SB Experience Pats vs. Giants

[PatsFanSince74]

Where is the evidence that SB experience was a cause of those records? Could it be possible that the winners were just the better teams?

I think the real evidence would be to find a bunch of teams that lost a superbowl, learned from it, and came back to win one. If you give a team 5 years to completely turn over, then I can find the Patriots, who were just on the 5 year turn over cutoff point, and they had a new coach and QB. Elway came back but his entire team was turned over. Pittsburgh came back 10 years later with a whole new team. On the other hand, the Rams and Packers sure didnt benefit, nor did the Bills (Rams had a new coach). I only glanced back to the early 90s...the game is quite different from the earlier era, but feel free to check those out on your own, who knows what they show.

once again, you put words in my mouth. i never said this was causitive. i only said it was one element among many that should not be taken too far but that suggests an impact on outcomes.

see my post just above addressing the other issue you raise. the evidence is reasonably clear that teams that play in multiple sb's within defined time frames that are short enough to allow experience to be transferred among players, that these teams have higher sb winning records than other teams. it doesn't say that they are sure to win. it says that the winning percentage is higher.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Belichick said on the Big Show yesterday that experience is pretty overrated (even used the '01 Super Bowl as an example). Experience isn't going to win you a game or give a huge advantage over the opponent. It helps to know what's going to happen and how to handle it, but it's not as big of an advantage as.... say.... having the better team.

and if you read what i say, that's pretty much all i'm arguing. sb experience impacts some big and little things that can have an impact. it's pretty much a truism that the quality of the team is more important.

 

[bradmahn]

i disagree. four of the steelers appearances occured over a six year period. five of the cowboys appearances occured over one seven year period and three occured over another four year period. four of the forty niners appearances occured over another seven year period. four of the patriots appearances are occuring over a seven year period. there was/is enough continuity of experience in winning SB's on those teams to make a difference, not determine the outcome, but make a difference.

Since the cap went in in 92/93, 12 teams have made either a single appearance in the SB or have made two appearances separated by multiple years. their combined record in those games is 4--11.

The aggregate W/L record is a completely misleading statistic.

This is the Giants fourth Super Bowl, second in the last eight years, yet they are inexperienced. Again, did you add the Steelers most recent win into the winning percentage? What does the experience the Broncos gained from losing in the seventies have to do with their wins in the '90s?

The Bills went to four in a row, yet the experience didn't help them. The Cowboys, Vikings, and Broncos in the seventies? All went to multiple Super Bowls and lost more than they won (including the Cowboys).

Super Bowl experience does not mean anything more than having an idea as to what to expect in the lead up and length of the game. It does not win games (and your statistics paint the picture that you believe it does).

I just saw your most recent post. Regardless of what you are arguing, the use of those "facts" is wrong. The win/loss percentage of teams that have played in more than five Super Bowls means nothing unless all of those games played occurred in some presupposed time frame that shows that more players than not were on the same Super Bowl teams. I also think that those wins and losses have way more to do with the quality of teams than it does the experience, otherwise the Broncos would have beat the Giants in '86 and the Rams would have beat the Pats in '01. You can run down the lists of Super Bowl champions who beat franchises that had already been there.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Hey street. These are mostly good guys here.

Actually, I am hopeful the Patriots are thinking their vast SB experience makes this game a cakewalk and all they have to do is show up and lean on their experience.

no, our vast sb experience suggests that a 14 point underdog can beat the greatest show on turf. however, it also provides a small advantage that belichick or the players will not acknowledge, but that can help.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The aggregate W/L record is a completely misleading statistic.

This is the Giants fourth Super Bowl, second in the last eight years, yet they are inexperienced. Again, did you add the Steelers most recent win into the winning percentage? What does the experience the Broncos gained from losing in the seventies have to do with their wins in the '90s?

The Bills went to four in a row, yet the experience didn't help them. The Cowboys, Vikings, and Broncos in the seventies? All went to multiple Super Bowls and lost more than they won (including the Cowboys).

Super Bowl experience does not mean anything more than having an idea as to what to expect in the lead up and length of the game. It does not win games (and your statistics paint the picture that you believe it does).

