• TGT on YouTube
  • About TGT
  • The TGT Team
  • How TGT rates
  • Responsible Gambling Advice
  • Contact Our Team
  • Writers Wanted
  • Content Disclaimer
  • Affiliate Disclosure
Contains commercial content
Billboard Left
Billboard Left
The Grueling Truth - Where Legends Speak / Pythagorean Expectation and the 2016 CFL season (May Edition)

Pythagorean Expectation and the 2016 CFL season (May Edition)

Pythagorean Expectation and the 2016 CFL season
Publish Date: 05/12/2017
Fact checked by: Mike Goodpaster

Right after the 2016 season, I published my findings on Pythagorean Expectation forecasting the 2016 CFL season. Long story short: Pythagorean Expectation (PE) is a way to predict how many wins a team should have earned for a given season based on point differential.

(Hey, here’s a really ancient 2-minute video explanation. It’s for baseball, but still. –Ed.)

Video: Pythagorean Expectation

Pythagorean Expectation

PE is often accurate, but sometimes, as in the case of the 2016 Hamilton Tiger-Cats, PE is not on target. I decided to dig in further to see if I could find out why teams miss expectations. It went in quite a different direction than I expected, but it was a fun piece to research.

I gathered five years’ worth of data from, including wins, points for, points against, yards for, yards against, turnovers for, and turnovers against (which includes fumbles, interceptions, and loss of downs, anything where the a team gave the ball up unwillingly is being noted here). I then calculated the differences of each, and then ran a series of correlations (that is, I wanted to see how much point differential, yardage differential, and turnover differential correlated with wins).

A perfect positive correlation (in which a rise in one piece of data indicates a rise of data in the other piece of data) is registered as 1, and a perfect negative correlation (in which a rise in one piece of data indicates a drop in the other piece) is a -1. If there’s no correlation whatsoever between each data set, it would be a 0.

As expected, point differential correlates to wins more closely than the other two, registering a .894. Yard differential (yards for minus yards against) is still somewhat strong, coming in at a .757. Turnover differential (turnovers for minus turnovers against) was a bit lower at .713.

Let’s go through the 2016 CFL season team by team and see why they met (or didn’t meet) their Pythagorean Expectation.

Calgary Stampeders
The Stampeders finished 15-2-1, exceeding their Expectation by almost exactly 1.5 wins. Their yardage differential was 873, which is the 6th highest over the past five years, and their turnover differential was 18, the fourth highest in the past 5 years. All in all, this team was the best over the past 5 years in the regular season.

BC Lions
The Lions slightly exceeded their Expectation at 12 wins, and were one of the few teams in the past five years that had a better yardage differential than the Stamps, but they had a negative turnover differential at -8. They only created 29 turnovers, the third lowest in the past five years, but mitigated that somewhat by being around average in giveaways.

Winnipeg Blue Bombers
Exceeding their Expectation by about a win, winning 11 games, and having the largest turnover differential in the past 5 years by a long shot make things seem like all is right in Bomberland.

However, Winnipeg’s massive turnover differential of plus-32 screams outlier to me, especially when the next highest was at 19. That’s not likely to repeat itself, and the -850 yard differential would normally put a team anywhere from 3 to 7 wins. 20 teams over the past five years had a negative yardage differential, only 4 had winning records, and among those, only one other, the 2013 Toronto Argonauts, had a positive PE (meaning the other two had fewer than 9 wins expected, but exceeded their PE).

Based on what I’m seeing, if the turnovers regress to the mean as is statistically likely, the Bombers could be poised to plummet in the standings.

Edmonton Eskimos
Even with all the transition after the Grey Cup win and the personnel attrition that comes with it, the Eskimos barely missed their PE, had a plus 727 yardage difference, and a -5 turnover differential. The turnover differential appears to be tugging down the yardage’s effect on points slightly, so there were really no big surprises here.

Saskatchewan Roughriders
This version of the Riders exceeded their expectation by over half a win, but that’s about as positive as it gets. Yes, they jumped from 3 wins to 5, however, they went from being massively unlucky based off their expectation in 2015 to being slightly lucky this year. Their PE actually fell from 2015 to 2016 by a win and a half, the team had nearly a 50-point fall in point differential, and also suffered a fall in yardage differential and turnover differential. This is a bad team, and despite the real win increase, everything else is trending the wrong way.

Ottawa Redblacks
Despite the Grey Cup victory, this was an average team (points-wise, anyway) in 2016. They were actually one of the best in the league with yardage differential with 851, but a negative 12 turnover differential really hurt them. The 2016 team had the highest positive yardage differential for a team that finished under .500, with the next best at 338. I had been looking closely at only their point differential before (which is about middle of the road), but I may have underrated them over the past few years based off their yardage differentials.

Hamilton Tiger-Cats
The Ti-Cats under performed their PE last year by over 2 wins, having an PE over 9 and a true win total of 7. Their PE was about as close as it can get, in my mind, because they had a slightly positive yardage differential and a plus four turnover differential. If they put up the same numbers this year, I’d expect a 9-9 season.

