"It's tough to beat a team three times in one season."

[brdmaverick]

"It's tough to beat a team three times in one season."

I don't know about your situations, but I've heard this statement come up multiple times at the office the office this week. When it is said it is in regards to why they are happy that the Patriots are playing the Texans instead of the Dolphins.

Personally, I prefer the Pats play the Dolphins instead of the Texans, too, but not because it's tough to beat a team three times. That line of logic drives me crazy because it doesn't truly represent the situation at hand.

Why not?

In general I will agree that it's tough to beat a team three times in one season. If all things were equal and you have three games coming up against a specific team and if I was asked about the odds of winning all three, I'd say not great.

If each team was equal the odds of winning all three games would be 12.5%

So people mistakenly think that if we played the Dolphins we would only have a 12.5% chance of winning.........but that is full of holes.

1.) That is not the situation at hand. When this statement is being made it's when two games have already completed. So the probability question is not "what are the odds that I win the next three games against an opponent" it is actually "what are the odds that I win the third game GIVEN that I have already won the first two games".

If all things were equal, the odds are 50%.

2.) Everything is not equal. Chances are the team that won the first two games is just flat out BETTER than the other team. In such a circumstance, you would give the better team even greater than 50% chance of completing the trifecta.


For those still not completely sold, let me phrase it another way.........

If team A just won 26 straight games against team B and you had to place a wager on a winner for the 27th game. I'm suggesting you place your bet on team A. Don't be swayed by THAT guy that says "Well, you should go with Team B because it's tough to beat a team 27 times."


Just out of curiosity, have people been hearing this argument at their offices this week? It's driving me crazy and I had to vent. (rant over)

 

[PatsFan2]

Not if their QB needs prescription glasses Brock Osweiler will throw the Patriots Defenders a couple maybe a triple. When your HC doesn't like you it says a lot. The Texans won't be able to keep up with the Patriots their Offense is just not Explosive. I also think O'Brien will have Brock Osweiler on a very short leash.

 

[Kontradiction]

Tannehill had just started practicing again. Given the choice, I'd rather play Assweiler or Savage than Tannehill or Moore.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

phins dont win up here so it doesnt matter if we play them 10 in a row

 

[everlong]

17 times the three-pete has happened

• 2009 Dallas Cowboys over Philadelphia Eagles
• 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers over Baltimore Ravens
• 2004 St. Louis Rams over Seattle Seahawks
• 2002 Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
• 2000 New York Giants over Philadelphia Eagles
• 1999 Tennessee Titans over Jacksonville Jaguars
• 1997 Green Bay Packers over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
• 1997 New England Patriots over Miami Dolphins
• 1994 Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
• 1993 Los Angeles Raiders over Denver Broncos
• 1991 Kansas City Chiefs over Los Angeles Raiders
• 1986 New York Giants over Washington Redskins
• 1982 Miami Dolphins over New York Jets (in a shortened season)
• 1965 Green Bay Packers over Baltimore Colts
• 1964 Buffalo Bills over San Diego Chargers
• 1958 New York Giants over Cleveland Browns
• 1952 Detroit Lions over Los Angeles Rams

Recent history 11-5 for the triple crown.

Year 2-0 Team Opponent Playoff Result Cover?
2009 Cowboys Eagles Won Yes
2008 Steelers Ravens Won Yes
2007 Cowboys Giants Lost No
2004 Packers Vikings Lost No
2004 Rams Seahawks Won Yes
2002 Steelers Browns Won No
2000 Giants Eagles Won Yes
1999 Titans Jaguars Won Yes
1998 Cowboys Cardinals Lost No
1997 Packers Buccaneers Won Yes
1997 Patriots Dolphins Won Yes
1994 Steelers Browns Won Yes
1994 Vikings Bears Lost No
1993 Raiders Broncos Won Yes
1992 Chiefs Chargers Lost No
1991 Chiefs Raiders Won No

 

[XLIX]

I agree that it is just a tired old cliché. Yes it is tough to do for a couple reasons:

1) It's rare to actually play a team 3 times in one season
2) If you do play a team 3 times in one season, by definition that means they are a divisional opponent and a playoff team. So yes, it would be tough to sweep a divisional opponent who is good enough to qualify for the playoffs in 3 games

BUT:

3) I would be very interested in seeing the stats for situations where a team went 2-0 against a divisional opponent during the regular season to see how they did in the playoffs against the same foe (the 3rd meeting). I'll bet the team that went 2-0 won more often than not.

