Perspective Thread: How many Super Bowls should the Patriots have won by now?

1) This thread made me think about how many elements, many of them random, have to fall in place for a team to win a Super Bowl.

2) I won't second guess the math that leads to 2.6, but it's virtually worthless. All it says is that if you multiply out these 12 sets of probabilities, the mean number of successful outcomes for the Patriots turns out to be 2.6. But that falls into the logical trap that some call "the flaw of averages;" In this case, 2.6 is the average of a specific distribution of potential positive outcomes between zero and 12. It has nothing to do with real life.

3) It's impossible to say that the Pats "should" have won an SB in which they did not play. We have no way of knowing what would have happened in an 06 SB v. the Bears. Brady might have been knocked out of the game on his first play from scrimmage. A number of usually reliable players could have all played the worst games of their professional careers, making error after error that gave the victory to an inferior Chicago team.

4) So, how many "should" they have won? I want to be facetious and say "4," because that's the only verifiable answer. But, if you want me to give a number, my thought process would be that they made it to 6, so they "should" have won somewhere between "0" and "6." Interestingly enough, the average of 0 and 6 is "3," which is a rounding up of 2.6. But, I'll just chalk that up to randomness and say, "somewhere between 0 and 6."

Hindsight being what it is 4 would seem right.

You could easily argue that we could of lost some that we won and won some that we lost.

I think 01,03, & 14 were such close games you could easily see those as losses like wise the Giants losses easily could have gone the other way. Plus I think you could argue we could have won one of the years we missed the super bowl and if we average all this out we are right back at 4.

PatsFanSince74 said:

1) This thread made me think about how many elements, many of them random, have to fall in place for a team to win a Super Bowl.

2) I won't second guess the math that leads to 2.6, but it's virtually worthless. All it says is that if you multiply out these 12 sets of probabilities, the mean number of successful outcomes for the Patriots turns out to be 2.6. But that falls into the logical trap that some call "the flaw of averages;" In this case, 2.6 is the average of a specific distribution of potential positive outcomes between zero and 12. It has nothing to do with real life.

3) It's impossible to say that the Pats "should" have won an SB in which they did not play. We have no way of knowing what would have happened in an 06 SB v. the Bears. Brady might have been knocked out of the game on his first play from scrimmage. A number of usually reliable players could have all played the worst games of their professional careers, making error after error that gave the victory to an inferior Chicago team.

4) So, how many "should" they have won? I want to be facetious and say "4," because that's the only verifiable answer. But, if you want me to give a number, my thought process would be that they made it to 6, so they "should" have won somewhere between "0" and "6." Interestingly enough, the average of 0 and 6 is "3," which is a rounding up of 2.6. But, I'll just chalk that up to randomness and say, "somewhere between 0 and 6."

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the original post

http://www.footballperspective.com/how-many-super-bowls-should-the-patriots-have-won/

I'm no mathematician, but it seems Chase quantifies randomness in the postseason using a spreadsheet template. You would first need to plug in the 12 playoff teams and their pythagorean expectation, and have it filter through possible playoff scenarios. From there, you can use log formula to convert pre-game points spread to a pre-game win probability using the following equation in Excel (provided that you have the points spread in cell L2):

=(1-NORMDIST(0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE)) + 0.5*(NORMDIST(0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE)-NORMDIST(-0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE))

What a shock. One of the usual clowns is abusing the like/dislike system again.

Chiuba E. Obele said:

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the original post

http://www.footballperspective.com/how-many-super-bowls-should-the-patriots-have-won/

I'm no mathematician, but it seems Chase quantifies randomness in the postseason using a spreadsheet template. You would first need to plug in the 12 playoff teams and their pythagorean expectation, and have it filter through possible playoff scenarios. From there, you can use log formula to convert pre-game points spread to a pre-game win probability using the following equation in Excel (provided that you have the points spread in cell L2):

=(1-NORMDIST(0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE)) + 0.5*(NORMDIST(0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE)-NORMDIST(-0.5,-(L2),13.86,TRUE))

Click to expand...

Useful. Thanks. But you still end up with a distribution and a mean. That's what I mean by "the flaw of averages."

Take out the circus catches that will end up in superbowl top 10 highlights of all time?

