IPB
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Buy Eagles tickets or search for cheap sports tickets including all playoff games and super bowl tickets @ LetsGetTickets.com
Posts in this topic
- nephillymike   The detailed analysis of 4th and 1, 4th and 8   Sep 30 2017, 09:07 PM
- - Zero   I didn't follow the links, I also didn't s...   Oct 1 2017, 05:11 AM
|- - nephillymike   QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 05:11 AM) I did...   Oct 1 2017, 06:34 AM
|- - Zero   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 07:34 A...   Oct 1 2017, 06:54 AM
||- - nephillymike   QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 06:54 AM) This ...   Oct 1 2017, 09:30 AM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 07:34 A...   Oct 5 2017, 03:52 PM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 5 2017, 04:52 ...   Oct 5 2017, 04:31 PM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 5 2017, 04:31 PM) Becau...   Oct 5 2017, 04:35 PM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 5 2017, 05:35 ...   Oct 6 2017, 05:16 AM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 6 2017, 06:16 AM) You k...   Oct 6 2017, 09:44 AM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 6 2017, 10:44 ...   Oct 7 2017, 07:07 AM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 7 2017, 07:07 AM) I kno...   Oct 7 2017, 11:56 AM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 12:56 ...   Oct 7 2017, 03:46 PM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 7 2017, 04:46 PM) I hav...   Oct 7 2017, 04:11 PM
|- - nephillymike   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 04:11 ...   Oct 7 2017, 04:59 PM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 7 2017, 04:59 P...   Oct 7 2017, 05:19 PM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 06:19 ...   Oct 7 2017, 06:51 PM
||- - nephillymike   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 05:19 ...   Oct 7 2017, 09:09 PM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 7 2017, 10:09 P...   Oct 7 2017, 10:47 PM
||- - Pila   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 03:47 ...   Oct 8 2017, 12:53 AM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 8 2017, 01:53 AM) Forec...   Oct 8 2017, 08:02 AM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 8 2017, 01:53 AM) Forec...   Oct 8 2017, 11:45 AM
||- - Pila   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 04:45 ...   Oct 8 2017, 03:15 PM
|- - nephillymike   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 04:11 ...   Oct 7 2017, 05:00 PM
- - Rick   Excellent analysis of the numbers. That's the ...   Oct 1 2017, 08:18 AM
|- - Zero   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 1 2017, 09:18 AM) Excel...   Oct 1 2017, 09:36 AM
|- - nephillymike   QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 09:36 AM) I...   Oct 1 2017, 09:52 AM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 10:52 A...   Oct 2 2017, 05:06 AM
|- - Pila   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 2 2017, 10:06 AM) Well-...   Oct 2 2017, 08:51 AM
- - Zero   RE: The detailed analysis of 4th and 1, 4th and 8   Oct 1 2017, 10:07 AM
- - mcnabbulous   Cool stuff, Mikey.   Oct 1 2017, 11:22 AM
- - mcnabbulous   Don’t be offended, Mike. He’s just an asshole.   Oct 7 2017, 09:43 PM
|- - The Franchise   QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2017, 10:43 PM...   Oct 7 2017, 10:44 PM
- - Aquila   QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 8 2017, 03:43 AM...   Oct 8 2017, 07:04 AM
- - nephillymike   http://www.phillyvoice.com/dislodge-yourse...-8-ca...   Oct 8 2017, 07:16 AM
|- - nephillymike   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 8 2017, 07:16 A...   Oct 8 2017, 04:51 PM
|- - The Franchise   I didn't see that earlier. What can I say? I...   Oct 8 2017, 05:39 PM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 06:39 ...   Oct 9 2017, 05:15 AM
|- - Zero   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 9 2017, 06:15 AM) OMG...   Oct 9 2017, 05:51 AM
|- - Pila   QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 9 2017, 10:51 AM) I don...   Oct 9 2017, 10:05 AM
||- - Zero   QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 9 2017, 11:05 AM) No. H...   Oct 9 2017, 12:08 PM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 9 2017, 10:05 AM) No. H...   Oct 9 2017, 01:30 PM
||- - nephillymike   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 9 2017, 01:30 ...   Oct 9 2017, 09:44 PM
|||- - The Franchise   QUOTE In your 18 at bats data of hitter vs pitcher...   Oct 10 2017, 12:52 PM
|||- - nephillymike   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2017, 12:52...   Oct 10 2017, 08:20 PM
|||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 10 2017, 08:20 ...   Oct 11 2017, 12:58 AM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 9 2017, 02:30 ...   Oct 10 2017, 05:22 AM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE Look at the Yankees/Indians game last night....   Oct 10 2017, 12:59 PM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2017, 01:59...   Oct 11 2017, 04:54 AM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 05:54 AM) Sorr...   Oct 11 2017, 12:45 PM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 11 2017, 01:45...   Oct 11 2017, 04:09 PM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 05:09 PM) We...   Oct 11 2017, 04:35 PM
||- - Rick   QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 11 2017, 05:35...   Oct 11 2017, 06:42 PM
||- - The Franchise   QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 06:42 PM) And ...   Oct 11 2017, 06:56 PM
|- - Rick   QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 9 2017, 06:51 AM) ...   Oct 10 2017, 05:14 AM
- - Pila   That's right.   Oct 9 2017, 12:18 PM
> The detailed analysis of 4th and 1, 4th and 8
nephillymike
post Sep 30 2017, 09:07 PM
Post #1


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



Using the two sources from the previous thread, here are the main statistics and probabilities that apply:

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/i...d-epa-explained

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistic...ing-on-4th-down

Avg net points starting a drive at your own 12 yard line = 0.0 points

Avg net points starting a drive at your opponents 9 yard line = 4.5 points

Avg net points starting a drive at your opponents 34 yard line = 2.9 points

Avg net points starting on your opponents 45 yard line = 2.2 points

Avg net points for a drive starting at your own 42 = 1.3 points

% chance of getting 1st down on 4th and 1 non goal line situation = 70%

% chance of getting 1st down on 4th and 8 non goal line situation = 32%

Expected start of drive when D. Jones punts from around the opp 42 = 12 yd line

The Eagles Dilemma: Go for it 4th and 8 from the NYG 42 or punt it:

Expected points from getting the 1st down = 32% x 2.9 Exp pts from 34 = 0.93 pts
Expected points from getting stopped at the 42 = 68% x (1.3) = (0.88pts)
Net expected net points of going for it = +0.05 negligible
Net expected pts by NYG after punt to the 12 = 0.0

Total net expected points from going for it vs punting = +0.05 - 0.0 = +0.05. Very close to break even, thus why the 42 is right on the edge of the go for it/punt line on the chart.

