New York Giants Defy Data and Logic Yet Again

I’ve always been a fan of European Soccer style leage championships because it pretty much eliminates random chance for the most part - but the big giant winner take-all tourney with cindarella teams having a shot is a fixture in American sports, and i don’t ever see that changing.

What’s the problem?

This is really about the BCS, isn’t it?

You know what, this is a feature, not a bug, but goddamnit, it am gonna be pissed when the Giants win the Super Bowl.

It wouldn’t be a problem in FBS football because 8 of 120 teams would qualify for the postseason (using the most commonly argued-for playoff scenario). That’s abou6 6% of the field. You would have teams with more or less equal resumés. Brickhorn’s problem with the NFL playoffs is 12 of 32 teams get in or about 38% of the field. That leads to less deserving teams playing the spoiler.

Perhaps no one can convince you that they were better, because you have already determined your definition of better. In your definition of better, you consider the regular season to be a statistically significant display of how “good” a team is. But what does that even mean? What do you mean by good here?

Do you mean a team that can keep focused, that desires to win, even if it knows that winning in the regular season isn’t all that important (as is evidenced by the playoffs?)

What if you were willing to change that definition? What if your definition of good was “the team that gets it done when it’s put up or shut up?”

Or “the team that’s the healthiest when the playoffs roll around because they saved themselves in the regular season” etc.

In the end, I’m not even sure what “best” means, but we define the Champion as the team that wins the playoff.

New York lead by Eli Manning, has shown in ten games that he is a pretty good playoff quarterback (compared to say, his brother who has a 9-10 playoff record, but whose teams by your own definition, are “better” than the Giants’ teams that Eli has lead.)

Then again, because of the better regular season records, Peyton’s team had to play better teams in the playoffs, so maybe those playoff records are not comparing similar things.

In conclusion, I have no idea how to even address the topic of your post.

Can’t wait till we get to edit, so that my subjects and verbs can agree.

Arriviste - I agree on Euro soccer. Same with the old system in Major League Baseball.

NI - Ha.

Wandering - Some of the same concepts apply to the BCS but, in some ways, the case against an NFL playoff is stronger. In both 2007 and 2011, the Giants were dominated by their eventual playoff opponents during the regular season. College football, on the other hand, doesn’t typically provide such overlap during the regular season. There are too many teams, and the best of the best from competing conferences don’t often play each other before bowl season.

t1climb1 - well put.

redfoot - Your alternative definitions of “better” remind me of the “clutchiness” canard. In my view, overall record is the most meaningful measure of team quality.

The team that can field a freaking punt cleanly.

Brick - I agree w/ you (and t1) about the relative sample sizes of the two groups. I am always weary, though, of these arguments - particularly on a more college-oriented site like this one - because they seem to usually turn back around to why there shouldn’t be a college football playoff. You did, in so many words, make an argument about protecting the sanctity of the regular season.

Davey - Kyle Williams is going to have a very long offseason.

WanderingHorn,

I refuse to listen to anything sports related as to try to avoid hearing about how Eli once again led the Giants back late to take the lead and win the freaking game.

They don’t do dick for the second half and Kyle Williams let’s a punt drop ten yards in front of him, bounce, and then he decides to run towards it?

The second fumble wasn’t good, but the first was nothing short of unexplainable and completely turned the game. The 49er’s should have had the ball at around their 35-40 with their offense building momentum and he goes freaking brain dead twice on the same play.

Wandering - Well, if it makes you feel better, I don’t believe there should be a college playoff. But my rationale is slightly different on that front.

Though I am not sure this is completely accurate.Giants in 2007 did have injuries and 2008 won 11 games. Same could be said about last yrs Packer squad. So clearly they had talent and it was not a complete fluke. 2011 is again a mirror image. Bradshaw misses ton of time. DL in banged up all yr. Not sure they were better than Pats and I would agree they were not in 2007. Now in lets also consider this yrs Pats team. Baltimore game marked the first Pats victory over a team with a winning record. So is record the tell all stat? Would be interesting to see SOS from 07 to get an idea. Plus NFL has a lot more parody. So the margin between teams is much closer than what you would see in CFB, so I think any attempt to draw parallels is off-base

Brick - you not wanting a college football playoff is your prerogative. I have just always found that the dual argument that a playoff would somehow make the regular season less important and that some non-deserving team would win it like happens in the NFL and MLB (hello St. Louis Cardinals) are lazy arguments and often just parroted about.

actually a CFB playoff would increase the interest of regular season if done correctly. Currently only a few teams seasons matter in the last few weeks. What other sport can end a season with 2 bad games in Sept?