6. 6 superbowls.

I guess I look at the question of 'how many championships should the Patriots have won by now' a bit differently than others do.

Free agency began in 1993 and the salary cap commenced in 1994. Since that time teams just simply are not supposed to be good for extended periods of time. The author is using betting odds and a starting point of when the post season begins, but that disregards the very real obstacles that the cap and free agency impose. A team is not supposed to continually play in January and February, and betting odds are based on public perception; a club that is constantly in the playoffs will attract the fringe bettors who come out of the woodwork the deeper you go in to the post season.

Consider what the next best has been since the salary cap was instituted, in terms of winning Super Bowls.

• Patriots: back-to-back; three in four years; four in 14 seasons
• Broncos: back-to-back
• Steelers: two in four seasons
• Giants: two in five seasons
• Ravens: two in 13 seasons
• Packers: two in 15 seasons
• Seven teams: one in those 21 seasons
• 19 teams: zero in those 21 seasons

No other team has won more than two Super Bowls since the Salary Cap was put in to effect. To me it is not reasonable to think that the Patriots should have won more championships than that during that time period. We as fans of this team are fortunate to not only be playing with house money, but to also be reaping the rewards of additional winnings.



Now if one does want to play the woulda-coulda- shoulda game, then let's not limit ourselves to the 21st century. I firmly believe if not for Ben Dreith, the Patriots would have won the Super Bowl following the 1976 season. And if we're talking league championships rather than Super Bowls, had the 1966 club played as well as they were capable of and not looked past a five-win team that played in Shea Stadium, I believe they would have been AFL champs that year - though getting past the '66 Chiefs would not have been as easy as beating the '76 Steelers and Vikings.

2007 bothers me the most. You never want to disrespect an opponent's effort by suggesting your team was better and should have won. The Giants really played well enough and earned their victory.

What bothers me is, more than any other season, I felt there were outside influences that had an effect on the game that should not have. I have never felt as burnt out and just ready to get the game over as I felt going into that game, although the first week of Deflategate was starting to give me that feeling.

The Pats took so much crap from the media and league that it was really making the season not fun at all, and when you are trying to make history that is not a feeling you should have.

The timing of the whole Tomase report just seemed far too convenient for the forces aligned against the Pats, and it really seemed like it was the straw that broke the camel's back. There may have been parties that were just not willing to accept the Pats winning after the CameraPlacementGate to begin the year.

New York is the media capital of the world, so it isn't surprising that such a damaging report would emanate from there, but still, it is NY, and that is the, more-or-less, home of one of the SB contestants, and also the home of the franchise most consumed with jealousy of the Pats accomplishments.

They DID after all, tamper with our HC as the Pats were trying to win their first SB, and I always felt it was equal parts of getting a successful HC, and by the timing and unwillingness to wait until the game was played, an effort to prevent the Pats from accomplishing something the Rats couldn't.

Why couldn't the Pats have just been left alone to compete on a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may?

That is three times now where I felt there were undue outside influences aligned against the Pats as they got ready to play a Superbowl; 1996, 2007, and 2014.

How many other teams have to endure that even once?

How many Superbowls would the Pats have won if they had just been left alone and allowed to play?

With just a few plays being changed, it could be 0 or it could be 7. I'm happy with 4.

4

Pats could have easily lost all of them. We should be ecstatic with 4. 2006 was the worst loss ever as a sports fan. 21-3 lead and to collapse the way they did....that is a scar that will never go away.

I think people are forgetting how 2004 played out. That was not a game the Patriots could easily have lost.

PatsWickedPissah said:

To me that 2006 loss to Manning was worse, yes worse, than the loss in the Super Bowl to the giants in 2007 I knew 2007 was going to end badly however I was convinced the Pats had beaten the Colts in the 2006 season AFC championship

Click to expand...

I can see your point Phil, but that was not one of BB's better teams in 2006,. in fact it was rather one of his better coaching jobs That team won a LOT of very close ball games that year, including that game they never should have been in, let alone won out in SD. Just like they had no business beating the Colts in Indy that year. They put on a super effort for 55 minutes that year and came up a half yard short on a 4th and 2 from beating them. There is no question in my mind that they would have beaten the Bears in 2 weeks. With 2 weeks to rest, that would have been a Pats win. However having to have to beat both SD and Indy on the road was unlikely given what the Pats had to deal with that year.