The model says go for it 4th and 1 from anywhere. How can this be true?

The easiest case to disprove should be the 4th and 1 from your own 9.

If we go for it and get the first after an avg gain of 3 yds to have 1st down from the 12, then what is the average points we can expect if successful = 0.0

If we fail to get it and they get the ball at the 9, 1st and 10, what is the average points the other team should get = 4.5 exp pts.

When we apply the %'S to these outcomes you get:

70% x 0.0 = 0.0
30% x (4.5) = (1.35)
Net exp pts from going for it = (1.35)

Now compare this to punting:

If we punt from the 9 instead, on a average net of 36 yards, they get the ball on the 45 and based on the study, a drive starting there generates (2.2) expected points.

If we punt, the other team is expected to score 2.2 points. If we go for it, the other team is expected to get 1.35 points.

Going for it saves us 2.20-1.35 = 0.85 points.

Why does this seem so counterintuitive? I said previously that the chart was wrong and I intended to crunch some numbers and show how wrong it was! But I was wrrr. Why?

You can see that without factoring in the punt, going for it at the 9 is a loser proposition, netting 1.35 points for the other team. That matches the gut feel. Of course it's a loser. Who the hell goes for it 4th and 1 on the 9?

However, people don't think about the opportunity we give the opposition by punting to them. We are giving them field position where teams have historically scored 2.2 points. THAT is the part people over look. We save giving them an embarrassing 1.35 pts expectation by going for it, only to turn around and give them an acceptable 2.2 points as a result of following sound football coaching principles!

I find this fascinating.

Sure it needs to be tweaked to suit team's strength, momentum, time left etc. Sure you may be able to find other studies with slightly different success rates on 4th down and drive stats based on different time period and that may tweak it slightly. But the big picture is what the base chart shows is sound math and logic for a neutral situation. These are basic in that I make basic assumptions;

we will get 3 yards on the 4th and 1 if we make it.
If stopped at 4th and 8, we won't get any of the 8 yards on our failed attempt
Nobody will return our punt from our 9 for a TD.

These are conservative assumptions, and if I used more realistic assumptions, the decisions to go for it 4th and 1 or 8 would look better.

I was shocked in what I found in this analysis. I had intended to crow about how I was right and the chart was wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 1 2017, 05:11 AM
Post #2


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



I didn't follow the links, I also didn't see where it analyzes the potential for the other team scoring if you don't succeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 1 2017, 06:34 AM
Post #3


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 05:11 AM) *
I didn't follow the links, I also didn't see where it analyzes the potential for the other team scoring if you don't succeed.


See the part about if we fail to get the first from the nine, what are the expected points we are to give up is 4.5 x the chance we don't succeed of 30% = 1.35 points expected to give up if we fail to get the 1st on our nine yard line.

For the 4th and 8, see the expected points we are to give up if they get the ball at their 42, which is 1.3 points x the chance we don't get the 1st down on 4th and 8 = 0.88 points expected to give up if we fail to get the 1st on their 42.

These two are the potential of the other team scoring if we fail in each scenario.

As far as the links, one analyses the chance of getting a first down at various 4th down distances and the other lists the expected net points from drives starting at various places on the field. The drives is NFL data,T he 4th down probability is Big Ten college data. I couldn't find NFL 4th down data but it does match the 32% mentioned by Z Pedey. I suspect That since NFL scores less points, the % may be slightly less.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 1 2017, 06:54 AM
Post #4


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 07:34 AM) *
See the part about if we fail to get the first from the nine, what are the expected points we are to give up is 4.5 x the chance we don't succeed of 30% = 1.35 points expected to give up if we fail to get the 1st on our nine yard line.
This sounds like BS to me. From the 9 teams will only get an average of 1.35 points? Not buying it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 1 2017, 08:18 AM
Post #5


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



Excellent analysis of the numbers. That's the info I've read previously. The problem people have with the numbers is the same problem I see people have in business all of the time. With the numbers people are looking at each individual drive vs. the big picture of the numbers over time. The key here is the numbers are looking at net points, not points per drive, meaning, with ALL things factored in, historically, a team who has gone for it in a particular situation nets x number of points. This means, in some situations, a team may make it and may not score, may score, etc. or NOT make it and not score or the other team may score. The bottom line is, if you're netting out a positive number of points--over time--it makes sense to go for it in certain situations.

Obviously, this doesn't mean you hold to those numbers every time in every situation. If you're up 5 points with 30 seconds left in the game, you probably shouldn't go for it at 4th and 3 on your 30 yard line. That's where the human has to come in and figure out whether it makes sense.

The numbers don't lie...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 1 2017, 09:30 AM
Post #6


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 06:54 AM) *
This sounds like BS to me. From the 9 teams will only get an average of 1.35 points? Not buying it.

No Z.

They get an average of 4.5 points from the 9.

However, because we have a 70% chance of getting the 1st, there is only a 30% chance that happens so you multiply them together to get an expected points of 1.35.

