Second Half Slides

[fishgutmartyr]

<---not really, but what a great smiley

 

 

Anyway, there's been many reasons, varying over the years as to why we've done poorly during the second half of seasons in the Coughlin era: injuries, poor coaching, poor execution. But there is one factor that has been absolutely consistent: the strength of schedule in the second half of the season has increased over the first half of every year since 2005, in some seasons, dramatically.

 

2005: .461--.523 5-3 12% increase(I'm not sure how we did this considering our LBs at the end of the season)

2006: .484--.555 2-6 13% increase(our de's were devastated that year, last year of Tim Lewis and Hufnagel)

2007: .446--.586 4-4 24% increase(might have been 5-3 if Gilbride didn't inexplicably decide to pass 53 times during a wind-storm against Washington)

2008: .395--.610 5-3 35% increase(um...yeah...and that is also the season we began 7-1)

2009: .477--.594 3-5 19% increase(Sheridan, CC Brown, and no defense)

2010: .422--.484 4-4 13% increase

totals:.447--.558 23-25 19% increase

 

Ugh. Look at that average winning percentage over the years for the second half of the season: .558. A 19% increase on average from the first half of the season. And we have a first half schedule that is below .500 every season.

 

Keep in mind that in 2007, we played the Pats and Dallas in the second half of the season, both losses. The rest of that 2nd half of the season, we went 4-2 against teams with a .479 average. Those two teams had an insane .902 average.

 

This also shows why last year seemed so unsatisfying. It was clearly the easiest schedule we've had in quite some time, and that's what made all the blown games all the more galling.

 

This season? As of this morning:

 

.384--.623 0-2 38% increase

 

Obviously, that's going to change, since I doubt GB stays at 1.000, Buffalo and the Jets are both .500 and playing today, and God knows what will happen this season.

 

The take-away? We're not nearly as bad as our second-half of the season record implies; and not as good as those 6-2 starts seem to show. And we would probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if our schedules were more balanced.

[Tempest]

Bad second half seasons have unfortunately become something of a tradition. Its something that we all thought Coughlin could correct when he was hired.

[Clarence the Blue Puppet]

Bad second half seasons have unfortunately become something of a tradition. Its something that we all thought Coughlin could correct when he was hired.

 

I thought Fassel had an amazing record in December.

[fishgutmartyr]

I thought Fassel had an amazing record in December.

He always had a great December. Obviously not in 2003, of course, but his Decembers saved his ass a few seasons, just like Coughlin's Nov/Dec are probably going to be his undoing.

 

The funny part is that I'm not even disagreeing that it shouldn't be his undoing: just when you look at the strength of the 2nd half schedules over the years, you can see why this is happening so consistently.

[JMFP]

Great post, Fish.....never really looked hard at those stats.

 

You'd think some of the guys in the sports news business might bring that up when they get their annual "hot seat" columns going.

[BadEgg]

<---not really, but what a great smiley

 

 

Anyway, there's been many reasons, varying over the years as to why we've done poorly during the second half of seasons in the Coughlin era: injuries, poor coaching, poor execution. But there is one factor that has been absolutely consistent: the strength of schedule in the second half of the season has increased over the first half of every year since 2005, in some seasons, dramatically.

 

2005: .461--.523 5-3 12% increase(I'm not sure how we did this considering our LBs at the end of the season)

2006: .484--.555 2-6 13% increase(our de's were devastated that year, last year of Tim Lewis and Hufnagel)

2007: .446--.586 4-4 24% increase(might have been 5-3 if Gilbride didn't inexplicably decide to pass 53 times during a wind-storm against Washington)

2008: .395--.610 5-3 35% increase(um...yeah...and that is also the season we began 7-1)

2009: .477--.594 3-5 19% increase(Sheridan, CC Brown, and no defense)

2010: .422--.484 4-4 13% increase

totals:.447--.558 23-25 19% increase

 

Ugh. Look at that average winning percentage over the years for the second half of the season: .558. A 19% increase on average from the first half of the season. And we have a first half schedule that is below .500 every season.

 

Keep in mind that in 2007, we played the Pats and Dallas in the second half of the season, both losses. The rest of that 2nd half of the season, we went 4-2 against teams with a .479 average. Those two teams had an insane .902 average.

