I dont think you can fault him for punting that ball away. Mizzou scores again if they dont get it. The victory looks that much better and it hurts OU in the BCS. That was a move with the big picture in mind. Couple that with OU not being able to complete a pass in the 4th quarter. Stoops was playing for the future.
Actually, this is sort of a legitimate point. Within the confines of the absurd BCS system (don't get me started), this makes sense.
Without a doubt though this move took his win probability from slim to none.
I often see NFL coaches make similar moves and there is no logic behind it at all ....other than I don't want to get fired for being blown out. I know this is the logic but I'd love to hear a coach explain on the podium that he places his own job security higher than his team's chance of winning the game.
I dont think you can fault him for punting that ball away. Mizzou scores again if they dont get it. The victory looks that much better and it hurts OU in the BCS. That was a move with the big picture in mind. Couple that with OU not being able to complete a pass in the 4th quarter. Stoops was playing for the future.
Actually, this is sort of a legitimate point. Within the confines of the absurd BCS system (don't get me started), this makes sense.
Without a doubt though this move took his win probability from slim to none.
I often see NFL coaches make similar moves and there is no logic behind it at all ....other than I don't want to get fired for being blown out. I know this is the logic but I'd love to hear a coach explain on the podium that he places his own job security higher than his team's chance of winning the game.
I changed my stance on this from bad call to good call by Phillips.
Closing to 15 should be the play only if you trust your D to shut down opponent. I was locked on the number and wasn't realizing what Phillips was........ that his team would probably not make stops and need the 7 now. He was partially correct due to the carelessness of the Giants offense.
I changed my stance on this from bad call to good call by Phillips.
Closing to 15 should be the play only if you trust your D to shut down opponent. I was locked on the number and wasn't realizing what Phillips was........ that his team would probably not make stops and need the 7 now. He was partially correct due to the carelessness of the Giants offense.
After the Cowboys came back, he said that "if they would have had that field goal they gave up on a little while back...short field anything can happen..."
I think he honestly thinks that if Phillips could redo it, he should have kicked it. That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Lets assume that everything else happened in the game up until that point and the Cowboys could remake that move. (I know bad assumption...but theres no reason to assume things would have been any better for the Cowboys if they kicked and they might have been worse....the neutral assumption is correct for these purposes)
Which of the following is more likely...
Gruden's way.
Kick a short field goal (98%) + Get an onside kick (10%) + Drive 35 yards into field goal position with 40 seconds and no timeouts (25%) + Kick a long field goal (70%) + Win in Overtime (50%)
Multiply all of these together and you get 0.86%.
Gruden really legitimately thinks that is more likely than Phillips way.
Convert one 6 yard pass and win the game (about 40%).
I'd point out that even missing the pass, the Cowboys still had almost as good a chance to win the game as they would have if they made the field goal. Driving the ball the whole way for a touchdown isn't that much more difficult than driving it half the way, kicking and winning it in OT.
The scary thing is that all the other reporters and coaches would probably agree with Gruden that Phillips did the wrong thing.
The really grating thing is that they would justify it by saying the "numbers" say you should kick without ever looking or thinking about a single number.
The state of math in this country is horrible but coaches are paid millions of dollars to think about these things. When somebody like Phillips or Belichick actually makes the correct decision they take an absurd amount of slack. When people like Gruden make horribly wrong decisions, nobody ever calls them on it just because all the other coaches make the same horribly wrong decisions.
After the Cowboys came back, he said that "if they would have had that field goal they gave up on a little while back...short field anything can happen..."
I think he honestly thinks that if Phillips could redo it, he should have kicked it. That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Lets assume that everything else happened in the game up until that point and the Cowboys could remake that move. (I know bad assumption...but theres no reason to assume things would have been any better for the Cowboys if they kicked and they might have been worse....the neutral assumption is correct for these purposes)
Which of the following is more likely...
Gruden's way.
Kick a short field goal (98%) + Get an onside kick (10%) + Drive 35 yards into field goal position with 40 seconds and no timeouts (25%) + Kick a long field goal (70%) + Win in Overtime (50%)
Multiply all of these together and you get 0.86%.
Gruden really legitimately thinks that is more likely than Phillips way.
Convert one 6 yard pass and win the game (about 40%).
I'd point out that even missing the pass, the Cowboys still had almost as good a chance to win the game as they would have if they made the field goal. Driving the ball the whole way for a touchdown isn't that much more difficult than driving it half the way, kicking and winning it in OT.
