1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

NFL 2016-17 Thread

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by jrd617, Sep 5, 2013.

  1. Gibonius

    Gibonius Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,106
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    

    Seems like you don't weight Super Bowl victories at all, or even playoff wins. Cowboys have one playoff win in 10 years. Unless the post-season doesn't matter at all, it's stupid to say that's better than the Giants over that timeframe. Many people disproportionately value Super Bowl victories, but come on. Ask any Cowboy's fan if they'd swap records with the Giants over the last ten years, and I doubt any would say no.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    

    Regular season record is the main way the Giants can be described as very slightly above average / mediocre (they are at 102-90 only 6 wins above .500). Winning seasons (6, only 3 with 10+ wins), .500 seasons (2), losing seasons (4). Well, maybe 5 playoff appearances over 12 years is only slightly better than average. 8 playoff victories is meaningfully above average, 2 Superbowl appearances even rarer and two Superbowl victories rarer still in a 12 year period. I recognize that there are going to be differences between averages and medians, as some teams consistently make the playoffs and even win a game in the playoffs, but I don't feel like actually going through each team's records to pull those numbers.

    If you take out their two Superbowl years, their record becomes 83-77, their playoff appearances become 3 in 10 years (below average), their playoff victories become 0 (well below average) and that's it. Pretty much the definition of mediocre across the board. I don't think it's really fair to just ignore their most successful seasons, but if a team is going to open itself up to this sort of analysis, it is the Giants, just because of how they won. For them, it was miss the playoffs (most often), one and done (3 times) or win the Superbowl as a 4 seed or lower (2 times). It is weird to think about. You look at the Ravens, Steelers, and Patriots and they were winning more consistently, playing in conference championship games some years where they did not make it to the Superbowl. If you take out the 2 best years of the other franchises that have won two Superbowls since 2000, they still look like a generally successful team that hadn't one the big one. Not so with the Giants. I think that's why they don't get as much credit as some of the other teams. It's a bit unfair, but there is also some truth to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016
  3. venividivicibj

    venividivicibj Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,805
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Well yeah, but that logic is basically - if you take out their best seasons, they suck. Well no shit, you took out their best seasons, and left the worst seasons in there.

    I could say the same about the patriots - if you take out their superbowls in the last 10 years, they havent won any, and lost the superbowl with the biggest pointspread in history! LOSERS!
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2016
    1 person likes this.
  4. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Patriot fans' desperation to discount their team losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl is understandable. But it's about winning, not being "the best" as determined by the majority vote of online mental masturbation. If you win, you've won. If you lose, you've lost.



    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    

    You really can't say the same thing for the Patriots, Steelers, Ravens or even some of the one title teams like the Packers or Colts. If we're using 12 years for the Patriots (Coughlin's reign) and you take out those two Superbowl victories, you still get a team that won the AFC Championship twice, played in it a total of five times and won their division / made the playoffs every year except the one where they had a backup QB. If you look at the Ravens and Steelers, it's not as impressive but it still looks good. Point is, all three (five counting the Packers / Colts) still look like contenders if you strip out their best seasons.

    I happen to agree that winning two Superbowls is a big deal no matter what you did for the rest of your tenure as a couch, but I don't think it's too controversial to say that the Giants outside of two good years didn't really look like a championship caliber franchise for the most part. The other teams that won two titles in that span, however, did, as did some that won one Superbowl. This doesn't take away the fact that the Giants won two Superbowls and deserve all the credit in the world for getting it done when it counts (at the end of the year, being the better team is really nothing but a Pyrrhic victory if you don't win the Superbowl). It does, however, explain some of the dissonance between those who measure a tenure in titles (only or with huge weighting) and who dramatically underweight championships.
     
  6. edinatlanta

    edinatlanta Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,411
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Wit' Yo' Baby Momma
    

    I only think playoff wins, Superbowl wins in particular, are vastly overvalued. Just look at this discussion of the Giants--they have two fewer wins we're not mentioning them at all right now. Would Cowboys fans swap? Yeah, sure but that doesn't mean the Giants had a better run than the Cowboys. That shows kind of how silly/pointless it is trying to nail this subjective formula down. You'll have your opinion, I'll have mine. The only difference being I am right. :)

    At the end of the day, I just can't buy that the Giants have been in the elite of the NFL over the last 10 years. I mean, they have one more playoff appearance than the Falcons in that time.


    Well I'm not, FWIW. The only thing winning a championship means is that you were the first to win three/four games. I don't think you can honestly look at 2007 and say the best team won the Superbowl that year, which I guess sounds a bit contradictory but whatever.
     
