Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

Yeah I've been owned by him like that at least once or twice.

[MyTurn2Raise]

i linked articles in the other thread

the main coaches in today's game, whose disciples are everywhere, have considered it

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


that was pretty much a shot at Sklansky who did the same in the original thread

sorry if that wasn't clear

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
i linked articles in the other thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to the lone article you cited in support of the 2 pt. conversion. It does not provide those stats; it provides the sentence I quoted earlier on. So, no, you didn't provide stats. (EDIT: To be clear, it provides some stats earlier in the article; it does not provide direct, hard evidence to explain exactly what it means by when the rate of going for it went down, the success rate went up. But these are the stats that matter for your argument.)

Let's look at the other article, showing that coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and taken it into account. Here's a typical quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a professor from Cal-Berzerkely?" asked Giants head coach Jim Fassel, in the true tradition of a former Stanford man.

Fassel turned a sheet with the equation on it sideways, then upside down in a humorous attempt to absorb its subtleties.

"What does the professor coach?" Fassel asked. "Maybe," he added, "he needs a few more classes to teach. Too much free time?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Brian Billick, the cerebral head coach of the Baltimore Ravens, isn't so sure about all of the professor's numbers.

"There are only two numbers," Billick said. "And those are 50-50. You either make it, or you don't."

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from telling us that Billick would be something in BBV, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be indicative that coaches have performed this type of searching analysis and found it wanting.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i linked articles in the other thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to the lone article you cited in support of the 2 pt. conversion. It does not provide those stats; it provides the sentence I quoted earlier on. So, no, you didn't provide stats. (EDIT: To be clear, it provides some stats earlier in the article; it does not provide direct, hard evidence to explain exactly what it means by when the rate of going for it went down, the success rate went up. But these are the stats that matter for your argument.)

Let's look at the other article, showing that coaches have already thought about all of this stuff and taken it into account. Here's a typical quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"This is a professor from Cal-Berzerkely?" asked Giants head coach Jim Fassel, in the true tradition of a former Stanford man.

Fassel turned a sheet with the equation on it sideways, then upside down in a humorous attempt to absorb its subtleties.

"What does the professor coach?" Fassel asked. "Maybe," he added, "he needs a few more classes to teach. Too much free time?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Brian Billick, the cerebral head coach of the Baltimore Ravens, isn't so sure about all of the professor's numbers.

"There are only two numbers," Billick said. "And those are 50-50. You either make it, or you don't."

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from telling us that Billick would be something in BBV, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be indicative that coaches have performed this type of searching analysis and found it wanting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pandering to Joe Sixpack LDO

[MyTurn2Raise]

stats......hahahahhahahahahahahhaha... to combat what? The fake assumptions presented?

don't the ones trying to set up the model have to justify the stats they use

or is solving a math problem that doesn't capture the situation at hand enough???

GMAFB

don't the articles also mention Bilicek and Mariucci going over the work?


there were stats given in the thread for 96 through 2000
success rate was 40.8% and had it's best results early. As used more, success declined.

Then again, I'm blown away by the supposed infinite pool offenses have of 42% successful plays to get 2 yards.

--these are not independent, isolated trials..this isn't blackjack and it's an insult to analyze the game like it is
this is a dynamic system

[David Sklansky]

[ 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 ]

I agree with your second paragraph. But I wonder how many coaches purposely do what they know to be the wrong play for your reason. Few, if any, I'd venture to say. At least not. without discussing it with the owner first.

And what is that last paragraph supposed to mean?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
stats......hahahahhahahahahahahhaha... to combat what? The fake assumptions presented?

don't the ones trying to set up the model have to justify the stats they use

or is solving a math problem that doesn't capture the situation at hand enough???

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, Sklansky forgot to include clutchness in his calculations.

EDIT: And yes, they do mention that Belichick looked at the paper, which was about 4th downs. He appears to go for 4th downs slightly more often than is the norm, based purely on the anecdotal evidence of me watching football games. So some coaches clearly look at it. But to suggest that the football conventional wisdom is clearly based on such iron-clad analysis, as you seem to be, is dumb.

[MyTurn2Raise]

no...I'm suggesting that thinking one has found that error with 2-pointer down 14 and that it hasn't been considered before is dumb...that model is severely flawed and demonstrates a huge lack of basic understanding of football as a dynamic system

alot of conventional wisdom in football is wrong...dead wrong... mainly the amount of times teams play for FGs, the lack of going for it near midfield, and the lack of taking shots down the field on 3rd and medium/long situations

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
no...I'm suggesting that thinking one has found that error with 2-pointer down 14 and that it hasn't been considered before is dumb...that model is severely flawed and demonstrates a huge lack of basic understanding of football as a dynamic system

alot of conventional wisdom in football is wrong...dead wrong... mainly the amount of times teams play for FGs, the lack of going for it near midfield, and the lack of taking shots down the field on 3rd and medium/long situations

[/ QUOTE ]

If your second paragraph is true, then why is it dumb to think that one has found a mathematical nuance that hasn't been considered before?