It's probability and expected outcomes math.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 1 2017, 09:36 AM
Post #7


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 1 2017, 09:18 AM) *
Excellent analysis of the numbers. That's the info I've read previously. The problem people have with the numbers is the same problem I see people have in business all of the time. With the numbers people are looking at each individual drive vs. the big picture of the numbers over time. The key here is the numbers are looking at net points, not points per drive, meaning, with ALL things factored in, historically, a team who has gone for it in a particular situation nets x number of points. This means, in some situations, a team may make it and may not score, may score, etc. or NOT make it and not score or the other team may score. The bottom line is, if you're netting out a positive number of points--over time--it makes sense to go for it in certain situations.

Obviously, this doesn't mean you hold to those numbers every time in every situation. If you're up 5 points with 30 seconds left in the game, you probably shouldn't go for it at 4th and 3 on your 30 yard line. That's where the human has to come in and figure out whether it makes sense.

The numbers don't lie...

I'm still not buying it. If this is based on attempts, how often do teams go for 4th and 1 on their own 9, or for 4th and 8 at the 50 even? Numbers don't lie, but where the numbers come from is relevant to the validity of the results.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 1 2017, 09:52 AM
Post #8


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 1 2017, 09:36 AM) *
I'm still not buying it. If this is based on attempts, how often do teams go for 4th and 1 on their own 9, or for 4th and 8 at the 50 even? Numbers don't lie, but where the numbers come from is relevant to the validity of the results.


Head meet sand, sand meet head. tongue.gif

It measures two things independently:

How often teams get the 1st down on 4th and 1 on any place on the field that is not a goal to go situation. It also measures how many net points teams score on drives starting at the 9.

There is plenty historical data on each of those scenarios and you can put them together to get a valid analysis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 1 2017, 10:07 AM
Post #9


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



ka.gif ac6.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Oct 1 2017, 11:22 AM
Post #10


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 9943
Joined: 14-January 07



Cool stuff, Mikey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 2 2017, 05:06 AM
Post #11


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 10:52 AM) *
Head meet sand, sand meet head. tongue.gif

It measures two things independently:

How often teams get the 1st down on 4th and 1 on any place on the field that is not a goal to go situation. It also measures how many net points teams score on drives starting at the 9.

There is plenty historical data on each of those scenarios and you can put them together to get a valid analysis.

Well-said. I don't understand probability math but I understand enough to know, well, it works. Just like how they can poll a relatively-small group of people about something and get an accurate idea of how a larger group feels about a subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pila
post Oct 2 2017, 08:51 AM
Post #12


Eusbio


Group: Members
Posts: 5539
Joined: 28-April 04



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 2 2017, 10:06 AM) *
Well-said. I don't understand probability math but I understand enough to know, well, it works. Just like how they can poll a relatively-small group of people about something and get an accurate idea of how a larger group feels about a subject.

Ever hear of a Black Swan?

There's a saying in forecasting data science. Bet your change in probability, but save your fortune for the Black Swan.


--------------------
[img]http://dreadart67.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/benfica-2008-ii.jpg[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 5 2017, 03:52 PM
Post #13


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 1 2017, 07:34 AM) *
The drives is NFL data,T he 4th down probability is Big Ten college data. I couldn't find NFL 4th down data but it does match the 32% mentioned by Z Pedey.


Not to keep kicking this dead horse, but I mentioned this in another thread, and it makes his decision all the more horrifying. Also, the Chargers have the same chance of converting against the Chiefs defense as the Patriots against the Saints defense? If the answer if yes, this exercise is useless. If the answer is no, please explain why.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 5 2017, 04:31 PM
Post #14


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 5 2017, 04:52 PM) *
Not to keep kicking this dead horse, but I mentioned this in another thread, and it makes his decision all the more horrifying. Also, the Chargers have the same chance of converting against the Chiefs defense as the Patriots against the Saints defense? If the answer if yes, this exercise is useless. If the answer is no, please explain why.

Because, again, the numbers look at the PROBABILITY over time, not for one time. Do it enough times and the numbers predict the most-likely outcome but any given play can go either way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 5 2017, 04:35 PM
Post #15


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 5 2017, 04:31 PM) *
Because, again, the numbers look at the PROBABILITY over time, not for one time. Do it enough times and the numbers predict the most-likely outcome but any given play can go either way.


4th down conversions in the Big Ten translate to the probability of a specific NFL team attempting one against another specific NFL team? Or any random NFL team? Do tell. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 6 2017, 05:16 AM
Post #16


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 5 2017, 05:35 PM) *
4th down conversions in the Big Ten translate to the probability of a specific NFL team attempting one against another specific NFL team? Or any random NFL team? Do tell. rolleyes.gif

You keep talking about college, I have no idea where you're getting this from.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 6 2017, 09:44 AM
Post #17


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 6 2017, 06:16 AM) *
You keep talking about college, I have no idea where you're getting this from.


Try reading the thread again.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 7 2017, 07:07 AM
Post #18


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 6 2017, 10:44 AM) *
Try reading the thread again.

I know you've been saying it in the thread but, the numbers Mikey posted--and I've read--have absolutely NOTHING to do with college. You keep bringing it up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 7 2017, 11:56 AM
Post #19


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 7 2017, 07:07 AM) *
I know you've been saying it in the thread but, the numbers Mikey posted--and I've read--have absolutely NOTHING to do with college.


Yes it does. Carefully read Mikey's posts again, and get back to me.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 7 2017, 03:46 PM
Post #20


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 12:56 PM) *
Yes it does. Carefully read Mikey's posts again, and get back to me.

I have read, and I've read other analysis of the numbers. Not sure what you don't understand about how the numbers work...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 7 2017, 04:11 PM
Post #21


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 7 2017, 04:46 PM) *
I have read, and I've read other analysis of the numbers. Not sure what you don't understand about how the numbers work...


Then since you've carefully read the numbers you're touting, you would understand that the relevant data comes from one conference in college football - making said data irrelevant.



