Are the 2012 Pats better than the 2001 SB winning team?

No....end of discussion...next question...

AndyJohnson said:

How can the best team not be the one that won?

Click to expand...

I gave you a counter example. You refuted it on the basis that it wasn't a large enough sample size. You then claimed that one NFL season is a big enough sample size, which is why the Super Bowl champion is the best team. The rest of my post was articulating this, and then asking why is one NFL season a big enough sample size, and how did you come to this conclusion.

So, why is one NFL season a big enough sample size, and how did you come to this conclusion? What is the smallest possible sample size that still guarantees that the winner is the best team?

NSPF said:

I gave you a counter example. You refuted it on the basis that it wasn't a large enough sample size.

Click to expand...

No. I refuted it based on it was silly.
You compared the chance you could make a random 3 point shot and an NBA player would miss one, to playing an entire season and postseason and winning the SB.

You then claimed that one NFL season is a big enough sample size, which is why the Super Bowl champion is the best team.

Click to expand...

One season is the only sample size that exists.

The rest of my post was articulating this, and then asking why is one NFL season a big enough sample size, and how did you come to this conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is the only sample size that exists. A team exists for 1 season. Thats it. No more, no less.

So, why is one NFL season a big enough sample size, and how did you come to this conclusion? What is the smallest possible sample size that still guarantees that the winner is the best team?

Click to expand...

The sample size is the life of the entity. A team last one season. I have no idea what kind of a sample size you are looking for.

It is very simple, and you continue to ignore the central point. A football team exists for the purpose of winning a SB. The team that wins the SB is the best, because that is the result every team exists for.
How can 2 entities pursue the one goal, competing to achieve it and the one that doesn't be considered better than the one that does?
What could the team that did not win possible be better at that outweighs accomplishing the ultimate goal?

AndyJohnson said:

That is a ridiculous analogy. Teams don't win SBs by one lucky event in a vaccuum.

Oh, I'm not so sure that isn't sometimes the case...



It is a terrible analogy.
You are trying to compare one shot as the definition of quality to an entire football season and post season.
If you played 16 games plus 3 playoff games and your only job was to shoot 3 point baskets and you made a higher percentage of them than anyone, then THAT would mean you are the best.
Your analogy is akin to saying the Colts proved they were the best team in the NFL on the play they scored a TD.

The bottom line is this:

I judge the quality of a team by what they achieve. Plain and simple.

Your argument seems to be that other things are more important than results. I disagree.

Click to expand...

Bill walked off the field after that 2001 team won shaking his head and asking Ernie can you believe we won with that team? So I don't think he felt it was a particularly great team. There was a lot of luck and a couple of breaks and some damn fine scheming involved in that team even getting a shot at winning it all. As 2002 underscored.

Offense 2012

Defense 2001

MoLewisrocks said:

Bill walked off the field after that 2001 team won shaking his head and asking Ernie can you believe we won with that team? So I don't think he felt it was a particularly great team. There was a lot of luck and a couple of breaks and some damn fine scheming involved in that team even getting a shot at winning it all. As 2002 underscored.

Click to expand...

But, they were the best team.
What definition of 'best' is more appropriate than the one that achieves the singular goal that all are competing for?

This is my point. How do you create arbitrary, subjective criteria to define 'best' when competition already settled the argument?

MoLewisrocks said:

Bill walked off the field after that 2001 team won shaking his head and asking Ernie can you believe we won with that team? So I don't think he felt it was a particularly great team. There was a lot of luck and a couple of breaks and some damn fine scheming involved in that team even getting a shot at winning it all. As 2002 underscored.

Click to expand...

And the 'one lucky event' statement was the comparison of making one 3 point shot while an NBA player misses one, and comparing that to winning a SB.
Surely you aren't telling me the 2001 Patriots accomplishment was something so random and fleeting.

AndyJohnson said:

Not sure how you define a team that didn't reach its objective (SB Champ) as better than one that did.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that there is one good team a year.

Couldn't there be a season where even 3 or 4 teams are more talented and actually play better on the field, than did the champion of another season? That they knock each other off?

