The death of one big myth (and one little one)

[Slack jaw gaze]

The Super Bowl victor correlates to:

 

The best team at the end of the year: about .9

The best team in the league: about .5

The best defense in the league: about .2

The best quarterback in the league: about .1

 

But somehow, magically, the most super bowls won correlates to the best quarterback of all time at 1.0

 

The proof: Old Peyton is better than young Peyton. Old Elway was better than young Elway. Dilfer was better than Marino.

 

I'm kidding. This relatively new, self-serving, ESPN-talking-head-era myth was created by the mostly Super Bowl winning ex-players employed by ESPN and NFL Network to pump up their own historical value, will never die as long as ESPN and NFL Network employs mostly, ex Super Bowl winning players as their primary talking heads. It will be lapped up and regurgitated unquestionably by the media and public no matter how little statistical sense it makes. Who's going to argue that point against Ray Lewis? No one unless they have a death wish. That cat is batshit crazy.

 

The minor myth is that Dee Marry Us Thomas of the Broncos is some kind of elite receiver. I've seen about a dozen Denver games a year for the last 4 years and that dude is the most overrated receiver in NFL history. 1 or 2 drops per game and I can't recall a single great catch he's ever made. He'll occasionally break a big run because he's fast. I just assume he's scared to death of being hit by someone.

 

Live on myths. I know you will.

I just had to vent about these two absurdities.

[Lucas]

I have been a Bronco fan since 1975, and while I am ecstatic about the season and the win yesterday, I am - and have been - down on Demaryius for a long time ..

 

He just doesn't play with fire, or that chip on his shoulder - he is so easily rattled and thrown off his game ... I have watched him dominate games, and I have also seen him disappear ..

 

I cringe thinking of his recent contract, as it will be near impossible to keep both him and Emmanuel Sanders after next season

 

It's Thomas' mindset .. and the history of great Bronco pass catchers is filled with complete overachievers who left everything out on the field, and then some : Rod Smith, Eddie McCaffery, Shannon Sharpe - I'd even put Sanders in that category at this point ..

 

But Demaryius is soft ... I hate to say that, but he is ..

 

His contract is tough, but I am hoping they can swing a deal for him - perhaps in a trade with Cleveland for Joe Thomas

[Ancient Ways]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

[Principled Man]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

 

 

[Ancient Ways]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

[laughedatbytime]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

I heart tautologies.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

It really depends on how you define it. I will use a baseball example (with the understanding baseball is different given the length of the season).

 

In 2004, the St. Louis Cardinals were clearly the class of the sport throughout the regular season.... 105 wins... +25 at home, +23 on the road, +8 vs NL East, +12 vs NL West, +18 vs NL Central, +10 vs the AL (lost only 1 game against an AL team that regular season, in fact). Put simply, they owned baseball that year. And yet they lost, quite badly, the World Series to a very good Boston Wild Card club that got incredibly hot in the post season.

 

In 2006, the St. Louis Cardinals were basically a mediocre team throughout the regular season.... the barely won the division with 83 wins... +18 at home, -13 on the road, +1 vs NL East, +12 vs NL West, -3 vs NL Central, -5 vs the AL. The club should have sent thank you care packages to the entire NL West because the weakness of that division gave the Cardinals life in the post season and they got hot at the right time to win the World Series (along with some help from the fact the Detroit pitching staff apparently forgot how to field balls hit to them).

 

Conventional wisdom says the Cardinals were the best team in 2004, but did not win the title, while they were a middle of the pack team in 2006, but won the title. But does that really matter? Does that mean the Red Sox' title in 2004 is somehow less valuable? Does that mean the Cardinals get an asterisk on their 2006 title? No and no.

 

Again, football is a harder measure because of the limited number of games, but the logic is the same.... the best team in terms of overall play does not always win the title. Getting hot at the right time is still important, as is game preparation in the playoffs. Denver clearly had a better game plan against a Carolina team that, for all intents and purposes, was the class of the league in the regular season. But, in the end, we measure teams in championships. Putting at any other banner is the equivalent of "that's nice". Carolina hanging their hat on a 15-1 regular season is the equivalent of "bless your heart". The notion Carolina is poised to be good again in 2016 is the equivalent of "here's your participation trophy".

 

So, yeah, regular season be damned.... Peyton Manning not being his young self be damned.... Denver nearly giving up the division to KC be damned... Denver won the Super Bowl. All the regular season stuff does not matter.

