Change my mind

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by thehef

What, in your opinion, would the deserved amount of criticism?

Should be stated objectively, as I've tried to do in this thread

The penalty on Moore moved kick from the 3 yard-line where there was about a 96% probability of a successful kick, thus about a 48% win probability, to the 18 yard line where there was about an 89% probability of a successful kick and a 45% win probability. The penalty on Moore made his team about 3% less likely to win.

One could then note that he scored the touchdown before the extra point and could figure how much win probability that play added (and the other plays that he made) and show that he, almost certainly, contributed more to his team winning than he did to his team losing.

Note: criticizing him for the loss is different than criticizing his action that led the the penalty

Also note: many of the criticisms of his "childish" actions are as, or nearly as, childish as the actions themselves. Of course, almost all criticisms of his actions, and the criticisms of the criticisms of his actions, are subjective.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And as a side note to everyone here...... I have CBeisbol on ignore for a reason. I find him to be an arrogant condescending jerk than puts the anal in analytics.

I won't put anyone on ignore, but I'm done.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I won't put anyone on ignore, but I'm done.

And here you see why you *don't* see it expressed like I did above.

Sports fans are largely like children whose parents only feed them junk food. They get so used to microwave corn dogs that when it comes time to eat a salad they refuse.

Can't put the blame on the children in that instance though. Or the parents since *their* parents fed them the same way.

Sports journalism has been lazy for so long that that laziness has come to be the expectation.


EDIT
I used to be the same way. I had to have new beaten into my head. I'm grateful that they were

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

And here you see why you *don't* see it expressed like I did above.

Sports fans are largely like children whose parents only feed them junk food. They get so used to microwave corn dogs that when it comes time to eat a salad they refuse.

While I see where you are coming from, I think that is a bit strong. I think that humans like narratives. It is the way that most of us learn and remember things best. That is why cliches are so prevalent. It isn't really laziness as much as being human. "That penalty cost us the game" is a narrative that grabs. Unfortunately, narratives are often very narrow and also can be quite wrong. Just ask Bartman.

I remember, as a Colts fan, when the Patriots went for it on 4th and 1 or 2, late in the game. It didn't work and we got commentators, both professional and amateur ranting "you can't give Peyton Manning the ball in that field position." That was the conventional wisdom. Belichek, however, is one of the best at ignoring CW and going with the situation that is before him. IIRC, the Pats had an 89% chance of converting the play and it came down to a bobble on the catch and a replay review over the spot of the ball to keep them from converting. If they converted, they were in kneel down time. Punting the ball would not have given them anywhere near an 89% chance of winning, so, to me, the call was the right and smart one to make, but it did not fit the traditional football narrative. (I do remember going from excited at the chance to get the ball back when the Colts stopped the Pats on 3rd down, to depressed when I realized the Pats were going for it. Part of my brain was certainly doing decent analytics.)

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

While I see where you are coming from, I think that is a bit strong. I think that humans like narratives. It is the way that most of us learn and remember things best. That is why cliches are so prevalent. It isn't really laziness as much as being human. "That penalty cost us the game" is a narrative that grabs. Unfortunately, narratives are often very narrow and also can be quite wrong. Just ask Bartman.

Perhaps being lazy is a part of being human. Certainly, I'm not immune.

Though, that calls into question what it means to be lazy.

There are a lot of psychological reasons why we like narratives. One, is that they are easy. Anyone can make one regardless of whether they know what they are talking about or not.

Ask ten people on the street how to get somewhere. Hardly anyone will say, "I don't know". The people who don't know will, largely, send you in the wrong direction rather than admit they don't know.

Creating narratives is similar. People will create a reason to explain something when they don't know what the actual reason is.

That reason is often "Thing A caused Thing B". There are evolutionary reasons for this. Safer to assume when walking around out on the savannah that the rustle of the grass was caused by predator than the calculate the true odds and then sometimes get eaten.

The above is exemplified by the Patriots. Going for it was the right move. This time it didn't work out and they lost and were eaten up by the press and fans. Would have been safer to kick. Maybe they still lose but the press and fans would have gone along with it. Except the ones who understand win probability.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

While I see where you are coming from, I think that is a bit strong. I think that humans like narratives. It is the way that most of us learn and remember things best. That is why cliches are so prevalent. It isn't really laziness as much as being human. "That penalty cost us the game" is a narrative that grabs. Unfortunately, narratives are often very narrow and also can be quite wrong. Just ask Bartman.

