rabthepat
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,541
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.AndyJohnson said:How can the best team not be the one that won?
No. I refuted it based on it was silly.I gave you a counter example. You refuted it on the basis that it wasn't a large enough sample size.
One season is the only sample size that exists.You then claimed that one NFL season is a big enough sample size, which is why the Super Bowl champion is the best team.
It is the only sample size that exists. A team exists for 1 season. Thats it. No more, no less.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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
You are assuming that there is one good team a year.Not sure how you define a team that didn't reach its objective (SB Champ) as better than one that did.
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?
AndyJohnson said:The team that wins the SB is the best, because that is the result every team exists for.
I suppose that could be possible, but it is terribly subjective. In the end the measure of good is the result.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?
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.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.
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.
No they aren't. There is one opportunity and one result.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 makes absolutely no sense. A team exists for 1 season. How can you have a different sample size than one season?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.
There is 100% certainty.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.
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.Just for clarity, "Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data."
There is absolutely zero uncertainty.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.
0123456789no they aren't.nspf said:results are variable.
0123456789
Offense 2012
Defense 2001
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.
Can you prove that this is a repeatable skill?
2001 had viniteiri.
An upset is a result that was not expected.Andy, So if the best team is always the one that wins it all then there are no such things as upsets, correct?
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.Have you ever watched the NCAA tournament?
That is exactly the point. Using subjective criteria to predict a result is pointless when the result is already determined.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.
The best team always wins, because completing the task of winning is the primary characteristic in defining good.In the NCAA tourney the better team rarely wins because of the one and done nature and the randomness of the matchups.
I don't know how you can be better at something if you are less successful.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)
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.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.
They over achieved based on your expectation. You cannot overachieve unless you compare the achievement to an expectation.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.
Why is that what this exercise is about? Who defined it as being about who would win if they played?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
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?