--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 7 2017, 04:59 PM
Post #22


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 04:11 PM) *
Then since you've carefully read the numbers you're touting, you would understand that the relevant data comes from one conference in college football - making said data irrelevant.

Well, not exactly.

The fact that Pedey quoted a 32% chance and his source was NFL data, does mean that his probability from that distance for 4 th down was eerily similar to the data set I found. He had his set which came to that %, I used the only set I could find (from Big 10 conf in NCAA) and came to the same %.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 7 2017, 05:00 PM
Post #23


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 04:11 PM) *
Then since you've carefully read the numbers you're touting, you would understand that the relevant data comes from one conference in college football - making said data irrelevant.

Well, not exactly.

The fact that Pedey quoted a 32% chance and his source was NFL data, does mean that his probability from that distance for 4 th down was eerily similar to the data set I found. He had his set which came to that %, I used the only set I could find (from Big 10 conf in NCAA) and came to the same %.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 7 2017, 05:19 PM
Post #24


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 7 2017, 04:59 PM) *
The fact that Pedey quoted a 32% chance and his source was NFL data, does mean that his probability from that distance for 4 th down was eerily similar to the data set I found. He had his set which came to that %


A reporter asked him a question, saying the success rate in that situation was 18% (sounds a lot more accurate in the NFL) - Pedey said the number he went off of was 33%, which yes, is eerily similar to your study that comes from college games. He said nothing about where his data came from.

My whole point has been the intellectual dishonesty of using any study that isn't tailored to the two teams on the field. I have yet to hear anyone come close to arguing that. But if Pedey is going to make blatantly stupid decisions using said intellectually dishonest data, at least use data that comes from the fucking pros, and not college.



--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 7 2017, 06:51 PM
Post #25


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 06:19 PM) *
My whole point has been the intellectual dishonesty of using any study that isn't tailored to the two teams on the field.

And, again, this makes no sense if you look at the numbers as they are intended to be used--like in baseball and other sports. Obviously, numbers specifically tailored to the specific situation (100%) with same players, same conditions, etc. would be the perfect study but that isn't realistic. So, instead, they use probabilities to try and predict the outcome of something which is (basically) unpredictable (this goes for ALL sports). However, like when you flip a coin, the probability of you getting a head or tail is x, that does not mean any individual flip will result in a head or a tail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 7 2017, 09:09 PM
Post #26


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 7 2017, 05:19 PM) *
A reporter asked him a question, saying the success rate in that situation was 18% (sounds a lot more accurate in the NFL) - Pedey said the number he went off of was 33%, which yes, is eerily similar to your study that comes from college games. He said nothing about where his data came from.

My whole point has been the intellectual dishonesty of using any study that isn't tailored to the two teams on the field. I have yet to hear anyone come close to arguing that. But if Pedey is going to make blatantly stupid decisions using said intellectually dishonest data, at least use data that comes from the fucking pros, and not college.

It's not intellectual dishonesty.

If the historical odds say x%, sure you need to start there, but make adjustments based on circumstance and teams.

The #1 adjustment was how we were moving the ball - very good
How were they moving the ball - poorly
How have they historically played against us - not well
All of these immediate adjustments favor going for it

Now, I think the time left in the half made punting it a better option than normal in that any subsequent NYG drive starting from the 12, may have run out of time, while one starting at the 45 would not have. This favors not going for it.

The net intangible is to go for it.

Would I? Probably not as I tend to be more risk averse. But the logic was there to go for it.

Intellectual honesty is making a strong statement against something, which I did, and then take the time to go do research on it and when the research tells you that I was wrong, lay it out as plainly as possible to show everyone how wrong I was.

My horse in this race was on the other side, remember?

That's my problem with message boards. Intellectual dishonesty. Protect a stance to the very end no matter what is discovered.

It's an honest analysis. Could the actual NFL odds be different? Sure. But his % was damn close.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Oct 7 2017, 09:43 PM
Post #27


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 9943
Joined: 14-January 07



Don’t be offended, Mike. He’s just an asshole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 7 2017, 10:44 PM
Post #28


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2017, 10:43 PM) *
Don€™t be offended, Mike. He€™s just an asshole.


Hey buddy, I was wondering when you would join in. It's good to see your wife's boyfriend has left the house, and you can chime in once again with your anti-intellectual opinion. Keep up the bad work.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 7 2017, 10:47 PM
Post #29


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 7 2017, 10:09 PM) *
Intellectual honesty is making a strong statement against something, which I did, and then take the time to go do research on it and when the research tells you that I was wrong, lay it out as plainly as possible to show everyone how wrong I was.


You used data from college - which makes your study inherently dishonest. Try again.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pila
post Oct 8 2017, 12:53 AM
Post #30


Eusbio


Group: Members
Posts: 5539
Joined: 28-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 03:47 AM) *
You used data from college - which makes your study inherently dishonest. Try again.

Forecasting is an imperfect science. In every case there's unknown variables, silent factors and the case of the introductory unprecedent driver.

As Rick alluded to - whether the number is college driven or NFL driven doesn't really matter - they can never tailor to the conditions being replicated between the two teams, in that specific situation.

So how does one go about getting a probability factor without being foiled by base rate fallacy?

Realistically chaos guarantees that you cannot hope to ever replicate consistent probability. However, risk modeling has shown that with ample base rates across spectrums you get segments of time of high probability rates before randomness blows it up.

That means using base rates across all spectrums for the sake of frequency isn't intelectual dishonesty. It's inherently flawed, but it's scientifically the least flawed possible.


--------------------
[img]http://dreadart67.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/benfica-2008-ii.jpg[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquila
post Oct 8 2017, 07:04 AM
Post #31


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1655
Joined: 10-May 04
From: Edinburgh



QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 8 2017, 03:43 AM) *
Don’t be offended, Mike. He’s just an asshole.