(not that any of this matter to the Patriots this year)

 

[Sicilian]

I think the saying is less about probabilities and more about familiarity. The more often two teams play each other, in theory the closer the two teams should get in competitiveness, because they learn how to play against each other. Now this doesn't hold true every time, but it's why we see weird divisional upsets all the time. Both teams have professional athletes that learn and get better, the top 1% of all players in the country. Give that 1% more knowledge and familiarity, and they're GOING to get theirs, in one form or another.

 

[brdmaverick]

Recent history 11-5 for the triple crown.

Year 2-0 Team Opponent Playoff Result Cover?
2009 Cowboys Eagles Won Yes
2008 Steelers Ravens Won Yes
2007 Cowboys Giants Lost No
2004 Packers Vikings Lost No
2004 Rams Seahawks Won Yes
2002 Steelers Browns Won No
2000 Giants Eagles Won Yes
1999 Titans Jaguars Won Yes
1998 Cowboys Cardinals Lost No
1997 Packers Buccaneers Won Yes
1997 Patriots Dolphins Won Yes
1994 Steelers Browns Won Yes
1994 Vikings Bears Lost No
1993 Raiders Broncos Won Yes
1992 Chiefs Chargers Lost No
1991 Chiefs Raiders Won No

Great stats. That just goes to the show that the reality is coinciding common sense in proving it to be an incorrect old adage.

 

[brdmaverick]

I agree that it is just a tired old cliché. Yes it is tough to do for a couple reasons:

1) It's rare to actually play a team 3 times in one season
2) If you do play a team 3 times in one season, by definition that means they are a divisional opponent and a playoff team. So yes, it would be tough to sweep a divisional opponent who is good enough to qualify for the playoffs in 3 games

Both excellent points. It's not like the Browns and Pats can play each other three times a year.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Reposting from another thread:


Beating a team three times in a season has happened 17 times (according to this link, not independently confirmed):

NFL teams beating the same team 3 times in a season

hey always say that it is hard to beat the same team three times in one season. However, it happens periodically. Since 1950, it has happened 17 times:

• 2009 Dallas Cowboys over Philadelphia Eagles
• 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers over Baltimore Ravens
• 2004 St. Louis Rams over Seattle Seahawks
• 2002 Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
• 2000 New York Giants over Philadelphia Eagles
• 1999 Tennessee Titans over Jacksonville Jaguars
• 1997 Green Bay Packers over Tampa Bay Buccaneers
• 1997 New England Patriots over Miami Dolphins
• 1994 Pittsburgh Steelers over Cleveland Browns
• 1993 Los Angeles Raiders over Denver Broncos
• 1991 Kansas City Chiefs over Los Angeles Raiders
• 1986 New York Giants over Washington Redskins
• 1982 Miami Dolphins over New York Jets (in a shortened season)
• 1965 Green Bay Packers over Baltimore Colts
• 1964 Buffalo Bills over San Diego Chargers
• 1958 New York Giants over Cleveland Browns
• 1952 Detroit Lions over Los Angeles Rams

The bolded line makes me feel happy and warm inside.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

"It's tough to beat a team three times in one season."

I don't know about your situations, but I've heard this statement come up multiple times at the office the office this week. When it is said it is in regards to why they are happy that the Patriots are playing the Texans instead of the Dolphins.

Personally, I prefer the Pats play the Dolphins instead of the Texans, too, but not because it's tough to beat a team three times. That line of logic drives me crazy because it doesn't truly represent the situation at hand.

Why not?

In general I will agree that it's tough to beat a team three times in one season. If all things were equal and you have three games coming up against a specific team and if I was asked about the odds of winning all three, I'd say not great.

If each team was equal the odds of winning all three games would be 12.5%

So people mistakenly think that if we played the Dolphins we would only have a 12.5% chance of winning.........but that is full of holes.

1.) That is not the situation at hand. When this statement is being made it's when two games have already completed. So the probability question is not "what are the odds that I win the next three games against an opponent" it is actually "what are the odds that I win the third game GIVEN that I have already won the first two games".

If all things were equal, the odds are 50%.

2.) Everything is not equal. Chances are the team that won the first two games is just flat out BETTER than the other team. In such a circumstance, you would give the better team even greater than 50% chance of completing the trifecta.


For those still not completely sold, let me phrase it another way.........

