Three variables x, y and z

if x>y and y>z then we can deduce x>z

For example, Ice cream flavors. Chocolate, Vanilla and Strawberry

I prefer Chocolate to Vanilla and Vanilla to Strawberry, therefore I should prefer Chocolate to Strawberry.

From a sports perspective, is it logical to then conclude that if
team a>b and team b>c then team a>c. Do you have an example (name the teams) in which this is not the case? Can we say 100% of the time team a>c?

Yes in the sense that you can rank teams compared to all other teams in the league. so in that sense it would be true. the team that is ranked 1 is better generally speaking than all other teams IE if all teams played 20 games, team 1 would have the most wins.

No in that sense that you have to consider individual matchups. So a team that is ranked 5th might have the strengths that focus on team 1s specific weaknesses. They might be better suited to beat team 1 but not better suited for the other teams in the league.

So in a bubble it exists, but in reality its not that simple.

-The Knicks’ coaching search still includes a lone frontrunner, Kurt Rambis, whose qualifications for the position include a strong relationship with Jackson and a willingness to take the job.

Or at least by early into it.

It doesnt apply to sports because all things are not equal on all days. Brady could have a terrible game, KD can go cold and miss 12 straight shots etc...

There are an infinite # of examples to list of a team losing to a team it should beat by the transitive property. The browns would be 0-16 almost every year if it were a thing.

Like even after the Patriots bad game in Wk 1, it's easy to see that they would be better than the Jets.

But could someone say that the Falcons are better than the Patriots even though the Falcons are 2-0 and the Pats are 1-1?

Or if you judge all-time great teams the property breaks down as well

Yes, the modern day Warriors are probably better the Rockets of the mid 90s because these Warriors won more than the Rockets did of that time, but it's almost impossible to compare them to the Bulls of the mid 90's, who won more games than this year's Warriors, because the differences are negligible.

especially not in football. it's about how each team matches up with each other, and that's not something you can quantify with W-L results.

team a might be 12-4 because of an OK offense and very good defense, but that defense has a weakness against tight ends. team b might be 4-12, but have two really good tight ends and a bad defense.

tight ends expose team a's defense, and their OK offense can't catch up against team b's bad defense.

--------