There was no need for that comment in what had been a civilised thread until your post.

QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 04:44 AM) *
Hey buddy, I was wondering when you would join in. It's good to see your wife's boyfriend has left the house, and you can chime in once again with your anti-intellectual opinion. Keep up the bad work.

And there was no need for you to respond in kind.

You both know better, so don't do it again.


--------------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 8 2017, 07:16 AM
Post #32


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



http://www.phillyvoice.com/dislodge-yourse...-8-call-people/


https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...;order_by=yards


So I went back and checked the article again and low and behold, the guy mentions the 18% comment of another reporter. But then, as most reporters won't do, he does his own detailed NFL only research and tailors a pro football reference report that details all 4th and 8 situations as far back as he could and gets a conversion rate of 32.8%. This is from a reporter who isn't the biggest Pedey fan. The link of the report is above, if it doesn't work in this thread, simply click the link in the article. He used a sample of 314 NFL 4th and 8's since the early 90's.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 8 2017, 08:02 AM
Post #33


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 8 2017, 01:53 AM) *
Forecasting is an imperfect science. In every case there's unknown variables, silent factors and the case of the introductory unprecedent driver.

As Rick alluded to - whether the number is college driven or NFL driven doesn't really matter - they can never tailor to the conditions being replicated between the two teams, in that specific situation.

So how does one go about getting a probability factor without being foiled by base rate fallacy?

Realistically chaos guarantees that you cannot hope to ever replicate consistent probability. However, risk modeling has shown that with ample base rates across spectrums you get segments of time of high probability rates before randomness blows it up.

That means using base rates across all spectrums for the sake of frequency isn't intelectual dishonesty. It's inherently flawed, but it's scientifically the least flawed possible.

You explained it so much better than I could have. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 8 2017, 11:45 AM
Post #34


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 8 2017, 01:53 AM) *
Forecasting is an imperfect science. In every case there's unknown variables, silent factors and the case of the introductory unprecedent driver.

As Rick alluded to - whether the number is college driven or NFL driven doesn't really matter - they can never tailor to the conditions being replicated between the two teams, in that specific situation.

So how does one go about getting a probability factor without being foiled by base rate fallacy?

Realistically chaos guarantees that you cannot hope to ever replicate consistent probability. However, risk modeling has shown that with ample base rates across spectrums you get segments of time of high probability rates before randomness blows it up.

That means using base rates across all spectrums for the sake of frequency isn't intelectual dishonesty. It's inherently flawed, but it's scientifically the least flawed possible.


I wasn't calling him dishonest, if it came across that way. I think he's done as much as can be done with inherently flawed data. I've maintained that if your set of data shows that Tom Brady has the same chance of converting against the Saints as Chase Daniel does against the Chiefs, you need to find new data.

Something tells me we're going to revisit this topic after the game. Call a good one Pedey.....


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pila
post Oct 8 2017, 03:15 PM
Post #35


Eusbio


Group: Members
Posts: 5539
Joined: 28-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 04:45 PM) *
I wasn't calling him dishonest, if it came across that way. I think he's done as much as can be done with inherently flawed data. I've maintained that if your set of data shows that Tom Brady has the same chance of converting against the Saints as Chase Daniel does against the Chiefs, you need to find new data.

Something tells me we're going to revisit this topic after the game. Call a good one Pedey.....

I think the data for this sort of thing will always be flawed.

But yeah, I agree that the call to go for it on 4th and 8 is just a bad call, whether intuitively or not.


--------------------
[img]http://dreadart67.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/benfica-2008-ii.jpg[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 8 2017, 04:51 PM
Post #36


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 8 2017, 07:16 AM) *
http://www.phillyvoice.com/dislodge-yourse...-8-call-people/


https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...;order_by=yards


So I went back and checked the article again and low and behold, the guy mentions the 18% comment of another reporter. But then, as most reporters won't do, he does his own detailed NFL only research and tailors a pro football reference report that details all 4th and 8 situations as far back as he could and gets a conversion rate of 32.8%. This is from a reporter who isn't the biggest Pedey fan. The link of the report is above, if it doesn't work in this thread, simply click the link in the article. He used a sample of 314 NFL 4th and 8's since the early 90's.


Franchise ??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 8 2017, 05:39 PM
Post #37


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



I didn't see that earlier.

What can I say? It's refreshing that he's actually using NFL data instead of college, but it still is flawed data, as it isn't tailored to the teams on the field when making your decision. We simply aren't going to get past that here.

The vast majority of the attempts are in the 4th quarter when down significantly. In many situations the defense is likely playing soft, allowing 8 yards to be picked up to keep the clock running. It's still too simplistic to say with any confidence that it's a '1 in 3' chance, but like I said, at least it's NFL data being used.



--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 9 2017, 05:15 AM
Post #38


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 8 2017, 06:39 PM) *
I didn't see that earlier.

What can I say? It's refreshing that he's actually using NFL data instead of college, but it still is flawed data, as it isn't tailored to the teams on the field when making your decision. We simply aren't going to get past that here.

The vast majority of the attempts are in the 4th quarter when down significantly. In many situations the defense is likely playing soft, allowing 8 yards to be picked up to keep the clock running. It's still too simplistic to say with any confidence that it's a '1 in 3' chance, but like I said, at least it's NFL data being used.

