Tacosman Posted October 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 44 minutes ago, Tour2ma said: Interesting stuff... It's the old "once the first event has occurred" argument... Why cling to "the data" when the the game played out just as "the data" said it would? Namely NYG made one of two 2-point conversions? That said... The problem with "the data" that I see (other than the fact that it is not "data", but a set of statistical probabilities derived from "the data") is that it is not team specific. Not all teams are created equal. And then there's the time of game factor. Or as the 538 article put it: The charts at the bottom of your linked article clearly support Patsies decision. Specifically this chart: which has essentially all the decisions firmly in the 2-point side. However, the same is not true of Hue's early Q3 decision where the chart suggests that the poorer 2-point teams, of which we are one, should consider going for the single PAT. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacosman Posted October 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 10 hours ago, D Bone said: Finally, something we agree on! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacosman Posted October 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 10 hours ago, D Bone said: Finally, something we agree on! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted October 23, 2018 Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 45 minutes ago, Tacosman said: 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. I suspect you place all your money on 1 at the roulette tables in Vegas.😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted October 23, 2018 Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Tacosman said: 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. I meant that the arguments against you in this thread have been largely (and wrongly) based upon arguments that in the probability analysis of two independent occurrences the outcome of the first event is only significant after it has occurred. I meant you have been still arguing "data" when Shurmur's use of it bears out your position. NYG made 1 of 2 two-point tries last nite. When providence hands you a real life example, use it. I missed any reference to the Steelers' game... and in any case do not remember it. My only point was that the chart I screenshot does give Hue some cover. Agree... and so does Mike Vrable. It's no coincidence that he is a twig on the BB coaching tree... a twig I think has a very good chance of growing to be the most successful branch since BB's Cleveland days. One last, and new, point... I wonder what the impact is on home (where traditional thought is to play for the tie and OT) vs. road (when conventional wisdom is to go for the win in regulation) games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.