“the possibility that a bad team will simply get lucky and, because playoffs exclude consideration of a huge chunk of relevant data, the playoff will pick the wrong team as champion.”

As pointed out by t1climb1, NFL playoffs include more than 1/3 of all teams, so some above-average (but obviously not great) teams (e.g. Denver) will have a shot along with the best/stellar teams. The best teams get home field advantage, but even the “A” teams still have to take care of business (against the “B” teams) on the field on game day. If the Giants have perfected the art of peaking late in the season, then good for them.

Consider Alabama, which didn’t win its conference and lost to LSU at home during the regular season, yet won the MNC. Different cases, obviously, but still some parallels.

*the opinions expressed herein by Brickhorn are not shared by his fellow editors at Barking Carnival. In fact, we think he’s downright crazy with that whole anti-playoff thing, but he’s our crazy and is still entitled to his crazy ass opinions fueled by caffeine and suburban melancholy.

I think Green Bay and SF peaked a couple of months ago. Part of the problem is the extended season and players getting dinged up. It seemed to me in the 2007-08 the Giants front 4 dominated and that was the key to their run. They’re not quite as dominant this year but not bad either. Eli has made some clutch plays as well. Should we take a poll at the end of the regular season?

“As a result, the 12-7 Giants are the 2011 NFC Champions, while 15-2 Green Bay, 13-4 New Orleans and 14-4 San Francisco (teams that collectively went 3-0 against the Giants during the regular season) are also-rans.”
-———————
How can you call the NYG mediocre when they defeat GB and SF in consecutive weeks, which is no small task? Sure, one victory over a (perceived) superior opponent can be considered an anomaly, but to do it again the next week seems to signify that maybe the (perceived) superior teams had flaws that didn’t make them so superior in the first place.

What is your solution? Best 2 out of 3? That sounds like a battle of attrition rather than who has the best team.

Only division winners make the playoffs? In that case, you’ll still have your same problem, with (perceived) inferior teams winning weak divisions and upsetting teams with superior regular season records.

Canard -

How can you call the NYG mediocre when they defeat GB and SF in consecutive weeks, which is no small task?

The way to determine the quality of a team is to look at its record. The Giants compiled a record of 9-7 in the regular season. That’s just about as mediocre as it gets. They’re 12-7 now. That record is still pretty unimpressive, especially considering the Giants’ overall 4-3 mark over teams with a winning record.

Maybe the Giants are a better team now than they were during the regular season. That’s possible. But, New York went 3-5 over their final 8 games in the regular season and is only 6-5 since Nov. 13. The Giants look a lot like a mediocre team that has benefitted from fortunate timing.

It is also possible that a 16 game regular season combined with a 4 game preseason is too many games and thus it becomes a war of attrition as opposed to a good data point for deciding who the best team is.

Hence a healthy Giants team wrecking shit now.

If the 49ers really were the better team then they should have been able to win at home with an extra week off to start the playoffs.

How do you account for difficulty of schedule? Didn’t the Patriots have a very easy schedule?

It is fucking weak to just look at schedules. Play it out on the field.

“SHUT YOUR FUCKING CHOWHOLE, YOU INTRUSIVE PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE!, I might scream in response before taking several deep breaths and popping a couple of anti-anxiety meds.”

Richness.

No one says BrickHorn doesn’t know how to work a room.

Newy -

How do you account for difficulty of schedule? Didn’t the Patriots have a very easy schedule?

When? In 2007 or 2011? Not sure, but the Giants had a weak schedule in 2007 and an exceptionally weak schedule in 2011.

It is fucking weak to just look at schedules. Play it out on the field.

Isn’t that what football teams do during the season? I mean, they don’t just show up and shoot marbles, right?

Defense Offense Special teams wins championships.

Darn that was supposed to be clever. My nugget of wisdom from watching yesterday’s game.

Defense Offense Special teams wins championships.

