you're on the road
but you've got no destination
you're in the mud
in the maze of her imagination-"Beautiful Day"
U2
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
What Would We Do, Baby, Without us... Sha-na-na-na!
Without a doubt, the best use of the term "Sha-Na-Na-Na" in a song. Also, extra points for the use of the phrase "ain't no nothing."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
My take on ESPN's ranking of the best NFL Teams
ESPN has gone done it again. They decided to rank the best NFL teams, since the NFL-AFL merger. Now, you may remember when I wrote about how they butchered their list of best Super Bowl teams (and placed the 1991 Redskins at #10). One of my main issues with that list was that it was pretty arbitrary... there was no tangible explanation or formula to their madness.
Well, fortunately this time they gave their list a formula. But, of course, they seem to have butchered the formula this time around. My main issue with this formula is the serious underscoring of Super Bowl championships. I'll elaborate on this as we go along but let's start where they seemed to have started:
Winning percentage: I don't really have a problem with this calculation in which a team gets one point per mill (i.e. .500 = 500 points). The difference between the best (.608) and worst (.333) percentages is 275 points, and that seems like a fair start. However....
Super Bowls: Like I said, they SERIOUSLY underscore a Super Bowl win (50 pts) and they terribly overscore a Super Bowl loss (25 pts). To them, it is better to lose three Super Bowls (75 pts) than it is to win one (50 pts). Now if the ridiculousness of that calculations isn't apparent, just ask any Bills fans if they would trade their four Super Bowl losses (100 pts) for two Super Bowl wins and two AFC championship losses (100 pts). 50 points for a Super Bowl win would start to seem right if a Super Bowl loss was worth nothing, especially considering my next point.
Playoff victories: Ten points per playoff victory seems high. I just can't convince myself that five playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win. But even if we agree that 5 playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win, this high value is an even stronger argument for making a Super Bowl loss worth nothing.
Put it this way, the loser of NFC or AFC Championship can score as little as ten points (If they had a playoff bye). The winner of that Championship game (who goes on to lose the Super Bowl) can score as many as 55 points. That means that the difference between winning the NFC or AFC Championship can be 45 points, which as you know is almost the same as winning a Super Bowl.
12-win season and Four-win season: First, why 12 and 4 wins? Why not 11 and 5 or 10 and 6? It seems extremely arbitrary and excessive to grant 10 points (remember this is the same as a playoff win or 1/5th of a Super Bowl) for a 12-4 season, but a 11-5 season gets no points.
Additionally, these artificial plateaus don't take in to account strength of schedule. It should come as no surprise that New England's 4 12-plus win seasons have come in the past 5 years. So because the Pats were fortunate enough to have 6 games per season against the lowly Bills, Jets and Dolphins they get an extra 40 points. They essentially get a Super Bowl win because they played in a weak conference.
All-Pros: Now here is where things start getting silly. First, five points is just way too much (that's 1/10th of a Super Bowl!). Second, why only 1st team All-Pros? Why ignore the 2nd team and Pro-Bowl selections? Third, All-Pro selections vary because it's not just the Associated Press making selections. For instance check out the 1987 All-Pro selections in John Elway was 1st team for NEA and Sporting News and Joe Montana was 1st team for the AP, Pro Football Writers, and Pro Football Weekly. So why is one of these organizations selections better than the others?
Besides, what does it matter? All-Pro selections are the epitome of individual achievement and we're talking about the best teams, not the teams with the best individual players. And, yes, I can understand looking for a way to measure "Individual Star Power" but All-Pro selections are not the way to do it. You're just not going to get "star power" from most of the positions... Honestly, who was the last "star" All-Pro center or defensive tackle?
"MNF": MNF, which stands for Monday Night Football appearances... Did I mention how this is getting silly? At least they're not giving this more than one point, but even one point seems excessive.
