Re: Here\'s The Situation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't just my opinion. Many experts have shown that some of these errors are egregious. The apologists invoke psychology to defend the coaches. But that is usually disengenuous because the coach had no idea that psychology would have to be his excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology isn't the reason that coaches refuse to gamble in some spots. It's because their jobs are on the line if they do something drastic and blow it. Unlike professional gamblers, the rest of the world and team ownership are results-oriented. So, if a coach were to do something retarded and still win, nobody would give a damn. But doing something that is mathematically correct won't change the fact that an unconventional decision cost your team the playoffs.

You can do something that is mathematically correct in the long run. But in the end, what matters is the here and now rather than other games in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

SUB-

This is the exact post I was just going to make. I agree 100%.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure MT2R has owned a lot of other threads on this forum in the same way.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]
Two small counterarguments with no proof = ownage imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

no proof???


didn't I show where coaches had come across such ideas?
didn't I show where the 2 pt conversion rate has been inversely related to the number of 2 pt attempts in a season?

hmmmm.... I understand most of the forum cannot think through dynamic systems and understand what is truly at play, but my god

not small counter-arguments at all

there is only so much time to practice and so many key short yardage plays that a team can have

LOL @ using one of those plays down 8 to get a 2 pointer when they might need one for a future TD drive when the math isn't overwhelming

I basically pointed out where the whole framework and assumptions don't apply
seems like a fatal flaw

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

[/ QUOTE ]

the one where I tear apart an 'expert' who tries to misapply a framed problem to a new context

[/ QUOTE ]

That hardly seems like a tearing apart. It seems like you're making a few small counterarguments and then saying "Yep, I'm definitely right."

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty sure MT2R has owned a lot of other threads on this forum in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...yeah...I've been shown to be so wrong on the Bonds thing

oh yeah....I wasn't

lollerskates

you can attack me personally over and over, all it does is embarrass you

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

Sklansky,

Good point actually.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]

didn't I show where the 2 pt conversion rate has been inversely related to the number of 2 pt attempts in a season?

[/ QUOTE ]

A link to a NYT article that contained the following sentence which you quoted:

[ QUOTE ]
But a funny thing has been happening at the same time: offenses have regained the upper hand on conversion attempts.

[/ QUOTE ]

was the entirety of your evidence. Note that that is not a quantitative statement. If you were to show that the size of that effect was substantial enough to impact Sklansky's reasoning, that would be a good argument. What you are doing instead is waving your hands, and instead of saying something like "Here is a possible counterargument," you're saying "OWNED YOUR FACE OFF SLANKSY"

EDIT: What evidence is there that football coaches have thought through this mathematically? Anecdotally, it sounds like baseball has only recently gotten into sabermetrics, and that's a sport which seems like it has a considerably longer history of statistical analysis.

EDIT 2: Funnily, immediately after the sentence from the NYT article comes this piece of wisdom: "(Sackrowitz says teams now do not go for 2 often enough.)"

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

did you miss the stats given in the thread?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

even using the wrong model

assumptions:
-xp pct was way off
-team down late in the game would average 42% on 2 pointers
-team that didn't get the 2 down 8 would still be 42% to convert the second 2 pointer
-team that comes back from 14 down is only 50/50 in OT
-the 2pt conversion rate would remain the same with opposing coaches expecting it more
-going for 2 on the first TD does not have any effect on the probability of scoring a second TD

I don't know how someone who can think logically wouldn't highly question all of those assumptions

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

MT2R,

I don't care one way or the other, but it's pretty much a given that any time someone declares "victory" in an internet debate a bunch of people are going to come along and try to shoot holes in his argument.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know how someone who can think logically wouldn't highly question all of those assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]

Questioning assumptions is good. There is an obvious assumption in your reasoning as well: "High level football coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and rejected it." I find that assumption highly questionable, too.

EDIT: Also, where do you cite stats for how frequency of 2 pt. conversions translates to success rates?