Hey JHight...

[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. :shifty:

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

:jonesy:

 

[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.

 

[Aso]

2002 Raiders

2007 Raiders

 

[JeremyHight]

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.

... I went through and took out repeat seasons. Which is why instead of 100 seasons, they were out of 80 and 81, since any repeats were thrown out. I also threw out repeat championships and repeat playoff appearances.

 

[kyhadley]

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.

Actually I made it five because any shorter and I dont think the sample size is big enough, and any longer and you're risking how related the records and the original event (super bowl appearance or #1 pick) actually are.

 

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

this is stupid because you aren't able to factor in the huge FA moves... the arguement being made was like when you said all those years of sucking and New Orleans got to and won a Super Bowl after they recently had a top 5 pick. fact of the matter is... the top 5 pick had barely any input, The new head coach, franchise QB in FA, TE, stud MLB, etc, etc are what got them where they are, not the early draft pick busts.

The argument was that we would all rather see our teams be successful, Super Bowl win or not, then to tank out and have high draft picks every year. its stupid.... The Raiders for example... were Super Bowl losers so they add to your stats, then 5 years after had a number 1 pick, and keep picking high, they are NO better from picking high. The Rams have been picking high since their Super Bowl loss.... they are not much improved and they don't look to be on their way to the Super Bowl anytime soon.

Fact of the matter is, high draft picks = spending high amount of dollars for players who usually are busts and don't pan out to be superstars, it cost your team money from all fronts. Making the playoffs attracts FA's, makes your team more money and successful as a franchise, as well as picking in the "safer" range of the draft from 24-32, where players have proven to panned out better in the long run.

 

[kyhadley]

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.

Sweet, how about going through every single other 1st pick and determining their impact, that might be a good way to do it.

... I went through and took out repeat seasons. Which is why instead of 100 seasons, they were out of 80 and 81, since any repeats were thrown out. I also threw out repeat championships and repeat playoff appearances.

And you got a difference of 4 to 1, which first of all are very small numbers. And second of all I don't think they're significant because of how flukey championships are.

But where they aren't flukey is that better teams tend to win them. Better teams also tend to have better records. And teams after losing super bowls have better records then teams with #1 picks.

 

[Champ]

So because of Mario Williams the Texas are going to win the Super Bowl this year?

 

[JeremyHight]

So here is the final breakdown to show the difference between the two over a 5 year span. I'm taking out repeat playoff appearances and championships, but leaving repeat wins and losses. This hurts my argument, but for the sake of fairness, here goes.

Over a five year span, you could expect...

SB Losers - 8-9 wins a year (leaning towards 9), roughly 2 playoff appearances (maybe 3), a 1% chance of winning the Super Bowl.

1st Pick - 7-8 wins a year, roughly 2 playoff appearances (possibly 1), and a 5% chance of winning a Super Bowl.

To me, they are almost identical except for the Super Bowl odds. A 4% difference doesn't seem like much, but when you increase your odds by 400% of winning something, that is a very big deal. In contrast, there is only an 8% increase in your chances of making the playoffs by being a Super Bowl loser,

All I am arguing is that the common logic that its better to lose a Super Bowl than get the 1st overall pick is not completely true and possibly completely wrong. If you gauge is based purely on wins, sure it is better to lose a Super Bowl. But if you are basing it on championships, which I prioritize, then it is better to get the 1st overall pick. By no means is anything guaranteed, but this is purely what the stats support.

 

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

So because of Mario Williams the Texas are going to win the Super Bowl this year?

Actually because of Tim Couch, Courtney Brown, Michael Vick, David Carr, Carson Palmer, Alex Smith, Mario Williams, Jamarcus Russell and Matt Stafford the Browns, Falcons, Texans, Bengals, 49ers, Raiders and Lions have all won recent Super Bowls.



wait...what?

 

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

JH... I'm a bit concerned about you man... you have the ultimate top 10 pick team... and NO Super Bowls... shit no recent even playoff appearances.... and you are arguing you would rather have a high pick? when the fuck do you plan on turning it around? How are these picks helping you?

 

[1ke]

I knida agree with JH. I only care about titles. Why else play. As a Bears fan, we got to the SB and lost. Good season yes, absolutely. Successful season....kinda. But they failed in the ultimate goal. And since the SB, the Bears have been very very mediocre and thats being nice. 9-7 8-8 and 7-9. (I think)

Its the worst possible position to be in. Not bad enough to get the top pick, and not good enough to play for anything. In sports, being in the middle is the worst possible spot. I get what he is saying, but it all depends on how you prioritize things. Look at the Eagles, every season with McNabb, you knew it was a playoff birth but nothing more.