Coaching changes: Now we're heading back to ridiculous land. So let me get this straight, a coaching change (-10 pts) negates a playoff win? And if that's not dumb enough, they count interim coaches! I don't even know how to respond to how stupid that is. At least the difference between the most (New England with -120) and least (Houston and Jacksonville with -10) coaching changes isn't huge at 110 points, but it still represents the equivalent of more than 2 Super Bowl wins. Are you following me here with the idea that Super Bowls are scored too low.
Crushing postseason defeats: I understand what they're trying to do here, but there are too many problems with the way they did it. First, this is WAY overscored. Two of these and you practically negate a Super Bowl win? Second, why limit this list to only 25 games. Third, I seriously doubt the Music City Miracle which was a Wild Card game, was as crushing a defeat as the Patriots loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl earlier this year. Finally, there are no points for being on the winning end of those games. I'm sure it's even sweeter for Giants fans that they defeated the 17-0 Patriots.
Busts: Here we have landed smack dab in the middle of Dumb-land. First, the 10 points lost here are WAY too much. If we are to believe this, the Chicago Bears' lone Super Bowl is practically 1/2 negated by their two busts. Second, not all busts are the same. As a Redskins fan, I can assure you that wide receiver Michael Westbrook (#50 on the list) wasn't anywhere near as disappointing as quarterback Heath Shuler (#4 on the list). At least we got one respectable season out of Westbrook. But in the eyes of ESPN they were equal. Third, why only count draft busts and not free agent and trade busts?
So with that said, and with much more emphasis on Super Bowl wins allow me to reorder the top 10:
So once again I disagree with where the ESPN ranks the Skins: 5th place at worst for me vs 8th place for ESPN. Well that should be no surprise I guess... since obviously they're wrong.
Well, fortunately this time they gave their list a formula. But, of course, they seem to have butchered the formula this time around. My main issue with this formula is the serious underscoring of Super Bowl championships. I'll elaborate on this as we go along but let's start where they seemed to have started:
Winning percentage: I don't really have a problem with this calculation in which a team gets one point per mill (i.e. .500 = 500 points). The difference between the best (.608) and worst (.333) percentages is 275 points, and that seems like a fair start. However....
Super Bowls: Like I said, they SERIOUSLY underscore a Super Bowl win (50 pts) and they terribly overscore a Super Bowl loss (25 pts). To them, it is better to lose three Super Bowls (75 pts) than it is to win one (50 pts). Now if the ridiculousness of that calculations isn't apparent, just ask any Bills fans if they would trade their four Super Bowl losses (100 pts) for two Super Bowl wins and two AFC championship losses (100 pts). 50 points for a Super Bowl win would start to seem right if a Super Bowl loss was worth nothing, especially considering my next point.
Playoff victories: Ten points per playoff victory seems high. I just can't convince myself that five playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win. But even if we agree that 5 playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win, this high value is an even stronger argument for making a Super Bowl loss worth nothing.
Put it this way, the loser of NFC or AFC Championship can score as little as ten points (If they had a playoff bye). The winner of that Championship game (who goes on to lose the Super Bowl) can score as many as 55 points. That means that the difference between winning the NFC or AFC Championship can be 45 points, which as you know is almost the same as winning a Super Bowl.
12-win season and Four-win season: First, why 12 and 4 wins? Why not 11 and 5 or 10 and 6? It seems extremely arbitrary and excessive to grant 10 points (remember this is the same as a playoff win or 1/5th of a Super Bowl) for a 12-4 season, but a 11-5 season gets no points.
Additionally, these artificial plateaus don't take in to account strength of schedule. It should come as no surprise that New England's 4 12-plus win seasons have come in the past 5 years. So because the Pats were fortunate enough to have 6 games per season against the lowly Bills, Jets and Dolphins they get an extra 40 points. They essentially get a Super Bowl win because they played in a weak conference.
