Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

@throwuascenario sparked a debate about what defines a great team...and I thought that that debate can continue here...

 

 

2007 Giants>2007 Patriots

 

Love this. If you didn't read the admittedly tangential other thread, I passionately disagree with the bottom statement. Would love to hear reasons why I'm wrong.

 

  

3 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Why have playoffs if the most wins in the regular season is the ultimate determination of the best team? The NFL used to do that. It doesn't any more, and hasn't since the early 30s (off the top of my head).  MLB has NEVER done it that way. NBA, NHL the same.

 

Yes, sometimes when everyone else (or nearly everyone else) disagrees with you, it's an indication that you are, in fact, wrong.  Ancient Arab proverb "If one man calls you a camel, ignore him. If two men do, grab yourself a saddle."

 

You can't thing of a $ingle reason that they have playoffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2007 Pats had the better season. The Giants won the championship game. Therefore, based on the metrics we use in American sports to define the better team, the Giants are better.

 

Could the Giants win a series best 4 out of 7? Unlikely. But that's not how we do American football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say this right now: KEEP IT CIVIL IN THIS THREAD. There was a lot of sniping and combative behaviour in the thread where this debate started, and if it continues in this thread, it will get shut down.

 

You can express your opinions, and you can disagree with others' opinions, but play nice or we're done here and warning points will be given out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

The 2007 Pats had the better season. The Giants won the championship game. Therefore, based on the metrics we use in American sports to define the better team, the Giants are better.

 

Could the Giants win a series best 4 out of 7? Unlikely. But that's not how we do American football.

 

But there's just no logic applied there. The Giants and Patriots split the season series and the Patriots lost 5 games fewer? Besides "that's how it's always been done" (which is the worst reason to do anything), what argument could be made that the Giants were better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great team is defined by the people who think that team is great.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

But there's just no logic applied there. The Giants and Patriots split the season series and the Patriots lost 5 games fewer? Besides "that's how it's always been done" (which is the worst reason to do anything), what argument could be made that the Giants were better?

 

The logic is the shared definitions of the game. In pro football, the regular season is for playoff seeding and the single elimination playoff tournament produces the best team. The Giants won that tournament, therefore, they're the best team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

A great team is defined by the people who think that team is great.

 

Exactly. I think the Seahawks are great. I’ve thought that since 1976. But that is merely my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that the only games the Super Bowl LII Champion Philadelphia Eagles lost in 2017 were due to either just running out of time or games that didn't really matter, so they were basically undefeated when they handed Tom Brady his ass in the Bowl, so that fact makes them the best team ever. 

 

The fact is that they would have beaten the 2007 Patriots and 2007 Giants.  They'd have a 66 2/3% chance of beating the Shula Dolphins, but most of them are dead, so the Eagles would get their 50% odds in the game, meaning that they would have a 116 2/3% chance to beat the only undefeated team in American football, which makes the Super Bowl LII Champion Philadelphia Eagles the greatest team in North American team sports history ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

But there's just no logic applied there.

Yes there is. The Giants won the championship game. 

That's how we decide who the champion is. 

 

"That doesn't make them the better team!" 

Yes. It does. Ask any Pats fan if they would have preferred to lose that last regular season game to the Giants but beat them in the Super Bowl and they'd all take that. 

 

In short, wanna be the best team? Win the hardware*.
 

 

*offer not valid for the NHL President's Trophy 

 

Some other examples- 

 

The 2015-2016 Golden State Warriors won more games during the regular season than any other team in history. Breaking the record set by a team led by most people's GOAT pick. 

 

Are the 2015-2016 Golden State Warriors the greatest basketball team ever? No, because they blew a 3-1 series lead in the championship series to the Cavs. 

So not only are they not the best basketball team ever, they're also a go-to example for choking in clutch moments in sports. 

 

Speaking of choking...let's swing back to the NFL. 

 

The 2016 Atlanta Falcons set all sorts of records that year for offensive production. Going on regular season stats alone you could say that team is one of the best offensive units to play the game.

Does anyone consider them that though? No, because the Falcons blew a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl. In part because that offence fell apart past their first series in the third quarter. 
 