 

This also shows why last year seemed so unsatisfying. It was clearly the easiest schedule we've had in quite some time, and that's what made all the blown games all the more galling.

 

This season? As of this morning:

 

.384--.623 0-2 38% increase

 

Obviously, that's going to change, since I doubt GB stays at 1.000, Buffalo and the Jets are both .500 and playing today, and God knows what will happen this season.

 

The take-away? We're not nearly as bad as our second-half of the season record implies; and not as good as those 6-2 starts seem to show. And we would probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if our schedules were more balanced.

 

Balanced? You'd probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if they beat more good teams, whether they appeared in the first half of the season or the second half.

 

In fact, you'd probably feel better if they actually won playoff games aside from the miracle run, helmed by the dearly departed Spagola and Strahan.

 

And I must be God, because as far as the rest of the season goes, at best it's one and done. Most likely -- watching the Cowboy games in January.

 

Official nail in the coffin # 1: New Orleans 34 Giants 17

[JMFP]

Balanced? You'd probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if they beat more good teams, whether they appeared in the first half of the season or the second half.

 

In fact, you'd probably feel better if they actually won playoff games aside from the miracle run, helmed by the dearly departed Spagola and Strahan.

 

And I must be God, because as far as the rest of the season goes, at best it's one and done. Most likely -- watching the Cowboy games in January.

 

Official nail in the coffin # 1: New Orleans 34 Giants 17

 

Quite a blatant disregard for the information Fish presented....clearly, not one of your better responses.

[BadEgg]

Quite a blatant disregard for the information Fish presented....clearly, not one of your better responses.

 

I'm not so sure you're right.

[fringe]

<---not really, but what a great smiley

 

 

Anyway, there's been many reasons, varying over the years as to why we've done poorly during the second half of seasons in the Coughlin era: injuries, poor coaching, poor execution. But there is one factor that has been absolutely consistent: the strength of schedule in the second half of the season has increased over the first half of every year since 2005, in some seasons, dramatically.

 

2005: .461--.523 5-3 12% increase(I'm not sure how we did this considering our LBs at the end of the season)

2006: .484--.555 2-6 13% increase(our de's were devastated that year, last year of Tim Lewis and Hufnagel)

2007: .446--.586 4-4 24% increase(might have been 5-3 if Gilbride didn't inexplicably decide to pass 53 times during a wind-storm against Washington)

2008: .395--.610 5-3 35% increase(um...yeah...and that is also the season we began 7-1)

2009: .477--.594 3-5 19% increase(Sheridan, CC Brown, and no defense)

2010: .422--.484 4-4 13% increase

totals:.447--.558 23-25 19% increase

 

Ugh. Look at that average winning percentage over the years for the second half of the season: .558. A 19% increase on average from the first half of the season. And we have a first half schedule that is below .500 every season.

 

Keep in mind that in 2007, we played the Pats and Dallas in the second half of the season, both losses. The rest of that 2nd half of the season, we went 4-2 against teams with a .479 average. Those two teams had an insane .902 average.

 

This also shows why last year seemed so unsatisfying. It was clearly the easiest schedule we've had in quite some time, and that's what made all the blown games all the more galling.

 

This season? As of this morning:

 

.384--.623 0-2 38% increase

 

Obviously, that's going to change, since I doubt GB stays at 1.000, Buffalo and the Jets are both .500 and playing today, and God knows what will happen this season.

 

The take-away? We're not nearly as bad as our second-half of the season record implies; and not as good as those 6-2 starts seem to show. And we would probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if our schedules were more balanced.

 

That's a good take, Fish.

[ksm7]

That's a good take, Fish.

 

really? when the dog first read the thread title, the dog thought this was fish's declaration of how he enjoys eating mini-burgers during the second half of games, which, the dog believes, would have been a more informative post...

[fishgutmartyr]

Balanced? You'd probably feel a lot better about the Coughlin era if they beat more good teams, whether they appeared in the first half of the season or the second half.

 

In fact, you'd probably feel better if they actually won playoff games aside from the miracle run, helmed by the dearly departed Spagola and Strahan.

 

And I must be God, because as far as the rest of the season goes, at best it's one and done. Most likely -- watching the Cowboy games in January.

