Jump to content

Are the gods of math against us or with us?


Atlsport
 Share

A Falcons Super Bowl victory would be reached one of these ways  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Which path to winning the Super Bowl do you feel more confident about?

    • Continue undefeated through regular season & playoffs?
      48
    • Lose one more reg season game then start 3 game streak through playoffs?
      7


Recommended Posts

You should consider a few things first. It only takes a 3 game win streak for the #1 seed to win a Super Bowl. The all time longest winning streak by the Atlanta Falcons is 11 games in 1998. It would have been 12 had they won the Super Bowl. If the Falcons win the final two of the season, they would need a 13 game win streak to win it all. The 2007 Patriots won 18 consecutive before losing the Super Bowl. On the flip side, N.E is the only Super Bowl winner (since 98) to have a longer win streak than the Falcons and still win it all after their 03 season. Call it the law of averages or the law of large numbers, but extended streaks of any kind winning or losing defy odds and the longer they continue the more likely it is that they end.

Here are the regular season streaks or finishes of the Super Bowl winners since our last appearance in the game.

98 DEN - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

99 STL - Won 7 of final 8 reg season.

00 BAL - Won final 7 reg season.

01 N.E. - Won final 6 reg season.

02 TB - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

03 N.E.- Won final 12 reg season.

04 N.E.- Won 3 of final 4 reg season.

05 PIT - Won 4 of last 7 reg season.

06 IND - Lost 3 of final 5 reg season.

07 NYG - Won 3 of final 5 reg season.

08 PIT - Won 4 of 5 final reg season.

09 N.0. - Lost 3 of final 4 reg season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, so far its unanimous 5-0. I doubt that all of those who voted that way understood the question or what it means. It's not what do you want to happen. I would definitely want to win it all with a 13 game win streak but that's not the question.

Translated the first choice means that they (you) are more confident that the Falcons could sustain a 13 game win streak to win a Super Bowl, than just a 3 or 4 game win streak to win a Super Bowl which is what it would be if they lost one of the last 2 regular season games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to look at factors. Some teams locked their playoff seeding up & did not care if they won or lost games at the end. If NE had not been undefeated at the time, I don't think they would've had that battle of a game in the final regular season game with the Giants. I don't buy into we need to lose a game to keep in grace with numerology theory but I wouldn't mind losing to Carolina (if we beat NO) to save wear & tear on our players & possibly avoid a serious injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pay attention to EVERY guy who ever coached or is coaching now in the NFL they all have one common belief that you hear them profess, and it's a simple statement :

IT'S D.AMN HARD TO WIN IN THE NFL.

Now, with this known constant in mind, a coach.............a team..............an owner............NEVER wants to lose a game. EVER.

Losing breeds more losing. You can't turn on "winning" like it's your hot water faucet.

Once you have developed a winning attitude, a winning culture, a winning habit...........you protect it like your child.

Smitty & staff understand this in spades. The ONLY thing on their mind is winning EVERY game.

And they've become d.amn good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pay attention to EVERY guy who ever coached or is coaching now in the NFL they all have one common belief that you hear them profess, and it's a simple statement :

IT'S D.AMN HARD TO WIN IN THE NFL.

Now, with this known constant in mind, a coach.............a team..............an owner............NEVER wants to lose a game. EVER.

Losing breeds more losing. You can't turn on "winning" like it's your hot water faucet.

Once you have developed a winning attitude, a winning culture, a winning habit...........you protect it like your child.

Smitty & staff understand this in spades. The ONLY thing on their mind is winning EVERY game.

And they've become d.amn good at it.

Gee that's nice, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the level of confidence in winning a Super Bowl via a 13 game win streak or via a 3 or 4 game win streak. I am not talking about nor suggesting throwing a game or even that I want the opposition to win a game but if we did lose one for any reason, then its very reasonable that our chances of winning the Super Bowl might be even higher than by sustaining a long streak.

Its a paradox hidden to many but real just the same. Their ability to start a new streak wouldn't be derailed by a late season loss, no more than it was by the 2 losses earlier in the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should consider a few things first. It only takes a 3 game win streak for the #1 seed to win a Super Bowl. The all time longest winning streak by the Atlanta Falcons is 11 games in 1998. It would have been 12 had they won the Super Bowl. If the Falcons win the final two of the season, they would need a 13 game win streak to win it all. The 2007 Patriots won 18 consecutive before losing the Super Bowl. On the flip side, N.E is the only Super Bowl winner (since 98) to have a longer win streak than the Falcons and still win it all after their 03 season. Call it the law of averages or the law of large numbers, but extended streaks of any kind winning or losing defy odds and the longer they continue the more likely it is that they end.

Here are the regular season streaks or finishes of the Super Bowl winners since our last appearance in the game.

