Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt? - Page 27 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Two Plus Two Forums Sports and Games Sporting Events

Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

View Poll Results: Do you AGREE with Belichick's 4th down attempt?

Yes

344 64.06%

193 35.94%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 27 of 49

First

7 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 37 47

Last

Page 27 of 49

First

7 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 37 47

Last

11-16-2009 , 10:50 PM

#651

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

FJM tears Cowherd to shreds, for anyone who missed it the first time: http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/01...n-cowherd.html

just a sad reminder what a field day FJM would have with this story.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 10:54 PM

#652

GuyIncognito

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,021

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuyIncognito

Judging from the flurry of new comments on the site, it's been a total disaster.

A real gem from the comments at Advanced NFL Stats (which has actually been repeated several times over there):

Quote:

While the numbers may be accurate (granted they are league averages being generally applied here), the interpretation is incorrect. The 0.79 WP, describes the total probability that the Patriots would win PRIOR to running a play. Once the decision is made to "go for it", the function bifurcates to two independent probabilties - (1) a 60% probability of winning based on successful conversion; given the assumption that a first down would win the game -which I'll concede, and (2) a 47% probability if the conversion fails. Thus, the correct interpretive reasoning is "if we go for it, we have a 60% chance of winning now based on conversion, and would still have a 47% chance of winning even of the conversion fails". If instead the decision is made to punt, the probability of winning is 70%. The reality is that punting would have given the greatest probability of winning.

The guy used the word "bifurcate", so he must be right.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 10:56 PM

#653

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,497

Wow, that might be worse than Peter King.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 10:56 PM

#654

JaredL

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 22,523

That's Jackson saying "you play the odds and punt" but with a bunch of $20 words thrown in.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:12 PM

#655

DeadMoneyWalking

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 32,368

Quote:

Originally Posted by splashpot

Uhhh, you convert 4th down 60%, lose 100% of the time it fails = win 60%
Punt and Peyton drives within fg range greater than 40% = win less than 60%

Nit: if blocks cancel out, they might have to try a longer fg... or they might accidentally score a TD and Pats get the ball back...

But yeah, you're pretty much right.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:16 PM

#656

willie24

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,573

Quote:

Originally Posted by SL__72

Wow, that might be worse than Peter King.

wait, what is he saying? the whole thing makes sense except for the first and last sentences, right?

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:19 PM

#657

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,497

He is basically saying they have three options:
go for it and succeed (.6WP)
go for it and get stopped (.47WP)
and punt (.7WP)
Since punt is highest they should chose punt.

IE you can't combine the odds of making it and winning and getting stopped and winning because those are two different events, or possibilities, or something. I really don't know. But he appears to be comparing those three percentages and choosing punt because its the biggest of the three.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:22 PM

#658

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 72,319

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsjefe

I gotta admit I voted no last night. I couldn't see where potentially giving Peyton Manning of all people 1st and 10 at the NE 29 was ever a good decision.

That being said, a couple of hundred posts later I see where everyone's coming from and understand completely why going for it was the right play.

edit: and why the fact that it is Peyton Manning of all people only makes it an even more correct play.

honestly man, i gots respect for ya. glad to see ya come around. pls try to apply it to further decisions

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:22 PM

#659

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Quote:

Originally Posted by willie24

wait, what is he saying? the whole thing makes sense except for the first and last sentences, right?

No, he's somehow looking at the % of the time you win outright if you go for it and make it, but not adding the % of time you still win even if you don't make it.

So if you go for it you make it and win outright 60% of the time. But the other 40% of the time that you go for it and don't make it, you still win 47% of the that.

So you add 60% to (40%*47%) = 78.9% (using his numbers).

It's just like deciding whether or not to shove in a SNG. Some of the time they fold and you take the blinds uncontested. Some of the time they call and you're still 40% vs. their range.

It's just math. There is no argument against it - 'bifurcate' notwithstanding.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:23 PM

#660

ktw1021

grinder

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 682

No I dont agree with his call, give Peyton 29 v at least 60 yards and yes he screwed me because I had a big play on the Pats ML

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:25 PM

#661

GuyIncognito

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 4,021

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktw1021

No I dont agree with his call, give Peyton 29 v at least 60 yards and yes he screwed me because I had a big play on the Pats ML

Thanks for playing.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:31 PM

#662

willie24

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,573

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

No, he's somehow looking at the % of the time you win outright if you go for it and make it, but not adding the % of time you still win even if you don't make it.

ha, but he says

Quote:

Thus, the correct interpretive reasoning is "if we go for it, we have a 60% chance of winning now based on conversion, and would still have a 47% chance of winning even of the conversion fails".

i mean he's saying that it's 60%+(.4*47%) right there. baffling.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:31 PM

#663

| Burton |

newbie

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

lol my brother's roommate is like I don't believe math and sports mix...it's not how u play the game. He thinks that the guy on advanced statistics fudged his numbers somehow.

