Warrior General Games

Originally posted by xManning1018x
USA A > EE AAA?

Can anyone defeat my logic? Only the best team wins,, and therefore USA A > EE AAA.

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert


This doesnt address my question of what if an NFL team had to play a 3 game series, do those 2nd and 3rd games not qualify for "winning when it matters most"?

And I'm the biggest football fan on the planet. It's possible to tie me, but you can't beat me on that.

They would since if you didn't win them yhou wouldn't win the series. What are you getting at?

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

This doesnt address my question of what if an NFL team had to play a 3 game series, do those 2nd and 3rd games not qualify for "winning when it matters most"?



If they did, they would. But they don't. So its a meaningless hypothetical. Might as well ask what would happen if they played on the moon.

The mental toughness to be able to deliver in a single elimination setting is part of the equation.

Woah

I make a joke thread and it explodes in anger at me early on

Did no one notice I actually play in USA Pro so I'm not "trolling" these forums as much as posting in a forum I play in? Sarcastic post even.

Calm the hell down people in that respect.

As for anything else

damn people

Originally posted by BullFrogOnNet
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert



This doesnt address my question of what if an NFL team had to play a 3 game series, do those 2nd and 3rd games not qualify for "winning when it matters most"?

And I'm the biggest football fan on the planet. It's possible to tie me, but you can't beat me on that.

They would since if you didn't win them yhou wouldn't win the series. What are you getting at?

LOL because you said what's important is performing when it counts, so if those games count just as much as the first one, then logically IF we took 2 scenarios, one with a 1 game Super Bowl and 1 with a 3 game Super Bowl, dont' both of them meet the qualifications of your requirements since they all matter and the players care and have to do it when it counts? Your answer above says yes.

Now, since we established yes to that, IF we have those 2 sets, and you had to determine say the NFC champion that won 2/3 and an AFC champion that won 1/3, wouldn't you say that statisically it is more probable that the NFC champion was a better team than their opponent as compared to the AFC champion versus there opponent?

Before you answer, let me add AFC and NFC are just name variables, in this hypothetical we assume both conferences are exactly equal and let's say we have 4 very close quality teams of which none are discernibly better than any other in your opinion.

This now means that the team that won the 1 game could have just had a statistically lucky break that the coin hit heads instead of tails, whereas the team that won a large series has more validity to winning the battle due to the larger sample size.

If the NYG played the Patriots one million times, wouldnt all of those matter when they count, dont they all count? Well if one game counts less, by what factor does it count less? 1 million? Either way it all balances out, but statistically you have more data to work from.

If Team A wins a series 842,352 to the Team B's 158,648, wouldnt you say that the first team is better than the 2nd team with more certainty than another hypothetical example of Team A beating Team B in a 1-0 shootout?

To me, that 1-0 could be chance luck and have not necessarily been the better team, but if a team can crush another team in a 1M game series by winning an extra nearly 700,000 games, to me that is VERY significant given the sample size of who is the better team.

I will say that out of 400 champions in the last 100 years of the 4 main sports, you'd be lucky to find 100 times that the best team won, it would possibly be less than 100. It's just not practical for the very best team on day 1 to defeat a field in professional sports due to statistical chance and luck that can circumvent skill and talent and being the best team in terms of their overall abilities.

Applying Statistics to this arguement doesn't help your cause but any game or games(best of series) that eventually leads to winning the end all be all to be the best team or champion of that season is the best team. Period. Even if statistics would note otherwise if played out to a larger sample size. In a Statistics class you get an "A" for that effort though, .

For you and your leagues sake I hope you don't lose the Pro league championship for fear of seeing a quantatative explanantion why your team is better than the team you lost to even though you lost.

I'm not talking about statistics in my above post, I'm talking about deductive logic. It's not a math problem. It's a logical problem. The premise is very simple... the best team just can't be a 30 team field, they are overmatched. Going to some number extrapolations above is just one method of putting that into perspective. You can have baseball in a 7 game world series, or football in a one game Super Bowl, or a one single point ping pong match where the first point determines the winner, and in any sport, the number of times you play doesnt change the nature of the argument that you are not going to have an clearly identified best team by one game.

By the same token, if DDL wins the Pro League, that could be a statistical fluke in the mind of another team that feels they are the best team. We are part of the field to that other team. I personally believe that we are the best team, but that's irrelevant because it is not something that is possible to prove or disprove.

