Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?

[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?

[MyTurn2Raise]

that isn't dumb, but one should really check the validity of there assumptions if they are going to go up against conventional wisdom

to present the argument as I've seen it presented is laughable

The first question should be 'what is wrong with the model?'
Instead, the proponent just questioned 'what is wrong with NFL coaches?'

that was dumb when the model is severely flawed

It's also silly in that I've heard that criticism before and there were posted sources that talked about it



Perhaps one should analyze whether it's better to go for 2 up 7 or kick the point.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

The first question should be 'what is wrong with the model?'
Instead, the proponent just questioned 'what is wrong with NFL coaches?'


[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that coaches intuitively understand how going for 2 down by 8 will change the success frequency when adopted on a large scale so they don't bother with it?

[EWS87]

lets just say for now that sklanksy is right

it is still a highly -EV decision for the coach

the very first time the team fails to convert the 2-point conversion, and winds up having the ball in field goal range and loses by 4...the public and media outcry of people that could never understand the math would result in the coach eventually losing his job

coaches coach to make money not to win games

[Victor]

look, coaches losing their job for these publicly regarded "risks" is absurdly overblown.

have you guys watched any bengals games this year? marvin lewis is completely secure in his job and he routinely blows obv situations. going for 2 up by 4 with 2.5min left.

calling to rather than challenging an obv fumble late in the browns game. note, he realized the mistake and still tried to challenge right after calling his last to. umm, if you felt the play questionable, and wanted to call to anyway, why not uhhh challenge?

calling to on 4th and 1 from the 2 and then sending the fg team out. ummm, why not take the penalty, save a to and still kick the gimme?

look at les miles. he was calling timeouts leaving a ton of time on the clock giving ark a chance to drive for the winning fg. dude is coveted for one of the best college jobs in the nation, and im sure lsu fans will mourn his loss.

agasint pittsburgh, crennel called to then reviewed a play, which he lost, essentially losing 2 timeouts late in the game when the browns were driving for a fg. dawson then missed a 47 yarder (tough kick in pitt.) ya think an extra to gets them closer often enough?

this is off the top of my head but such mistakes are common and there is little to no public mention of them let alone outcry.

but wait, what happened to that guy who went for 2 where a tie would have won the title? was he fired? did his fan base turn? absolutely not, he became a friggin senator.