Hey JHight...

[kyhadley]

You said you wanted some statistical evidence to disprove your Super Bowl Loser vs Top Pick argument?

I compiled the records of the five seasons after a team had the number one pick vs losing the super bowl...

 

[Aso]

What was his argument? I want to know exactly what this disproves.

 

[Misogi]

That statistically speaking, It's better to have the #1 pick in an upcoming draft than to lose in the Super Bowl.

BTW, I fully expect an all-out stat-war in this bitch.

 

[Leftwich]

All I see is numbers.

 

[Misogi]

All I see is numbers.

To get you up to speed: JeremyHight was using the argument that, in the past 25 years, no team that has lost in the superbowl has won the 'ship within 4 years, while, 2 teams that had the #1 pick won the super bowl within 4 year period.

Hilarity ensued when someone found out that the 88 'Skins won the 'ship 4 years after, but JHight, being the technicality expert, disputed, stating it was "outside of the 4 year-interval/25-year span" he carefully picked for his argument.
bama:

 

[kyhadley]

This argument stems from the chatbox.

Its saying that in the five seasons after a team has the number one pick in the draft, they have gone on average 37-43 over those five seasons(7-9 per season). While in the five seasons after a team loses the super bowl, they have gone on average 42-38 over those five seasons (8-8 per season).

 

[Senators26]

The Seahawks and Bears didn't lose in the years you have them slotted for..

 

[Aso]

If you lose the Superbowl that still means you were good enough to get to the Superbowl and if you have the #1 pick it still means you were the worst team in the league in that given year.

 

[citizenerased]

You said you wanted some statistical evidence to disprove your Super Bowl Loser vs Top Pick argument?

I compiled the records of the five seasons after a team had the number one pick vs losing the super bowl...

You mean Panthers and Eagles with 2003 and 2004 don't you?

*Edit* Been beaten to it.

 

[Aso]

The Seahawks and Bears didn't lose in the years you have them slotted for..

He missed the Panthers and Eagles superbowl losses in 03 and 04 and that would bump the Seahawks back two years.

 

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

2003/2004 were Carolina and Philly... those numbers are even more heavily weighted towards the Super Bowl losers if you count those two

 

[Misogi]

The Seahawks and Bears didn't lose in the years you have them slotted for..

Yeah, he needs to replace Seahawks and Bears with Panthers(03) and Eagles(04)

 

[kyhadley]

The Seahawks and Bears didn't lose in the years you have them slotted for..

thanks, fixed that

barely changed anything

 

[kmanharris]

This argument already went on for too long in the chatbox, creating a thread just makes a shitty topic live on for even longer.

 

[JeremyHight]

First off, I have to thank you. In doing this research, I actually noticed I was drastically undervaluing the amount of championships won by teams who had the #1 overall pick. So lets look at the stats for teams since 1985. I used since 1985 since that was the amount I brought up originally in the chatbox.

You'll notice that first, the record does side with the Super Bowl losers, as does the playoff appearances. The averages show that a team who lost the Super Bowl is going to get on average, 1 more win per season over a 5 year span than a team who had the first overall pick. The 10 differential means that in a 5 year span, the average Super Bowl loser would get 2.25 playoff appearances to the 1.75 playoff appearances made by teams with the 1st overall pick. Not a huge difference, but significant.

The big difference comes in championships. The number of championships won is a drastic difference. In the 100 total seasons, only 1 was won by a team who had lost a Super Bowl in the 5 years prior (Patriots). On the other hand, 6 championships were won by teams who had the 1st overall pick within 5 years prior (by the Cowboys and 1 by the Rams). Statistically speaking, of the 20 teams teams who lost a Super Bowl, only had a 5% chance to win a championship in the 5 years following. On the other hand, teams who had the 1st overall pick would have a 30% chance to win a championship. This is a 500% increase! That is huge!

So again, thanks again for making me prove once again, that having the first overall pick is better than losing a Super Bowl for the future of the franchise.

 

[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.