“Playoffs? Whose talking about playoffs?”.
stubabe - February 22, 2012
Packers 10-6, and Cardinals 9-7.
BrickTop - February 23, 2012 via mobile
In other news water is wet and taxes are due April 30th.
The more meaningful questions are why do the Cowboys end up in so many close games and what can the Cowboys do to be more successful in close games? There is a compelling case to be made that if you are average in terms of point production, you’re going to end up in an inordinate amount of close games. Further, if you are one of the most penalized teams in the league and struggle to make big plays late in games, you are going to lose many close games. If you struggle to score in the 4th quarter you are going to lose many close games.
jerry_jones_killed_our_cowboys - February 22, 2012
If you coach scared in the 4th qtr.
you are going to struggle to score points in the 4th qtr.
stubabe - February 22, 2012
Garrett has to be more aggressive.
We have the weapons to score tons of points, but we don’t use them to their fullest. That alone may have changed some of the outcomes of the close games.
Frankster_1 - February 22, 2012 via mobile
Your taxes are due April 30th?
Funny, mine are due April 17th, 2012.
Rena - February 23, 2012
everybody wins
If a team won a close game, then SOMEBODY LOST a close game.
The issues remain what factors predominate in close games and are they random. If they are not random, what needs to be done to improve
Dr-P - February 22, 2012
This is off-topic, but it's something i gotta get off my chest
I had a dream the other night that I was the GM of our beloved cowboys. It was draft day, pick 14 rolled around and the cowboys were on the clock. I remember speaking with the scouts, and sending in our selection. I heard Roger Goodell say “with the 14th pick in the 2012 NFL draft, the Dallas Cowboys select…. Orson Charles, Tight End, University of Georgia.” Immediately the selection was met with boos from the crowd, and I couldn’t believe that this is who I selected. Here’s hoping that this year’s 1st round selection doesn’t lead to another WTF moment like I experienced in my dream.
matt575 - February 22, 2012 via mobile
I thought close games were won mostly by luck
and that the mark of a good team was blowing out bad competition
somebodyquiet - February 22, 2012
It stands to reason that great teams are not involved in close games.
stubabe - February 22, 2012
the Pats and Colts (under Manning)
have done extremely well in games decided by 7 or less
The Pats are 28-12 since 2005.
The Colts were 35-10 from 2005-2010.
The colts especially have piled up some excellent records based ENTIRELY on the back of their success in close games. Thats an average of about 8 a year where if they are .500, they are a wild card team or not a playoff team.
So I’m not sure. No other teams in this league have had this level of consistency.
foyesboys - February 22, 2012
To make the "Wishful Thinking" column even more wishful, I hope you realized
those results are impossible!
Every time one team wins the close game someone has to lose.
That column basically has both teams winning the close games! Now that’s wishful.
Realist Larry - February 22, 2012
Ain’t that the truth!
One.Cool.Customer - February 23, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Blogging The Boys to post a comment.