 

Official nail in the coffin # 1: New Orleans 34 Giants 17

Yeah, I wish I could root for a team that's won one playoff game in what? 15+ years now?

 

really? when the dog first read the thread title, the dog thought this was fish's declaration of how he enjoys eating mini-burgers during the second half of games, which, the dog believes, would have been a more informative post...

 

Damn, and I was seeking your approval, too.

[Sephiroth]

He always had a great December. Obviously not in 2003, of course, but his Decembers saved his ass a few seasons, just like Coughlin's Nov/Dec are probably going to be his undoing.

 

The funny part is that I'm not even disagreeing that it shouldn't be his undoing: just when you look at the strength of the 2nd half schedules over the years, you can see why this is happening so consistently.

 

There's problems with the Giants dating back a while... and of course, some problems with Coughlin specifically.

 

Cough has always been too "married" to his coaches. He had to be coerced to drop Huffnagle and Lewis, Gilbride has probably stayed on too long, and rumor has it he wanted to keep Sheridan in one way or another as well. And then there's Palmieri... when you have six guys on injured reserve before opening day EVERY year, there might be something wrong with your regimen... maybe it's time for a change. I also think the team's second half slides fall on Palmieri as they seem to get gassed after the midway point.

 

However, we were plagued with injuries during the Fassel era too ("it's a mental thing, as much as anything else," Coughlin told us), and for one reason or another the epic collapse is a franchise staple. No lead from this team is ever insurmountable, whether it's "the fumble," the playoff game vs. the Niners, or Philly's come from behind victory last year. Hell, we had the Vikes hang 10 on us in 1:30 one year to lose in the playoffs and Quincy fucking Carter beat us one year down by 3 with under 10 seconds to play.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

There's problems with the Giants dating back a while... and of course, some problems with Coughlin specifically.

 

Cough has always been too "married" to his coaches. He had to be coerced to drop Huffnagle and Lewis, Gilbride has probably stayed on too long, and rumor has it he wanted to keep Sheridan in one way or another as well. And then there's Palmieri... when you have six guys on injured reserve before opening day EVERY year, there might be something wrong with your regimen... maybe it's time for a change. I also think the team's second half slides fall on Palmieri as they seem to get gassed after the midway point.

 

However, we were plagued with injuries during the Fassel era too ("it's a mental thing, as much as anything else," Coughlin told us), and for one reason or another the epic collapse is a franchise staple. No lead from this team is ever insurmountable, whether it's "the fumble," the playoff game vs. the Niners, or Philly's come from behind victory last year. Hell, we had the Vikes hang 10 on us in 1:30 one year to lose in the playoffs and Quincy fucking Carter beat us one year down by 3 with under 10 seconds to play.

 

 

Hey man...when you cheer for the Giants its always the Tale of Two Cities: Twas the best of times...twas the worst of times....

[fishgutmartyr]

hmmm....Looks like I'm not the only one that sees this.

 

If you're looking for a logical reason why, you can point to their strength of schedule. Before this season, during Coughlin's reign, the average Giants opponent during the first eight games of the year had a winning percentage of .448; during the final eight games of the year, the average opponent winning percentage rocketed up to .561. This year, before their win over the Patriots, the Giants started their season with seven games against teams with losing records. The combined record of their eight first-half opponents is an ugly 34-54 (.386 winning percentage). The combined record of their eight second-half opponents is 56-32 (.637). Maybe the Giants aren't giving up at all. It's possible they're just getting overwhelmed by superior teams.

 

Some of the math is different, but which one of youse guys is Bill Barnwell?

[fringe]

hmmm....Looks like I'm not the only one that sees this.

 

 

 

Some of the math is different, but which one of youse guys is Bill Barnwell?

 

the idiots will fight against logic, fish.

[Cowboyz]

rubbish. this is woe is me bullshit.

 

good teams want to play the best. good teams show up to play the best. and good teams do not get sucked into playing down to an inferior opponents level.

 

 

you turn some of those late season losses into late season wins and then it would OBVIOUSLY skew the percentages of your experiment.

[fishgutmartyr]

rubbish. this is woe is me bullshit.

 

good teams want to play the best. good teams show up to play the best. and good teams do not get sucked into playing down to an inferior opponents level.