I don't think u can really explain this stuff to most sports fans...its like trying to argue there is no god to a religious person.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:51 PM

#664

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

Quote:

Originally Posted by SarcasticRat

Yeah Wilbon basically looked like an idiot. Most worthless part was him praising Dilfer for his "hard hitting analysis". Loud and angry =/= hard hitting.

wilbon largely is an idiot. he proves it every time he opens his mouth. I like Wilbon, he's good at reporting stories, and PTI is awesome because of the chemistry, but Wilbon's never been good at analysis

Quote

11-16-2009 , 11:57 PM

#665

RacersEdge

banned

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 14,282

So where did they do the stats analysis on ESPN - was it sportscenter, or monday night countdown? Were mike and mike presenting it?

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:03 AM

#666

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

Quote:

Originally Posted by NozeCandy

Tom Jackson is so dumb it makes my ears bleed. I'm rapidly getting to the point where I don't even enjoy having televised sports coverage on at all unless it's the actual game. This **** is offensive to listen to.

i forgot who posted it, shipit I think, but he was right. Just dont' watch. I never watch this crap. The only highlights/analysis show I watch on TV is NBATV's gametime, cuz it's usually pretty awesome unless Cheryl Miller is involved.

The only mainstream sports media I consume is the occasional PTI and Simmons.

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:12 AM

#667

kidcolin

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 109,033

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Chance of making it is roughly 40%, if you make it and score again you kick the XP and win, if not you go for it again. You more often end up with a total of 15 points than 12 points, therefore its usually better.

you kinda butchered this, since you completely ignored the other side (playing for a tie). You don't do it because you come up with 15 more often than 12.

You do it because you win more than you lose. A lot of that has to do with OT being basically a coinflip.

fwiw I'm not sure how clear this decision is for all team matchups. Bad O vs good D might shift it to kicking the point. I haven't seen the calcs or tried to calculate them myself.

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:53 AM

#668

GREEAR10

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 70,909

OMFG Dilfer on espn right now...After having a full day to soak it in it angers him to even hear the other side of the argument.

He said you just can't trust BB to make calculated decisions anymore...

LOL OMG DILFER DIE DIE DIE DIE

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:55 AM

#669

GREEAR10

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 70,909

Matt Millen tearing Dilfer up for his opinion lol.

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:56 AM

#670

agdci981

banned

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,081

I am just getting tired of the "You play the percentages" argument from people that say you should punt there. THE PERCENTAGES SAY YOU GO FOR IT!!!!! I just want to stop them and ask them to explain the "percentages."

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:56 AM

#671

agdci981

banned

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,081

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREEAR10

Matt Millen tearing Dilfer up for his opinion lol.

Didn't he agree with him? Millen said "you play the percentages" and probably punt there so isn't that in agreement with what Dilfer has been saying?

Quote

11-17-2009 , 12:57 AM

#672

ctyri

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,488

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

deleted because I needed a Bayesian lesson, forgot you control the second decision -- sorry Riverman

Last edited by ctyri; 11-17-2009 at 01:04 AM.

Quote

11-17-2009 , 01:01 AM

#673

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,984

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctyri

You've spent most of this thread chastising others for not understanding the math involved here.

And now you want to claim 0.4*2pts is better than 0.99*1pt. Why? Because you can try it twice (apparently some magic occurs whereby 2*0.4*2 > 2*0.99*1)

It gets interesting though with say Colts/Pats offense vs. an average or worse defense. If you can get anywhere above .5 you should be going for 2 most of the time right?

Quote

11-17-2009 , 01:03 AM

#674

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctyri

No, it's because the chances of getting it once are higher than missing it twice.

Miss 60% of the time, so missing twice is .6 x .6 = .36, so if you get it more than 36% of the time its plus ev and almost every nfl team does.

Quote

11-17-2009 , 01:03 AM

#675

Artdogg

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 8,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctyri

no, he's saying:

chances of scoring 15 points: .4*.99 = .396
chances of scoring 12 points: .6*.6 = .36
chances of scoring 14 points: 1-.396-.36 = .244 (or .6*.4=.24)

Quote

Page 27 of 49

First

7 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 37 47

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 27 of 49

First

7 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 37 47

Last