Isn’t that what football teams do during the season? I mean, they don’t just show up and shoot marbles, right?

But games in January require much more clutchitude. They should count double, maybe triple all those other boring games that fans pay hundreds to watch and players are played millions to play.

WBT gets it.

Couldn’t enjoy the game. Too busy trying to gouge my eyes and ears out after witnessing a very ugly 96 year old woman screech out the National Anthem beforehand. Oh wait. That was Steven Tyler. Dear Lord…

What’s undeserving about a team making the play-offs under the rules of the game. At least they were not voted into the play offs by a panel of so-called experts, or fans of the game, or by a biasedly programmed computer program. All they did is play by the rules and qualify for the play-offs . Once there they went out and played the games, Green Bay and San Francisco had a more than equal chance to prove their superiority by beating the Giants one more time. Neither team could get it done under the highest of pressure situations, win or go home. Maybe the flukes here are the outcomes of regular season games?

Those of you that think you are experts in determining who is best, what do you suggest we do? Determine our champions by the fantasy game methods of tabulating the stats.

I love it when 10-6, 9-7, or 11-5 teams go on to win the Championship. Bet we would have some 9.3, or 8-4 teams in college football winning a real championship if we had a real play off.

Having a real play off system does not undermine the regular season or make it less important, it actually would make regular season games more important, particular conference games.

When? In 2007 or 2011? Not sure, but the Giants had a weak schedule in 2007 and an exceptionally weak schedule in 2011.

-

not so sure I believe that. in 2007 AFC east had undefeated New England and 7-9 Buffalo, 4-12 Jets, and 1-15 Dolphins. NFC East had 13-3 Cowboys, 10-6 Giants, 9-7 Redskins, and 8-8 Eagles. Seems to me that NE had a much weaker SOS and Giants clearly had a harder road.

Playoffs don’t determine the best team.
 
They determine a champion.

And that champion is determined on the field. Not by consensus opinion.
 
Works for me.

i would still prefer computers and some random former coaches and sportwriters to determine a set of percentiles of which the 2 best teams are determined… Makes for much better TV…

codaxx - In 2007, the Giants’ overall schedule was slightly stronger in terms of win-loss record. Both teams faced a schedule that was slightly under .500 on average. But the Giants played six games against teams with winning records and the Patriots played seven. In games against common opponents, the Patriots went 9-0 and the Giants went 6-3. And, of course, the Patriots beat the Giants that season in New York.

Scip and Longhorn Josh - Those are anti-BCS arguments. What about the NFL? Do you argue that the League’s current 12-team playoff format is just right? Or would you expand / contract the field?

Personally, I don’t have a problem with playoffs as such. They have their place. But a playoff that allows a hot / healthy / lucky 9-7 team to prevent crowning a 15-1 team as the champion seems pointless.

I mostly agree with Scipio. The Giants this year, and the Packers last year, were the best team at the right time of the year.
Perhaps a system that rewards success over a whole year is far more just, but this system isn’t bad for choosing a champion.
It’s especially hard when you have so many teams who don’t play each other.

Nickle -

It’s especially hard when you have so many teams who don’t play each other.

But that doesn’t necessarily describe the NFL. In 2007 and 2011, the Giants played their six most successful playoff opponents in the regular season, and went a combined 1-6 against those teams. As detailed above, the Giants and Patriots also had significant scheduling overlap in 2007.

I’ll grant you that college football presents a different problem entirely. But the NFL is small enough such that there is sufficient data by which one can confidently compare the performance of teams with fairly divergent records.

Defensive Line = QB

These are the great equalizers. And the giants, for whatever reason, have peaked at both positions at the right time.

Brady is great, but won’t make that much of a difference over Eli, if at all, because Eli is playing at such a high level.

Belichick is the x-factor

BrickHorn: that’s true, but the divisional alignment would have to go if you ditch a playoff, otherwise the final record doesn’t really indicate an ability to compete at the highest level against the whole scope of the league.

I do not think that Belichek will let this one go… He will make sure that the Patriots are ready…

Nickel - I’d be fully in favor of ditching the divisional alignment. Divisions are a nuisance.