 

 

you turn some of those late season losses into late season wins and then it would OBVIOUSLY skew the percentages of your experiment.

When are you guys going to learn the difference between an observation and an excuse?

 

I was comparing the first half of OUR season to the second half of OUR season: not with the schedules of other teams. There wasn't any woe is me about it--I didn't post that our schedule was any harder than other team's schedules, just that it was a little out of balance and that might be why we appear to be gang-busters in the beginning of seasons, and seem to fall apart at the end of seasons. You'll also notice that I said that this did not excuse the poor play in the second half. I'm not even arguing that the records would have been different: just that the seasons might have had a different feel to them even with the same records.

 

Look at 2006 as an example. Which would be less painful: going 4-4 in both halves of the season, reversing the halves, or what actually happened? All three outcomes would have resulted in 8-8, but the first two scenarios would sure have been less of a downer, and going 6-2 in the second half would have actually been exciting.

 

Yes, a few wins here and there would change some of the percentages a little, but it still wouldn't get them below .500 or anywhere near the first half of the seasons.

 

You know what? I made a point in the OP to mention that Dallas and NE really skewed the percentage in 2007; and didn't try to hide the fact that during the season with the biggest disparity (2008) we went 5-3. Obviously, I'm not making an argument that this is the only reason it's happening, or holding the players and coaches blameless. So how exactly am I making an excuse?

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

Gut...what a lot of the young'ins don't realize is that we have been watching the Giants going back to the Bad Old Days....nothing fazes us to the point of semi suicide like lets say a Bengals, Chargers and/or Chiefs fan...teams that rarely smell the playoffs and if they do often (e.g. the Chargers); never seem to make the big dance (e.g. Super Bowl). I would much rather have 4 Super Bowls played in with 3 Lombardi's coupled with years of disgrace/ineptitude; than to be the Chargers or any other perennial favorite that makes the playoffs yet never climaxes with a Super Bowl. When you have seen the evolution of the Giants over the past 40-45 years you realize that an easy come easy go attitude is much better for the psyche and health.

[BadEgg]

When are you guys going to learn the difference between an observation and an excuse?

 

I was comparing the first half of OUR season to the second half of OUR season: not with the schedules of other teams. There wasn't any woe is me about it--I didn't post that our schedule was any harder than other team's schedules, just that it was a little out of balance and that might be why we appear to be gang-busters in the beginning of seasons, and seem to fall apart at the end of seasons. You'll also notice that I said that this did not excuse the poor play in the second half. I'm not even arguing that the records would have been different: just that the seasons might have had a different feel to them even with the same records.

 

Look at 2006 as an example. Which would be less painful: going 4-4 in both halves of the season, reversing the halves, or what actually happened? All three outcomes would have resulted in 8-8, but the first two scenarios would sure have been less of a downer, and going 6-2 in the second half would have actually been exciting.Yes, a few wins here and there would change some of the percentages a little, but it still wouldn't get them below .500 or anywhere near the first half of the seasons.

 

You know what? I made a point in the OP to mention that Dallas and NE really skewed the percentage in 2007; and didn't try to hide the fact that during the season with the biggest disparity (2008) we went 5-3. Obviously, I'm not making an argument that this is the only reason it's happening, or holding the players and coaches blameless. So how exactly am I making an excuse?

 

I think an 8-8 team is painful. Period. And having a cake schedule in the second half of the season sometimes sets up disappointment and embarassing failure...Just ask Jim Fassel .

[Nas]

Gut...what a lot of the young'ins don't realize

 

How you doin' Pops

[JMFP]

When are you guys going to learn the difference between an observation and an excuse?

 

 

Fish.....logic and statistics are like garlic and mirrors to some people.

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

How you doin' Pops

 

 

That's Master Pops to the likes of you....kid.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nas]

That's Master Pops to the likes of you....kid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fishgutmartyr]

I think an 8-8 team is painful. Period. And having a cake schedule in the second half of the season sometimes sets up disappointment and embarassing failure...Just ask Jim Fassel .

Sure, but would you mind cross-referencing with Dave Campo?

[RandolphScott]

Jim Fassel's December record was amazing..I have no idea what Badegg is talking about.