tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post3987353454727124903..comments2024-03-11T15:46:13.155-04:00Comments on In The Arena: Ruminations About Competition: The Most Overinflated "Scandal" EverDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-11905201252954613282015-02-01T15:04:52.951-05:002015-02-01T15:04:52.951-05:00Vednam:
It is nice to hear from you.
Yes, I do t...Vednam:<br /><br />It is nice to hear from you.<br /><br />Yes, I do think that "ring counting," as you call it, is important, but I try to put "ring counting" in a larger overall context. If I did not do that, then I would corner myself into saying that Robert Horry is a Pantheon-level player and that John Paxson is greater than Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, etc.<br /><br />I look at Manning's Super Bowl record in a larger context; many of the other candidates for greatest quarterback of all-time have better overall playoff resumes than Manning does. That should count for something. Also, even though it made sense to bet on the field over Tiger Woods in a given event during Woods' prime, Woods won more events during his prime than any of his rivals did--and that is the point: at the end of the day, the greatest players/teams are going to win more championships than their rivals in most cases.<br /><br />The statistical point that I--and others--are trying to make regarding "Spygate" is that New England's "failure" to win a championship in the years immediately following "Spygate" does not somehow prove that New England's three titles are in any way tainted.<br /><br />However, unless one believes that the titles are tainted, I think that it is worth noting that Brady has won three rings and Manning has only won one ring. The comparison/discussion does not end there but that is at least a good place to start and certainly something that must be considered.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444347475303187373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6812670776373470303.post-1130746466880037172015-01-31T02:58:51.770-05:002015-01-31T02:58:51.770-05:00Hi David, this is Vednam.
It's good that some...Hi David, this is Vednam.<br /><br />It's good that someone has been able to inject some sanity into the discussion. I can't believe how much people have been obsessing over this "scandal." Even if the Patriots did tamper with the footballs, I suspect that the rules are routinely bent in many little ways by virtually every team. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. (Think back to the "cheating is encouraged" attitude of Al Davis' Raiders, and how it's celebrated in NFL Films footage.)<br /><br />I must say, however, that I am a bit surprised that you invoked probability and sample size into the discussion. You pointed out that "the best NFL team wins the Super Bowl less than 25% of the time." I actually do not have any problems with such a statement. But haven't you consistently been an advocate of "ring counting" when it comes to assessing the place in history of a player or team? For example, after last year's Super Bowl, you compared Peyton Manning's Super Bowl record of 1-2 against other great quarterbacks to show how he fell short. You rightly point out how ridiculous it is to make a big deal out of the Patriots having won three Super Bowls before spygate and zero after spygate. A few plays go differently, and the Patriots could have won three (or more) Super Bowls since 2007, and they might not have won any of the three they won from 2001-04. The point is, the Patriots have consistently been among the very best teams in football. So why make so much of Manning's Super Bowl record (for example)? In some hypothetical world where each Super Bowl could be replayed 100 times, how many times would Peyton Manning come away with a 1-2 record? How many times would Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana end up going 4-0? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com