One example from basketball were the Lakers and Celtics teams of the 80's. Some years the finals loser was a better team than champions in other years. There was just the happenstance of two all-time teams emerging at once. Someone had to lose.

AndyJohnson said:

No. I refuted it based on it was silly.
You compared the chance you could make a random 3 point shot and an NBA player would miss one, to playing an entire season and postseason and winning the SB.




One season is the only sample size that exists.



It is the only sample size that exists. A team exists for 1 season. Thats it. No more, no less.


The sample size is the life of the entity. A team last one season. I have no idea what kind of a sample size you are looking for.

It is very simple, and you continue to ignore the central point. A football team exists for the purpose of winning a SB. The team that wins the SB is the best, because that is the result every team exists for.
How can 2 entities pursue the one goal, competing to achieve it and the one that doesn't be considered better than the one that does?
What could the team that did not win possible be better at that outweighs accomplishing the ultimate goal?

Click to expand...

Okay, we're almost on the same page here.

Firstly, counterexamples are allowed to be extreme cases, and often are, due to the fact that to disprove something you only need one counterexample. Though my case was extreme, you did not explain why it was invalid.

Finally,

AndyJohnson said:

The team that wins the SB is the best, because that is the result every team exists for.

Click to expand...

I think you are defining best as "Most able to achieve the desired outcome (SB win, in this case), which I would agree with. Results are variable. This is why we are talking about sample sizes. One season/one game (the Super Bowl and the events leading up to it) isn't enough to say conclusively which team was most able that season. In fact, statistically, no amount of games is ever enough, because that's how statistics work. There is always a certain amount of uncertainty. The best you can do is judge within a level of certainty.

Just for clarity, "Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data." A set of results from a football season is one example of data. It will sure enough tell us that there is large uncertainty as to the overall ability of a team to win the Super Bowl if we are judging on the basis of one season.

Palm Beach Pats Fan said:

You are assuming that there is one good team a year.

Couldn't there be a season where even 3 or 4 teams are more talented and actually play better on the field, than did the champion of another season? That they knock each other off?

Click to expand...

I suppose that could be possible, but it is terribly subjective. In the end the measure of good is the result.
I would consider a team better than its competition who wins it all to be better than a team that finished second and didn't finish the job, because the result is the objective.
In other words, we could both make a list of what we think are the characteristics of a good team. We could argue back and forth about which are more important. That is all well and good until you have a result. Once you have a champion 'best' is decided, and all those reasons either turned out to be right or wrong.

One example from basketball were the Lakers and Celtics teams of the 80's. Some years the finals loser was a better team than champions in other years. There was just the happenstance of two all-time teams emerging at once. Someone had to lose.

Click to expand...

See heres the thing though. The purpose of the team is to win it all. Those criteria you are using to call them 'better' ignores that they failed to reach the singular goal that every team competes for. "Lost to a good team" just doesnt trump "won" in my opinion, just because a subjective opinion thinks it is better based on some subjective, undefined criteria. The ability to achieve the goal is the characteristic that overrides all other, IMO.

NSPF said:

Okay, we're almost on the same page here.

Firstly, counterexamples are allowed to be extreme cases, and often are, due to the fact that to disprove something you only need one counterexample. Though my case was extreme, you did not explain why it was invalid.

Click to expand...

Do I really have to explain to you why taking one shot at a hoop is not comparable to winning a Super Bowl? Are you being purposely obtuse?

I think you are defining best as "Most able to achieve the desired outcome (SB win, in this case), which I would agree with. Results are variable.

Click to expand...

No they aren't. There is one opportunity and one result.

This is why we are talking about sample sizes. One season/one game (the Super Bowl and the events leading up to it) isn't enough to say conclusively which team was most able that season.

Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense. A team exists for 1 season. How can you have a different sample size than one season?

In fact, statistically, no amount of games is ever enough, because that's how statistics work. There is always a certain amount of uncertainty. The best you can do is judge within a level of certainty.

Click to expand...

There is 100% certainty.
The only way to define the best team is the team that achieves the singular goal that all teams have.
Actually making the plays and achieving the goal is what makes that team the best. The team that failed to do so, in the one opportunity they are afforded cannot be the best.

Just for clarity, "Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data."

Click to expand...