OMG!!! You will never admit there is something to the numbers no matter how much people show you. Just give it up already.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 9 2017, 05:51 AM
Post #39


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 9 2017, 06:15 AM) *
OMG!!! You will never admit there is something to the numbers no matter how much people show you. Just give it up already.....
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers can only tell us probability, not guarantee an outcome. If the likelihood of success is 50% then the likelihood of failure is also 50%. When your job is dependent on the outcome I'd think the tendency would lean more to a safer, conservative approach. That said, the benefit of statistics (analytics) may be to expand the definition of "safe" depending on circumstances. I don't think any of the numbers consider either the emotional or physical state of the teams on the field and how that may affect the potential for success or failure on a given play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pila
post Oct 9 2017, 10:05 AM
Post #40


Eusbio


Group: Members
Posts: 5539
Joined: 28-April 04



QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 9 2017, 10:51 AM) *
I don't think any of the numbers consider either the emotional or physical state of the teams on the field and how that may affect the potential for success or failure on a given play.
No. How would one go about replicating the exact present conditions if such data can't exist until post mortem? Even in controlled experiments we can't get a droplet of humidity to freeze in the same exact pattern.

But data science when collected and applied with diligent standards can serve as a guard against an array of cognitive follies to an informed application, most specifically in the correlative illusion (correlation vs causation).

Statistics themselves are not necessarily inherently flawed. The inherent flaws lie on the absolutism of the interpreter - i.e. the iron belief that one has a 32% chance of success going on 4th and 8 because the statistics collected tells you that. What you can reasonably deduce from those statistics, even collected with the most prudent standards is that its historic success have been 1/3 probable, and thus not entirely insane to think there's a reasonable chance (relatively speaking, say vs a hail-mary), but that it cautions against it. Ultimately that information can be used in one's own process of intuition without railing off into delusion. And that is ultimately the real purpose of data science.


--------------------
[img]http://dreadart67.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/benfica-2008-ii.jpg[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Oct 9 2017, 12:08 PM
Post #41


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13779
Joined: 24-April 04



QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 9 2017, 11:05 AM) *
No. How would one go about replicating the exact present conditions if such data can't exist until post mortem? Even in controlled experiments we can't get a droplet of humidity to freeze in the same exact pattern.

But data science when collected and applied with diligent standards can serve as a guard against an array of cognitive follies to an informed application, most specifically in the correlative illusion (correlation vs causation).

Statistics themselves are not necessarily inherently flawed. The inherent flaws lie on the absolutism of the interpreter - i.e. the iron belief that one has a 32% chance of success going on 4th and 8 because the statistics collected tells you that. What you can reasonably deduce from those statistics, even collected with the most prudent standards is that its historic success have been 1/3 probable, and thus not entirely insane to think there's a reasonable chance (relatively speaking, say vs a hail-mary), but that it cautions against it. Ultimately that information can be used in one's own process of intuition without railing off into delusion. And that is ultimately the real purpose of data science.
That's pretty much what I said albeit the other side of the coin. Statistics are data, information that adds to personal experience and intuition. An expansion of our potential resources, never a directive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pila
post Oct 9 2017, 12:18 PM
Post #42


Eusbio


Group: Members
Posts: 5539
Joined: 28-April 04



That's right.


--------------------
[img]http://dreadart67.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/benfica-2008-ii.jpg[/img]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 9 2017, 01:30 PM
Post #43


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Pila @ Oct 9 2017, 10:05 AM) *
No. How would one go about replicating the exact present conditions if such data can't exist until post mortem? Even in controlled experiments we can't get a droplet of humidity to freeze in the same exact pattern.

But data science when collected and applied with diligent standards can serve as a guard against an array of cognitive follies to an informed application, most specifically in the correlative illusion (correlation vs causation).


I feel I've been completely consistent in my opinion, and I don't think we really disagree on much here. It's more a couple other people demanding I genuflect before a study I've determined isn't gospel.

To your point here, you are correct. Going back to baseball for a second; today, Yu Darvish is pitching against the D-Backs. Chris Iannetta has faced him 18 times. He is 2-16, with 2 walks, and 8 strikeouts. He has no extra base hits, and an OPS of .347. One can easily assume that Iannetta will have a bad day at the plate, and probably shouldn't even get the start.

On the other hand, when looking at the 4th and 8 data used, we're throwing in scores of scenarios where teams are down by a lot late in the 4th, and are successfully converting because defenses are playing soft. We have no examples of this Eagles team taking on that Giants team in a hard fought down. There are ways of getting and applying more relevant data, but that isn't what happened. The problem is exacerbated when throwing in equally flawed data from numbers geeks, such as passing and running efficiency, expected points, etc.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 9 2017, 09:44 PM
Post #44


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 9 2017, 01:30 PM) *
I feel I've been completely consistent in my opinion, and I don't think we really disagree on much here. It's more a couple other people demanding I genuflect before a study I've determined isn't gospel.

To your point here, you are correct. Going back to baseball for a second; today, Yu Darvish is pitching against the D-Backs. Chris Iannetta has faced him 18 times. He is 2-16, with 2 walks, and 8 strikeouts. He has no extra base hits, and an OPS of .347. One can easily assume that Iannetta will have a bad day at the plate, and probably shouldn't even get the start.

On the other hand, when looking at the 4th and 8 data used, we're throwing in scores of scenarios where teams are down by a lot late in the 4th, and are successfully converting because defenses are playing soft. We have no examples of this Eagles team taking on that Giants team in a hard fought down. There are ways of getting and applying more relevant data, but that isn't what happened. The problem is exacerbated when throwing in equally flawed data from numbers geeks, such as passing and running efficiency, expected points, etc.


In your 18 at bats data of hitter vs pitcher, I would suggest there is valuable information to be had by using leaguewide data of RHP vs LH batter and vice verse that gives context to the likelihood of success in the matchup you are trying to predict.

The same is true in football.

For example, if I have a data sample of 315 flips of a coin, and I do five other 315 coin flip samples, I may get a range of heads % from 45-55%. Now if you and I go head to head of 18 coin flips and you win 12 of 18, you would be off if you were expecting a 67% success rate going forward. Knowing that a historical likely range in the 45-55% would be valuable information. Same type of deal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 10 2017, 05:14 AM
Post #45


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 9 2017, 06:51 AM) *
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers can only tell us probability, not guarantee an outcome. If the likelihood of success is 50% then the likelihood of failure is also 50%. When your job is dependent on the outcome I'd think the tendency would lean more to a safer, conservative approach. That said, the benefit of statistics (analytics) may be to expand the definition of "safe" depending on circumstances. I don't think any of the numbers consider either the emotional or physical state of the teams on the field and how that may affect the potential for success or failure on a given play.