The scary thing is that all the other reporters and coaches would probably agree with Gruden that Phillips did the wrong thing.
The really grating thing is that they would justify it by saying the "numbers" say you should kick without ever looking or thinking about a single number.
The state of math in this country is horrible but coaches are paid millions of dollars to think about these things. When somebody like Phillips or Belichick actually makes the correct decision they take an absurd amount of slack. When people like Gruden make horribly wrong decisions, nobody ever calls them on it just because all the other coaches make the same horribly wrong decisions.
If your so sure it makes a "huge" difference, perhaps you'd like to quantify it.....
Can you answer the questions in #53?
I love how everybody seems so sure of the absolute sanctity of the 2 score / 3 score difference yet no one has ever bothered to try to calculate it.
This applies to the announcers (and its really scary but true) most of the coaches. They don't seem to know what the difference is. They just know there must be one. Why? Because somebody told them once and they never bothered to ask a single clarifying question.
If your so sure it makes a "huge" difference, perhaps you'd like to quantify it.....
Can you answer the questions in #53?
I love how everybody seems so sure of the absolute sanctity of the 2 score / 3 score difference yet no one has ever bothered to try to calculate it.
This applies to the announcers (and its really scary but true) most of the coaches. They don't seem to know what the difference is. They just know there must be one. Why? Because somebody told them once and they never bothered to ask a single clarifying question.
Implicitally, the assumptions seem to be that if you kick everything else will go your way later. If you go, everything else will go against you. This is just stupid. Do you make these sort of assumptions when you are capping games? If you do, thank you. You're helping to make me big profits.
Implicitly, the assumption is that if you kick you only need one possession to have a chance to tie the game.
Explicitly, if you dont kick, you need two possessions to tie the game.
I dont make any assumptions while I am capping games.
I mean, I dont see your threads, but I highly doubt I am the one giving you huge profits. If anything, you are the people that get me the lines I do. I love people who play games on paper.
Try this with someone who isnt one of the more successful people at Covers.
Implicitally, the assumptions seem to be that if you kick everything else will go your way later. If you go, everything else will go against you. This is just stupid. Do you make these sort of assumptions when you are capping games? If you do, thank you. You're helping to make me big profits.
Implicitly, the assumption is that if you kick you only need one possession to have a chance to tie the game.
Explicitly, if you dont kick, you need two possessions to tie the game.
I dont make any assumptions while I am capping games.
I mean, I dont see your threads, but I highly doubt I am the one giving you huge profits. If anything, you are the people that get me the lines I do. I love people who play games on paper.
Try this with someone who isnt one of the more successful people at Covers.
Its not the 2 score v 3 score - stop looking at it like that.
Its possessions needed.
I agree the possession is important and u must take advantage of it. Sooner or later u need to kick a field goal any way so kick it and let your defense get the possession back. If the different is 10 then I will go for the forth down since I only need to kick a field goal to tie. But 18 points then even I got a TD I still have to score another TD 2 point conversion and a field goal to tie.
Its not the 2 score v 3 score - stop looking at it like that.
Its possessions needed.
I agree the possession is important and u must take advantage of it. Sooner or later u need to kick a field goal any way so kick it and let your defense get the possession back. If the different is 10 then I will go for the forth down since I only need to kick a field goal to tie. But 18 points then even I got a TD I still have to score another TD 2 point conversion and a field goal to tie.
regardless, u needed the FG, so kick the damn thing and maybe just maybe you can convince ur offense to score a TD, making it easier to then score another one (because of momentum, all caoshces ant every level will tell u is a very real thing)...call reeked of desperation...
regardless, u needed the FG, so kick the damn thing and maybe just maybe you can convince ur offense to score a TD, making it easier to then score another one (because of momentum, all caoshces ant every level will tell u is a very real thing)...call reeked of desperation...
Implicitly, the assumption is that if you kick you only need one possession to have a chance to tie the game.
Explicitly, if you dont kick, you need two possessions to tie the game.
I dont make any assumptions while I am capping games.
I mean, I dont see your threads, but I highly doubt I am the one giving you huge profits. If anything, you are the people that get me the lines I do. I love people who play games on paper.
Try this with someone who isnt one of the more successful people at Covers.
We are talking about the difference between 11 and 15...and between 15 and 18. I noticed that you didn't even make any attempt to answer any of the questions in #53.
