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

[Rain Man]

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.

[cdcox]

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

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by cdcox

...
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.

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.

[Rain Man]

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.

[T-post Tom]

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. I want to be like you when I grow up.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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.

[Otter]

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.

[Rain Man]

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.

[kysirsoze]

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.

[Rain Man]

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.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

[teedubya]

Sell MORTIMER!!! SELL!!!!!

[Buehler445]

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.

Originally Posted by Rain 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.

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.

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

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.

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.

[big nasty kcnut]

Rain man you the man.

[kstater]

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

[InChiefsHeaven]

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...