I don't care how good your regular season stats are. You're not one of the best offences in NFL history if you can't score for nearly half the Super Bowl and allow the other guys to erase a twenty-five point deficit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing the debate from the NFL uniform thread:

 

What you are proposing makes perfect sense, except only in a competition type that strictly emphasizes regular season success. If that’s what you want, then go support any top soccer league in Europe where the league winner is the team with the most points at season’s end (3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw). American sports emphasize a playoff where the regular season weeds out the middle and bottom tier teams and there are usually incentives for being a top seed (first round bye, a matchup against a lower seed, etc). When the entire competition is designed to funnel teams towards a championship style match, why are you trying to say the championship is meaningless and the regular season is what matters? Makes no sense. If that’s the case, why bother with the postseason? This is a debate not worth having.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Are the 2015-2016 Golden State Warriors the greatest basketball team ever? No, because they blew a 3-1 series lead in the championship series to the Cavs. 

 

Based on the logic used in this thread, that makes the 2015-16 Cavs the greatest team of all time. 'Bout time someone noticed.

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously- the argument that the team that wins the championship isn't the best team is in line with that one Wild fan who tried to insist that the Minnesota Wild were the best team in the NHL, aside from the scoring goals stat. 

 

Sorry buddy, you can't claim to be gone best if you don't finish the job. And the job is winning the championship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is that neither the Warriors nor Cavs defeated the 2017 Eagles, so just make sure to keep using the 'basketball' qualifier when discussing where they stand in history, because the fact is that neither of those teams did what that Eagles team did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I do think there's more variance in football and NCAA basketball.

 

Say Tom Brady got injured in the 2007 Super Bowl. I think that would have called for a clear asterisk. And as it is, the Pats only lost that game because of a miracle, unrepeatable catch. There's bad luck, and then there's really bad luck.

 

I think champion and "best" aren't exactly interchangeable, but I would rather be champion. The 2016 MLS champion Sounders won a title game in freezing weather in PKs without registering a single shot on goal. Were they the better team that game? Or were they just lucky not to have Michael Bradley?

 

I think it's a fun discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Seriously- the argument that the team that wins the championship isn't the best team is in line with that one Wild fan who tried to insist that the Minnesota Wild were the best team in the NHL, aside from the scoring goals stat. 

 

That Wild fan was right. Other than being able to score more goals than the other team, that Wild team was every bit as great as the 80's Oilers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BBTV said:

The fact is that neither the Warriors nor Cavs defeated the 2017 Eagles, so just make sure to keep using the 'basketball' qualifier when discussing where they stand in history, because the fact is that neither of those teams did what that Eagles team did.

The 2017 Eagles never beat the 1993 Blue Jays though. 

 

Check. And. Mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that the playoffs are basically just a tournament, and since all you need to do to get in is just meet the minimum requirement, so while I do agree that winning a tournament at the end doesn't always mean anything other than that you were the champion of that tournament, it's the only concrete measure we have.  

 

There's a lot to be said for coming up small when it matters most, and while the Patriots might beat the Giants 9 out of 10 times, the 1 happened when it mattered most.  The Giants won the tournament, and their fans partied and enjoyed a parade.  The fact is that not all games count equally, and the Patriots choked in the one that mattered most.  If my life was on the line and they were playing again, I'd bet on the Patriots every single day, but all we really know as a fact is that the Giants beat them when it mattered.  You could argue that the Giants were the best team the whole time, they just didn't wear themselves out by doing anything more than the bare minimum to qualify - which makes them brilliant.

 

Winning a championship is like throwing a no hitter.  It doesn't necessarily establish greatness - it confirms it.  Not all teams that win are great.  But the truly great ones always win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BBTV said:

The fact is that neither the Warriors nor Cavs defeated the 2017 Eagles, so just make sure to keep using the 'basketball' qualifier when discussing where they stand in history, because the fact is that neither of those teams did what that Eagles team did.

 

Anyone who knows anything knows that the 2017 Eagles had a few chances to play the 2015-16 Cavs and the Eagles backed out every time. Bunch of pansies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

 

But there's just no logic applied there. The Giants and Patriots split the season series and the Patriots lost 5 games fewer? Besides "that's how it's always been done" (which is the worst reason to do anything), what argument could be made that the Giants were better?

 

The Giants did it when the lights were brightest and the pressure was on. That's what separates good from great, not regular season statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.