Bottom line. There is a huge difference between 11 points and 15 points and not as much between 15 and 18.
You say "you don't make any assumptions" but you are making 4 big ones with the obsession over "2 possessions". a) You eventually score 2 more TDs b) You hold the Giants scoreless the rest of the game c) You eventually score the 2 point conversion d) You win the game in overtime.
Its a very simple question. What exactly is the probability of all of this happening?
Nearly everybody that has actually done the math on this says that going for it was the right play. Nearly everybody that hasn't done the math says that its not.
Stop relying on cliches and do the math.
Whats the probability you win down 15? 11? 18?
BTW...."I love people who play games on paper"
Where exactly do you play them?
I love people who assume that they know the probabilities for things they haven't made any attempt whatsoever to actually calculate.
Implicitly, the assumption is that if you kick you only need one possession to have a chance to tie the game.
Explicitly, if you dont kick, you need two possessions to tie the game.
I dont make any assumptions while I am capping games.
I mean, I dont see your threads, but I highly doubt I am the one giving you huge profits. If anything, you are the people that get me the lines I do. I love people who play games on paper.
Try this with someone who isnt one of the more successful people at Covers.
We are talking about the difference between 11 and 15...and between 15 and 18. I noticed that you didn't even make any attempt to answer any of the questions in #53.
Bottom line. There is a huge difference between 11 points and 15 points and not as much between 15 and 18.
You say "you don't make any assumptions" but you are making 4 big ones with the obsession over "2 possessions". a) You eventually score 2 more TDs b) You hold the Giants scoreless the rest of the game c) You eventually score the 2 point conversion d) You win the game in overtime.
Its a very simple question. What exactly is the probability of all of this happening?
Nearly everybody that has actually done the math on this says that going for it was the right play. Nearly everybody that hasn't done the math says that its not.
Stop relying on cliches and do the math.
Whats the probability you win down 15? 11? 18?
BTW...."I love people who play games on paper"
Where exactly do you play them?
I love people who assume that they know the probabilities for things they haven't made any attempt whatsoever to actually calculate.
I agree the possession is important and u must take advantage of it. Sooner or later u need to kick a field goal any way so kick it and let your defense get the possession back. If the different is 10 then I will go for the forth down since I only need to kick a field goal to tie. But 18 points then even I got a TD I still have to score another TD 2 point conversion and a field goal to tie.
One more person that tries to answer the question without any mathematical basis.
I agree the possession is important and u must take advantage of it. Sooner or later u need to kick a field goal any way so kick it and let your defense get the possession back. If the different is 10 then I will go for the forth down since I only need to kick a field goal to tie. But 18 points then even I got a TD I still have to score another TD 2 point conversion and a field goal to tie.
One more person that tries to answer the question without any mathematical basis.
One more person that tries to answer the question without any mathematical basis.
This is getting repetitive.
Whats the prob at 15? 11? 18?
I see not a single person in the "FG first" crowd has taken me up on my challenge to actually post the probabilities.
Thats because almost no matter how you calculate it being down 11 gives you a 4 times greater chance than being down 15 at winning the game.
Poker analogy:
You're ridiculously short stacked. You can go fold or go all-in on a draw. You only have a 40% chance of hitting that draw, but if you hit it, you immediately quadruple your meager stack.
You're saying that the right move is to fold?!?!?!?!??!
If so, I really want to play against you.
The problem is that nearly all coaches and announcers are really weak-tight poker players. They don't take gambles even when the pot odds are ridiculously aligned in their favor.
Then when somebody does take a calculated risk they talk endlessly about what the "numbers" say without mentioning a single number.
I challenge anybody to post a mathematical reasoning as to why going for it there wasn't a smart move.
One more person that tries to answer the question without any mathematical basis.
This is getting repetitive.
Whats the prob at 15? 11? 18?
I see not a single person in the "FG first" crowd has taken me up on my challenge to actually post the probabilities.
Thats because almost no matter how you calculate it being down 11 gives you a 4 times greater chance than being down 15 at winning the game.
Poker analogy:
You're ridiculously short stacked. You can go fold or go all-in on a draw. You only have a 40% chance of hitting that draw, but if you hit it, you immediately quadruple your meager stack.
You're saying that the right move is to fold?!?!?!?!??!
If so, I really want to play against you.
The problem is that nearly all coaches and announcers are really weak-tight poker players. They don't take gambles even when the pot odds are ridiculously aligned in their favor.
