Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

About Tacosman

  • Rank
    Pro Rookie

Recent Profile Visitors

1,946 profile views
  1. no doubt in baseball you would be the manager addicted to sacrifice bunting and 'moving runners over', and in basketball you would encourage your team to take tons of medium range 2 pointers.
  2. no doubt in baseball you would be the manager addicted to sacrifice bunting and 'moving runners over', and in basketball you would encourage your team to take tons of medium range 2 pointers.
  3. a few points: -I'm not sure what you mean by "once the first event has occured". I don't see how, in this case, that alters the fundamental nature of it. It only creats one more point of data for something that we already have massive data on. Additionally, the nature of going for two vs an extra point isn't something where the element of an option(since you now have to go for 2) matters. -and yes you always cling to the data. You never go back and look at the outcome and say "things played out as they shoiuld"(or shouldnt have). Thats why BB's famous decision against the colts many years ago on that fourth and 2 or 3 was right....even though that didn't make it. -additionally, my comments on how it is an easy call refer specifically at a certain point towards the end of the game, specifically in the 4th qtr(especially with 8 mins or less in 4th qtr). I should have referred more specificallly to the steelers game; as you note and I erred on the firt td happened much earlier. At other points in the game due to randomness of other possessionss, possible different scenarios, etc it is much less clear. And then it probably does become more team specific. But not in that steelers game. The model is so in favor of going for 2 in situations like the steelers game that questions about whether an offense is bad or a defense is good really don't apply- you'd literally have to be looking at the 85 bears defense against the current arizona cardinals offense for it to be even closer, and it still would likely be fairly clear. In making decisions, a coach has to decide if they are going to be like mike mularkey and jason garrett or like sean mcvay and BB. Coaches like the latter aren't aggressive on things like 4th down because they are trying to send a statement about being aggressive; they do that because it's the 'percentage play'...it is what gives you the best chance to win. Decisions like those really go to what a coach and organization is all about- if they don't understand those principles, then they are likely to be making other poor decisions and dont get the big picture.
  4. not at all...he just explained why. Now on Sportscenter they just explained the analytics and explained why it is so clear. The data is clear- its a nobrainer
  5. of course once the first is missed you dont have a 75% success rate...at that point you only have a 50% chance to tie. But again,..look at the whole picture- if you make it the first time, you hae a 50% chance to win. That is worth more than the downside
  6. excellent move as the data shows....
  7. (sigh) Of course they are independent of each other. We both get that obvious point. Lets do the math again. Put on your big boy math cap and try to follow along. each two point conversion attempt has roughly a 50% chance of success. When down 14 after scoring a td, that inital two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure) When down 8 after the first one misses, that next two point try has a 50% chance of success(and failure) This means the chance of a team that tries two back to back 2 pt conversions failing to make either one, and thus losing, is 25%. Why are you struggling with that? Where is the hang up? So the breakdown is as follows: make the first two pt try, kick xp to win by 1: ~50% miss the first and second, lose by 2: ~ 25% miss the first, make the second, tie: ~ 25% Therefore, the right move late in the game is to go for 2
  8. Tacosman

    1 wr choice gone

    terrible move by cowboys. Cooper may or may not be equal to what you get in terms of production/value going forward compared to a mid first round pick, but with a first round pick you have a signing bonus, then 4 affordable years and then a sorta pricier option year. With cooper you have the 14 million next year and then a huge extension
  9. math = good data = good making decisions involving math and date = good
  10. your math isnt good. You are right they are independent of each other(duh), which is why if the conversion rate is 50%, then the chance of missing two straight and losing is 25%. .5 x .5 = .25 = 25% I have no idea why you think your chance of missing two straight 2 pt conversions would be the same as missing just the first.
  11. that chart is wrong. It was 'developed in the 70s' and note there there is no data or winning probabilities associated with it. See the 538 chart I posted that uses actual data to determine what the best choice is late in game., Even without the data though, just intuitively think about it. Two point conversions work about half as often as an extra point. The actual numbers now are 48% vs 95-6% or so. For simplicity lets use 50 and 100 bc the point is still the same. scenario 1: make 2 pt conversion on 1st attempt. kick xp on 2nd. Win 50% of the time scenario2: miss 2pt conversion on 1st attempt, make on 2nd. tie 25% of the time scenario 3: miss on 1st and 2nd attempt, lose 25% of the time It's clear. Now this applies to generally when down 15 in fourth qtr. Not at any point in game.
  12. ummmm no, thats what teams generally do. But it's not the right move. think about it like this::(in cases where you score two tds) -if you go for it and make it, you are going to win the game. That alone is almost 50% of the equation -if for you go for two and miss it, you still have ANOTHER CHANCE to tie the game. -the only scenario where you lose is if you miss TWO STRAIGHT two point conversions, which has a much lower chance of happening than making the first two point attempt Likewise teams should also go for two on the FIRST try when down 15 and they score a td to cut it to 9, but they almost always wait until the second. When the reality is you need one 2 pt conversion anyways, so its better to know ahead of time whether you get it for future planning
  13. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/ Boom....with all the data very clearly laid out for you who aren't so good at math/using data
  14. Going for 2 is the right move as long as conversion rates hover close to50%. It's not even close really. Anyone who can't see this is math/data illiterate. So why did we not do this? To be fair I see other teams screw this up too.... but we've had 2 games now(and especially the steeler game where iirc our first td hapened later in 4th to make it even clearer), and we are going for 1... when the model shows that going for 2 to try to cut it to 6 is BY FAR the superior choice.
  15. Tacosman

    ***Official Browns @ Buccaneers Game Day Thread***

    i wouldn't neccessarily even go that far. As a former first round pick(especially where the nfl is now) he's a disaster, but thats not his fault. He's just very limited in terms of how he can help a team in 2018. He's not a player that we are going to need to count on(or at least I hope not) when we are hopefully good. We need some more help in the secondayry....im sure it will come in draft and fa/trades in the offseason