All-Pros: Now here is where things start getting silly. First, five points is just way too much (that's 1/10th of a Super Bowl!). Second, why only 1st team All-Pros? Why ignore the 2nd team and Pro-Bowl selections? Third, All-Pro selections vary because it's not just the Associated Press making selections. For instance check out the 1987 All-Pro selections in John Elway was 1st team for NEA and Sporting News and Joe Montana was 1st team for the AP, Pro Football Writers, and Pro Football Weekly. So why is one of these organizations selections better than the others?
Besides, what does it matter? All-Pro selections are the epitome of individual achievement and we're talking about the best teams, not the teams with the best individual players. And, yes, I can understand looking for a way to measure "Individual Star Power" but All-Pro selections are not the way to do it. You're just not going to get "star power" from most of the positions... Honestly, who was the last "star" All-Pro center or defensive tackle?
"MNF": MNF, which stands for Monday Night Football appearances... Did I mention how this is getting silly? At least they're not giving this more than one point, but even one point seems excessive.
Coaching changes: Now we're heading back to ridiculous land. So let me get this straight, a coaching change (-10 pts) negates a playoff win? And if that's not dumb enough, they count interim coaches! I don't even know how to respond to how stupid that is. At least the difference between the most (New England with -120) and least (Houston and Jacksonville with -10) coaching changes isn't huge at 110 points, but it still represents the equivalent of more than 2 Super Bowl wins. Are you following me here with the idea that Super Bowls are scored too low.
Crushing postseason defeats: I understand what they're trying to do here, but there are too many problems with the way they did it. First, this is WAY overscored. Two of these and you practically negate a Super Bowl win? Second, why limit this list to only 25 games. Third, I seriously doubt the Music City Miracle which was a Wild Card game, was as crushing a defeat as the Patriots loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl earlier this year. Finally, there are no points for being on the winning end of those games. I'm sure it's even sweeter for Giants fans that they defeated the 17-0 Patriots.
Busts: Here we have landed smack dab in the middle of Dumb-land. First, the 10 points lost here are WAY too much. If we are to believe this, the Chicago Bears' lone Super Bowl is practically 1/2 negated by their two busts. Second, not all busts are the same. As a Redskins fan, I can assure you that wide receiver Michael Westbrook (#50 on the list) wasn't anywhere near as disappointing as quarterback Heath Shuler (#4 on the list). At least we got one respectable season out of Westbrook. But in the eyes of ESPN they were equal. Third, why only count draft busts and not free agent and trade busts?
So with that said, and with much more emphasis on Super Bowl wins allow me to reorder the top 10:
- Dallas Cowboys - I can agree with them being first over the 49ers and Steelers for one reason, their 5 Super Bowls are the most evenly spread out.
- Pittsburgh Steelers - I put them in front of the 49ers because they have been more consistent than the 49ers and although most of their Super Bowl wins were in the mid to late 70s, they did finally get their fifth a few years ago.
- San Francisco 49ers - So far I've agreed with ESPN and that won't change here. As ESPN notes, their glory days span 16 years in the 1980s and early 90s. Aside from that time they have been less than stellar.
- Oakland Raiders - Here is the first point I disagree with ESPN. Basically, to me going 3-1 in Super Bowls is better than going 2-3 especially when Oakland's last SB appearance and victory were more recent. Sure the timeline shouldn't matter for the formula (a SB I win is as good as a SB XXX win), but I still think Oakland has a better overall history.
- New England Patriots - I can certainly see an argument for putting the Pats before the Raiders, but Oakland has the better overall winning percentage and not as many SB loses. In fact, I think Oakland, New England and the next team area all very close.
- Washington Redskins - I was tempted to put the Skins above the Pats but, besides the fact that I could easily make a case for the Skins (better winning percentage, not as many SB loses), I just didn't want to seem like such a homer. But like I said before spots 3-5 could very easily be considered spots 3a, 3b and 3c.
So once again I disagree with where the ESPN ranks the Skins: 5th place at worst for me vs 8th place for ESPN. Well that should be no surprise I guess... since obviously they're wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)