Then when somebody does take a calculated risk they talk endlessly about what the "numbers" say without mentioning a single number.
I challenge anybody to post a mathematical reasoning as to why going for it there wasn't a smart move.
you still need to kick a FG at some point in the game when you are down 18
to just say "being down 11 is better than being down 15" misses the point completely. The argument is that you are down 18 you cant start your argument by assuming a TD You need 3 scores, you have a better chance to make a FG on this play ,save some clock and then go for the 2 TDs you need. The math you keep quoting doesnt take the time left in the game into consideration at all
you still need to kick a FG at some point in the game when you are down 18
to just say "being down 11 is better than being down 15" misses the point completely. The argument is that you are down 18 you cant start your argument by assuming a TD You need 3 scores, you have a better chance to make a FG on this play ,save some clock and then go for the 2 TDs you need. The math you keep quoting doesnt take the time left in the game into consideration at all
you still need to kick a FG at some point in the game when you are down 18
to just say "being down 11 is better than being down 15" misses the point completely. The argument is that you are down 18 you cant start your argument by assuming a TD You need 3 scores, you have a better chance to make a FG on this play ,save some clock and then go for the 2 TDs you need. The math you keep quoting doesnt take the time left in the game into consideration at all
Oy Vey.
Did you even read my posts? I'm pretty clear on the fact that it was a gamble. Obviously it was a gamble but it was a calculated risk with the odds considerably in its favor. I'd think that people on this site would understand that.
Yet one more person from the FG first crowd that seems to think the "numbers" were against it without any real understanding of what the numbers are.
I'm amazed that you people actually think you have any hope at all betting sports. Why don't you just mail me a check?
you still need to kick a FG at some point in the game when you are down 18
to just say "being down 11 is better than being down 15" misses the point completely. The argument is that you are down 18 you cant start your argument by assuming a TD You need 3 scores, you have a better chance to make a FG on this play ,save some clock and then go for the 2 TDs you need. The math you keep quoting doesnt take the time left in the game into consideration at all
Oy Vey.
Did you even read my posts? I'm pretty clear on the fact that it was a gamble. Obviously it was a gamble but it was a calculated risk with the odds considerably in its favor. I'd think that people on this site would understand that.
Yet one more person from the FG first crowd that seems to think the "numbers" were against it without any real understanding of what the numbers are.
I'm amazed that you people actually think you have any hope at all betting sports. Why don't you just mail me a check?
You constantly state the importance and much better odds of 15 vs.11 in your posts. The key number being 11. This leads me to believe a 1 point conversion try is the right choice when down by 12 after scoring.
Why have you argued that going for 2 early, in that spot, is the proper play then? There are times to be aggresive, but this is not one of them. You always manage to assume there will be time enough to drive the entire field twice if neccesary. I'd see much more probability against that and use my 40% chance of making the 2 pointer to tie later.
You constantly state the importance and much better odds of 15 vs.11 in your posts. The key number being 11. This leads me to believe a 1 point conversion try is the right choice when down by 12 after scoring.
Why have you argued that going for 2 early, in that spot, is the proper play then? There are times to be aggresive, but this is not one of them. You always manage to assume there will be time enough to drive the entire field twice if neccesary. I'd see much more probability against that and use my 40% chance of making the 2 pointer to tie later.
You constantly state the importance and much better odds of 15 vs.11 in your posts. The key number being 11. This leads me to believe a 1 point conversion try is the right choice when down by 12 after scoring.
Why have you argued that going for 2 early, in that spot, is the proper play then? There are times to be aggresive, but this is not one of them. You always manage to assume there will be time enough to drive the entire field twice if neccesary. I'd see much more probability against that and use my 40% chance of making the 2 pointer to tie later.
Mischkin,
You're quickly becoming my favorite poster on this site. You don't quite buy into what I'm selling but at least you're trying to figure it out and not just instantly dismiss it.
Its a very good question. The leap in importance is really from 15 to 13. Its a much smaller leap from 13 to 12 and then from 12 to 11.
Remember the implied assumptions behind 15. You don't only need to score two TDs and hold the other team scoreless. You also need to make the 2 and win in OT. None of that is true at 13.
I don't see much difference at all between 13 and 12.
12 to 11 is important because it gets you the ability to use a fg and a 2 point conversion, but you still need the two point conversion. That makes 11 to 10 a much more important jump.