Well maybe your logic clouds the reality of the situation then. Your logic clearly leaves out the intangibles which we have explained to you for a while tonight. At this point my will to go on is sapped. Proceed in your delusion.

LOL, I account for intangibles in a FAR FAR more comprehensive way than your outlook does. It blows my mind that you would say that, but to each his own! Good luck to you in your lifetime of alternative theories of which I don't understand!

Originally posted by The Strategy Expert
Originally posted by purehatred



If you can't cowboy up and win when it matters most you are not 'the best team.'

Are you even a football fan? Honestly?

This doesnt address my question of what if an NFL team had to play a 3 game series, do those 2nd and 3rd games not qualify for "winning when it matters most"?

And I'm the biggest football fan on the planet. It's possible to tie me, but you can't beat me on that.

TSE you can go with all the what ifs you want but the team who won the Super Bowl IS the best team. They got it done in the crunch time and won when it mattered. There are more than just numbers in Football...some teams don't shine and put up huge numbers but merely know how to win ugly.

Nice thread - however, I believe the point of a championship game is to find the winner of the championship, and not the best team - hence the expression may the best team win - because it is not given, that the best team will win, and to argue who truly is the best team, would lead nowhere. Championships in general are a bad way of deciding the best team, leagues are a way better way, for obvious reasons. Championships are just far more entertaining

Your logical reasoning isnt false, it just isnt relevant to the aim of the game. The best is only the deserving to be champions, if they can perform in the predecided game of fate. So I would argue, that what one might consider the best team, is merely the team with the greatest potential - and the team that wins the final, is the team that capitialized the best from their potential.

Originally posted by jrry32
Originally posted by The Strategy Expert

Originally posted by purehatred




If you can't cowboy up and win when it matters most you are not 'the best team.'

Are you even a football fan? Honestly?

This doesnt address my question of what if an NFL team had to play a 3 game series, do those 2nd and 3rd games not qualify for "winning when it matters most"?

And I'm the biggest football fan on the planet. It's possible to tie me, but you can't beat me on that.

TSE you can go with all the what ifs you want but the team who won the Super Bowl IS the best team. They got it done in the crunch time and won when it mattered. There are more than just numbers in Football...some teams don't shine and put up huge numbers but merely know how to win ugly.
That's fine, I just completely disagree with your opinion.

Originally posted by Jumpingjak
Nice thread - however, I believe the point of a championship game is to find the winner of the championship, and not the best team - hence the expression may the best team win - because it is not given, that the best team will win, and to argue who truly is the best team, would lead nowhere. Championships in general are a bad way of deciding the best team, leagues are a way better way, for obvious reasons. Championships are just far more entertaining

Your logical reasoning isnt false, it just isnt relevant to the aim of the game. The best is only the deserving to be champions, if they can perform in the predecided game of fate. So I would argue, that what one might consider the best team, is merely the team with the greatest potential - and the team that wins the final, is the team that capitialized the best from their potential.


I agree with this though. Championships are more fun, and I'm not suggesting that 1 game isn't a great format for the Super Bowl, all I'm stating is that I have the ability to recognize the importance of a championship while at the same time not getting bamboozled or deluded into automatically assuming that is the best team, because it is not, and that's the issue we were discussing, does the best team always win, and I say absolutely not. Good post by you.

Why was everyone surprised that the Giants won? They almost won the first time they played the Pats and with an extra week to prepare I thought the game could go either way and I am a Pats fan. I don't see how anyone who watched the Pats play all season, especially at the end of the season thought they would demolish the Giants. Their defense was pretty suspect all year long and Plaxico dominated the Packers who have better CBs than the Pats did. Asante Samuel is the kind of guy who takes chances which leads to INTs but also to blown coverages. The Giants exploited it the first game by running things like 2 outs, one shallow, one deep and when Samuel jumped the short out they hit Burress on the long out. I have no idea what Hobbs was doing on that last TD in the Super Bowl but Plax made him look silly. I thought the game would be pretty close and it was. I wish more people would watch football and think for themselves instead of letting ESPN do the thinking for them.

I think TSE would agree that the more games you play the more the likelihood that the best team will win. It just so happens that playing a 7 game football series is not feasible due to injuries.

Edit: just read some more posts. I agree you can never know definitively who is the "best" because that is a subjective characterization.