Say I play a few no limit hold 'em matches against the best player in the world – for the sake of argument, Phil Ivey. Suppose that I play my best game and catch enough cards to win a majority of the matches, which is entirely within the realm of possibility. Should we not point out that, if we played a couple dozen extra matches, I’d almost certainly get creamed? Or is it fair to say, “Varlos is obviously a better poker player than Phil Ivey, as he beat him three times out of four”?
More than 90%. Cowher’s record in the rest of the playoffs of is excellent, so apparently we’re just talking about the 6 Conference Championship Games. Out of 261 regular season and playoff games coached, those 6 represent 2.3% of his results.
If Phil Ivey’s total career involved going 2 and 4 (or 3 and 5 if you like) against you, would we call him a good poker player?
Is it really news to you that professional sports figures are judged by giving greater weight to their post-season performance? In particular, someone who is otherwise dominant who is unsuccessful in the post-season is particularly scrutinized.
By the way, I thought you were going to lay down some edumacation for me in re: my post above. Please elaborate, because it could be really useful for my career.
For the record, Cowher has confirmed interest in both the Bears and Texans jobs should they become open in the offseason. Still not sure how I feel about this, and I wonder if this is just a negotiating ploy to get Carolina to max out their offer to him when the time comes. But, if it gets Lovie fired all the sooner I’m for it.
That’s precisely the point of the analogy: since the handful of matches between us would represent a minuscule portion of his and my poker career, and it’s a small enough sample size that the results could very easily be determined by chance, we’d get more useful and reliable information by focusing on our larger bodies of work.
I’m aware, I just think it’s generally taken too far.
Sorry, I was unclear before. I felt compelled to note an objection, but I have no desire to write an explanation. It would be fruitless, and a digression besides. What’s your career?
Clarification: Are you you arguing that Cowher’s 2-4 record in CCGs shows that he wasn’t a particularly good coach? Or, instead, are you saying that in general he *was *a very good coach, but that the 2-4 record shows that he was a poor “big game” coach?
If what I said was so very wrong, it really shouldn’t be hard to correct it. I’m a psychologist, and most of my time is involved in grant funded research and publishing empirical analyses.
I think exactly what I said that you originally objected to. He was overall a good coach, but his inability to get the team past the last big hurdle suggests that he was not a great coach.
I think that he was routinely provided with a superior team and often enjoyed the advantage of home field and of first round byes but routinely failed to win the big game.
Perhaps, if the humours move me, I’ll take a crack at it later. But maybe not. I was being sincere before: I have no desire to do it, as I think it would be a frustrating waste of time for both of us.
Ok, so my questions are as follows: Having so much success in the regular season, and making so many deep playoff runs, are remarkable achievements. Losing at home when you’re one game away from the Super Bowl is a crushing failure. Why are you crediting the Steelers’ successes to their players, and their failures to their head coach? You’re saying that they were great teams held back in the end by a merely good coach; couldn’t it just as plausibly be a great coach held back by a series of merely good teams? If a Great Team/Good Coach combination is good enough to be dominant in the regular season and the first two rounds of the playoffs, why would it suddenly be insufficient in the CCG? If Cowher was dragging the team down in those 6 games, shouldn’t he also be dragging them down in the other 234, when they were phenomenally successful?
If you’re curious, in two of the losses at home, Pittsburgh was the underdog ('94 Broncos -2, '04 Pats -3). They were also 3 point underdogs in '05 when they won at Denver. They did lose to San Diego as 9 point favorites, and to New England in '01 as 10 point favorites (though, clearly, the Patriots were a much better team than we then had reason to believe). They failed to cover the spread against Indy in '95, if you want to hold that against him.
Unfortunately, that simply leaves the impression that you have no idea what you were talking about. I guess you’ll probably be able to live with that.
I’m not sure how many ways there are to say the same thing. Over a variety of iterations of the Steelers (in terms of players), Bill Cowher was the consistent factor.
Have you ever played a team sport? If not, you may not understand the dynamics of a team and how important motivation and mentality are. I also don’t think that Cowher was particularly skilled in game management.
We didn’t play the Broncos in 1994.
Also, how were the Patriots “a better team than we had reason to believe”? That’s just more revisionist nonsense. They were what they were - a fairly good 11-5 team coming into the playoffs and escaping an upset against the Raiders because of the tuck rule. The Steelers were 13-3 that year. They had the #1 rushing offense, #3 total offense, #1 total defense and #1 run defense in the league that year.
The Patriots were #19 in total offense and #24 in total defense in the league that year. It’s simply foolish to pretend that it was destiny for them to beat the Steelers that year, or that somehow their later success meant anything in terms of their performance that year.
I think the more important question here is why you think a mediocre coach can win regular season, wild card and divisional games, but not conference championship games. The rules of conference championship games are the same as the rules of any other game (minus the 15-minute limit on overtime). The fields are the same. The players are the same. The referees are the same.
There are only two logical explanations I can think of for a particular team not being as good in conference championship games as in regular season games: weather and fatigue.
Cowher coached his entire career in Pittsburgh, and it is my understanding that the weather is not particularly nice there at any time of year. In any case, a power rushing style seems tailor made for winning late season games in bad weather.
So, fatigue. Did Cowher push his players so hard during the regular season (either in games or practices) that they were gassed when the playoffs rolled around? Well, it’s plausible, but one would assume that the Steelers would experience a gradual dropoff in performance towards the end of the season. Fortunately, this guy analyzed Cowhers’ performance in December, and though it appears he got better at coaching December regular-season games toward the end of his tenure (26-7 in December from 2000-2001)- or at keeping his players fresh- he still went 1-2 in conference championship games during that period.
So, I guess this onus is now on you to provide a plausible explanation for your theory. Good luck.
Forgive me for taking this way off topic, but I have some thoughts from reading this thread. The fact that one of you is in a psychological field is quite interesting to me, because I see some things being left out that I was taught in Psych 101.
The first is that limiting your data makes your results less accurate (which is why my Psych professor gave such long tests.) The second is that everybody is biased–no person is above psychological analysis.
I find it interesting that, in something that is as inconsequential as a sports argument there still seems to be a reluctance of either side to put themselves in the other person’s shoes. No one wants to critique themselves; they would rather try to prove the other person wrong. I submit it would be better to try and figure out how the other person is right. You can then form some commonality, from which you can use to convince the other person. My experience is that people are rarely convinced if they perceive the other side as the opposition.
Okay, so enough rambling. If what I’ve said is offensive, please ignore me. I just can’t let this opportunity go by without saying something.
Imho, what happened was that the defense was always very good, but the offense was only good enough to get them that far, and the personnel decisions on offense were largely a result of Cowher not knowing how to build a good offense. It’s pretty much the same criticism of the Eagles and Indy: dominant on one side of the ball, mediocre on the other. They also had huge success during the season because they ran the ball 50 times a game, which worked fine until weeks 18-20, when both RB’s were crippled.