I've been focusing on the importance of 11 instead of 15 but I would have thought Phillips should have gone for 2 if he got it. I guess arguably this whole thing should have been about the difference between 15 and 12/10, but that would have just confused the math and I think most people reading this are confused enough as it is.
You constantly state the importance and much better odds of 15 vs.11 in your posts. The key number being 11. This leads me to believe a 1 point conversion try is the right choice when down by 12 after scoring.
Why have you argued that going for 2 early, in that spot, is the proper play then? There are times to be aggresive, but this is not one of them. You always manage to assume there will be time enough to drive the entire field twice if neccesary. I'd see much more probability against that and use my 40% chance of making the 2 pointer to tie later.
Mischkin,
You're quickly becoming my favorite poster on this site. You don't quite buy into what I'm selling but at least you're trying to figure it out and not just instantly dismiss it.
Its a very good question. The leap in importance is really from 15 to 13. Its a much smaller leap from 13 to 12 and then from 12 to 11.
Remember the implied assumptions behind 15. You don't only need to score two TDs and hold the other team scoreless. You also need to make the 2 and win in OT. None of that is true at 13.
I don't see much difference at all between 13 and 12.
12 to 11 is important because it gets you the ability to use a fg and a 2 point conversion, but you still need the two point conversion. That makes 11 to 10 a much more important jump.
I've been focusing on the importance of 11 instead of 15 but I would have thought Phillips should have gone for 2 if he got it. I guess arguably this whole thing should have been about the difference between 15 and 12/10, but that would have just confused the math and I think most people reading this are confused enough as it is.
After the Cowboys came back, he said that "if they would have had that field goal they gave up on a little while back...short field anything can happen..."
I think he honestly thinks that if Phillips could redo it, he should have kicked it. That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Lets assume that everything else happened in the game up until that point and the Cowboys could remake that move. (I know bad assumption...but theres no reason to assume things would have been any better for the Cowboys if they kicked and they might have been worse....the neutral assumption is correct for these purposes)
Which of the following is more likely...
Gruden's way.
Kick a short field goal (98%) + Get an onside kick (10%) + Drive 35 yards into field goal position with 40 seconds and no timeouts (25%) + Kick a long field goal (70%) + Win in Overtime (50%)
Multiply all of these together and you get 0.86%.
Gruden really legitimately thinks that is more likely than Phillips way.
Convert one 6 yard pass and win the game (about 40%).
I'd point out that even missing the pass, the Cowboys still had almost as good a chance to win the game as they would have if they made the field goal. Driving the ball the whole way for a touchdown isn't that much more difficult than driving it half the way, kicking and winning it in OT.
The scary thing is that all the other reporters and coaches would probably agree with Gruden that Phillips did the wrong thing.
The really grating thing is that they would justify it by saying the "numbers" say you should kick without ever looking or thinking about a single number.
The state of math in this country is horrible but coaches are paid millions of dollars to think about these things. When somebody like Phillips or Belichick actually makes the correct decision they take an absurd amount of slack. When people like Gruden make horribly wrong decisions, nobody ever calls them on it just because all the other coaches make the same horribly wrong decisions.
Tallguy, you are spot on. These guys say so much dumb shit and get away with it. I sometimes read the tuesday morning quarterback on espn.com. He basically goes through and mathematically proves all the dumb shit coaches do all the time i.e. punting on 4th and 1 from midfield.
After the Cowboys came back, he said that "if they would have had that field goal they gave up on a little while back...short field anything can happen..."
I think he honestly thinks that if Phillips could redo it, he should have kicked it. That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Lets assume that everything else happened in the game up until that point and the Cowboys could remake that move. (I know bad assumption...but theres no reason to assume things would have been any better for the Cowboys if they kicked and they might have been worse....the neutral assumption is correct for these purposes)
Which of the following is more likely...
Gruden's way.
Kick a short field goal (98%) + Get an onside kick (10%) + Drive 35 yards into field goal position with 40 seconds and no timeouts (25%) + Kick a long field goal (70%) + Win in Overtime (50%)
Multiply all of these together and you get 0.86%.
Gruden really legitimately thinks that is more likely than Phillips way.
Convert one 6 yard pass and win the game (about 40%).
I'd point out that even missing the pass, the Cowboys still had almost as good a chance to win the game as they would have if they made the field goal. Driving the ball the whole way for a touchdown isn't that much more difficult than driving it half the way, kicking and winning it in OT.