OK. i've made a statistical argument that does not claim to be universal and that certainly doesn't claim to dictate what happens on the field or by luck. it only says that if you look over time, there is a trend.

i am confident that the facts support this incontrovertibly as i presented them above. please note that what i am arguing doesn't claim universality or causation. it simply says that teams that have more sb experience in their measureable, collective experience TEND to do better in sb's than teams that do not.

the vikings and bills had a lot of sb experience but, for them, it didn't translate for reasons that their fans will argue for decades (the vikings certainly had the bad luck of playing against some great teams in their sb's).

however, for the teams that have dominated the sb over the last 42 years, the experience can be statistically correlated to success. all that means is that success is more likely, not that it is a necessary outcome.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The aggregate W/L record is a completely misleading statistic.

I just saw your most recent post. Regardless of what you are arguing, the use of those "facts" is wrong. The win/loss percentage of teams that have played in more than five Super Bowls means nothing unless all of those games played occurred in some presupposed time frame that shows that more players than not were on the same Super Bowl teams. I also think that those wins and losses have way more to do with the quality of teams than it does the experience, otherwise the Broncos would have beat the Giants in '86 and the Rams would have beat the Pats in '01. You can run down the lists of Super Bowl champions who beat franchises that had already been there.

First of all, thanks. this is a great discussion. but, i actually do argue that proximity of sb experiences is correlated to outcomes. and, of course, the outcome is far more driven by the quality of the team. a regression analysis would attempt to say how much of an outcome can be related to the independent variable, "sb experience within the last seven years." i don't have the time or the inclination to run that regression, but i would bet that it would show that experience in playing sb's within a seven year horizon explains around 20--30% of the outcome. the rest would be immeasureable because it is so intangible. that is all i am arguing.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

True dat. They sound a lot like the Packer fans before we sent them back to their igloos and Favre to the retirement home.

before you and your buddy get too excited that we're all overconfident out here, you ought to read the thread "for the 'old' Pats Fans."

 

[FrontSeven]

Experience should help with controlling the release and burn-rate of adrenalin.

It should help in filtering out the many draining distractions leading up to the game, and even going out onto the field.

It should help with coaches and players not overreacting to things that go wrong or right during the game, panicking or relaxing at the wrong times.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

food for thought for all fans (Pats and Giants)...

Does experience in high stress situations help (in future similar stress situations) ?? This appears to be the point of contention regarding any advantage of the Pats recent SB experience for a majority of their players.

Does it help to take the SAT's multiple times?

How about going to several job interviews over a short period of time ? - even for jobs you really don't want.

Is it better to rehearse a speech before presenting to a large public crowd?

Is there a greater chance to pass a drivers test the 2nd or 3rd time?

I could go on and on...these are all situations most of us have experience with. I think you can see that it DOES have an advantage to have repeated experience in high stress situations. All of these situations (and more), coaches and psychologists advise repetition and simulating the stressfull situation as much as possible. Why would the SB be any different ? Some sports figures are 'big time' players while others just wilt from the pressure. I can't see how the previous experience CAN'T be anything but an advantage.

I don't even see how this can be debated.....

Is it a HUGE advantage ?...probably not. Depends on the individual. In combat some rookies throw up and wet themselves. While other rookies are fine.

But I would take any and every advantage possible....even something as mundane as what kind of food will 'burn longer' for a 4 1/2 hour game (and much longer pre-game) than the usual 3 hour September game.....Belicheck said that they have altered some of there previous SB logistics as some things just did not work out too well.

Life is about experience, learning from your mistakes and then adapting to what works well...(or you die - see Darwin)..

Hoping for a good game with no / few injuries and no stupid bogus penalties.
And oh yeah by the way: GO PATS!

 

[bradmahn]

OK, I'm willing to concede that you Pat fans can be deservedly confident because of the mild success you've had over these last several years. But you've seen the Giants inspired play over these past few weeks. As confident as you are in your Pats, don't you harbor some concern that this Giant team can come to AZ and snatch this game from your guys?

I'm not going to say experience means a lot in the Super Bowl, so what makes you think I'll say inspiration will have any effect? Have the Patriots not been inspired in the playoffs? Will they not be inspired in the Super Bowl?

Of course I am concerned that if the Giants come with a great gameplan on both sides of the ball (and STs), play really well, and do all the little things right they'll win, but I have more confidence in the Patriots to do all those things than the Giants.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

OK, I'm willing to concede that you Pat fans can be deservedly confident because of the mild success you've had over these last several years. But you've seen the Giants inspired play over these past few weeks. As confident as you are in your Pats, don't you harbor some concern that this Giant team can come to AZ and snatch this game from your guys?

whoa there. my point wasn't that we are confident but that we all remember the bad days and don't take a single game, let alone a Superbowl game, for granted.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

.
GREAT POINT!
.
It wasn't till the third 7/11 that I knocked over before I actually got away with it.
.

