Swap the Ravens with the Bills/Jets/Fins. How many AFC championship games do the Steelers go to?

KC will win multiple SB's if Mahomes sticks around. He is absolutely the greatest QB ever to suit up.

Impossible to say. Ravens next best team in either divisions. However the Rest of AFC East has roughly the same non divisional record as the rest of the AFC North.

You act like Pitt and Bal play 8 times a year. Steelers probably just blow anyway.

the rest of the AFC East against non-Patriots have a collective win % of .480 since 01, roughly 8-8. The Patriots make them bad.

Keep the narrative going though

Bingo.

For perspective the Pats non-divisional record since realignment is (obv) best in the league.

Pittsburgh is second.

The difference between NE and PIT non divisions wins is the same as Pittsburgh’s and Buffalos’, who rank 20th.

If you replace the Ravens with the Pats, the Steelers would be shooting for a WC every season.

Based on my calcs Chris Paul had the highest point value when he was with the Clippers, about 7. I calculate this by comparing point spreads w/ Paul in/out of the lineup. Lebron with the Cavs 2017 (he did not miss a game 2018) was 6 using the same method. IRT win equity, 7 NBA points translates to about 23% win equity. So a Chris Paul Clippers team with 50% w/e would go down to about 27% without him.

GB without Aaron Rodgers last year was also about 7 points. In terms of win equity it is 59% compared to 36%, or about 23% difference. Similar effect for both.

Since 32 team realignment, NFC was favored in 8 super bowls, AFC 15 (SB XLIX was pick).

In the 9 NWE super bowls, they were favored in 7. So take out NWE and NFC was favored in 7, AFC 8. Fairly balanced conferences based on that metric but NWE obviously tilts the scales.

More like 7-8-1. .480 is below average.

Since 2002 afc v nfc: team ranks by win%, div v nfc (68 games played)
afce v nfc: 1,10,11,13 - NonNE win%(.456), ne(.794)
afcc v nfc: 2,6,7,14 - NonPitt win%(.493), pitt(.684)
afcs v nfc: 3,5,12,15- total win%(.500)
afcw v nfc: 4,8,9,16 - total win%(.488)

NE significantly > all, but also afc E teams significantly worse.

"Cold weather" teams have won 18 of the last 24 SBs, i.e. since 1995 realignment. The warm weather teams are DAL, Rams, TB, IND, NOR, and SEA.

Throw out NWE and that leaves 12 of the last 15. Obv small sample size, but 80% when 18 of the 32 teams are warm weather/dome teams seems significant.

I also count SEA as a warm weather team. WAS is borderline, I counted them cold.

Why would you only include non conference games??

I couldn't figure out football reference to get another independent opponent set.

Impact per season should be what is relevant. And a 7 pt advantage per game is much more impactful in the NBA.

Losing a series in the NBA as a 7pt-favorite every game is way less likely than losing a playoff game as a 7-pt favorite in the NFL.

a 7 point NBA dog is about 26-27%. A 7 point NFL dog is about 26-27%.
Except a team will never be a 7 point favorite every game in an NBA playoff series.

They will if Labron breaks his ankle in game 1

No, point spread changes for gm 2.

I shouldn't say "never". Same team is -7 for every game could happen if Lebron's team does not have HCA, he gets hurt game 2, then other team sweeps. But the poster was comparing win chance of 1 NFL game vs 7 game NBA series.

Well the assumption was that a player moves a spread by 7, of course it won't be the same spread for each game.

But just an example: Taking this single game win % as 0.265, you get the win % for the dog:

NFL: 26.5% (1 game)
NBA: 8.5% (best of 7 series)

(0.265^4+0.265^4*0.735*4+0.265^4*0.735^2*10+0.265^ 4*0.735^3*20=0.085)

So a 7pt-advantage is much more valuable in the NBA in terms of title equity due to sample size. This example is generalizable, something like moving the spread from -3 to +4 on average is also much more valuable in the NBA.

Again you are claiming a team will be 26.5% each game in a series, which won't happen.

In a 7 game series, a team that is 50% at home and 27% on the road is about 29% to win the series.

The other team is (100-29) = 71%.

So the team that is 7 points better has a greater chance to win a single game (73%) than a 7 game series. (71%)

My example above is not correct in measuring value of the player.

NFL example: Packers w/ Rodgers (7 point favorite) = 73% game win equity. Packers w/o Rodgers (pick) 50% game win equity.

NBA Example: Lakers w/ James (7 point favorite AT HOME pick AWAY) = 71% series win equity. Lakers w/o James (pick AT HOME 7 point dog AWAY) series 29% win equity.

So clearly from a series perspective it cost the NBA team more to lose a player with the same point value as an NFL team losing a player for a single game.

According to my calcs Lebron has about 6 game points value, so Lakers w/o James (1 point fav AT HOME 6 point dog AWAY) = 35% win equity. So his effect would be 71% to 35%.

The break even for NFL game/NBA series is about 7/4.5.

home court advantage in NBA isn't 3.5, it's more like 2.3. So it's even worse than that.

Sacramento Kings' had 2 home-and-home series recently against Eastern Conference teams, both with games about a week apart (home/away):

DET: -8/-1
CHA: -5.5/+2.5

Another example, GSW-HOU series last year:
+1.5, +2, -7.5, -8, -1, -12.5, -6.

IIRC Paul got hurt at end of game 5, so gm 6/7 lines reflect that.

Some teams have more HCA than others. DEN and UTA are obviously the highest, LAC probably the lowest.

You can probably find examples that refute 3.5 HCA, but I'm pretty sure there would be other reasons to explain it.