Madden Curse: Alternative Hypothesis?

[mtheory8]

We like to fit stories into what we see to make sense of the world. Players who get featured on Madden seem to do significantly worse the following year, and the Madden curse is born.

But, there is more than one story to fit the world. Madden curse is one, and so far its a good story. There is, however, another story. Players who perform REALLY well, well enough to be selected to be on the Madden cover will regress to the mean performance. Regression to the mean is simple to understand. If you score 100% on an exam, your next exam will very likely to be lower, because your single performance is probably above your mean performance. If you score a 0% on the exam, your next exam score will very likely to be higher, for the same reason. If every year, Madden select the worst performing player, then we will probably see a "Madden Boost" effect.

Is there support for this alternative theory? What do we need to find in the data to support this?

Well, we can look at players that COULD have been on the cover, but DIDN'T get on the cover. How did THEY do? Is it just something special about being the cover? or is it just players who were good enough to be on the cover will likely decline even if they were ultimately not selected?

Starting in Madden 12, EA started the voting system, where they select breakout players who are worthy of being on the cover. So, I went and looked at all the players IN the bracket, and asked the question: For those who had breakout years and were CONSIDERED to be on the cover, but didn't get on, how did they do?

I only looked at offensive players because stats are easier to compare.

MADDEN 12 - Peyton Hillis
Players Included: 22
Players Declined: 12
So Peyton had a horrible year. But you know who else had horrible years?
Darren McFadden (1600/10 to 700/5)
Jamaal Charles (1800/8 to 100/1)
Sam Bradford (3500/18 to 2100/6)
Danny Woodhead (800/6 to 400/4)
Andre Johnson (1200/8 to 500/2)

5 Players arguable had even worse seasons than Peyton Hillis. And those players who bounced back had already established themselves in the league. Peyton Hillis was a late pick, had a fluke season and returned to his normal self after. In fact, more than HALF of the players on the bracket did not escape the "curse" even though they were NOT on the cover.

MADDEN 13 - Calvin Johnson
Players Included: 23
Players Declined: 17
So the "curse" is broken, but what if Johnson was not selected? Of the 23 other worthy cover players, 17 of them declined. So, given the way Madden cover candidates are chosen, its MUCH more likely that they will decline in performance.
Some examples?
Larry Fitzgerald (1400/8 to 800/4)
MJD (1900/11 to 450/2)
Tim Tebow (1700/12 to 40/0)
Gronkowski (1300/17 to 800/11)
Lesean McCoy (1600/20 to 1100/5)

So while looking at players who WERE selected for Madden give you side of the story. I think, looking at other breakout players who COULD have been on Madden shows that there may not be anything special about being the cover.

Also, the candidates are not even representative of the group of players who did get selected. They were the TOP of the league, so their chance of declining is EVEN higher.

Chances are, your mind is already made up about whether or not the curse is real. This probably won't change the mind of those who is a die-hard believer in it. But if you are in the middle and are unsure what to believe, this is another story to think about. If you are a non-believer but hated seeing player failures year after year, well, here is some support for your non-belief.

Edit: One last point I like to make is: There are OTHER theories. What if I say: I think, players who are on the cover gets the attention of an alien football playing race. So they swap the soul out of the players to play in their league and thats why the players fail. The data supports this theory too doesn't it? The point is, there are technically infinite theories that can fit any pattern of observation. But the alien hypothesis is ridiculous, and there needs to be much more concrete evidence to support that hypothesis... but why is the "curse" hypothesis any less ridiculous than aliens? In FACT, logically speaking, the probability that aliens exist is probably MUCH higher than the probability that things like "curses" exist. But why are we so much more accepting of the Madden Curse hypothesis than Alien Abduction hypothesis?

[Cardot]

[TheDelta]

Quote: Originally Posted by mtheory8

This probably won't change the mind of those who is a die-hard believer in it.

If someone still believes in the Madden Curse after Megatron then nothing could possibly ever change their mind.