Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?

[gumpzilla]

[ 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?

[MyTurn2Raise]

i linked articles in the other thread

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

[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

[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?