OT: Does winning make you a better team than your opponent

[UK2K]

So at work we were having a debate.

I argued that in sports, the team that wins isn't always the best team. Upsets happen and such, but I hear these people talk of the CFBNC game and say 'OSU won so they're the best team in college football'.

Well, no not really. I know this world puts so much emphasis on winning. Lebron could score 60 and lose and people would say he didn't do enough, or tried to do too much. Or he could score 20 and win, and somehow all is right in the world.

Me? When it comes to team sports, I don't put much emphasis on winning when it comes to analyzing individual players. For example: I think JJ Watt should be the MVP of the NFL. He won't win it, because his team didn't make the playoffs, but he is beyond a doubt the best player in the NFL.

If you've read my Demarcus Cousins thread, you already know I think he should be the MVP, and the only rebuttal I hear to that is 'the kings record sucks'.

So how much emphasis should we put on winning? In the NCAA MBB tournament, the best team SOMETIMES wins. In the NFL, the best team SOMETIMES wins. But sometimes a team who's not the best pulls the upset.

So is winning everything? To a player maybe, but as a fan, if you see your team play a great game, and still lose, can you really be mad?

[AnaheimLakers24]

Why would i give mvp to someone who doesnt help win basketball games?
Booger is garbage

[UK2K]

Why would i give mvp to someone who doesnt help win basketball games?
Booger is garbage
He does help you win games. What's the kings record without him? Worse than what it is now? Then he helps you win games.

But as I said, JJ Watt is not only the MVP this season, he is being talked about ALREADY as the greatest to ever play on that side of the ball. He's set numerous records this season, but he's not in the MVP talk because the rest of his team is doo doo.

I think that, potentially, the greatest defensive player to ever play the game, probably should be worthy of an MVP. Maybe I'm crazy. Extreme example I know, but an example nonetheless.

[ProfessorMurder]

No winning doesn't mean you're better, but most people don't see that.

Portland was better than LA in 2000
Kings were better than LA in 2002
Spurs were better than MIA in 2013
etc...

Match ups and luck have a lot to do with things like that.

Same thing with individuals. You can't blame KG for being on shitty Minnesota teams. You can't blame Mitch Richmond for being on the Kings.

[tpols]

Most of winning as a star is the effect you have on your teammates.. That's why individual Stat padders don't mean much and looking just at an individuals line is usually misleading.

[GimmeThat]

can the better team lose to an inferior team? yes.

should the stage of any performance matter? I suppose that's arguable given the first statement.

as for the best player being on a team that isn't going to win the MVP because the team isn't generating enough win.

maybe if you take away the whole concept of a "league" or any "league" for that matter.



then I suppose the argument about analyzing individual players makes much more sense.

[iamgine]

So at work we were having a debate.

I argued that in sports, the team that wins isn't always the best team. Upsets happen and such, but I hear these people talk of the CFBNC game and say 'OSU won so they're the best team in college football'.

Well, no not really. I know this world puts so much emphasis on winning. Lebron could score 60 and lose and people would say he didn't do enough, or tried to do too much. Or he could score 20 and win, and somehow all is right in the world.

Me? When it comes to team sports, I don't put much emphasis on winning when it comes to analyzing individual players. For example: I think JJ Watt should be the MVP of the NFL. He won't win it, because his team didn't make the playoffs, but he is beyond a doubt the best player in the NFL.

If you've read my Demarcus Cousins thread, you already know I think he should be the MVP, and the only rebuttal I hear to that is 'the kings record sucks'.

So how much emphasis should we put on winning? In the NCAA MBB tournament, the best team SOMETIMES wins. In the NFL, the best team SOMETIMES wins. But sometimes a team who's not the best pulls the upset.

So is winning everything? To a player maybe, but as a fan, if you see your team play a great game, and still lose, can you really be mad?
I don't watch Kings games but really? DMC? Better than Curry, Durant, etc?

And MVP is not = best player.

[r15mohd]

Does winning make you a better team than your opponent?

in regards to a playoff series, I think so...it ultimately decides who is the better team by going at each other for that many games.

single games, like RS match-ups and so forth...any team can win on any given day.

[oarabbus]

Does winning make you a better team than your opponent?

in regards to a playoff series, I think so...it ultimately decides who is the better team by going at each other for that many games.

single games, like RS match-ups and so forth...any team can win on any given day.


Agreed, in a series, yeah. You don't go hot for 7 games AND the other team is cold for 7 games; you were just a better team.

Football though? There are plenty of cases where the best team didn't win the superbowl. You actually CAN get hot at the right time and beat a better team when it's single game.

So basically I agree with OP. You can't tell me the best college basketball team ALWAYS wins March madness. It doesn't work that way.

[MJistheGOAT]

In individual games no, the upset might happen. For example NCAA, NFL.

In a series NO, you have 5-7 games to correct that single game upsets. Here almost always best team win.

And MVP =/= Best player. That

[Marchesk]

Love for MVP

[Marchesk]

In a series NO, you have 5-7 games to correct that single game upsets. Here almost always best team win.

But there have been big playoff series upsets before. Memphis beating SA in the first round. Denver beating the #1 seeded Supersonics back in the days of Payton and Kemp.

Sometimes it's about matchups and who's playing well at the time.

[UK2K]

But there have been big playoff series upsets before. Memphis beating SA in the first round. Denver beating the #1 seeded Supersonics back in the days of Payton and Kemp.

Sometimes it's about matchups and who's playing well at the time.
That was another point. Match ups matter.

Ohio State beat Oregon for the national championship, but I don't think for a second that OSU was the best team. They matched up well with Oregon, but may not against other teams.

I do think the NBA playoffs format is the best format for finding a true champion. In a single game, anything can happen.

[Lebron23]

Just like in boxing, styles makes fight.

[MJistheGOAT]

But there have been big playoff series upsets before. Memphis beating SA in the first round. Denver beating the #1 seeded Supersonics back in the days of Payton and Kemp.

Sometimes it's about matchups and who's playing well at the time.

That

[SwayDizzle]

it depends on which level of winning you are referring to. in NBA basketball it basically boils down to winning by quarter, half, one full game, one series, and championship. the longer the term/ larger the sample size, the easier it is to determine whether a team is better than their opponent or not. the ability to adjust to an opponent and counter their moves is what makes a winner. it is implied that you need time to adjust. during one season (where you will most likely have a consistent roster within teams), the team that wins the championship is highly regarded as the best team. the team that wins the championship has defeated the majority of opponents during the regular season in a league that is considered to have the highest level of play. therefore, it is not absurd to say that the winner of an NBA season is likely the best team in the world. match ups definitely matter but if a superior team is unable to adjust within a 7 game series (decent sample size) to beat an opponent regarded as a lesser team, then I no longer consider them the better team. i make my judgement based on the sample size. at the end of the day it all depends on what your sample size is to make the call on who is better. what makes it hard to judge is that rosters change all the time. you seldom have the same group of guys competing across seasons (both competitor teams).