Montreal Alouettes
The Alouettes fell short of their PE by over a game. Turnovers were nearly even, but the yardage differential was -1077, one of the worst over the past five years. It’s a pretty open-and-shut case here.

Toronto Argonauts
Believe it or not, the Argos exceeded their PE, but a -916 yardage differential and a -13 turnover differential tell the tale here.

Coming soon: Predictions for the 2017 CFL season based on these mathematical discoveries and adjust for what has transpired this offseason.

Read Also
Esteban de Jesus, Roberto Duran y AIDS (1972-89)
Many of us dream of celebrity sports fame, but only cruel individuals ...
SI Sportsbook Promo
Ranking the top 200 players in the NFL ahead of the 2021 season
This list isn’t based solely on performances from the 2020 NFL season. ...
Top-15 Running Backs in CFL History
Fleming retired from the CFL and the BC Lions following the 1966 ...
The Twilight Rounds: Rod Serling explores the dark side of boxing – Round seven
“In this corner of the universe, a prizefighter named Bolie Jackson, 183 ...
Selecting the Best Player on Every NFL Team Heading into 2019
This article lists the best player on every team in the NFL ...
2019 NFL Draft top five players per position after the combine
The 2019 NFL Draft is less than a month away and I’m ...
Evaluating the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2019 Nominees
The Pro Football Hall of Fame based out of Canton, Ohio, recently ...
American League All-Star Roster Predictions
More Red Sox News! It’s amazing how time flies. It seems like ...
Bonus of the month
SI Sportsbook - Get your Free Bet now! Get your Free Bet now!
Latest News
Top 10 Things we learned from week 13 of the NFL season
The Eagles dominated a good Tennessee Titans team ...
Bengals vs. Chiefs: Preview
When people discuss if history repeats itself, they ...
NFL Week 13 SNF Colts vs Cowboys: Odds, Tips and Predictions 12/04/22
📅 Date: Sunday, December, 03 🕚 Game Time: ...
Our Latest YouTube Videos
Video: The Sports Zone: Top Sports News: Luke Fickell is gone, Bengals/Chiefs Preview and more
The Sports Zone: Top Sports News: Luke Fickell is gone, Bengals/Chiefs Preview and more
Video: The NFL Draft Show
The NFL Draft Show
Video: Froggy Talkin Sports W/Ryan & Joe
Froggy Talkin Sports W/Ryan & Joe
Betting Tips
Top Betting Sites
Top Betting Bonuses
SI Sportsbook
SI Sportsbook
SI Sportsbook Review
97/100 Review
BetMGM Review
DraftKings Review
FanDuel Review
SI Sportsbook
SI Sportsbook Bonus
T&Cs apply
First deposit only | 21+ & located in CO, MI, VA | Promo code EXTRA200| A qualifying bet is $20 or more | Min odds of +120 or more | Free Bet Tokens credited after bet is settled and expire after 7 days | Free Bet stakes not included in winnings | Please Gamble Responsibly - Gambling Problem? VA: CALL 1-888-532-3500, CO: CALL 1-800-522-4700, MI: CALL 1-800-270-7117 | Full T&C apply Bonus
100% up to $500
T&Cs apply
BetMGM Bonus
100% up to $1000
T&Cs apply
DraftKings Bonus
20% up to $1000
T&Cs apply
WynnBET Bonus
Bet $100 Get $100
T&Cs apply
Our Team
Mike GoodpasterAuthor IconJosh SchwartzSamuel TeetsMark Lewis
Mike Goodpaster
Mike Goodpaster
Chief Editor
Author Icon
Christopher Carlson
Content Writer
Josh Schwartz
Josh Schwartz
Samuel Teets
Samuel Teets
US Sports Veteran
Mark Lewis
Mark Lewis
Simon Briffa
Simon Briffa
Sports Editor
Chris Benedict
Chris Benedict
Author Icon
Malik Zorrok
John Raspanti
John Raspanti
Brian Coburn
Brian Coburn
Peter Bonahoom
Peter Bonahoom
Billboard Left
Billboard Left
Find out what the legends have to say about sports this week....

If you enjoy hearing from the legends of pro sports, then be sure to tune into “The Grueling Truth” sports shows, “Where the legends speak”

Contact us: [email protected]

Players must be 21 years of age or older or reach the minimum age for gambling in their respective state and located in jurisdictions where online gambling is legal. Please play responsibly. Bet with your head, not over it. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, and wants help, call or visit: (a) the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey at 1-800-Gambler or; or (b) Gamblers Anonymous at 855-2-CALL-GA or

Trading financial products carries a high risk to your capital, especially trading leverage products such as CFDs. CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Between 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

This site is using Cloudflare and adheres to the Google Safe Browsing Program. We adapted Google's Privacy Guidelines to keep your data safe at all times.

Move to Top
Our Sports Pros recommend these awesome Social Casino sites this week:
Your Bonus Code:
The bonus offer of was already opened in an additional window. If not, you can open it also by clicking the following link:
Visit Site