So you always see ESPN analysts side on a certain team because that team has "Experience" and because "they've done it". I'm referring to events such as the Super Bowl and the NBA playoffs. I'm just curious as to whether this "experience" factor really has some statistical proof, some sort of stat that confirms that teams that have recently been to the super bowl will beat a team that hasn't.
I don't know about statistics, but look at every team that loses in the Super Bowl or NBA Finals and makes it back in the next one or two years to win it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions
Well you know that feeling after you lose where you reminesce on what you could have done better, etc. etc. And then in the off-season you work on those weaknesses and come back to win it. You win from preparation, not from experience per se.
It took the Denver Broncos 5 tries to win their first one and the Vikings and Bills only went 4 times so maybe they just need some more experience.
Dating back to 1980, Big 3 Celtics are the only team to win without Conf Finals or Finals experience. Check it out ---------- The '80s always had experienced winners 1980 Lakers had Kareem with plenty of experience All the Lakers/Celtics wins in '80 after that were from experience Moses in 1983 had Finals experience and ECF against Celtics. Pistons played Celtics several times in ECF and lost to LA in Finals prior to winning. ---------- The '90s always had experienced winners MJ never lost in Finals but did to eventual champion Pistons in ECF in the two Piston title years prior to his first win. Hakeem had Finals experience from 1986 Bulls again Spurs had Mario Elie!! :grin: ---------- The '00s mostly had experienced winners All Lakers All Spurs 2000 Lakers had Shaq's 1995 Finals experienced. But I won't argue that this might be a year that came from little other experience. Detroit lost in ECF the year before and landed an experienced Rasheed to the mix in the title year Wade lost the ECF the year prior and added Shaq the Celtics are the one fluke in THIRTY years
EDIT: What about the SUNS? They never came back after Charles Barkley led them to the Finals. Neither did the JAZZ. Can you really say that DREAM had the experience from '86? Come now. The Rockets was essentially a BRAND NEW TEAM and won it all without prior CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP experience... you can say it was an entirely new team except for DREAM. EIGHT years later was "experience"?!?!?! You think he still "remembered" that experience? I will disagree with you, dear sir.
if you want to discount 1994, fine. that would be two in 30 years then. That's still very telling of the importance of experience in the NBA. I include it because the undisputed best Rockets player in '94 (by far) had Finals experience as the best player of the '86 team. I'm sure Dream remembered.
what about the Saints last year? The Colts had more players with super bowl experience than the saints, but they saints won.
You've gotta be kidding me. He most likely remembered. How could he forget losing in the finals to Bird and company? I'm sure he remembered losing in the Finals in college to North Carolina and Georgetown too. Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken..
I guess I misunderstood you. My point is about NBA champions, not the losers. Only one team (recent Celtics) out of 30 years won without Conf Finals or Finals experience. I don't count Dream '94, because of '86. I don't count DRob's '99 or Shaq's '00, because the other team didn't have recent experience either. One of them had to win, and the more experienced team won.
