Jump to content

Choking/Best Team


EastCoastNiner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alright, I've thought of this before, and seen it discussed other places before, but is there really such a thing as "choking" in the playoffs and Championships?

 

I'm not saying a team can't "choke", but if they "choke", then are they still considered the better team, since they would have been the favorites in that situation.

 

Basically I'm saying, if a team going into the game is considered the favorite, and happen to lose, and people consider it a choke, then that must mean that the better team actually lost, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. NFL comes to the top of my head just with the playoff format. In the end though, one team is still the champion.

 

So, if a team chokes (they were the favorites and regarded as the better team before the game), then they should still be considered the better team if they "choke" because if they choked, that means they were thought of as the better team, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if a team chokes (they were the favorites and regarded as the better team before the game), then they should still be considered the better team if they "choke" because if they choked, that means they were thought of as the better team, right?

I don't really see it as choking as more of the better team won that day. The undefeated Patriots lost the Superbowl but if it was a three game series, they could have easily been champion. It doesn't work like that though and years down the line, nobody remembers second place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically I'm saying, if a team going into the game is considered the favorite, and happen to lose, and people consider it a choke, then that must mean that the better team actually lost, right?

But shouldn't level of performance in tense situations be significant in evaluation of teams? I don't think there is a definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outplayed in four games? Has no team in history had a four game win streak?

 

Choking is a word that gives less credit to the actual winner.

 

Were talking about the World Series though. Typically, when a team goes up 3 game to 0, they are able to win just one more game. I don't think there are many teams in the history of baseball that has won 4 games in a row during the World Series while being down 3-0. So yes, I consider that a choke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were talking about the World Series though. Typically, when a team goes up 3 game to 0, they are able to win just one more game. I don't think there are many teams in the history of baseball that has won 4 games in a row during the World Series while being down 3-0. So yes, I consider that a choke.

Why couldn't have Boston just outplayed them? It's not like some of the Yankees on that team had never won a championship before or didn't win one after that.

 

Boston Bruins blew a 3-0 lead to Philly which is rare in hockey and the next year they are champions. Did they choke or the better team won and they improved their roster and won it this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Choking" is really just a silly narrative that fans/media can use to spark up conversation. And it gets used a lot because the true "best team" almost never wins the championship because the playoffs are very flukey (except in the NBA, where the best team wins far more regularly).

 

This actually had me thinking the other day. Would sports be better without playoffs? I know you will all jump on me right away and say no, which is understandable, but think about it for a minute. The playoffs are really a pretty poor evaluator. Inferior teams win championships all the time, even when 5 and 7 game series' are used. (For the record I am not proposing that we get rid of playoffs, they are fun/dramatic/TV ratings generators/etc, but it would assure that the "best team" usually wins). Just some food for thought.

Edited by Phightins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime it's a 4 game series, the better team comes out on top. But if we're talking about one game, such as the Super Bowl or a game in March Madness, the better team doesn't always win.

 

I don't think this is true at all. It's still a very small sample size. Certainly more accurate than a 1 game series though, but not by as much as you'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is true at all. It's still a very small sample size. Certainly more accurate than a 1 game series though, but not by as much as you'd think.

I think it's a pretty accurate assumption. When's the last time the better team didn't come out on top in a 7 game series? (I edited my post, accidentally had typed 4 game series)

 

I'm sure you can give me a few examples where it has happened in baseball, but in basketball, it's almost never the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty accurate assumption. When's the last time the better team didn't come out on top in a 7 game series? (I edited my post, accidentally had typed 4 game series)

 

I'm sure you can give me a few examples where it has happened in baseball, but in basketball, it's almost never the case.

 

You are right about basketball, that is the one exception as I mentioned earlier. Happens all the time in the 3 other major US pro leagues. I could give you hundreds of examples from just the past ten years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is, what makes basketball that way? Less overall talent or because fewer guys are needed to be a winner?

 

Basketball is different then the three other major U.S. sports. One player "can" win you a championship, with some slight help, but you won't win one in the other sports with just one player, granted there's more players in the other sports.

 

There's a reason the Penguins have only won one Stanley Cup despite having two of the top three players in the NHL (I think they are), and it's not just because of injuries. You need a complete team effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to troll but I think the 07 Pats are a perfect example of a team that was clearly the best team in football before and after the super bowl despite who won. I think the important thing to remember is the best team doesn't always win. Just because you win the championship doesn't make you the best team, it makes you the champions which is better than being the best because your the champ. However, at the end of the day just because you beat a team once or on a particular stretch of days, doesn't make you better than that team. Just means you played better at the right time and for that you earn the title, champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you call the Yankees losing against the Red Sox in the World Series being up 3-0 and losing the next 4 games a choke?

Just nitpicking, but two American League teams can't play each other in the World Series. It was the American League Championship Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was all Dirk. Let's use Kidd's previous years as a way to make him seem like he was a HOF player last year. :lol: .

And I suppose Tyson's great defense, Carlisle's zone defense schemes to limit LeBron, Jet's incredible Finals performance, and Dallas' great shooting from the 3 were all products of Dirk, right?

  • Like 1
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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...