Hey JHight...

[Bear Pand]

Both these lists need to do something to handle teams from the same organization differently.

Giving the 89 Cowboys 2 Sbs and the 91 Cowboys 3 SBs seems wrong to me.

[Misogi]

Stat manipulation war has been waged! ESPN needs to see this shit.

[JeremyHight]

Both these lists need to do something to handle the same teams differently.

Giving the 89 Cowboys 2 Sbs and the 91 Cowboys 3 SBs seems wrong to me.

Tough to handle each one uniquely because of repeat status on the list. I mean, it benefits ky's argument tremendously by having to include the record and playoff appearances of the same Bills or Broncos season in some cases, 4 times. It hurts my argument to have to include the same Buccaneers and Browns seasons 2 times. Playoff appearances for Super Bowl losers are helped by including the Bills and Broncos several times, but the Bengals and Buccaneers kill the 1st overall pick playoff appearance rate.

It all evens out, but if you can think of another way, more power to you.

[kyhadley]

I understand that championships are obviously the ultimate goal for a franchise, but I don't feel that they are a good indicator of overall success over time, I think record is a much better indicator.

But I guess that pretty much brings us back to the original argument that people would rather have their team consistently be better, while maybe not winning the super bowl, but it doesn't make a difference to you whether you lost in the super bowl or went 0-16.

edit: yeah I was trying to think of a way to handle the repeats differently but couldn't. I think it evens out for W/L since its a ratio, but not for playoff appearances or championships

[JeremyHight]

I understand that championships are obviously the ultimate goal for a franchise, but I don't feel that they are a good indicator of overall success over time, I think record is a much better indicator.

But I guess that pretty much brings us back to the original argument that people would rather have their team consistently be better, while maybe not winning the super bowl, but it doesn't make a difference to you whether you lost in the super bowl or went 0-16.

And my point is that a championship is a potential once in a lifetime experience. While getting to the playoffs is nice, I don't think Cleveland is happy about having a good run back in the 80s and never winning a championship. I don't think Marino is completely happy to have some great seasons and never having won a championship.

If I had to choose between mediocrity and playoff appearances, sure, I'd choose a playoff appearance. But if I had to lose 80% of the games for the next 10 seasons to get a championship now, I would do that in a heart beat. I truly believe that championships are very rare and to get even a SINGLE one is worth almost any amount of mediocrity.

[Aso]

Who came up with the magic number of 5 and why?

[Bear Pand]

Tough to handle each one uniquely because of repeat status on the list. I mean, it benefits ky's argument tremendously by having to include the record and playoff appearances of the same Bills or Broncos season in some cases, 4 times. It hurts my argument to have to include the same Buccaneers and Browns seasons 2 times. Playoff appearances for Super Bowl losers are helped by including the Bills and Broncos several times, but the Bengals and Buccaneers kill the 1st overall pick playoff appearance rate.

It all evens out, but if you can think of another way, more power to you.

Nah it benefits your argument a ton. You're saying 6 SBs have been won in the last 25 years by teams that recently had the #1 pick. 5 of those SBs come from the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys have not won 5 SBs in the last 25 years. This data is misleading.

This is a really poor way of handling this argument, on both your set of data and kyhadleys. I think you guys should group teams that are close together and remove duplicate games. Ex: Group the 1991-93 Bills together and remove duplicate games. I don't know if that would improve things a ton, but it'd be a better representation of what actually happened.

It's a waste of time anyway though because this is a dumb argument. No team in the league values the #1 draft pick over a SB appearance.

[kyhadley]

But what I'm saying is that if super bowl losing teams have a better average record over the the following five seasons than #1 picking teams, then wouldn't that mean that they are more likely to win the super bowl?

If picking number one was really correlated to winning championships, don't you think that there would also be a much bigger difference then just 3 to 1 (your original argument I believe, without the repeats)?

[Aso]

That does benefit JHight a ton.

I think 3 would be a better number than 5. Try it with 3 and see the differences. The '89 cowboys wouldn't have any superbowls and the 91 cowboys would have 2. It's definitely better than 5.

[JeremyHight]

edit: yeah I was trying to think of a way to handle the repeats differently but couldn't. I think it evens out for W/L since its a ratio, but not for playoff appearances or championships

So for the part that benefits you, it is fine for repeats, but not in the part that benefits me. That makes sense.

If you wanted to throw out repeats, the final stats for playoff appearances/Championships would be...

Super Bowl Runner Ups:
34 playoff appearances in 81 seasons - 41.975%
1 championship in 81 seasons - 1.235%


1st Overall Picks
32 playoff appearances in 80 seasons - 38.75%
4 Championships in 80 seasons - 5%

Still heavily favored towards 1st Overall Pick, imo. A nearly 1/100 chance to win a championship vs a 1/20 chance.

[kyhadley]

Really, there isn't a great statistical way of determining this no matter how we try, I just attempted it cause JH was clamoring on that we couldn't disprove his "statistics".

In this case, logic > stats. A team losing in the super bowl is significantly better than a team earning the #1 pick. Which means they are significantly closer to a super bowl. One top draft pick is not enough to shoot a team to the top.

[JeremyHight]

That does benefit JHight a ton.

I think 3 would be a better number than 5. Try it with 3 and see the differences. The '89 cowboys wouldn't have any superbowls and the 91 cowboys would have 2. It's definitely better than 5.

We made it 5 so that a Super Bowl loser could have actually won a championship, ie. the Patriots. If you made it 3, only the 1st overall pick teams would have any championships what so ever.

[leaffan]

2002 Raiders

[kyhadley]

You're ignoring my previous post. Championships are too flukey and too small of a sample to determine success with. But teams with better records are more likely to win a super bowl than teams with worse records.

And it doesn't effect wins and losses as much because its a ratio, so (as you said) you're repeating both the wins and the losses, it balances out. But with playoff appearances and championships, its just a sum, so theres nothing to balance them out with.

[JeremyHight]

In this case, logic > stats.

Common logic is also commonly incorrect, as seen by the statistics in this thread.

The teams that won a championship were GREATLY impacted by their 1st overall picks. Orlando Pace was a huge piece for the Rams offense and was the best OT in football for several years. Troy Aikman lead the Cowboys as the 1st overall pick to 3 championships. Saying that one pick doesn't make a difference is a HUGE leap.