  7. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    I don't think it's contradictory. I understand your point; I just mostly disagree with it. (Which is a huge fucking relief.) I'm sure it could be argued that at least half of the teams that have won Super Bowls weren't the "best" team in the league that year. But there's no objective standard for "best", and there are no trophies given out for being the "best" team that didn't win. It's a competition to see who wins. (Or, alternatively, it's a competition to see which owners can maximize their ROI. But that's kind of a different conversation.)
     
  8. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Also, FWIW as a Patriots fan, I don't think that the "best team" won the Superbowl in 2001. I was delighted as a fan to see them pull off the upset, but remember, it was an upset. The Rams were supposed to walk out as champions (14 point favorites).

    Assume the best team in football wins about 13.5 games in a given season (giving them a probability of winning the average game of around 85%). Also assume they get a bye week in the playoffs at 13-3 or 14-2. Well, competition is at a higher level in the playoffs. This same team that you'd expect to win about 85% of the time in the regular season might win 70% of the time or less in the playoffs. The odds of three consecutive victories with a 70% chance of winning each game is 34%. So 66% of the time, a team other than the best one out there is going to win the Superbowl. That's just how it works in a sport where a single game determines who advances to the next round. Being the best team is no guarantee of a championship nor is a championship evidence that you were the best team that year. They still matter, though, because running the gauntlet and rattling off 3-4 wins against quality opponents when a single misstep can send you home is an accomplishment worthy of respect. Being the "best team," even if we agree on metrics for determining this, is as I previously said, a Pyrrhic victory. It's nice, sort of, but not nearly as nice as winning. I'd take winning a game my team has no business winning over being the best team that season and losing a game my team has no business losing any day of the week.
     
  9. venividivicibj

    venividivicibj Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,805
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    As a Rams/Raiders fan... I would love to trade with either of the two aforementioned teams.
     
  10. edinatlanta

    edinatlanta Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    25,411
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Wit' Yo' Baby Momma
    

    Well enjoy being wrong.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. ethanm

    ethanm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,614
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Location:
    أرض العزم
    You guys are wasting a lot of words arguing about this.

    The Giants are the greatest dynasty since the Steelers and Eli Manning is the greatest quarterback of the last 20 years.

    It's simple.
     
  12. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    1. Welcome to the interwebz.

    2. The only important part of your post.
     
  13. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    Eh. Nothing you're saying is unreasonable, of course, and there's no "right" or "wrong" here. That said, what is "best" in this context? Do you measure that by some sort of power ranking driven by fantasy-type valuations of their rosters at the beginning of the season, adjusted or not for injuries? Or by some sort of strength-of-schedule weighted number crunching of their wins and losses and margins of victory and defeat over the course of the season? Some of it comes down to how we each watch sports and root for our teams, obviously. If my team is the odds-on favorite to win it all and fucks the duck, I'm not going to be happy. If they have a huge upside surprise, I will. And one could argue that running the table when everyone thinks you're an "inferior" team should count heavily in the "best" analysis, at least assuming you value whatever "intangibles" enable a team to do that.
     
  14. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    

    I generally look at a mix of record and margin of victory. A few websites have ratings that track along those lines. Things like strength of schedule matter a bit in close cases and head to head can have a bit of value. I'll admit it's an inexact science, at least the way I look at it (I tend to use record / margin of victory) but might make an adjustment for weak SoS. Postseason matters to an extent (as any additional game provides new information), but I don't weight it more heavily than regular season. I tend to think there are great teams that underperform in the playoffs and lesser teams that can sometimes outperform.

    I'd also rather have upside surprise than see my team lay an egg as a heavy favorite. I think as fans we get more satisfaction from winning, but when you like to play with numbers and analyze things, the "best team" question becomes a pretty interesting one.
     
  15. NorCal

    NorCal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,419
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    

    The fuck you talking about? Ed is wrong, anyone else could be right.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Joffrey

    Joffrey Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,347
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Location:
    Pennsylvania Ave/Connecticut Ave
    Let's get things back to reality

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Texasmade

    Texasmade Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,915
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Houston, TX
  18. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    ^ Damn. Not the smartest move. I like how the article references the fact that the Rams haven't made the playoffs in 11 years (perhaps that has something to do with the attendance figures the owner complains about?).
     
  19. venividivicibj

    venividivicibj Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,805
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Maybe it is smart. If you cause such a fuss to make your situation in St. Louis untenable, you have to move.
     
  20. diadem

    diadem Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,077
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Jadeveon Clowney stormed out of the locker room after he was deactivated by the team.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by