Are you Superman? Maybe next time don't wear the costume and cape and then you won't get recognized and get caught!

 

[DonBlackmon55]

Those statistics mean absolutely nothing.

How much experience did the Steelers of '05 have because of the championship teams in the seventies?

Once more. READ what the response says.....

FIRST TIME SB TEAM VS. EXPERIENCED SB TEAM. 2005 Steelers Team played vs Seahawks. BOTH first timers.

2000 Giants vs 2000 Ravens ......BOTH First timers
1999 Rams vs 1999 Titans.......BOTH First timers.

get the point ?

 

[DonBlackmon55]

The aggregate W/L record is a completely misleading statistic.

This is the Giants fourth Super Bowl, second in the last eight years, yet they are inexperienced. Again, did you add the Steelers most recent win into the winning percentage? What does the experience the Broncos gained from losing in the seventies have to do with their wins in the '90s?

The Bills went to four in a row, yet the experience didn't help them. The Cowboys, Vikings, and Broncos in the seventies? All went to multiple Super Bowls and lost more than they won (including the Cowboys).

Super Bowl experience does not mean anything more than having an idea as to what to expect in the lead up and length of the game. It does not win games (and your statistics paint the picture that you believe it does).

I just saw your most recent post. Regardless of what you are arguing, the use of those "facts" is wrong. The win/loss percentage of teams that have played in more than five Super Bowls means nothing unless all of those games played occurred in some presupposed time frame that shows that more players than not were on the same Super Bowl teams. I also think that those wins and losses have way more to do with the quality of teams than it does the experience, otherwise the Broncos would have beat the Giants in '86 and the Rams would have beat the Pats in '01. You can run down the lists of Super Bowl champions who beat franchises that had already been there.

You really are clueless if you start to compare 77 Broncos vs 80's or 90's Broncos. Do you even understand what exactly is being discussed ?

EACH ERA or Teams run is being compared ! The same players who played on the Steelers of 75-79 did not show up in 1996 or 2005 Steeler SB team.

Yea this is Pats 6th SB, but do you see anyone btinging up Raymond Berry or Eason ? Geeeesh.

 

[bradmahn]

You really are clueless if you start to compare 77 Broncos vs 80's or 90's Broncos. Do you even understand what exactly is being discussed ?

EACH ERA or Teams run is being compared ! The same players who played on the Steelers of 75-79 did not show up in 1996 or 2005 Steeler SB team.

Yea this is Pats 6th SB, but do you see anyone btinging up Raymond Berry or Eason ? Geeeesh.

I suggest you work on reading comprehension before you attack someone else's posts.

If you look at the eight teams that have gone to five SB's (five teams), six SB's (two teams) or eight SB's (one team), their combined record in those games is 28--17 (.622).

Those statistics represent all eras. That was my contention.

Reading is fundamental.

get the point?

 

[PatsRule]

OK, I'm willing to concede that you Pat fans can be deservedly confident because of the mild success you've had over these last several years. But you've seen the Giants inspired play over these past few weeks. As confident as you are in your Pats, don't you harbor some concern that this Giant team can come to AZ and snatch this game from your guys?

Mild success, 4 Superbowl appearences 3 wins and most likely 4 in 7 years.
You consider that mild,ya ok.

 

[PatsRule]

Actually, I believe that the Pats had 9 holdovers from Superbowl XXXI. I don't know if there were any others with experience or not. I think that SB experience does play a factor in the game, but is often overrated.

The Giants have some players with SB experience.
Zack Diossie was a ball boy with New England in 2004's superbowl team.

 

[neuronet]

Why is the super bowl so long? More TV time outs?

 

[VJCPatriot]

Why is the super bowl so long? More TV time outs?

Big pregrame celebration to hype it up, huge 30 minute halftime show, and yes more commercials. Very expensive commercials, which make it a very profitable event for all concerned. So yeah it's a long game.

I think the experience factor is a good thing for the Pats, but they won't count on it as giving too much of an edge. I think they will focus on doing their JOB, which is beating the Giants.