As heartbreaking as that Indy loss was, it doesn't come close to being as disappointing as the Jets loss in 2010,. the Superbowl loss in 2011, and the worse of all, the Giants loss in 2007 The Pats over achieved for much of the Indy game and all of that 2006 playoffs. I was very proud of that team.

BTW- The Pats team that really got screwed out of a Superbowl was the 76 or 78 team that lost on the BS roughing penalty. THAT was a team that would have won the Lombardy had they been allowed to get to the game

Deus Irae said:

I think people are forgetting how 2004 played out. That was not a game the Patriots could easily have lost.

Click to expand...

True, they dominated both afc opponents and while the Eagles technically could have come back, odds were very slim ...it would have taken a humungous break.

The 2004 patriots were the last nfl team to:
A. Have a rather stress free playoff season, this despite a difficult set of opponents
B. Repeat as champs

The only super bowl that the Pats had in control was the 2004, and even then, it was the defense that held at the end. 2001, 2003, and 2014 are all games they could have lost. On the flip side, 2007, and 2011, they had the lead with less than 2 minutes left but did not have the ball. 2014 was looking like 2007/2011, but the defense finally caught a break/made a play.

I would love to say the team 'should' have won 7 super bowls (I think they should have beaten the Colts in 2006), but they won 4 because of Brady, and lost 3 despite of Brady. Winning in 2007 would have made them immortal. Winning in 2006 would have meant Manning has zero super bowls, and that would be worth something as well.

Some great offensive teams from 2010-2013, and the most surprising part is loosing at home to Baltimore twice and the Jets once mainly because the offense could not move the ball when needed.

That 04 Super bowl was getting dicey in the 4th quarter. TO was getting separation but McNabb thankfully wasn't taking advantage. That amazing punt was essential to putting that game away. Eagles had one minute left to get in FG range....against the Pats D that's an eternity

With Revis we gave up a TD in 31 secs....

So many close calls and reasons, but the 2010 season stands out for me. Yes, the Jets came to play but we didn't. After destroying them 45-3 we were so arrogant to bench Welker as if he wasn't needed to dispose of them in the playoffs. I wonder if we truly even practiced that week.

7 SB wins during the Brady era IMHO. 06 Should have beaten the Colts to face Rex f'n Grossman for SB. 1st SB against NY, Asante Samuel should have caught the interception before the Tyree play, thus ending the game. In the 2nd game against NY, Welker DOESN'T drop the ball...

So close on all three...

Really great, relevant post by @Ice_Ice_Brady. So I thought I would include it in this thread

Ice_Ice_Brady said:

It would be great, but if you look at their six Super Bowls, here is the average score:

Patriots 22.5
NFC Rep 21.5

Games were decided by 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4 points. It is almost statistically impossible with their overall level of performance over those six games to finish 6-0. They have not been dominant enough in those games to warrant 5 or 6 SBs. There have been times when they were both lucky and unlucky in those games, and most of them were decided by inches on a given play.

I'll take 4-2 based on a razor thin average margin of victory. Another way of looking at it is, had Lynch scored a TD to beat them last year, they would have outscored overall in six SBs 22.6 - 22.5, a virtual dead heat, and finished 3-3. I would say the Super Bowl luck and win probability is just right. It just seems they were unlucky because the Giants got the lion's share in their two games on memorable plays. We forget about things like Kasay kicking the ball out bounds, McNabb puking all over himself and Owens playing injured, Warner getting hit at just the right time causing a pick-6, and of course, the Seahawks laundry list of bruises, and of course, even though Butler's play was incredible and well prepared, I bet he gets an INT less than 1 in 10 times even if he knows the play is coming. So we bemoan Tyree, Eli's lucky fumble bounces, Manningham, Gronk's bum ankle, etc, but overall the luck has been fairly even.

Click to expand...

Probably should have 1 more.

They should have lost 01.

Won 03 04 07 11 14

You could argue maybe they should have lost to the Ravens in 11 but I think they were probably the best team that year.