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.
Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing:
Ok...I'm stupid...by why do you do this: " I then add it to 99 percent of the score of the previous week."?
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
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 [Reply]
Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing:
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
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 [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
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 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?
While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
While your analyses are interesting, one thing they don't take into account is the personnel philosophy at the time (long-range-thinking versus mortgage-the-future thinking). Both Schottenheimer and Vermeil were benefitted in their last 27 games by a mortgage-the-future philosophy (especially Vermeil) while their predecessors had to deal with the smoldering ruins. Herm took it on both ends because after dealing with the declining talent left to him by Vermeil, he went radical-young his final year which hurt him but has ended up helping Haley.
Yeah, that's a good point. And in the only words of defense I'll ever say for Herm, he and Tom Wiggin both inherited teams whose best players were either immediately retiring or had just retired. I think that made a difference for those two as well, shifting blame from Vermeil, Cunningham, and Stram (yes, Stram), who should have been replacing those players and didn't. While Stram is obviously golden, the decline in talent his last three years was precipitous, and he had more than enough time to reload before the whole thing collapsed.
I think Stram and Vermeil (and to a lesser extent Marty) were all milking the last reserves of their key veterans at the end, and then left as the ship went down. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Yeah, that's a good point. And in the only words of defense I'll ever say for Herm, he and Tom Wiggin both inherited teams whose best players were either immediately retiring or had just retired. I think that made a difference for those two as well, shifting blame from Vermeil, Cunningham, and Stram (yes, Stram), who should have been replacing those players and didn't. While Stram is obviously golden, the decline in talent his last three years was precipitous, and he had more than enough time to reload before the whole thing collapsed.
I think Stram and Vermeil (and to a lesser extent Marty) were all milking the last reserves of their key veterans at the end, and then left as the ship went down.
Yeah, I think that's a pretty normal occurrence for a coach that's had a decent run as they try to give it one last shot. The unusual situation was Herm's. He had to know that going for a complete rebuild was pretty risky for his Chiefs' coaching career (although maybe he thought he'd get 2 years instead of just 1). IMO, he and Carl really did the franchise a favor with that last act. [Reply]
When Vermeil got the team our franchise index was at +5.43, and after some up and down seasons Dickie V. left it at +4.98. The franchise peak during his era was +9.29 at the end of Week 17 of 2003, just before...you know...Colts. The franchise low point during his era was -0.89 at the end of Week 17 of 2002 after a loss to the Raiders left us at 8-8.
Herm placed his unsteady hand at the helm with a franchise rating of 4.98. The franchise peak during his era was 7.44 at the end of Week 12 of his first season, after a win over the Broncos put us at 7-4 (recall that there was a bye week in there). Then he pointed the car south. The franchise low point during his era was an astounding -16.60 in his final game, after a loss to the Bengals put us at 2-14.
Hobo Haley then took over at -16.60 and has had a wild ride. The franchise continued its descent through Week 16 of his first year, bottoming out at -22.66 after a loss to the Bengals put us at 3-12. Then came 2010 and we began climbing. The week before the playoffs we were at -14.46 with a 10-6 record despite a loss to the Raiders that week. We are currently at -17.57 - losses in the last two weeks have dropped Todd's regime into negative territory.
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I remembered this and thought I'd update it.
When Vermeil got the team our franchise index was at +5.43, and after some up and down seasons Dickie V. left it at +4.98. The franchise peak during his era was +9.29 at the end of Week 17 of 2003, just before...you know...Colts. The franchise low point during his era was -0.89 at the end of Week 17 of 2002 after a loss to the Raiders left us at 8-8.
Herm placed his unsteady hand at the helm with a franchise rating of 4.98. The franchise peak during his era was 7.44 at the end of Week 12 of his first season, after a win over the Broncos put us at 7-4 (recall that there was a bye week in there). Then he pointed the car south. The franchise low point during his era was an astounding -16.60 in his final game, after a loss to the Bengals put us at 2-14.
Hobo Haley then took over at -16.60 and has had a wild ride. The franchise continued its descent through Week 16 of his first year, bottoming out at -22.66 after a loss to the Bengals put us at 3-13. Then came 2010 and we began climbing. The week before the playoffs we were at -14.46 with a 10-6 record despite a loss to the Raiders that week. We are currently at -17.57 - losses in the last two weeks have dropped Todd's regime into negative territory.
So according to this, we're in worse shape than when Haley/Pioli took over.
It seems like there are three kinds of coaches: ones that plunge into an abyss, ones that immediately go up, and ones that run more or less breakeven. So far, Todd is looking like the third type, which disappoints me since I want to see him succeed. [Reply]
Surprising how fleeting the success of a playoff season is. Will we ever see 30 again. Its going to take a lot of years to get there. Oh what a QB could do here. [Reply]
Update. I'm sad to say that according to this measure we are at the lowest point in franchise history, even worse than the end of the Gansz era and the ineptitude of the 1970s and 1980s. You are safe to make the claim that there has never been a worse time to be a Chiefs fan.
See the opening post for the description, and I've also included the updated graph both here and there.
