Post here when coaches do something obviously stupid

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

Couple of points. As mentioned before, the transition doesn't have to start at the pro level, where I agree, the money is too huge to risk getting run out of town.

Point two: baby steps. Some coaches are already smartening up about going for it in situations like 4th and 3 on the opp's 45. That can grow to drastically reducing the amount of punts attempted and it eventually becomes standard practice. It need not be one guy who comes in and always goes for two, never punts on 4th and <5, and doesn't kick field goals on 4th and <2 inside the 20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that change can be effected eventually, I'm just trying to point out that there really are some pretty fundamental barriers to these types of things, other than JUST coaches all being old, crotchety morons. They are still old crotchety morons, of course, but thats not all of it.

As a matter of fact, it would be easier to effect change from the owner's box or the GM's office, just like in baseball. Its hard because the GM has a more limited role in the NFL, but the reason sabermetrics has made such great strides in baseball is because of Beane, Theo, Ricciardi and all those guys, not because of Francona or Torre or LaRussa.

[kidcolin]

Well, that's because much (all? i'm not sure) of sabermetrics is about player evaluation, and that's the GM's job. So sure, while it may be the A's philosophy to take lots of pitches and have great plate discipline, it's largely self-fulfilled, because they go out and get guys who already do that.

[stormstarter28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, this didn't happen recently but I'm watching the Eagles game and it reminded me of something. When a team is down by 15, and there is, say, 8 or 9 minutes left in the game, and they score a TD. You should ALWAYS go for 2, right? Time after time I see the coaches kick the one, to put themselves down by 8, with the plan (apparently) to go for 2 if and when they score again. Doesn't this seem like totally irrational decision based on the fear of "hopelessness" or whatever if you go for it and fail? It makes no sense. Waiting until the second TD, pinning all your hopes on that, has to be worse than trying, failing, and knowing that you now need to score two more times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. For some reason everyone assumes the result of the 2pt play would be different? Seems to me you're better off knowing ahead of time how many possessions you need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I don't understand why people have trouble with this. You HAVE to convert a 2 point conversion...your odds of converting the conversion are the same whether you do it after the first TD or the second...why would anyone wait until the second when all your eggs are in that basket? It seems like such common sense, yet I here announcers saying they should kick the extra point now and go for 2 later. What's wrong with people?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's because much (all? i'm not sure) of sabermetrics is about player evaluation, and that's the GM's job. So sure, while it may be the A's philosophy to take lots of pitches and have great plate discipline, it's largely self-fulfilled, because they go out and get guys who already do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not really true, there are sabermetric applications to in-game strategy, stuff like bullpen management, base stealing, sacrifices, stuff like that.

[MicroBob]

Right. The in-game stuff is relevant too.
Plus, I think that saying "they go out and get guys who already do that" is really incorrect too.
A lot of it is the instruction they receive.

If you draft a bunch of guys out of high school or college ball who are really patient at the plate but want to teach them to be super-aggressive then they are going to do that too.

Players don't just stay the same and maintain the same approach all the way through their careers. It is really a constant learning process.

[jgunnip]

I can't find a working link to the original Sklansky article from the Mag but here's the discussion thread re: 4th down play calling.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import


oh and here's an academic paper with lots of math and symbols and footnotes and citations and stuff. Paper by David Romer, UC-Berkeley.

http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/drom...s/nber9024.pdf

[dkgojackets]

FOURTH AND SIX.

DOWN BY FIVE, FIVE MINUTES TO PLAY.

ON THE OPPONENTS TWENTY.

INSTEAD OF KICKING A FIELD GOAL WITH THE ACC'S LEADING KICKER, YOU GO FOR IT AND MISS. [censored] GAILEY.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
FOURTH AND SIX.

DOWN BY FIVE, FIVE MINUTES TO PLAY.

ON THE OPPONENTS TWENTY.

INSTEAD OF KICKING A FIELD GOAL WITH THE ACC'S LEADING KICKER, YOU GO FOR IT AND MISS. [censored] GAILEY.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYS

[BobOjedaFan]

Top 1st innign leadoff double vs a guy with a 6 ERA, the Mets are givign up about 100 runs per game and Willie just had Castillo sacrafice. His stupidty is astounding

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
haha, standard charlie manuel. Thats like a good managerial decision from manuel even.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted in another managerial thread a long while back. Charlie Manuel does stuff that it's like he doesn't care or fades in and out of paying attention-- I remember thinking, "Does he *want* to get fired?"