And this is exactly what I've been saying, the numbers don't lie but they are not perfect. However, they've been using numbers in baseball for DECADES with great success. Why the NFL has resisted looking at numbers for so long has always been a mystery to me.

They are not perfect, they don't accurately predict the outcome but, they can help provide more data to help make a more informed decision.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 10 2017, 05:22 AM
Post #46


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 9 2017, 02:30 PM) *
I feel I've been completely consistent in my opinion, and I don't think we really disagree on much here. It's more a couple other people demanding I genuflect before a study I've determined isn't gospel.

To your point here, you are correct. Going back to baseball for a second; today, Yu Darvish is pitching against the D-Backs. Chris Iannetta has faced him 18 times. He is 2-16, with 2 walks, and 8 strikeouts. He has no extra base hits, and an OPS of .347. One can easily assume that Iannetta will have a bad day at the plate, and probably shouldn't even get the start.

On the other hand, when looking at the 4th and 8 data used, we're throwing in scores of scenarios where teams are down by a lot late in the 4th, and are successfully converting because defenses are playing soft. We have no examples of this Eagles team taking on that Giants team in a hard fought down. There are ways of getting and applying more relevant data, but that isn't what happened. The problem is exacerbated when throwing in equally flawed data from numbers geeks, such as passing and running efficiency, expected points, etc.

And again, you totally miss what we've been saying.

In your baseball example, that is exactly what we AREN'T saying. Nobody said Ianetta shouldn't get the start. However, what the numbers say is, he has a good probability of having a bad day against Darvish. But it does not mean he WILL have a bad day.

Look at the Yankees/Indians game last night. The Indians brought back Bauer on 3 days rest to face the Yankees. Bauers' numbers against the Yankees have been ridiculously-good (.9 ERA, etc...). However, his numbers on 3 days rest have also been suspect. The Yankees knock him out of the game early and go on to win. So, which numbers should they have gone with? Obviously, they went with the first set of numbers. They were wrong in this situation.

Again, and I'll say it slowly this time, the numbers don't lie, however, they are NOT going to actually predict the outcome of a specific situation, however, they WILL give you an idea of the probability of an outcome in a given situation. Just so you know, the definition of probability is the likelyhood of something happening or being the case. Note, it does NOT say it is what will actually happen.

The point many of us have been trying to make yet you still continue to argue about is, the numbers are another useful tool, which can (and should) be used to help make a decision. Obviously, other factors should also be used to make a decision in each situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 10 2017, 12:52 PM
Post #47


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE
In your 18 at bats data of hitter vs pitcher, I would suggest there is valuable information to be had by using leaguewide data of RHP vs LH batter and vice verse that gives context to the likelihood of success in the matchup you are trying to predict.


In this case, that would be completely irrelevant as you have a large enough sample size to show individuals against each other. If a pitcher were making his debut, it would matter somewhat if facing a heavy lefty or righty lineup, but since major league pitchers have to face everyone it wouldn't be enough to cancel his start. In a pinch hit situation, everyone in baseball knows opposite hitters have a better chance of picking up breaking balls, so opposite side hitters are used almost every time.

And look! Iannetta didn't get the start, the D-Backs must read this page. He pinch-hit later on when Darvish was out.

QUOTE
The same is true in football.


No it isn't.

QUOTE
For example, if I have a data sample of 315 flips of a coin, and I do five other 315 coin flip samples, I may get a range of heads % from 45-55%. Now if you and I go head to head of 18 coin flips and you win 12 of 18, you would be off if you were expecting a 67% success rate going forward. Knowing that a historical likely range in the 45-55% would be valuable information. Same type of deal.


Every individual coin flip is 50%. The more flips we have, the more towards 50% each it will go. I honestly have no idea why you would use coin flips as an example.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 10 2017, 12:59 PM
Post #48


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE
Look at the Yankees/Indians game last night. The Indians brought back Bauer on 3 days rest to face the Yankees. Bauers' numbers against the Yankees have been ridiculously-good (.9 ERA, etc...). However, his numbers on 3 days rest have also been suspect. The Yankees knock him out of the game early and go on to win. So, which numbers should they have gone with? Obviously, they went with the first set of numbers. They were wrong in this situation.


Bauer has had good numbers against the Yankees this year, but over his career against several of their players they are batting over.300 - and no pitcher will consistently do well on 3 days rest. It's worth pointing out he still didn't give up any earned runs last night. The Indians obviously wanted their ace, Kluber, to have the decisive game in Cleveland if Bauer couldn't get it done. He has rock solid numbers against almost all of their hitters, and will likely turn in a great start tomorrow.

The equivalent of what you two have been saying would be if we went back 15 years and looked at data that showed how Jose Mesa did against Derek Jeter, or how many times the '02 Indians won at home against the '02 Yankees. It would be irrelevant, and would contribute nothing to intellectually honest probability.



--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Oct 10 2017, 08:20 PM
Post #49


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14346
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2017, 12:52 PM) *
Every individual coin flip is 50%. The more flips we have, the more towards 50% each it will go. I honestly have no idea why you would use coin flips as an example.


Because in statistics, there is a regression towards the mean. In your Darvish example, the real long term numbers are not likely to be those lopsided ones of their statistically insignificant 18 encounters, but more towards the righty vs lefty and vice verse historical statistically significant numbers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 11 2017, 12:58 AM
Post #50


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 10 2017, 08:20 PM) *
Because in statistics, there is a regression towards the mean.


