The Random Thread of Random Randomness

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Tk'ya'pyk]

....you're a little early on this, but only just. Avacado green was big in the early 70's, the goldenrod in the late 60s. My grandmother loved her avocado green appliances, and my other grandmother had goldenrod throughout her kitchen. My mother had more of that burnt orange and the brown because those came right after the avacado green, and SHE is still a Boomer. I'm Gen X, born in the late 70's, and these were all old when I was a kid.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[ChapterAquila92]

 

[Killer Angel]

You've deviated from the original premise of the debate.

I just followed your train of reasoning which was already derailing a little. But let's focus on the core:

team x > team y. Ergo Germany > Italy.

Let's be clear here.
I don't dispute the objective fact that Germany > Italy (Germany got also 3 european cups, while Italy "only" 2). You are right on that.
I dispute the fact that, from a fan perspective, you have less burning delusions if you root for Italy.

My team has been eliminated many times during various tournaments. It happens, to win is usually a rare event.
But if you go to the final, when everything is at stake, the loss is a burning scar.
I don't recall many of the various eliminations of my team during the years, but i recall every lost final and the pain that came with it.
Long story short, if A and B shares the same number of trophies, but team A suffered a greater number of losses in the finals, it's less painful (hence, it's better) to be a fan of team B.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I just followed your train of reasoning which was already derailing a little. But let's focus on the core:

The entire debate stems from this initial statement:

"Italy and Germany bot have 4 cups... but with the same number of victories, it's better to have played 8 finals, or 6?
Sure, 8 finals means you are a bigger protagonist, but 6 finals means your winning percentage is higher / you suffered less burning delusions."

From this we can summarize the core debate as:

In the event of an equal number of championship wins, a greater number of second place finishes should be used (as a tie-breaker) when ranking teams.

I am arguing in support of the statement above, while you are arguing against it.


The reason I said you deviated from the debate was because your statement:

"Well, look at the 2 last European Cups.
England went to the finals both times.
Italy won one and was eliminated in a very embarassing way during the last tournament.

England has been more consistent, but guess who's happier?"

That statement violates the first portion of our central debate (equal number of championship wins). If you go back, you'll find that my statements are always arguing, without deviation, for the central premise highlighted above.

Let's be clear here.
I don't dispute the objective fact that Germany > Italy (Germany got also 3 european cups, while Italy "only" 2). You are right on that.
I dispute the fact that, from a fan perspective, you have less burning delusions if you root for Italy.

My team has been eliminated many times during various tournaments. It happens, to win is usually a rare event.
But if you go to the final, when everything is at stake, the loss is a burning scar.
I don't recall many of the various eliminations of my team during the years, but i recall every lost final and the pain that came with it.
Long story short, if A and B shares the same number of trophies, but team A suffered a greater number of losses in the finals, it's less painful (hence, it's better) to be a fan of team B.

I would counterargue that tables such as one that sparked this discussion are ordering teams based on success, not how painful losses are to a supporting fan. Losing in the last second of the final game will be more memorable and more painful, but it is still in terms of success (and ranking), a higher level achievement than failing to make it to the final game at all. The table is ranked according to factual success at the world cup, not perceived fan heartbreak. Germany has achieved more than Italy at the world cup (equal number of championships, but more second place finishes), so they are ranked higher on the table. Plain and simple.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Scolenex]

View attachment 152866

@Scolenex

Ouch

 

[Killer Angel]

If you go back, you'll find that my statements are always arguing, without deviation, for the central premise highlighted above.

not sure about that

Using the Olympics as an analogue, winning a silver medal is nowhere near as prestigious as winning a gold, but it is still a lot better than not winning a medal at all.

Silver is a valuable medal, losing the superbowl is not.

But i digress

From this we can summarize the core debate as:

In the event of an equal number of championship wins, a greater number of second place finishes should be used (as a tie-breaker) when ranking teams.
I am arguing in support of the statement above, while you are arguing against it.

.....

The table is ranked according to factual success at the world cup, not perceived fan heartbreak. Germany has achieved more than Italy at the world cup (equal number of championships, but more second place finishes), so they are ranked higher on the table. Plain and simple.

I see why Germany is ranked higher... but my question wanted exactly to develope possible perceived differences.
With equal numbers of championships, i like more to have a higher winning percentage when i see the finish line.
Losing is never good...

Benfica won 2 cups, then losed 8 finals in a row.
I will never praise Benfica for the 10 finals, i will mock them for the 8 consecutive losses. "going close is only good for curling"

 

[- Q -]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If you go back, you'll find that my statements are always arguing, without deviation, for the central premise highlighted above.

not sure about that

When I asserted that your argument had deviated from the core debate, I provided provided proof. If your reciprocal assertion is to be accepted, the same burden of proof is required. It's been a short discussion, so finding a quote or two is not an unreasonable ask (assuming that such a quote actually exists).

Silver is a valuable medal, losing the superbowl is not.

The silver medal is literally awarded to the runner-up. But if it's value that you want, I see your silver medal and raise you ...

i like more to have a higher winning percentage when i see the finish line.
Losing is never good...

The winning percentage that you describe is irrelevant, which is why it was not used in the World Cup winners graph or in the Olympics. Results trump percentage. Finishing in the runner-up position is still a better achievement than that of every other team, with the exception of the championship winning team of course.

More importantly, the winning percentage you describe is merely a byproduct of an arbitrary focus that you have personally fixated on (i.e. only losing in the finals counts). If Germany makes it to the finals and loses, while Italy is eliminated in the group stage (as an example), each of them failed to win the world cup. Both of their win percentage (as defined by number of world cup champions won divided by the number of times they entered the competition) goes down. Moreover, the team that made it to the finals actually won more games along the way, so they have a better win percentage overall.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Killer Angel]

When I asserted that your argument had deviated from the core debate, I provided provided proof. If your reciprocal assertion is to be accepted, the same burden of proof is required.

The quote abot gold and silver was my proof.
Gold, silver and bronze are actual prestigious medals, and rightfully celebrated.
in a final cup it only counts the winner...
Olympics to football cups is orange to apple.
Olympics have 3 "winners", football only one.
if two nations share the same numbers of those 3 medals, no one cares about the number of forth places.

More importantly, the winning percentage you describe is merely a byproduct of an arbitrary focus that you have personally fixated on.

That's kinda the point of personal opinions: some things matter more than others.
If i face Real Madrid in a final, i know they are killers, if i meet Benfica i know they are not.