Edited February 9, 2016 by WorkingAllTheTime

[LedRush]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

It really depends on how you define it. I will use a baseball example (with the understanding baseball is different given the length of the season).

 

In 2004, the St. Louis Cardinals were clearly the class of the sport throughout the regular season.... 105 wins... +25 at home, +23 on the road, +8 vs NL East, +12 vs NL West, +18 vs NL Central, +10 vs the AL (lost only 1 game against an AL team that regular season, in fact). Put simply, they owned baseball that year. And yet they lost, quite badly, the World Series to a very good Boston Wild Card club that got incredibly hot in the post season.

 

In 2006, the St. Louis Cardinals were basically a mediocre team throughout the regular season.... the barely won the division with 83 wins... +18 at home, -13 on the road, +1 vs NL East, +12 vs NL West, -3 vs NL Central, -5 vs the AL. The club should have sent thank you care packages to the entire NL West because the weakness of that division gave the Cardinals life in the post season and they got hot at the right time to win the World Series (along with some help from the fact the Detroit pitching staff apparently forgot how to field balls hit to them).

 

Conventional wisdom says the Cardinals were the best team in 2004, but did not win the title, while they were a middle of the pack team in 2006, but won the title. But does that really matter? Does that mean the Red Sox' title in 2004 is somehow less valuable? Does that mean the Cardinals get an asterisk on their 2006 title? No and no.

 

Again, football is a harder measure because of the limited number of games, but the logic is the same.... the best team in terms of overall play does not always win the title. Getting hot at the right time is still important, as is game preparation in the playoffs. Denver clearly had a better game plan against a Carolina team that, for all intents and purposes, was the class of the league in the regular season. But, in the end, we measure teams in championships. Putting at any other banner is the equivalent of "that's nice". Carolina hanging their hat on a 15-1 regular season is the equivalent of "bless your heart". The notion Carolina is poised to be good again in 2016 is the equivalent of "here's your participation trophy".

 

So, yeah, regular season be damned.... Peyton Manning not being his young self be damned.... Denver nearly giving up the division to KC be damned... Denver won the Super Bowl. All the regular season stuff does not matter.

 

Would anyone say that the two Giants' teams that most recently won the Super Bowl were the best teams those years? I don't think so...even in New York.

[Rick N. Backer]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

[LedRush]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

[Rick N. Backer]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

 

[LedRush]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

Depending on your definition of mediocre, Terry Bradshaw and Jim Plunkett immediately spring to mind. Troy Aikman is another candidate, though I'd consider him a good QB with 4 or 5 very good years (generally aided by his team, of course). The Redskins have won multiple championships with different "mediocre QBs", and you could argue the same is true with the Giants (Simms and Hostetler).

[liquidcrystalcompass]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. It's not a best of seven series. I didn't hear anyone proclaim that Denver was the best team in football this year. But they were when it counted.

[Slack jaw gaze]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

[Slack jaw gaze]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

The early 90s Redskins won with two different, mediocre QBs.If either one of those two had quarterbacked both teams, he would have become overrated and been considered a de-facto "great" simply because he won two Super Bowls.

 

Aikman was a good QB, but there are lots of QBs who would have been effective behind maybe the best OL of all time with one of the best runners.

[laughedatbytime]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

The early 90s Redskins won with two different, mediocre QBs.If either one of those two had quarterbacked both teams, he would have become overrated and been considered a de-facto "great" simply because he won two Super Bowls.

 

Aikman was a good QB, but there are lots of QBs who would have been effective behind maybe the best OL of all time with one of the best runners.

RNB's arguments in this subgroup are based on nothing more than what serves his favorite team. He passed the shameless mark long ago.

[Principled Man]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

[Slack jaw gaze]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

That's the whole point of the thread. The NFL tournament only comes up with the best team about half the time, according to a stat I made up in my head. But it can magically determine who the best players are at 4% of the the starting positions.

[Rick N. Backer]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

The early 90s Redskins won with two different, mediocre QBs.If either one of those two had quarterbacked both teams, he would have become overrated and been considered a de-facto "great" simply because he won two Super Bowls.

 

Aikman was a good QB, but there are lots of QBs who would have been effective behind maybe the best OL of all time with one of the best runners.

 

The Redskins won in 87 and 91. Rypien was anything but mediocre throughout 91, and in 87 Williams was pretty decent as well.

 

Aikman's in the HOF. He may not have thrown for 375 yards per game, but, as I've argued elsewhere, fantasy stats aren't necessarily the best way to evaluate a player's importance to a team's success.