I remember, as a Colts fan, when the Patriots went for it on 4th and 1 or 2, late in the game. It didn't work and we got commentators, both professional and amateur ranting "you can't give Peyton Manning the ball in that field position." That was the conventional wisdom. Belichek, however, is one of the best at ignoring CW and going with the situation that is before him. IIRC, the Pats had an 89% chance of converting the play and it came down to a bobble on the catch and a replay review over the spot of the ball to keep them from converting. If they converted, they were in kneel down time. Punting the ball would not have given them anywhere near an 89% chance of winning, so, to me, the call was the right and smart one to make, but it did not fit the traditional football narrative. (I do remember going from excited at the chance to get the ball back when the Colts stopped the Pats on 3rd down, to depressed when I realized the Pats were going for it. Part of my brain was certainly doing decent analytics.)

I think this is a little different. It's conventional wisdom VS the alternative. I remember defending that decision made by Belichick. Similar to the 1992 Championship game when Dallas went for it on 4th and 2 from the 49ers 6 yard line up by 11. They didn't make it so the announcers excoriated him over it. They didn't even take a second to explore why he went for it. Risk, reward, probability are all thrown out the window if you go against conventional wisdom. Don't bother trying to win, you'll be fine if you lose using conventional wisdom.

What would you do in this situation? Team A is up 21-20 with 2:30 left in the game and scores a TD but team B has all 3 timeouts left. Should team A go for 2 or kick the extra point? I remember arguing about this with someone way back when. Then think of yourself as a fan of team B, what wouldn't you want team A to do?

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I think this is a little different. It's conventional wisdom VS the alternative. I remember defending that decision made by Belichick. Similar to the 1992 Championship game when Dallas went for it on 4th and 2 from the 49ers 6 yard line up by 11. They didn't make it so the announcers excoriated him over it. They didn't even take a second to explore why he went for it. Risk, reward, probability are all thrown out the window if you go against conventional wisdom. Don't bother trying to win, you'll be fine if you lose using conventional wisdom.

What would you do in this situation? Team A is up 21-20 with 2:30 left in the game and scores a TD but team B has all 3 timeouts left. Should team A go for 2 or kick the extra point? I remember arguing about this with someone way back when. Then think of yourself as a fan of team B, what wouldn't you want team A to do?

I remember the '92 game, now that you mention it, and I agree that going for the chance to go up 3 scores, with the only downside being leaving the opponent with a very long field ahead of them was the right thing to do.

Your second is tougher. I like the idea of taking a chance to take the lead, but 2:30 is enough time to work down for a field goal whether tied or down by one, for team B. As Team B, I would prefer them to kick it, but I am not sure I would be right. One thing that I think comes in, in this situation, is that if Team B is tied and a couple plays go poorly, they are more likely to let the clock run out and give it a try in OT. If they are down one, it is FG range or nothing and they are actually more likely to get to FG position than if the game was tied.

I do like the "what would team B want you to do" method of looking at at problems like this. I do various board and miniature games and I use that logic a lot in deciding between options.

[dkgo]

You are misunderstanding his scenario.

Team A is up 21-20

Team A scores a touchdown. It is now 27-20. If they go for two they can go up 9 and essentially lock up a win, miss and it's 7. Kick the XP and you are up 8.

I think it's close and the win equity doesn't change much either way. I would kick the XP. It's a game of information. 2:30 with all timeouts is a lot of time and the opponent down 9 plays differently. If they are down 8 I would expect them to play sub-optimally and probably waste all the time before potentially scoring. It's the same reason why historically it's better to be up 3 points than 4 points, teams down 3 are mentally thinking "field goal" and play an awful strategy, usually ending up with a 45 yarder to tie. Teams down 4 are going for the win.

