Why the Giants have virtually no shot to win the Super Bowl

[Oswlek]

When evaluated over a period of time, the formula is very solid:

Big Positive Point Differential = Good
Small (or negative) Point Differential = Bad
Good > Bad

It just doesn't take into account everything that makes up a single game situation. If it did, the best team in the NFL would have a great chance of going undefeated. I've heard that doesn't happen very often.

No but the best team regularly wins ~80% of the time. I see no reason to believe that the Pats don't have at least those same odds.

Not disregard, just use it in context. The Pats should win because:

• Their offensey should be able to score more against the Giants defense than the Giants offense can score against the Pats defense
• The ST production should be at worst a draw for the Pats (but I wouldn't take this for granted)
• Big play potential (sacks, turnovers, returns off turnovers, blocks, etc.) favors the Pats as well.

The stats you describe just reinforce these observations...but it doesn't matter how these teams do at home, in the cold/snow/rain, on short rest, against the Dolphins, on Mondays, etc. because none of those situations will occur a week from Sunday.

The Pats are 18-0 this year, but only played one game on grass. The Giants are 13-5 this year, but are 6-0 on grass. Is that relevant? Don't know. Could do the same thing for weather, time of day, after a bye, etc. I don't care that the Bolts were supposedly playing better than the Pats over the last several weeks...the situations (road, turf, cold, travel, injuries, etc.) just weren't in their favor on Sunday.

That being said, I believe the situational match for the SB looks very favorable for the Pats.

But I could very easily break down the things that you list and prove that many of the situations that drove those occurances won't exist in this game.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that further analysis is warranted, just that the "other factors" defense can be taken ad infinim.

 

[Oswlek]

1979 Los Angeles Rams
Scored 323 points (20.2/g), 15th of 28 in the NFL.
Allowed 309 points (19.3/g), 11th.

That's it. That's the only time, other than SB XLII, that a team has even played in a SB when ranked lower than 10th in both offense and defense with regard to scoring since the merger. These Giants are the 2nd team to meet the OP's criteria. There is no 0-37 because it's only happened once, not 37 times.

If, before the playoffs started, someone had said the Giants have virtually no shot to make it to the Super Bowl. Then there would be a correlation here.

This is a solid point if you are arguing that this is a unique siuation.

However, the fact that a top 10 scoring defense, when matched up against a team without one is at worst 37-6 (.860) is still the prevailing thought here.

The fact that teams with the Giants' mediocre breakdowns rarely even make it this far (and have lost both other times) doesn't contest the original point.

 

[Watson's IQ]

This is a solid point if you are arguing that this is a unique siuation.

However, the fact that a top 10 scoring defense, when matched up against a team without one is at worst 37-6 (.860) is still the prevailing thought here.

The fact that teams with the Giants' mediocre breakdowns rarely even make it this far (and have lost both other times) doesn't contest the original point.

So then you're basically saying "of the 74 teams which have played in the superbowl since the merger, only one has been this bad statistically relative to the rest of the league in that year, using this specific measure". That's essentially what the point boils down to, and I think it falls to each of us to decide how relevant that point is in determining what sort of shot the Giants have. I think we'd all agree they have a greater than 0 in 37 shot of winning.

 

[Oswlek]

So then you're basically saying "of the 74 teams which have played in the superbowl since the merger, only one has been this bad statistically relative to the rest of the league in that year, using this specific measure". That's essentially what the point boils down to, and I think it falls to each of us to decide how relevant that point is in determining what sort of shot the Giants have. I think we'd all agree they have a greater than 0 in 37 shot of winning.

I think that the .860 is close enough.

Again, you are making a different case than the stat does. I will conceed that you can make a case that this is mildly unique, but it doesn't change the fact that less than 15% of the time has a team not in the top 10 of scoring defense won the SB. Frankly, just as easily as you can make you case, I can justify that those that actually pulled the upset were flukes.

Edit: Considering that this is SB 42, I'm trying to figure out the 37-0 along with 6 others. Shouldn't those add up to 41?

 

[Watson's IQ]

I think that the .860 is close enough.

Again, you are making a different case than the stat does. I will conceed that you can make a case that this is mildly unique, but it doesn't change the fact that less than 15% of the time has a team not in the top 10 of scoring defense won the SB. Frankly, just as easily as you can make you case, I can justify that those that actually pulled the upset were flukes.

Edit: Considering that this is SB 42, I'm trying to figure out the 37-0 along with 6 others. Shouldn't those add up to 41?

He was only counting since 1970, I believe.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

He was only counting since 1970, I believe.