If team A just won 26 straight games against team B and you had to place a wager on a winner for the 27th game. I'm suggesting you place your bet on team A. Don't be swayed by THAT guy that says "Well, you should go with Team B because it's tough to beat a team 27 times."


Just out of curiosity, have people been hearing this argument at their offices this week? It's driving me crazy and I had to vent. (rant over)

Here are the records of top seeds against lower seeds since 2000 based on number of times they’ve faced them that season:

Top seed facing playoff opponent for the first time: 13-3 (.816).

Top seed facing opponent for the second time: 22-8 (.733).

Top seed facing opponent for the third time: 4-4 (.500).

No matter how you spin it, it's a hard thing to do in the NFL

 

[Gumby]

I agree that it is just a tired old cliché. Yes it is tough to do for a couple reasons:

1) It's rare to actually play a team 3 times in one season
2) If you do play a team 3 times in one season, by definition that means they are a divisional opponent and a playoff team. So yes, it would be tough to sweep a divisional opponent who is good enough to qualify for the playoffs in 3 games

BUT:

3) I would be very interested in seeing the stats for situations where a team went 2-0 against a divisional opponent during the regular season to see how they did in the playoffs against the same foe (the 3rd meeting). I'll bet the team that went 2-0 won more often than not.

(not that any of this matter to the Patriots this year)

2 Very good reasons that i agree with, but you forgot one:

3. the Dirty naked Nfl truth is- it is physically impossible for the same two teams to play three times in one season!
The Truth is that neither team is STATIC. Injuries and learning-development factors mean that both teams will likely be and play differently in games 1, 2, and 3. paricularly if one or more First two games were early on in season.

 

[brdmaverick]

No matter how you spin it, it's a hard thing to do in the NFL

Just to be clear.....

Beating a team three times in one season.......yes, not likely in general

Beating a team in a third game when you've already beaten them in the first two games.......likely

 

[RayClay]

I think the saying is less about probabilities and more about familiarity. The more often two teams play each other, in theory the closer the two teams should get in competitiveness, because they learn how to play against each other. Now this doesn't hold true every time, but it's why we see weird divisional upsets all the time. Both teams have professional athletes that learn and get better, the top 1% of all players in the country. Give that 1% more knowledge and familiarity, and they're GOING to get theirs, in one form or another.

So, the team that has proved it is better hasn't learned even more weaknesses in the team it has already beaten ? I guess if I'm going to have surgery, I'll go for the guy who killed the last two people who had the same operation as me, rather than the one who was successful twice..

It is foolishness. Coin flip, 50-50 given it's been heads twice. Give the superior team two chances to exploit and put fear and pessimism into the opposition and they should be even better IMO. Absolutely no reason a twice beaten team should have gained an advantage.

Remember, the saying is, it's tough to beat a team three times. That assumes all three times are in the future and that's just simple statistics.

 

[RayClay]

Just to be clear.....

Beating a team three times in one season.......yes, not likely in general

Beating a team in a third game when you've already beaten them in the first two games.......likely

Yes

 

[RayClay]

2 Very good reasons that i agree with, but you forgot one:

3. the Dirty naked Nfl truth is- it is physically impossible for the same two teams to play three times in one season!
The Truth is that neither team is STATIC. Injuries and learning-development factors mean that both teams will likely be and play differently in games 1, 2, and 3. paricularly if one or more First two games were early on in season.

Of course. You have to assume all things equal. Often bad teams hit their stride [salary drive] late. Has nothing to do with # of times played, though.

 

[RayClay]

Here are the records of top seeds against lower seeds since 2000 based on number of times they’ve faced them that season:

Top seed facing playoff opponent for the first time: 13-3 (.816).

Top seed facing opponent for the second time: 22-8 (.733).

Top seed facing opponent for the third time: 4-4 (.500).

No matter how you spin it, it's a hard thing to do in the NFL

4-4 is a small sample size, if you're going to pretend that is statistically significant.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

The Dolphins are a better team than the Texans and would have won the AFC South if they were in it.

They also beat them 44 to 26 this season...

 

[RayClay]

4-4 is a small sample size, if you're going to pretend that is statistically significant.

Disagreeing that 8 games in the history of the NFL is a small sample size?

 

[sb1]

IIRC the Pats beat Miami in week 17 that year and then again the following week in the wild card round.

Also Dan Marino career vs Pats in playoffs: 0-2, 42.8 passer rating