So. This isn't about statistics. This is about which team is the best and that is defined by achieving a goal ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD not by being the one that can create the best statistical argument.

A set of results from a football season is one example of data. It will sure enough tell us that there is large uncertainty as to the overall ability of a team to win the Super Bowl if we are judging on the basis of one season.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely zero uncertainty.
1 team won, 31 lost. 1 team had a 100% chance to win, because they did, 31 others had 0%,

Your argument appears to be that a statistical argument of who is supposed to win based on some model is a better judgment of who would win than who actually won.

This is the fantasy football-ization of the NFL that is so silly.

You are actually arguing that who is the best team is an exercise in statistics, when they actually went out on the field and decided it.

andyjohnson said:

nspf said:

results are variable.

Click to expand...

no they aren't.

Click to expand...

0123456789

NSPF said:

0123456789

Click to expand...

What is your point?
How are the results of who wins the SB variable? There is one opportunity and one winner.

IcyPatriot said:

Offense 2012

Defense 2001

Click to expand...

Exactly my initial thoughts.....

...honestly I believe the '01 Pats were in many ways overachievers, but there was almost a unique aura surrounding the team (I always think it was special the way their success helped the nation feel better about itself after 9/11)..

In many ways this year's team are underachieving (pass offense excepted)...

to be honest I would say the '01 Pats also had more heart....but I like the team right now to have the same results as in '01-- a SB victory!!!!!!!

NSPF said:

If you aren't comparing the teams based on their attributes, then you aren't comparing them. If you think winning a championship indicates that a team has certain attributes that make it better, then you can make that argument, and I am fine with that. However, you then have to show that winning a championship does in fact indicate these qualities, or else your argument isn't complete. I'm not saying for sure that you are necessarily wrong, but you haven't completed your argument.

Also note, we aren't judging the success of teams, we are judging the quality.

Click to expand...

Good quality players in the regular season don't always mean they're good quality players in the post season. There are many players who repeatedly underperform in post season but shine during the regular season.

Romo and Rivers put up great statistics every year but fall short in crunch time. There's many other factors at play but you can clearly notice their demeanor on the field change to some what frantic. There are better examples I'm sure, they just came to mind.

Better define qualities?

NSPF said:

Can you prove that this is a repeatable skill?

Click to expand...

Not sure you can define Playing well under pressure as a skill, I'd compare it to the Flight or fight response. A natural instinct maybe?

Matt Hooper said:

2001 had viniteiri.

Click to expand...

was about to post when i finally saw someone bring this up.

yes. 2011 is better on offense. the rules that we play by now help support this.

yes. the 2001 is better on defense. the rule that we play by now help support this.

the 2001 team had a better kicking game. as far as i know, not much has changed in this.

im not saying the 2011-12 team cant replicate the 2001-02 team. Things are quite a bit different, though.

Andy, So if the best team is always the one that wins it all then there are no such things as upsets, correct? Have you ever watched the NCAA tournament? Did you watch the baseball playoffs this year? St Louis would not even have made the playoffs if Atlanta did not gag it down the stretch. So there is a variable completely out of their control (luck) that helped tehm win it all. Once in they got in did what they had to do and they are the World Series Champs. No one will argue that they had the "best" season but when we are comparing team as to who is better of course we use subjectivity to guess what a likely future outcome would be. In the NCAA tourney the better team rarely wins because of the one and done nature and the randomness of the matchups. UCONN played Butler - good for them. I am a huge UCONN fan and loved every minute I spent in Houston for the Final 4 but no one could convince me that winning it all made that collection of players "better" than several prior teams that did not. They achieved their goal and there is no doubt that "winning it all" places that particular season near the top but it in no way makes me think that they were better (more successful -yes)

This entire thread is based on a question of which team 10 years apart is better. We all know there is no way to actually prove it so to say we must use objective data is impossible and then we can never have an opinion until the season is over.