What got the Pats last time wasn’t a lack of preparation by bill, it was that the Pats winning strategy against the Giants in their earlier game, blitzing Eli, was picked up by the Giants. What made the Giants difficult to beat for the Pats, their dominant 4 man rush, was only strengthened by Brady’s poor health coming into the game.

This is a poor matchup for New England. The Giants greatest strength on defense is exactly what the Pats don’t want to see while their biggest weakness on offense, pass protection, is not something the Pats are especially well equipped to take advantage of.

I am not sure I care about a 15-1 team losing in the playoffs. Especially when one realizes that 15-1 team had one of the worst statistical defenses in the league. Now if the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl people can say it proves playoffs are garbage. I am sorry, but once you realize the Pats got their first win over a winning team this weekend, you can start to realize the record argument is crap

With the amount of free agency, coaching changes, and needed contributions from rookies you could argues that it takes a good part of the regular season to build your team. The wins in the first few weeks of the season aren’t as compelling to me at all because a lot of teams are still figuring themselves out. I think being able to put together wins against playoff quality teams is a great criteria for crowning a champion.

College football is becoming the same with a rise in using freshman. Plus, the regular season tells us very little about something like “what would happen if OSU played LSU”. The playoff in the NFL is flawed for determining a champion (though not for entertaining). The college model is flawed in both respects.

I’m with Longhorn Scott.
 
I watched the NY Giants pretty closely and they got a lot better as their DL got healthy, Victor Cruz emerged etc.
 
They’re not a 9-7 team right now. But there’s no doubt that playoffs don’t necessarily crown “a best team.”

CFB has a playoff. That was proven this yr. Sec regular season was ignored. LSU beating Bama in Bama did not matter. BCS ignored the regular season results and had a 2 team play-off that in the end saw the “inferior” team wipe away an undefeated season. Only difference is in the NFL you are required to earn a birth on the field into it’s playoff. CFB decides by voting

“That was proven this yr. Sec regular season was ignored.” Was it? Or was Alabama’s performance in the SEC and in the game against LSU a significant factor that landed them in the championship game where they proved themselves worthy of being the champion. It’s actually exactly the phenomenon I’m referring to… Alabama got a hell of a lot better over the last month of the season while LSU didn’t seem to. I don’t really buy the “every game outcome is precious” mindset. I think games are valuable because they are scarce and every game is crucial. I like the system the forges the best teams over the course of the season (rather than one that over punishes them for missteps in their development) and then lets them go at each other in a playoff. Hopefully college can get closer to that because it makes even more sense to me at this level than at the NFL.

correction: “I think games are valuable because they are scarce and every game is crucial for development.”

“Plus NFL has a lot more parody.”

That may well be true, but I think “parity” is more relevant to the discussion.

Do not forget in this discussion that the NFL is a PRODUCT which is MARKETED to the widest consumer base possible to maximize PROFITS. Remember when the NFL playoff field was expanded to allow for wild card teams? It was a deliberate marketing move made so that a wider section of the fan base would remain interested and excited for longer. If the playoffs were limited as they used to be only to the division winners, which are determined purely by record, fewer fans would stay interested to season’s end. Revenues would drop. Under the current format, even the 9-7 Giants fans have hope that their team can “win it all.”
It’s a consciously deliberate, and thoroughly brilliant, marketing ploy by the NFL which has proven wildly successful at achieving its primary purpose: GENERATING PROFITS.

NCAA basketball has adopted a similar strategy. Hence, March Madness.

I don’t think the same format would work for college football, because the crowning of a champion in (formerly Div I) NCAA football is less about profit than it is about existential truth. Texas beating USC was not important because revenues for the athletic department increased, but rather because thereby the universe was set into a better balance. That’s why I think the old poll (non)system was ultimately, on the existential level, far superior to the farces that have played out since. I didn’t necessarily think so at the time, mind you. It’s a case of “careful what you wish for.” The NFL wishes for profits, and they get it in spades.

Yes, the Giants got healthy at the right time, not necessarily lucky. A pass rush with 4 is key to successful defense and makes coordinators look brilliant.

“But the NFL is small enough such that there is sufficient data by which one can confidently compare the performance of teams with fairly divergent records.”

Brick, if you have the data, I’d be happy to look at it, especially if you have an algorithm that accounts for injuries as well as improvement of rookies, and improvements in coaching strategies throughout the season.