The scary thing is that all the other reporters and coaches would probably agree with Gruden that Phillips did the wrong thing.
The really grating thing is that they would justify it by saying the "numbers" say you should kick without ever looking or thinking about a single number.
The state of math in this country is horrible but coaches are paid millions of dollars to think about these things. When somebody like Phillips or Belichick actually makes the correct decision they take an absurd amount of slack. When people like Gruden make horribly wrong decisions, nobody ever calls them on it just because all the other coaches make the same horribly wrong decisions.
Tallguy, you are spot on. These guys say so much dumb shit and get away with it. I sometimes read the tuesday morning quarterback on espn.com. He basically goes through and mathematically proves all the dumb shit coaches do all the time i.e. punting on 4th and 1 from midfield.
The problem with going for it on 4th down is, even if they get a 1st down that does not garauntee they'll score TD later in the drive, but it does garauntee you'll run more time off the clock to get your next score and that next score could very well be a FG anyway or another 4th down try.
I have no clue how you can put accurate mathmaticall odds on that.
If you listen to these people who try using mathmatical odds like this, most will tell you that going for it on 4th down is almost always the right play anyway, but what they fail to understand is, going for it on 4th down creates "high voalitilty", get'em and your chances may improve dramatically, fail and your chances go down dramatically.
Just because the league average is for example 60%, that does not mean you'll convert them each game at 60%, sometimes you might convert them at 80% and sometimes at 38%, see, "high voalitility", get 80% and you'll win far more than not, get 38% and you lose far more than not, but when averaged together at the end of a season it may be 60%.
3 point shooting in the NBA is a similar thing, it's "high voalitility", shoot 50% like the Celtics did against the Heat and your chances to win are dramtically increased, but shoot 25% or whatever it was like the Celtics did against the Cavs and your chances go down quite a bit.
3 point shooting is a "high voalitility" stratergy and it's one reason you'll rarely see teams who shoot many, many 3's win the title.
I would rather coach a "low voalitility" statergy myself.
The problem with going for it on 4th down is, even if they get a 1st down that does not garauntee they'll score TD later in the drive, but it does garauntee you'll run more time off the clock to get your next score and that next score could very well be a FG anyway or another 4th down try.
I have no clue how you can put accurate mathmaticall odds on that.
If you listen to these people who try using mathmatical odds like this, most will tell you that going for it on 4th down is almost always the right play anyway, but what they fail to understand is, going for it on 4th down creates "high voalitilty", get'em and your chances may improve dramatically, fail and your chances go down dramatically.
Just because the league average is for example 60%, that does not mean you'll convert them each game at 60%, sometimes you might convert them at 80% and sometimes at 38%, see, "high voalitility", get 80% and you'll win far more than not, get 38% and you lose far more than not, but when averaged together at the end of a season it may be 60%.
3 point shooting in the NBA is a similar thing, it's "high voalitility", shoot 50% like the Celtics did against the Heat and your chances to win are dramtically increased, but shoot 25% or whatever it was like the Celtics did against the Cavs and your chances go down quite a bit.
3 point shooting is a "high voalitility" stratergy and it's one reason you'll rarely see teams who shoot many, many 3's win the title.
I would rather coach a "low voalitility" statergy myself.
Tallguy, you are spot on. These guys say so much dumb shit and get away with it. I sometimes read the tuesday morning quarterback on espn.com. He basically goes through and mathematically proves all the dumb shit coaches do all the time i.e. punting on 4th and 1 from midfield.
I love TMQ. Have you looked at advancednflstats.com? Its even more detail than TMQ. Really good
Tallguy, you are spot on. These guys say so much dumb shit and get away with it. I sometimes read the tuesday morning quarterback on espn.com. He basically goes through and mathematically proves all the dumb shit coaches do all the time i.e. punting on 4th and 1 from midfield.
I love TMQ. Have you looked at advancednflstats.com? Its even more detail than TMQ. Really good
The problem with going for it on 4th down is, even if they get a 1st down that does not garauntee they'll score TD later in the drive, but it does garauntee you'll run more time off the clock to get your next score and that next score could very well be a FG anyway or another 4th down try.
I have no clue how you can put accurate mathmaticall odds on that.
If you listen to these people who try using mathmatical odds like this, most will tell you that going for it on 4th down is almost always the right play anyway, but what they fail to understand is, going for it on 4th down creates "high voalitilty", get'em and your chances may improve dramatically, fail and your chances go down dramatically.