[thehef]

Not at all the same thing, but this scenario reminds me of a game a few years back, it was the Bears in one of the night games against (I think) one of their division rivals. Let's say it was the Vikings. The score was tied late in the game and Minny was driving. With about a minute to go, the Vikings had the ball inside the 5. Da Bears had no timeouts so Minnesota's plan was to essentially run out the clock and kick the chippy for the win. Which they did. However, to me, the only option for the Bears was to let the Vikings score a TD right away. My thinking was, which scenario would you rather find yourself in?

a) You're down by 7, have the ball (after receiving kickoff) around your own 20 or 25, no timeouts, with 50+ seconds to go.
or
b) You're tied, the Vikings are lining up to attempt a 21-yard FG with 3 seconds on the clock

While neither scenario is ideal, seems to me that a) is the no-brainer, where you have maybe a 10% chance at getting to OT (vs maybe a 3% chance with b) ). And I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the Bears' coach at the time (Lovie? Maybe John Fox?) didn't employ this strategy... (And while it's certainly possible that - had the Bears essentially gone into lay-down mode to let the Vikes score a TD - the Vikings' running backs would've gone to the ground to foil the strategy, as the Vikings had been driving it didn't seem like they would've been in that mode just yet.)

I know, it's reminiscent of a Denver/Green Bay Super Bowl several years ago...

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by dkgo

You are misunderstanding his scenario.

Team A is up 21-20

Team A scores a touchdown. It is now 27-20. If they go for two they can go up 9 and essentially lock up a win, miss and it's 7. Kick the XP and you are up 8.

I think it's close and the win equity doesn't change much either way. I would kick the XP. It's a game of information. 2:30 with all timeouts is a lot of time and the opponent down 9 plays differently. If they are down 8 I would expect them to play sub-optimally and probably waste all the time before potentially scoring. It's the same reason why historically it's better to be up 3 points than 4 points, teams down 3 are mentally thinking "field goal" and play an awful strategy, usually ending up with a 45 yarder to tie. Teams down 4 are going for the win.

IMO, I go for 2 in this situation every time. If you get the two you just about win the game unless your opponent recovers an onsides kick. The drawback if you fail is your opponent doesn't need to make a 2 point play. But it still remains a one drive game.

Originally Posted by thehef

Not at all the same thing, but this scenario reminds me of a game a few years back, it was the Bears in one of the night games against (I think) one of their division rivals. Let's say it was the Vikings. The score was tied late in the game and Minny was driving. With about a minute to go, the Vikings had the ball inside the 5. Da Bears had no timeouts so Minnesota's plan was to essentially run out the clock and kick the chippy for the win. Which they did. However, to me, the only option for the Bears was to let the Vikings score a TD right away. My thinking was, which scenario would you rather find yourself in?

a) You're down by 7, have the ball (after receiving kickoff) around your own 20 or 25, no timeouts, with 50+ seconds to go.
or
b) You're tied, the Vikings are lining up to attempt a 21-yard FG with 3 seconds on the clock

While neither scenario is ideal, seems to me that a) is the no-brainer, where you have maybe a 10% chance at getting to OT (vs maybe a 3% chance with b) ). And I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the Bears' coach at the time (Lovie? Maybe John Fox?) didn't employ this strategy... (And while it's certainly possible that - had the Bears essentially gone into lay-down mode to let the Vikes score a TD - the Vikings' running backs would've gone to the ground to foil the strategy, as the Vikings had been driving it didn't seem like they would've been in that mode just yet.)

I know, it's reminiscent of a Denver/Green Bay Super Bowl several years ago...

I agree, let him score. At least you give yourself a chance. A much better chance than letting the opposing kicker try a chipshot with 3 seconds left.

Denver GB Super Bowl? That was back in '97. Are you talking about the SB where the RB tried to stop at the GL but his momentum carried him in? I forget what game that was, was it Colts/Saints SB?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Denver GB Super Bowl? That was back in '97. Are you talking about the SB where the RB tried to stop at the GL but his momentum carried him in? I forget what game that was, was it Colts/Saints SB?

Jan '88 Super Bowl, Packers & Broncos. Holmgren told the defense to let Denver (who had the ball on the 1-yard line) score with just under 2 minutes left, so they get the ball back, down by 7, with two timeouts. Rather than see Denver perhaps eat up more time before taking the lead.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

IMO, I go for 2 in this situation every time. If you get the two you just about win the game unless your opponent recovers an onsides kick. The drawback if you fail is your opponent doesn't need to make a 2 point play. But it still remains a one drive game.

We've already seen that, at least in college football, the chances of making the 2 point conversion are less than 50% (and less than 50% of the chances for a successful 2 point conversion).

So, why on earth would you go for 2?

The most likely outcome (ignoring all the times the other team fails to score and the extra point is moot) is that you'd fail to convert and then the opposing team only needs to kick the XP to extend the game.