2001 - one of my all time favorite teams. I still re-watch that Vinatieri kick and overtime celebration whenever I need a pick me up. Won games in shocking fashion - absolutely over achieved as the team was very young and not even sure how great they were to become. All that said - if they were to face a handful of other Patriot teams my best guess is that they would not be victorious - (hey I might even root for them against 2007 - who knows) you can certainly disagree - that is all this exercise is about - not about defining a better season as we all know the answer to that

Doctor DDS said:

Andy, So if the best team is always the one that wins it all then there are no such things as upsets, correct?

Click to expand...

An upset is a result that was not expected.
The goal of the season is to win the SB. How are you defining 'best' if 'best' isn't the team that achieves the goal?

Have you ever watched the NCAA tournament?

Click to expand...

The team that wins the tournament is the best team. All year long they play to qualify and to get seeded, with the goal being to win the tournament. The team that wins is by definition the best at completing the competition for the singular goal.
What besides winning would you use to judge 'best'?

Did you watch the baseball playoffs this year? St Louis would not even have made the playoffs if Atlanta did not gag it down the stretch. So there is a variable completely out of their control (luck) that helped tehm win it all. Once in they got in did what they had to do and they are the World Series Champs. No one will argue that they had the "best" season but when we are comparing team as to who is better of course we use subjectivity to guess what a likely future outcome would be.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. Using subjective criteria to predict a result is pointless when the result is already determined.
Are you telling me another team was the best in baseball because you think they should have won? Should they change the rules and award the title to whoever the fans think should win?

In the NCAA tourney the better team rarely wins because of the one and done nature and the randomness of the matchups.

Click to expand...

The best team always wins, because completing the task of winning is the primary characteristic in defining good.

UCONN played Butler - good for them. I am a huge UCONN fan and loved every minute I spent in Houston for the Final 4 but no one could convince me that winning it all made that collection of players "better" than several prior teams that did not. They achieved their goal and there is no doubt that "winning it all" places that particular season near the top but it in no way makes me think that they were better (more successful -yes)

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can be better at something if you are less successful.
What exactly are they better at?
The teams exist in order to compete for a championship. What constitutes better when you are worse at the exact purpose you exist for?

This entire thread is based on a question of which team 10 years apart is better. We all know there is no way to actually prove it so to say we must use objective data is impossible and then we can never have an opinion until the season is over.

Click to expand...

It is very much objective to say that unless this team wins the SB the 2001 team is better. It is a clearcut criteria that achieving or not achieving your purpose as an entity defines better.
If 2011 Pats win the SB, then the subjective opinions would be used to argue (never PROVE) which team was better.

2001 - one of my all time favorite teams. I still re-watch that Vinatieri kick and overtime celebration whenever I need a pick me up. Won games in shocking fashion - absolutely over achieved as the team was very young and not even sure how great they were to become.

Click to expand...

They over achieved based on your expectation. You cannot overachieve unless you compare the achievement to an expectation.
In this case the expectation was wrong, and the achievement proved that.

All that said - if they were to face a handful of other Patriot teams my best guess is that they would not be victorious - (hey I might even root for them against 2007 - who knows) you can certainly disagree - that is all this exercise is about - not about defining a better season as we all know the answer to that

Click to expand...

Why is that what this exercise is about? Who defined it as being about who would win if they played?
The question is which team is better. Since a team exists for a certain period of time and has a clear cut objective, how good it is can only be answered by what it accomplished.
The 2001 team did not have a goal of convincing people that it could beat a future or past team. Nor did the 2007 team.
The 2007 team was better in many ways and on many days than the 2001 team, but it was not better at achieving its goal, and therefore ultimately failed where the 2001 ultimately succeeded to the highest level it possibly could.
Do you really think that players on the 2007 team that are ringless wouldn't trade 5 regular season losses for having reached their goal of winning the SB? That would have made them a better team.

robbomango said:

Good quality players in the regular season don't always mean they're good quality players in the post season. There are many players who repeatedly underperform in post season but shine during the regular season.

Romo and Rivers put up great statistics every year but fall short in crunch time. There's many other factors at play but you can clearly notice their demeanor on the field change to some what frantic. There are better examples I'm sure, they just came to mind.

Better define qualities?

Click to expand...

Off topic but I wouldn't categorize Rivers with Romo. After all, Rivers has beaten a Manning-led Colts team TWICE in the playoffs. Not exactly a choke artist in my book.