98 DEN - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

99 STL - Won 7 of final 8 reg season.

00 BAL - Won final 7 reg season.

01 N.E. - Won final 6 reg season.

02 TB - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

03 N.E.- Won final 12 reg season.

04 N.E.- Won 3 of final 4 reg season.

05 PIT - Won 4 of last 7 reg season.

06 IND - Lost 3 of final 5 reg season.

07 NYG - Won 3 of final 5 reg season.

08 PIT - Won 4 of 5 final reg season.

09 N.0. - Lost 3 of final 4 reg season.

Statistics are what you make them out to be. All they are are numbers for informational purposes and sometimes to look back and say huh...outside of that it has no bearing, meaning or relevance to this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're talking about one point but your stats in all but one example are relevant to an entirely different point.

the question you want discussed is whether it's harder to win a Super Bowl if you come into the playoffs on a long winning streak. but only your New England 18-0 example speaks to that question. (i would hope we can all agree the reasons the '98 Falcons lost had nothing to do with being on a long streak - unless someone is suggesting Eugene Robinson was looking for a hooker with whom he could celebrate the 11 game win streak, lol)

the stats you bring up are mostly about another topic - can a team have a poor last quarter of the season and turn things around in time to win a Super Bowl. that's what all those "lost 3 of last five" examples prove - a team doesn't have to be riding a huge win streak in order to win a Super Bowl.

also, your stats basically prove the obvious: the NFL is a league of parity and every team loses some of their games.

the stats we'd need to see in order to analyze this the way you want would be a list of which teams came into the playoffs with the longest win streaks and how they fared in the playoffs. with the ones you listed - Atlanta's 11 game win streak and the Pats' 18-0, you've actually proven that teams on win streaks do pretty darn well. both of those teams made it all the way to the Super Bowl before losing, and one of them was a big underdog to the defending SB champ (so not really surprising that the Falcons lost that one) which actually went on the road in the NFC championship game and beat a 15-1 team (so maybe long streaks help).

Edited by Kaptain Krazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee that's nice, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the level of confidence in winning a Super Bowl via a 13 game win streak or via a 3 or 4 game win streak. I am not talking about nor suggesting throwing a game or even that I want the opposition to win a game but if we did lose one for any reason, then its very reasonable that our chances of winning the Super Bowl might be even higher than by sustaining a long streak.

Its a paradox hidden to many but real just the same. Their ability to start a new streak wouldn't be derailed by a late season loss, no more than it was by the 2 losses earlier in the season.

I'm afraid this is a little too "Scientific" for my mortal brain. LOL It's like trying to disect an atom.

JUST KEEP WINNING BABY !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're talking about one point but your stats in all but one example are relevant to an entirely different point.

the question you want discussed is whether it's harder to win a Super Bowl if you come into the playoffs on a long winning streak. but only your New England 18-0 example speaks to that question. (i would hope we can all agree the reasons the '98 Falcons lost had nothing to do with being on a long streak - unless someone is suggesting Eugene Robinson was looking for a hooker with whom he could celebrate the 11 game win streak, lol)

the stats you bring up are mostly about another topic - can a team have a poor last quarter of the season and turn things around in time to win a Super Bowl. that's what all those "lost 3 of last five" examples prove - a team doesn't have to be riding a huge win streak in order to win a Super Bowl.

also, your stats basically prove the obvious: the NFL is a league of parity and every team loses some of their games.

the stats we'd need to see in order to analyze this the way you want would be a list of which teams came into the playoffs with the longest win streaks and how they fared in the playoffs. with the ones you listed - Atlanta's 11 game win streak and the Pats' 18-0, you've actually proven that teams on win streaks do pretty darn well. both of those teams made it all the way to the Super Bowl before losing, and one of them was a big underdog to the defending SB champ (so not really surprising that the Falcons lost that one) which actually went on the road in the NFC championship game and beat a 15-1 team (so maybe long streaks help).

Props to you man. Some of the others really missed the idea altogether. The results I posted just show that in that period most teams that win Super Bowls don't do so on long win streaks that stretch back far into the season. The 03 Patriots are an exception in that regard. I didn't look back beyond 98 and can only think of the 72 Dolphins as the only other exception. Maybe some 49ers teams might have rode atop a long win streak on the way to winning it. I would expect that most Super Bowl winners don't have really long streaks.

I never suggested that the Pats lost their last appearance, because of the long streak but its a fact over time that streaks of any kind even extended losing streaks such as the Bucs aren't sustainable and are rarely repeated. The closest math theorem is the law of large numbers What exactly does that mean for us, not that much really other than if we win the next two games then we'll need to accomplish that very few teams in the NFL ever have.

I just put the idea out there, because I deal with the math and probability more than superstitions that others say they think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid this is a little too "Scientific" for my mortal brain. LOL It's like trying to disect an atom.

JUST KEEP WINNING BABY !!!