Since the 1970 Merger is correct

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

This is a solid point if you are arguing that this is a unique siuation.

However, the fact that a top 10 scoring defense, when matched up against a team without one is at worst 37-6 (.860) is still the prevailing thought here.

The fact that teams with the Giants' mediocre breakdowns rarely even make it this far (and have lost both other times) doesn't contest the original point.

I am restating my point that there is no 0-37 trend. There is an 8-37 trend for teams that have only one top ten in offense or defense(OP stat). There is a 0-1 trend for teams that have neither a top ten offense or defense.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I am restating my point that there is no 0-37 trend. There is an 8-37 trend for teams that have only one top ten in offense or defense(OP stat). There is a 0-1 trend for teams that have neither a top ten offense or defense.

So maybe the best way to put it is as I stated a bit earlier:

Of the 74 teams which have played in Super Bowls since 1970, only one has had NEITHER a top ten defense or offense (like the Giants), and they lost. Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl.

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

So maybe the best way to put it is as I stated a bit earlier:

Of the 74 teams which have played in Super Bowls since 1970, only one has had NEITHER a top ten defense or offense (like the Giants), and they lost.

Yes. We wrote the same thing general idea.

 

[Oswlek]

So maybe the best way to put it is as I stated a bit earlier:

Of the 74 teams which have played in Super Bowls since 1970, only one has had NEITHER a top ten defense or offense (like the Giants), and they lost. Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl.

I can agree with that. Your statement builds in the fact that teams with similar breakdowns as the Giants usually don't even make it that far.

I think your post ends the thread.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Yes. We wrote the same thing general idea.

Well, it only took 11 pages and plenty of statistical jargon tossed around.

Have we decided whether or not this has any real bearing on the Giants-Pats Super Bowl?

 

[Oswlek]

Yes. We wrote the same thing general idea.

Your statement makes it seem as if the OP's statement is completely meaningless, the one you quoted makes the same point but also ends with this:

Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl.

I see a big discrepancy between your points.

 

[Oswlek]

Well, it only took 11 pages and plenty of statistical jargon tossed around.

Have we decided whether or not this has any real bearing on the Giants-Pats Super Bowl?

You already decided it.

Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl.

 

[Watson's IQ]

You already decided it.

Sure. Not sure I'm ready to accept historical precedent as proof positive that the Patriots will win, but I see your point. We've milked this avenue of discussion as far as we can.

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl.

The Giants are very lucky to be in the SB. But we knew that anyway.

This whole thread is about 'historical precedent' giving the Giants bad odds to win the SB. I disagree with the OP's reasoning.

 

[Watson's IQ]

The Giants are very lucky to be in the SB. But we knew that anyway.

This whole thread is about 'historical precedent' giving the Giants bad odds to win the SB. I disagree with the OP's reasoning.

I agree with you 100%, and have been through this whole thread. I think at this point there's not much more to be done with it until someone provides some better stats.

 

[JaredOfNazareth]

Your statement makes it seem as if the OP's statement is completely meaningless, the one you quoted makes the same point but also ends with this:



I see a big discrepancy between your points.

When I quoted Watson's IQ "Therefore, there is no historical precedent for a team as average as the Giants on both offense and defense over the course of a season winning the Super Bowl."

I was thinking about the historical precedent of a team like this years Giants even making the SB let alone winning it.

I didn't intend to be contradictory.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I was thinking about the historical precedent of a team like this years Giants even making the SB let alone winning it.

Actually your point makes it even less likely that the Giants win on Feb 3rd.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Actually your point makes it even less likely that the Giants win on Feb 3rd.

No, it fully doesn't. These are trends and precedents, they have absolutely ZERO actual impact on this years Super Bowl, they just serve to point out the historical and statistical hurdles the Giants would have to overcome to win.

Unfortunately, they're not playing against historical and statistical hurdles, they're playing against the Patriots. Their shot at winning is affected ONLY by the relative talent of the 2007 Patriots and the 2007 Giants, and not at all by history.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

No, it fully doesn't. These are trends and precedents, they have absolutely ZERO actual impact on this years Super Bowl, they just serve to point out the historical and statistical hurdles the Giants would have to overcome to win.

Unfortunately, they're not playing against historical and statistical hurdles, they're playing against the Patriots. Their shot at winning is affected ONLY by the relative talent of the 2007 Patriots and the 2007 Giants, and not at all by history.

You can say that with EVERYTHING. But generally we measure and then analyze based on the data. My experience has been that the more data suggesting a particular outcome the more probable that outcome. So if the Giants shot at winning is affected only by the relative talent of the two teams, how can we best measure that talent and arrive at an opinion that is not completely subjective?