It’s one thing to make statistical inference when you have thousands of data points, such that irregularities even out.

It’s entirely another to try and do so when you have 16 data points, and a vast number of irregularities, including but not limited to injuries, travel schedules, personal lives, timing of games (both the day of the week and time of day), rookie improvement, coaching improvements, etc.

I’m not arguing here that the Giants are better, I’m only arguing that it’s hard to know who is better when the record could be indicative of many factors that don’t have to do with whether team A would beat team B on an average day, on an average field.

Scip, I’m right on board with you. When we talk about amorphous terms that have been points of argument for the last several thousand years, like “best” or “just” it becomes difficult to pin down what we are even defining, let alone determining which team best displays one, and what system best allows for the other.

On the other hand, Champion is pre-defined. Everyone knows what the Champion is, and how we get there.

I think it’s at least clear that at this point in the season, the Giants are one of the best teams in football.
Playoffs diminish what the Packers did over the course of an entire season though. Or what the Patriots did in 2007 before football hell clasped them between his hand and helmet.

It’s all fine and well to view a season as a preparation and separation for the playoff tournament but I agree with Brickhorn that a comprehensive regular season is a much better method of determining the best team.

Football’s physicality, rules and roster limits don’t especially lend themselves to such a regular season though, so I’ll take a playoff. It’s entertaining at least.

lurker,

I don’t think the same format would work for college football, because the crowning of a champion in (formerly Div I) NCAA football is less about profit than it is about existential truth. Texas beating USC was not important because revenues for the athletic department increased, but rather because thereby the universe was set into a better balance.

Amen. College football is all about bragging rights. It’s about being able to say “Our team was the best in the entire U.S. of fucking A.” Or, at least “our team was better than most.” The absence of a college football playoff, and the obsession with polls, rivalry games and conference schedules, allows a bunch of teams to celebrate relative success every year.

In sports with a playoff, there is one champion and a pack of also-rans. In college football, there is a nominal national champion and a series of other programs basking in meaningful (if not the ultimate) victory. I truly believe college football needs the lifeblood of meaningful relative success to continue to thrive. The ability to leave a wide swath of fans satisfied each year is one of the few advantages college football has over the NFL.

Nickel -

I think it’s at least clear that at this point in the season, the Giants are one of the best teams in football.

I don’t know that it’s that clear. They’re certainly turning into one of the hottest teams in football. But the Giants are just 1/2 game over .500 since November. I tend to think that the appearance of the adjective “playoff” in front of the term “win” changes the psychology by which we judge teams. Maybe they’re the best team in the league, maybe not. But the playoff wins against GB and SF shouldn’t count any more in that assessment than their regular season losses to the same teams.

Brick Horn: Your argument about relative success would hold more water if fans didn’t bitch about the postseason every year.

As for New York: Isn’t it clear that wins now with a healthy roster over San Fran and the Packers suggests to us a different truth than when those teams beat the Giants earlier in the season? Within the playoff tournmanet, the Giants are possibly the best team.
It’s possible that if those matchups (NFC divisional and conference championships) were played out 10 times the Giants would be the losers in both, but all we know for sure is what we see on the field.

“Maybe they’re the best team in the league, maybe not. But the playoff wins against GB and SF shouldn’t count any more in that assessment than their regular season losses to the same teams.”

Why not? The games were not played under the same circumstances, why should they be weighed equally?

In college football the bowl games are not the same as a regular season game, in format or priority. In some cases the bowl game is more important, in some cases less.

Also I would much rather see a format where my favorite team losses in the playoffs but gets to compete in a meaningful contest than to see them win a bowl game that is only meaningful to the two fan bases involved. College football playoffs would be the most compelling thing in sports by far… but the bowl season as a whole doesn’t really compete with NFL playoffs in appeal. I don’t really buy the argument that playoffs would diminish college football’s regular season. We are all compelled mostly by our school’s team… playoffs would add to the attention to our team’s development and add to our interest in other leagues. I only watch a handful of games outside the big 12 but if I knew we were likely to face other teams in playoffs… all the sudden the SEC and PAC 10 become a lot more relevant.

