Interesting thread. Dealing with the highs and lows of trying to climb the mountain every season is not easy for any of us, and harder psychologically for some than others, for a variety of reasons. Makes it all the more fun.
From my name, you can tell that I like and play poker, and generally enjoy all games. I'll share my mental model for how I approach the wild fluctuations of football games, the season and the playoffs, using my background in poker, because I believe it's not only correct, but a healthy mental approach. I'm sure many of you do something similar.
First point is that you can divide games or competitions into 3 categories: all skill, combination of skill/luck, and all luck. For example, chess is 100% skill--the higher rated player should beat the weaker player every time in every single game--there is no luck involved, even in the short term. Poker is a great example of a game involving a combination of skill and luck. In the long run, the better player will always win more or beat the lesser player, but because of the obvious luck factor involved in the short term fall of the cards, the weaker player can certainly beat experts at individual hands, sessions, etc. Games of pure luck like craps and roulette involve no skill--all players do the same over time.
Second point is that football is pretty clearly a game of mixed skill/luck. The skill part is the talent level, coaching, planning, execution, etc. The luck part is tipped balls, the roll of fumbles, weird plays, referee calls, even random matchups. Lots of pundits, experts, and fans underestimate the short terms luck factor, especially in a league of parity where skill factors are close. They may know better, but they act like the superior team should win every time.
So I personally mentally employ more of a probabilistic model, as follows. If the PATS are playing another comparably skilled team, I think their going-in chance of winning the game is 50-60%, and not any higher. The range there is due to slight skill differences, home field, and that's about it. For the next tier of teams in the middle, maybe the range is 60-70% chance of victory. For the worst teams, i estimate the chance of the better PATS team winning at 70-80%.
I truly believe these percentages to be true in the short term and the long terms. When you really factor in the luck part, it really helps me keep the fluctuations in randomness in great perspective. Some quick examples:
- Beating the Texans 42-14, or the Broncos earlier. I think they're comparably skilled teams. Doesn't change my belief that if we played them 10 times, we'd be expected to win 5-6 of those, and not more. So you might say that in blowing out one of these great teams, we got "lucky" in very real sense. We've all seen in the momentum of short-term football that a little bit of skill combined with some luck (Hernandez saving the Ridley fumble, or the Sanchez butt fumble) can suddenly lead to an unstoppable blowout. But hard as it is, I try not to delude myself that's it's not due to superior skill. When BB says "it was just our night" or "it wasn't their night" on these blowouts, he's telling the truth about the luck factor.
- Just edging out a win by 1-3 points. This is pretty normal in the NFL for closely matched teams. The jaded expression "we made one or two more plays than they did" or vice versa is completely valid. To me, it normally means the luck factor was pretty even in the game, and it came down to a small skill difference--one missed third down, one made kick, etc.
- Then there's the example like the PATS losing to the Arizona Cardinals at Gillette earlier this season. Hurts like hell, since we know now that this is one of those 70-80% shots of victory for the PATS vs what proved to be a bottom tier team. But in games with a luck factor it still means the inferior team has a 20-30% chance of winning. Not exactly as remote as winning the lottery. And if you think of that game, weird "unlucky" plays like a blocked punt occurred that ultimately spelled the difference.
You can apply this skill/luck model to a lot of things to keep a healthy perspective. In this mindset, going 18-0 in 2007 was extraordinarily "lucky". Even if the PATS skill was so superior that year that they had an 80% chance of winning every game (very generous), the chance of winning 18 in a row is 1.8%. And although it is truly painful, in this model no super bowl loss or win against obviously another good team, where the chance of victory is almost certainly in the 50-60% zone, can ever be too much of an upset. It doesn't mean that the winner didn't get lucky with fumbles or strange calls to win that particular game, and it doesn't mean that there wasn't poor execution on certain plays, but when the experts proclaim a major upset in the playoffs because the vastly inferior team beat the far more talented one, their premise is just flat wrong.
Anyway, that system works for me. I am comfortable knowing that the only thing the PATS can control is their skill, effort, prep and trajectory of growth and improvement, and I accept that those skill factors get them to just over 50% against another good team, and somewhat higher against worse teams, and the rest is some form of randomness and luck.