In terms of coin flips, yes. But it's ridiculous to think that 18 plate appearances is statistically insignificant, especially when coming up with 2-16. Don't take my word for it - the guy was benched yesterday. Results of individual matchups are no doubt affected by lefty-righty alignments, such as Michael Brantley's abysmal 1-13 against Sabathia, but nothing can compare to individual stats, provided there's a few games worth of at-bats to go off of. He'll probably be used to pinch hit tomorrow as well.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 11 2017, 04:54 AM
Post #51


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 10 2017, 01:59 PM) *
Bauer has had good numbers against the Yankees this year, but over his career against several of their players they are batting over.300 - and no pitcher will consistently do well on 3 days rest. It's worth pointing out he still didn't give up any earned runs last night. The Indians obviously wanted their ace, Kluber, to have the decisive game in Cleveland if Bauer couldn't get it done. He has rock solid numbers against almost all of their hitters, and will likely turn in a great start tomorrow.

The equivalent of what you two have been saying would be if we went back 15 years and looked at data that showed how Jose Mesa did against Derek Jeter, or how many times the '02 Indians won at home against the '02 Yankees. It would be irrelevant, and would contribute nothing to intellectually honest probability.

Sorry but, again, you are ridiculous. Again, you'll never admit you might be wrong even though the whole sports world agrees with what we're saying here.


Pointless trying to explain how things work to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 11 2017, 12:45 PM
Post #52


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 05:54 AM) *
Sorry but, again, you are ridiculous. Again, you'll never admit you might be wrong even though the whole sports world agrees with what we're saying here.


Pointless trying to explain how things work to you.


You have offered literally nothing intellectual or useful in this entire thread. The 'entire sports world' agrees that going for it on 4th and 8 in that situation is blatantly stupid. It isn't my fault you don't understand basic sports strategy, or statistics, and their applications. Mikey at least comes across as knowing his stuff.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 11 2017, 04:09 PM
Post #53


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 11 2017, 01:45 PM) *
You have offered literally nothing intellectual or useful in this entire thread. The 'entire sports world' agrees that going for it on 4th and 8 in that situation is blatantly stupid. It isn't my fault you don't understand basic sports strategy, or statistics, and their applications. Mikey at least comes across as knowing his stuff.

No, you're back to the, "he shouldn't have gone for it," while we're explaining why he went for it. We've explained why--in sports--they actually look at the numbers and base decisions on them. But you, who is smarter than anyone, continues to claim how things are so different because it backs up what your ridiculous argument has been.

You're the one who doesn't seem to have a grasp of probabilities since you can't seem to get it through your head why they do it. They've been doing it for years in various sports and they're doing it even more in even more sports now. Why? Because it doesn't work?

Mikey knows far more about numbers than I do. I never claimed to be an expert. I just have a little knowledge about probabilities and why people use them to make decisions. You, on the other hand, keep spouting off about college numbers and other things. No matter how much info people provide you, you still keep insisting the numbers don't/can't work when, in fact, you are incorrect.

Then again, this is like EVERY time you've ever argued around here...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 11 2017, 04:35 PM
Post #54


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 05:09 PM) *
We've explained why--in sports--they actually look at the numbers and base decisions on them. But you, who is smarter than anyone, continues to claim how things are so different because it backs up what your ridiculous argument has been.

You're the one who doesn't seem to have a grasp of probabilities since you can't seem to get it through your head why they do it. They've been doing it for years in various sports and they're doing it even more in even more sports now. Why? Because it doesn't work?


And I've explained, many times over, why certain numbers matter more in a sport like baseball as opposed to football. Using historical numbers that have nothing to do with the teams on the field is intellectually dishonest and ill advised - such as going for it on 4th and 8 because it's '33%.' I've also pointed out that the numbers you demand I genuflect to would indicate that Tom Brady has the same chance against the Saints defense, as Matt Cassel does against the Chiefs defense - this makes your justification of those studies laughable.

I've also shown simple examples of how individual matchups in baseball make for far more accurate predictions of success or failure - I used Chris Iannetta's history against Yu Darvish as my first example, predicting he wouldn't get the start - and lo and behold, Iannetta was benched! I then used Michael Brantley's history against CC Sabathia as another example, suggesting he shouldn't get the start - and lo and behold, he isn't in the starting lineup tonight!!!

It's almost as if I know what I'm talking about.....

*Bonus example: Francisco Lindor and Carlos Santana both bat over .500 against Sabathia in their careers, though Lindor has a much smaller sample size. Let's see how they do!


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Oct 11 2017, 06:42 PM
Post #55


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1486
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Oct 11 2017, 05:35 PM) *
And I've explained, many times over, why certain numbers matter more in a sport like baseball as opposed to football. Using historical numbers that have nothing to do with the teams on the field is intellectually dishonest and ill advised - such as going for it on 4th and 8 because it's '33%.' I've also pointed out that the numbers you demand I genuflect to would indicate that Tom Brady has the same chance against the Saints defense, as Matt Cassel does against the Chiefs defense - this makes your justification of those studies laughable.

I've also shown simple examples of how individual matchups in baseball make for far more accurate predictions of success or failure - I used Chris Iannetta's history against Yu Darvish as my first example, predicting he wouldn't get the start - and lo and behold, Iannetta was benched! I then used Michael Brantley's history against CC Sabathia as another example, suggesting he shouldn't get the start - and lo and behold, he isn't in the starting lineup tonight!!!

It's almost as if I know what I'm talking about.....

*Bonus example: Francisco Lindor and Carlos Santana both bat over .500 against Sabathia in their careers, though Lindor has a much smaller sample size. Let's see how they do!

And again, you've demonstrated you have very little understanding of probabilities.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Oct 11 2017, 06:56 PM
Post #56


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1263
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 11 2017, 06:42 PM) *
And again, you've demonstrated you have very little understanding of probabilities.


I accept your surrender.



--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 
NFL Football Tickets    football flash games   
RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th October 2017 - 08:06 AM