Brickhorn- I do not believe in the everyone deserves a trophy logic. NFL has the largest fan base in this country. Lions and Browns fans are as passionate as an fanbase with little success to fuel their fire. Making the tourney is enough for many schools in hoops. What did playing in front of 4000 people do for UNC and Mizzu fans? Perhaps a deemphasis on the season is what college football needs. If one loss in Sept doesn’t kill a NC dream, maybe we would still see many of the rivalry games you and I seem to miss. If a loss in that first game did not have the potential to kill dreams maybe you would see Texas v AM, Neb v OU, KU v Mizzu, WV v Pitt, PSU v WV/Pitt.

I don’t mind the chance involved. I just mind people not acknowledging the chance involved. Damn near got in a fight with a Giants fan Monday on the train. We have punts bouncing randomly off legs and into arms and yet people STILL don’t want to admit one team got lucky?

If the arc of the moral universe does indeed bend toward justice, the end of the Giants run is near. Otherwise the deification of Eli will be complete and the last of our ability to stomach ESPN quashed.

The determining a “best team” is not what competition/games are about - that’s a subjective construct. All that matters is that all competitors know the rules of the game and that each has a a path to victory.

While diluting a playoffs offers a worthy debate, there’s no whining in the NFL. You lose in the playoffs, you know you’re done. In college, if you lose to an unranked Ole Miss, you can give an impassioned post-game speech to woo voters. Lose to your conference rival, no problem, just run an uptempo offense and score 60 points for symbolic dominance.

Having a playoff system is the foundation of competitive team sports. Worrying about too many teams in is debating about the details. One is a question of integrity, the other a question of taste.

Can someone explain the “best team” vs “champion” distinction to me? Brick, I love your contributions here, and you and I usually end up falling on the same sides of issues that get discussed here. But I could not possibly disagree more with the heart of your argument.

Why do we watch sports? Because they’re entertaining. Entertainment means excitement. Spoilers and upsets MEAN excitement. It’s why we watch. If we always KNEW who was supposed to win, or who was going to win, we wouldn’t watch.

I used to be exclusively a CFB guy, I really didn’t have a lot of interest in the NFL, probably because my hometown team (Houston) was awful and left town right around the time I was coming to understand and appreciate football. But as I’ve grown up with UT Football, kept track of Horns in the NFL, and watched the rise of the Texans, my appreciation for the NFL has grown by leaps and bounds. That’s particularly true at this time of year, and why? Because they’re still PLAYING GAMES!

I have a real problem with anyone saying the Patriots are undeniably the better team, because in the end-all, be-all regular season, they had the worst defense in the league. Playoffs and a cross conference Super Bowl encourage the most balanced team to win. Better football on BOTH sides of the ball.

Do I think the NFL Playoffs are perfect? No, I don’t. I think winning your division probably is treated as more important than it is, but only in the scenario when there are teams with better records left out because of it. And I don’t necessarily agree that a division winner should be guaranteed a home game in the playoffs either, but I can live with it, and here’s why: Because THAT’S the NFL’s solution to the idea that a robust playoff field diminishes the importance of the regular season. Those regular season games matter because they DETERMINE your team’s ability to get into the postseason, and you’re rewarded for getting there with byes and home field advantage. Seems pretty simple, and I’m ASTOUNDED that you were able to construct an argument against it.

The excellence of the 2007 Super Bowl is that going into the game, I hated both teams and wanted to find some way to make them both lose. Not disimilar to how I felt about Bama/LSU Round 2. But the way that game was won by NY, and the upset factor involved made it MUST-WATCH football.

And that’s NOT a bad thing.

Nick, I think in general (and obviously this is what I think) people here are arguing that “best team” is a somewhat subjective distinction, because it comes down to what a person may think makes for a best team. Is it expected win percentage? Is it record alone? Is it some form of computer power ranking?

Champion on the other hand is objectively defined in the NFL as: The team that a) gets into the playoff, and b) doesn’t lose any games during that playoff. (For college football, the BCS Champion is defined as the team that a) finishes in the computer and poll analysis as one of the top 2 teams and b) wins the BCS Championship Game.)

Now, it’s important to note that the terms aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. One may subjectively decide that they believe that any team that obtains the objective title of Champion is the “best team.”

To take a page from Mr. Eskimo above, one is a matter of completing some objective criteria to meet a pre-determined definition, the other is a matter of taste or preference.