Just because the league average is for example 60%, that does not mean you'll convert them each game at 60%, sometimes you might convert them at 80% and sometimes at 38%, see, "high voalitility", get 80% and you'll win far more than not, get 38% and you lose far more than not, but when averaged together at the end of a season it may be 60%.
3 point shooting in the NBA is a similar thing, it's "high voalitility", shoot 50% like the Celtics did against the Heat and your chances to win are dramtically increased, but shoot 25% or whatever it was like the Celtics did against the Cavs and your chances go down quite a bit.
3 point shooting is a "high voalitility" stratergy and it's one reason you'll rarely see teams who shoot many, many 3's win the title.
I would rather coach a "low voalitility" statergy myself.
I'm familiar with the volatility argument. At first, it makes a lot of sense. I think its a holdover from the financial industry. A lot of math people worked in finance at some point. Basically, you'd much rather a mutual fund that provided a 10% annual return than one that had a 50% chance at quadrupling and a 50% chance of going to zero. Makes sense in that context.
I don't think its as relevant in football as people think. The problem with worrying about volatility is that one way or another you are going to win the game or you're going to lose the game. Volatility would make sense if a coach could go to the other coach and say "Hey you take 0.6 wins. I'll take 0.4 wins". The other coach would say "OK deal...I was scared I'd lose too". You can't do that. No matter what you do, there is going to be risk. No matter what decision you make, its going to be a gamble. If you have to gamble, you might as well make the bet that gives you the best chance at winning.
The problem with going for it on 4th down is, even if they get a 1st down that does not garauntee they'll score TD later in the drive, but it does garauntee you'll run more time off the clock to get your next score and that next score could very well be a FG anyway or another 4th down try.
I have no clue how you can put accurate mathmaticall odds on that.
If you listen to these people who try using mathmatical odds like this, most will tell you that going for it on 4th down is almost always the right play anyway, but what they fail to understand is, going for it on 4th down creates "high voalitilty", get'em and your chances may improve dramatically, fail and your chances go down dramatically.
Just because the league average is for example 60%, that does not mean you'll convert them each game at 60%, sometimes you might convert them at 80% and sometimes at 38%, see, "high voalitility", get 80% and you'll win far more than not, get 38% and you lose far more than not, but when averaged together at the end of a season it may be 60%.
3 point shooting in the NBA is a similar thing, it's "high voalitility", shoot 50% like the Celtics did against the Heat and your chances to win are dramtically increased, but shoot 25% or whatever it was like the Celtics did against the Cavs and your chances go down quite a bit.
3 point shooting is a "high voalitility" stratergy and it's one reason you'll rarely see teams who shoot many, many 3's win the title.
I would rather coach a "low voalitility" statergy myself.
I'm familiar with the volatility argument. At first, it makes a lot of sense. I think its a holdover from the financial industry. A lot of math people worked in finance at some point. Basically, you'd much rather a mutual fund that provided a 10% annual return than one that had a 50% chance at quadrupling and a 50% chance of going to zero. Makes sense in that context.
I don't think its as relevant in football as people think. The problem with worrying about volatility is that one way or another you are going to win the game or you're going to lose the game. Volatility would make sense if a coach could go to the other coach and say "Hey you take 0.6 wins. I'll take 0.4 wins". The other coach would say "OK deal...I was scared I'd lose too". You can't do that. No matter what you do, there is going to be risk. No matter what decision you make, its going to be a gamble. If you have to gamble, you might as well make the bet that gives you the best chance at winning.
" I guess arguably this whole thing should have been about the difference between 15 and 12/10, but that would have just confused the math and I think most people reading this are confused enough as it is."
This is my point with you.
"12 to 11 is important because it gets you the ability to use a fg and a 2 point conversion, but you still need the two point conversion.That makes 11 to 10 a much more important jump. "
Anything that is important is desireable. You should always keep the option open since you're playing for the tie either way. Sitting on 11 gives you that option.
" I guess arguably this whole thing should have been about the difference between 15 and 12/10, but that would have just confused the math and I think most people reading this are confused enough as it is."
This is my point with you.
"12 to 11 is important because it gets you the ability to use a fg and a 2 point conversion, but you still need the two point conversion.That makes 11 to 10 a much more important jump. "
Anything that is important is desireable. You should always keep the option open since you're playing for the tie either way. Sitting on 11 gives you that option.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.