[Rick N. Backer]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

 

They exposed the Patriots' flaws that day. They came close to doing it in NJ in week 16.

 

By the way LABT, that week 16 game was an impressive road win.

[laughedatbytime]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

 

They exposed the Patriots' flaws that day. They came close to doing it in NJ in week 16.

 

By the way LABT, that week 16 game was an impressive road win.

If you say so. Wasn't a meaningful game in any way, and it was actually week 17 but whatever.

[Rick N. Backer]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

 

They exposed the Patriots' flaws that day. They came close to doing it in NJ in week 16.

 

By the way LABT, that week 16 game was an impressive road win.

If you say so. Wasn't a meaningful game in any way, and it was actually week 17 but whatever.

 

Really? A game where they completed a sweep of the regular season wasn't meaningful?

[laughedatbytime]

What's the difference between the best team at the end of the year and the best team in the league?

 

Exactly one game. It occurs in February.

I'm not sure how they aren't the same team.

 

The Giants were actually a better team than the 18-0 Patriots?

 

For one game, they were.

 

In the 2007 regular season, the Giants lost to Green Bay, New England and Dallas twice. In the post-season, they beat Dallas, Green Bay and then New England to win the Championship.

 

This is the Great Paradox of team sports: Being the "best team" is irrelevant. If you don't show up in the Tournament and play your best, you will LOSE. Your opponent will get the Trophy and parades.

 

They exposed the Patriots' flaws that day. They came close to doing it in NJ in week 16.

 

By the way LABT, that week 16 game was an impressive road win.

If you say so. Wasn't a meaningful game in any way, and it was actually week 17 but whatever.

 

Really? A game where they completed a sweep of the regular season wasn't meaningful?

I suppose it was, from the standpoint that it made it all the more embarrassing when they lost in the playoffs. And a lot more kids in the third world got clothed as a result.

 

You win this one.

[Cyclonus X-1]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

The early 90s Redskins won with two different, mediocre QBs.If either one of those two had quarterbacked both teams, he would have become overrated and been considered a de-facto "great" simply because he won two Super Bowls.

 

Aikman was a good QB, but there are lots of QBs who would have been effective behind maybe the best OL of all time with one of the best runners.

 

The Redskins won in 87 and 91. Rypien was anything but mediocre throughout 91, and in 87 Williams was pretty decent as well.

 

Aikman's in the HOF. He may not have thrown for 375 yards per game, but, as I've argued elsewhere, fantasy stats aren't necessarily the best way to evaluate a player's importance to a team's success.

 

Yes. I think very few people who actually saw Rypien play during that '91 season would say he was mediocre that year.

 

And Aikman wasn't merely effective; he was one of the great players who made those Cowboys teams so dominant. He wasn't just along for the dynastic ride.

[Slack jaw gaze]

I would argue that Dilfer certainly played better in the Super Bowl than Marino did in his only career appearance. And that's really the point. Fantasy football stats are fine for fantasy football. They're not close to being a guarantee of success on the field.

 

The 2006 Colts werent close to being Manning's best team statistically. But they are the only team with which Manning won before Sunday.

 

Statistics are the best (or perhaps among the best) way to determine how good a player is, particularly with a large sample size and the proper context. Team championships is a horrible measure of how good a player is.

 

Is there a position in sports more important to a team's success than QB? Can you think of a team that has won multiple championships with a mediocre QB? I mean other than the Patriots in your estimation.

 

The early 90s Redskins won with two different, mediocre QBs.If either one of those two had quarterbacked both teams, he would have become overrated and been considered a de-facto "great" simply because he won two Super Bowls.

 

Aikman was a good QB, but there are lots of QBs who would have been effective behind maybe the best OL of all time with one of the best runners.

 

The Redskins won in 87 and 91. Rypien was anything but mediocre throughout 91, and in 87 Williams was pretty decent as well.

 

Aikman's in the HOF. He may not have thrown for 375 yards per game, but, as I've argued elsewhere, fantasy stats aren't necessarily the best way to evaluate a player's importance to a team's success.

 

Those two were good those years because they played for great teams. Neither is in danger of stumbling into Canton.

 

The better players on great teams are generally over-rated, and the great players on bad teams are generally under-rated. Or at least they are in the ESPN talking head age. Butkus and Sayers are properly recognized as greats because they played in the days when players were rated by how good they were at their position.

 

Marino was better than Aikman. Aikman is the Bart Starr of his era. Very good quarterbacks who benefit historically from being surrounded by many other great players.