The NE Patriots are in the Super Bowl! Again!

I thought both games were excellent and the SB should be as well.

At first, I thought NE was just going to roll over them and then KC woke up and so on. For a while, I thought NE was getting the better breaks (that no touch on the kick was amazing, I don't think it was possible to come any closer to touching the ball.

I will hand it to Reid in that he adjusted and had some really good play calls. In the end, however, KC's defense is just not up to that level.

I was also rooting for NO but Brees looked a bit flat for a lot of the game. In the end, the Chargers Rams just played a little bit better.
 
Last edited:

Ylli

Joined Nov 13, 2015
1,053
So who do we root for? The team that won because of bad officiating or the team that won because of years of cheating?
 
So who do we root for? The team that won because of bad officiating or the team that won because of years of cheating?
You mean the non-call against NO? They already admitted that they blew it.

I think the Rams can beat NE, but my guess is that NE will be a small favorite.

Edited to add: When I looked this morning NE was favored by 1.5-3 points.
 
Last edited:

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,835
How do you think Dee Ford feels right now? The non interception was the end of the game for NE had Ford not been such a bone head.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Brady's been in 8 Super Bowls, but has only won 5. Every Super Bowl has a winner and loser (50/50), so can we say Brady is only a little better than average?

I wish him the best in his quest for #6. Love it when he wins.
 

Thread Starter

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
7,842
Brady's been in 8 Super Bowls, but has only won 5. Every Super Bowl has a winner and loser (50/50), so can we say Brady is only a little better than average?

I wish him the best in his quest for #6. Love it when he wins.
5 of 8 is at least 60%. A little better than a little better.
 

Thread Starter

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
7,842
But perhaps it is. Sample size is important. Of all teams and quarterbacks in the Super Bowl, none have appeared as often as the Patriots and Tom Brady. Given the significant difference in sample size, the difference of 60% is more than reliable. (I can’t calculate it as precisely as your quote.) Brady’s record may not be the best... There are quarterbacks with a 100% success rate, but they did not appear in as many games. Brady has won more Super Bowls than these other quarterbacks; he has appeared in more Super Bowls by a 2:1 margin than these other quarterbacks.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Actually I meant it tongue in cheek.* If I were betting, I would bet on Brady; although, the Rams are pretty good.

My model was that in any Super Bowl, approximately 50% of the QB's win. That could be viewed as a coin toss. On average, you will get 4 heads in 8 tosses. Throwing 5 heads in 8 tosses is not significantly different than throwing 4 heads. Of course, throwing 5 heads in a row -- say on his first 5 appearances -- might be significant (0.5^5 = 0.03), but his longest string is just 2.

There have been many studies of statistics in sports. Most of those studies that I can remember (pre-1985) show very little if any statistically significant differences. Yet, every fan knows from year to year which are the best teams.

John

*Of course, I am ignoring the fact that not many QB's appear in at least 9 Super Bowls during their career.
 

Thread Starter

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
7,842
I knew you were being tongue-in-cheek. But I was pointing out that your example is based on independent events. Hence, your assumption that Super Bowl wins can be considered a coin toss. But in this case, each game is not independent. We are looking at games by one quarterback. I propose that in this case, wins are not independent events. In fact, they are also dependent on Tom Brady. Do these past statistical studies consider individual performance or collective experience? I say not. And hence in my reply to you, I am considering something known as The Brady Factor!
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Actually, the real analyses that I read did take into account the individual's performance as well as others. One way to accomplish the latter (how others affect the result) was described in Scientific American 236(5), May, 1977, pp. 119-127 ("Stein's Paradox in Statistics"). Among other examples, that article analyzes Roberto Clemente's batting average. I did not use that technique as basis for my comment. However, my day job before retirement required continual assessment of errors in laboratory tests. The problem was given a single day's control results, should action be taken immediately, or should one wait another day. James Westgard (https://www.westgard.com/mltirule.htm ) formalized guidelines that were widely used for that purpose, and I was affected by that experience.

In the modern era of the NFL, many games are decided by a late 4th quarter score, often a field goal (e.g., both games last weekend). Arguably, the outcome of those games is almost random. So, I hypothesized that the reason Brady has won so may Super Bowls is merely because he has played in so many and compared his winning percentage to what an average percentage would be. For comparative illustration, Peyton Manning played in 4 Super Bowls and won two.

All of that ignores the fact that it took a great coach, team, and Tom Brady to make it to so many Super Bowls. Not to take away from that accomplishment, if one looks only at Joe Montana's record of 4 Super Bowls and 4 wins, the chance that that is random is less than Brady's performance of 5 out of 8 appearances. Of course, in those days, the NFL was not as balanced as it is today -- even the Cleveland Browns won some games in 2018.

EDIT:
Just came across this:
upload_2019-1-23_13-29-37.png

Mostly great quarterbacks. Their Super Bowl winning percentage was 55% (22/40). If you add Eli Manning (2/2) it increase a little.
 
Last edited:
It's a little off topic of the thread, but it is Sunday and there was football on TV. Well, sort of, I watched the Pro Bowl and it was more of sit com than a competition. Now I remember why I usually skip it.
 
One of the oddest SBs I have watched in recent memory! There was, in total, maybe one quarter of play-off caliber football. In one sense, LA should have been thankful to have been handed the gift of only a 3 point deficit at halftime after playing so poorly. I also don't buy that it was a great defensive struggle, I saw it as a really below par offense....on both sides (especially LA).

Tony Romo as announcer was funny. Insightful, but he could not hold it together after so much bad offense. KC and the NO must be cursing the loudest.

In the end, however, the better team won, so I can't argue with that.
 
Top