In 100 games where you went for two - AND the other team managed a touchdown - you'd have:
29 points in 40 of the games - call those all wins
27 points in 60 of the games
--assume the opposing coach does the smart thing and kicks the XP to tie (successful 96% of the time).
----You'd expect ((100%-96%) * 60) 2 misses - so 2 additional wins - and 58 makes to force OT. That means you'd expect 42 wins and 58 overtimes. Assume you win 50% of the overtime games so that's 29 more wins for a total of 71 wins if you go for 2.

If you kick the extra point - AND the other team managed a touchdown - you'd have:
27 points in 4 of the games
28 points in 96 of the games

For the four 27 point games
--assume the opposing coach does the smart thing and kicks the XP to tie (successful 96%) of the time. That's 4 ties.
----Expect to win 50% of those, that's 2 wins
For the ninety six 28 point games
--the opposing team HAS to go for 2.
----Those are successful 40% of the time. Then 40% of 96 games is 38 games where they tie you and (96-38) 58 games where they fail and you win. Again, assume you win half of the overtime games (50% * 38) which is 19 wins. Add them all and you get (2+58+19) 79 wins.

79 is more than 71 so, if I did my math right, you should always kick the extra point instead of going for 2 in that situation.

Which, obviously, makes sense.

The expected points on a extra point kick is (96% * 1) .96
The expected points on a 2 point conversion is (40% * 2) .80

You get more points, on average, when you kick.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I think it's close and the win equity doesn't change much either way. I would kick the XP. It's a game of information. 2:30 with all timeouts is a lot of time and the opponent down 9 plays differently. If they are down 8 I would expect them to play sub-optimally and probably waste all the time before potentially scoring. It's the same reason why historically it's better to be up 3 points than 4 points, teams down 3 are mentally thinking "field goal" and play an awful strategy, usually ending up with a 45 yarder to tie. Teams down 4 are going for the win.

Interestingly,

According to the pro-football-reference's win probability calculator, teams that are down by 4 with 2:30 left and the ball on their own 25 are expected to win more often (33%) than teams down by 3 in the same situation (27%).

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

Jan '88 Super Bowl, Packers & Broncos. Holmgren told the defense to let Denver (who had the ball on the 1-yard line) score with just under 2 minutes left, so they get the ball back, down by 7, with two timeouts. Rather than see Denver perhaps eat up more time before taking the lead.

Maybe you're experiencing the Mandela effect, but the Broncos played the Redskins in January of '88 and lost 42-10. I'll never forget that Super Bowl because I won a ton of money betting the Redskins and won a pool by predicting the score even though the Broncos were favored by 3.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Maybe you're experiencing the Mandela effect, but the Broncos played the Redskins in January of '88 and lost 42-10. I'll never forget that Super Bowl because I won a ton of money betting the Redskins and won a pool by predicting the score even though the Broncos were favored by 3.

Or he got the year wrong and was referring to the 1998 super bowl between the Packers and the Broncos.which the Broncos won 31-24 scoring a late touchdown when the Packers let the Broncos score in an effort to conserve the clock. I'll never forget that Super Bowl because...well, actually I did forget that Superbowl. I looked it up. I guess I could brag about something here but I wouldn't want anyone to think I was arrogant.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Maybe you're experiencing the Mandela effect, but the Broncos played the Redskins in January of '88 and lost 42-10. I'll never forget that Super Bowl because I won a ton of money betting the Redskins and won a pool by predicting the score even though the Broncos were favored by 3.

Just a typo. I had looked it up to be sure before posting: '97 season, played in January of '98. But these ol' fingers...

[ezpkns34]

The only time I believe it's happened was in Detroit about 15 years ago, but going into the stands to fight fans was a pretty dumb foul.... assuming it was technically a foul

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by thehef

Just a typo. I had looked it up to be sure before posting: '97 season, played in January of '98. But these ol' fingers...

Ok. What confused me was that you quoted my post that directly referred to the '97 season where the two teams met. So I assumed you were dismissing it. Or maybe it's because I always refer to the season, not the actual year the game is played.

[Ragnar]

I had to resurrect this thread.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa...505ea5402d9658

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I had to resurrect this thread.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa...505ea5402d9658

Dang. I forgot all about this thread.

I can see why this happens. Because for some reason I see all the time, even in the NFL, players on special teams don't know they are supposed to be out there. So I can see in college 2 players w/the same number ending up on the field at the same time.