LOL, I know what you mean. Seriously, things were much easier for me when I was more superstitious and all I had too think about was what I was doing the same as the last win in order to get another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the subject, interesting topic. like you, i've always thought that it put less pressure on a playoff team when they weren't riding a long winning streak, just never looked at the stats to verify my belief.

that's why it wouldn't kill me if ATL lost one of these last two. as long as ATL is the #1 seed and everyone is healthy, i feel good about their chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think it would be a blessing if New Orleans smacked the Falcons right in the mouth. They need to know they're not unbeatable and not unbeatable at home. Tom Brady has an unbelievable home record....during the regular season, but he has lost at home in the playoffs

It's never a bad thing to be served some humble pie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should consider a few things first. It only takes a 3 game win streak for the #1 seed to win a Super Bowl. The all time longest winning streak by the Atlanta Falcons is 11 games in 1998. It would have been 12 had they won the Super Bowl. If the Falcons win the final two of the season, they would need a 13 game win streak to win it all. The 2007 Patriots won 18 consecutive before losing the Super Bowl. On the flip side, N.E is the only Super Bowl winner (since 98) to have a longer win streak than the Falcons and still win it all after their 03 season. Call it the law of averages or the law of large numbers, but extended streaks of any kind winning or losing defy odds and the longer they continue the more likely it is that they end.

Here are the regular season streaks or finishes of the Super Bowl winners since our last appearance in the game.

98 DEN - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

99 STL - Won 7 of final 8 reg season.

00 BAL - Won final 7 reg season.

01 N.E. - Won final 6 reg season.

02 TB - Lost 2 of final 3 reg season.

03 N.E.- Won final 12 reg season.

04 N.E.- Won 3 of final 4 reg season.

05 PIT - Won 4 of last 7 reg season.

06 IND - Lost 3 of final 5 reg season.

07 NYG - Won 3 of final 5 reg season.

08 PIT - Won 4 of 5 final reg season.

09 N.0. - Lost 3 of final 4 reg season.

I call it the Gambler's Fallacy. The fact that we have won X does not effect our chances of winning x+1. The probability of a streak does not attach to any specific part of a series, just the series as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call it the Gambler's Fallacy. The fact that we have won X does not effect our chances of winning x+1. The probability of a streak does not attach to any specific part of a series, just the series as a whole.

What you wrote there is gamblers fallacy. The reference in your next post should be to LLN not LoA, which I referenced earlier and says that large streaks can occur and that the probablilty of the next random even in the series is 50-50 and un-affected by the streak itself. All I'm getting at is that long streaks are possible but anomalous. You've understood better than most what I'm looking at, but probability is extremely high that TATF isn't the place for in depth discussions of math theorems. But speaking for myself, those math theorems are far more interesting than the many mindless topics trying to 'understand' and 'explain' media 'hate'.

What I'm saying with this topic is that I like our chances this year, I just might like them better under a particular set of conditions than another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambler's Fallacy applies to events where unthinking objects determine the outcome: coinflips, blackjack, etc. the coin and cards don't "know" how often certain patterns have occurred, so those patterns don't affect their behavior.

that's not the case with most sports, where the outcomes ARE determined by thinking subjects. there's no such thing as momentum or overconfidence in a coin toss. but in football, those human conditions most certainly exist. winning can give players the confidence they need to play even better, hence increasing the chances they win. OR it can breed complacency, which makes them not try as hard, and thus lower their chances of success.

luckily with the Falcons, Smitty has instilled a work ethic that makes complacency less likely. if only Mularkey wouldn't get so conservative with a lead, the Falcons would blow more teams out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call it the Gambler's Fallacy. The fact that we have won X does not effect our chances of winning x+1. The probability of a streak does not attach to any specific part of a series, just the series as a whole.

It's the same as the coin-flip odds.

If you just flipped 9 heads in a row, what are the odds that the next coin flip will come up heads? 50/50. The odds on a single coin flip is always 50/50, it doesn't matter what has come before.

Mike Smith has focused on the next game--not what they did last week, not what the will do down the line; just the next game. As long as they take that attitude, it will be like the single coin flip. It won't matter what they have done in all the past games, because they are only focused on a single game, and like a single coin flip, the outcome of the previous games does not affect the outcome of a single game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law of averages?

I'll bet you must have excelled in Texas Hold'em poker as well. LOL!

Based on 43 years worth of Falcon football mediocrity, the law of averages says I'm willing to go "All-in" this time winning the next 5 and bring the Lombardi trophy home! :)

Put it this way: 'Fate' does not put a finger on the scales of the game to make it flip back the other way and 'even things out' because you won too many in a row. The only probability that matters is the probability of winning five in a row, the eight before that are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 NFL games (and a maximum of 3 contests between the same teams) is too small a sample to create reliable statistical projections - which is why Vegas works.

All I will add is if quantum theory is correct, somewhere there is a universe where the Falcons have won 44 straight Superbowls, but it is not this one. I'll be happy when Schrodinger and his Cat observe us win the 2011 Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I will add is if quantum theory is correct, somewhere there is a universe where the Falcons have won 44 straight Superbowls, but it is not this one. I'll be happy when Schrodinger and his Cat observe us win the 2011 Superbowl.

does this mean that in some parallel universe, Matt Millen is a good GM?? wow, quantum theory is hard to fathom :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...