Whiner-gate

[Deus Irae]

We're pretty clearly talking past one another. I am tempted to be an ass, and say something like "what part of all things being equal don't you understand?" But it's clear you are trying to emphasize how unequal all things are.

I brought out the mathmatical odds to emphasize just how big an accomplishment a single super bowl, never mind 2 straight, is.

I am not concerned about the sports books. I am concerned about the likelihood of each event in the case of equivalent resources.

Since resources have become closer to equal among the teams in the league, particularly in the area of personnel acquisition, my point is that this numerical oddity is more due to other factors, namely culture and coaching, than in previous eras.

It was also impressive to overcome those odds in previous years, don't get me wrong. But the odds are what they are, all else being equal: 1024-1 against winning two super bowls straight. 32-1 against winning any given super bowl.

They are not, as you believe, the odds that the oddsmakers place, after taking into account precisely the various delineators we have listed.

The oddsmakers' odds that put the Pats at 3-1 do so, in part, specifically because of the culture of winning New England employs. And a large part of that, to bring this discussion full circle, is a refusal to make excuses.

PFnV

The mathematical odds you are attempting to use here only apply for an equal and static situation. Your argument is wrong because it is not taking that obvious flaw into account. Under the logic you are using, if you had a 19 team little league and put the Yankees into that league, the Yankees would only have a 1 in 20 chance of winning the league championship. That's how card games work, and that's how dice games work. It's not how sports games work. You are simply wrong.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, I simply specified the condition, i.e., all else being equal, in order to illustrate that all things are not equal.

You're either enjoying a self-perceived "gotcha" moment that never was far too much, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

But it's all in the family.

As for you, troll, begone. What we'll generously call your "team" is free to make any statement they like -- primarily, "OW" -- on the field.

Good luck on that AFC East crown, guys

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I simply specified the condition, i.e., all else being equal, in order to illustrate that all things are not equal.

You're either enjoying a self-perceived "gotcha" moment that never was far too much, or you're being purposefully obtuse.

But it's all in the family.

As for you, troll, begone. What we'll generously call your "team" is free to make any statement they like -- primarily, "OW" -- on the field.

Good luck on that AFC East crown, guys

PFnV

I am doing neither. I'm noting reality, you're delving into fantasy and using a theoretical baseline as the method to try to get there. As I noted, your odds are off because these aren't "static" chips. You are trying to use a nonexistent example to prove an invalid point. All things being equal, Salma Hayek would have been just as likely to end up with me as with the guy she chose. As you said, it's not fair (I'd have been a much better choice than that 'other' guy).

All things in sports are not equal. For example, you claimed that the Patriots winning 3 Super Bowls in a decade was beating the odds. How did you come up with that when the steelers won 3 in the 70's (I'll count the '0' year as the 1st year even though our calendars don't), the 49ers won 3 in the 80's, the Cowboys won 3 in the 90's, and the Packers won 5 titles in the 60's? Even if you don't count the Packers on a technicality, there was still a 2-in-4 history there. In fact, if you count the Packers and the Patriots, there have been 5 decades on NFL/AFL involved football, and every decade has seen one team win at least 3 Super Bowls/Championships.

Hell, the truth is that when you count decades properly, from the 01 year until the 00 year rather than the other way around, and give the Packers credit for the entirety of the 60's, every decade has at least a 3 championship winner and 3 of the 5 decades have seen a 4 championship team. In other words, the odds have been greater that you'll have a 4 championship winning team in a decade than that you won't. Should the Patriots win another title in this decade, in fact, it would be 4 out of 5 decades having a 4 titled champion.

However, one can simply point to a classic example of luck to prove the point about how a call/break can change history even when teams do all they can to prepare: The immaculate reception, without which Pittsburgh loses.

We're not talking past each other. You're just using an argument that's invalid/inapplicable in the context of the discussion and I'm pointing that out.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Without discussing which team we are talking about, Deus, what are the odds that any given team will win the super bowl this year?

To discuss the impact of each team's abilities/coaching/culture/personnel decisions/etc., you can not move forward without discussing the baseline.

And so I discussed the baseline.

It is not a "fantasy world," it is very real.

You name the odds of winning the superbowl, and then pick a random team out of a hat. What number expresses the odds of a team picked at random? Now granted, there may be a cluster greater than the mean of those team by team odds, but the mean is 32:1.

That is precisely the case when we quantify the odds, all else being equal.

If you think you're opening any eyes by asserting that the Pats went into this season more talented than most, and with a better winning culture than just about all, you're wrong.

I do not argue the point that the Pats are a very good team, year in and year out. I bring out the fact of the odds they're beating, to describe just how good a team they are.

So, without naming the team, do you in fact insist that 3-1 is really the odds for any given team to win the super bowl this year, because all things are not equal?

Or do you recognize that although one team is a 3-1 favorite, other teams will have to slip beneath the 32-1 category, to make the odds pan out -- and that therefore, you can not claim that the odds are other than 32-1 for any given team?

All else being equal, that is what the odds are. If you can not process the argument, I think I'll just leave you in the willfully obtuse department, to be nice about it.

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

Without discussing which team we are talking about, Deus, what are the odds that any given team will win the super bowl this year?

To discuss the impact of each team's abilities/coaching/culture/personnel decisions/etc., you can not move forward without discussing the baseline.

And so I discussed the baseline.

It is not a "fantasy world," it is very real.

You name the odds of winning the superbowl, and then pick a random team out of a hat. What number expresses the odds of a team picked at random? Now granted, there may be a cluster greater than the mean of those team by team odds, but the mean is 32:1.

That is precisely the case when we quantify the odds, all else being equal.

If you think you're opening any eyes by asserting that the Pats went into this season more talented than most, and with a better winning culture than just about all, you're wrong.

I do not argue the point that the Pats are a very good team, year in and year out. I bring out the fact of the odds they're beating, to describe just how good a team they are.

So, without naming the team, do you in fact insist that 3-1 is really the odds for any given team to win the super bowl this year, because all things are not equal?

Or do you recognize that although one team is a 3-1 favorite, other teams will have to slip beneath the 32-1 category, to make the odds pan out -- and that therefore, you can not claim that the odds are other than 32-1 for any given team?

All else being equal, that is what the odds are. If you can not process the argument, I think I'll just leave you in the willfully obtuse department, to be nice about it.

PFnV

For the last time, you are arguing about static 'chips' and pure numbers theory. I get the point and always have. I get the math, as it were, I just don't yield to your notion that there can be a 'pure' set of odds found in the context of the discussion. Your argument that you need to discuss the baseline is simply not true in the context of modern American sports.

As I've repeatedly shown, the base odds don't mean a thing in the NFL. Sports leagues in the United States don't reset to any sort of even state at the end of each year, they remain skewed based upon what transpired over the course of recent history. Much like weather simulation programs, you're not going to get a truly valid predictor model within the limits of current technology. I'm not saying that your 'pure' odds are wrong in a vacuum, I'm saying they don't apply in the NFL because 'baseline odds' haven't mattered in practice since the day the league was founded.

Now, I tried to say this nicely, and you went tossing out "willfully obtuse". So, I'll simply end this discussion with you by noting that the NFL isn't a static experiment set up in a laboratory so that geeks on computers can manipulate arguments by claiming an "everyone's even" beginning to things. The history of the NFL has absolutely decimated that argument time and again. You cannot quantify the actions and talents of human beings the way you can quantify the number of kings in a deck of cards. Sports aren't cards, sports aren't dice, and arguing the odds in the same manner of those activities when you're talking sports is simply an attempt at mental masturbation.