|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 20, 2008 18:01:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dtackle74 on Sept 20, 2008 22:06:38 GMT -6
This isn't the same Tim Dougherty from Lincolnway Central in Illinois is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 21, 2008 9:09:29 GMT -6
The issue I have with the research is that it took many individualized situations, created a wealth of data, lumped it together, and then carved it out to make inferences back on those individualized situations. Much like the financial planner who puts your retirement plans together stating "the market averages an 8% return". If you look at the end of the trip...great, you might get an 8% annual return average. If you however, you have to "win" each week in your investments....
Same here. Based on the data presented, it sounds great to say "If you go for it you will win an extra game", however, each game is an independent event. You might not need those "extra" points that the data set alludes to in week 4, and it might cost you a game in week 6.
Now, for the majority of us coaching levels lower than the NFL, I would say that we DO need to look into certain "accepted practices" a bit more. It kills me to see H.S and Middle school teams kick off "deep"...routinely letting their opponent catch that nice, high, end over end kick at the -15 or -20 and returning it to the -37 or better. I think lower level coaches need to examine their kicking game, and reassess the risk/reward of going for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 21, 2008 14:28:49 GMT -6
I noticed they had airman on there - not really but the guy who said he never, ever punts. Of course I think his rationale was a bit lacking. He said if you're on your own 15 and fail to make it on 4th, they only get a 15-20% increase in their chance of scoring a TD, while he had a 50% chance to make it. But he seemed to overlook that his was only a 50% chance to make a 1st down, something he'd have to do several times before the other teams' expected points became negative based on field position, and so he needed to multiply that 50% times his chances of further first downs, thus driving that number down.
Anyway, point being, you don't need a rocket scientist to know it's hyperbole when someone says the odds are in his favor on going for it on 4th and 15 on his own 18.
|
|
|
|
Post by splitricky5 on Sept 22, 2008 12:04:34 GMT -6
Cool article, but on the last page the guy is talking about aggressive coaches and mentions Marty Schottenheimer. Is it just me or is Marty known for Marty-Ball (not being aggressive, playing it safe, punting and kicking instead of going for it)? Maybe I misread it, but that part didn't seem to be correct.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Sept 29, 2008 10:33:03 GMT -6
The issue I have with the research is that it took many individualized situations, created a wealth of data, lumped it together, and then carved it out to make inferences back on those individualized situations. Well, no, actually, Romer took ALL first quarter plays for a set period (X number of NFL games from season Y). You can't accuse him of creating non-meaningful aggregates when his filter was set to "ALL"... |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 29, 2008 11:29:43 GMT -6
The issue I have with the research is that it took many individualized situations, created a wealth of data, lumped it together, and then carved it out to make inferences back on those individualized situations. Well, no, actually, Romer took ALL first quarter plays for a set period (X number of NFL games from season Y). You can't accuse him of creating non-meaningful aggregates when his filter was set to "ALL"... Coach, you just restated what I said. The many individualized situations were ALL of the situations. Each one was an individual event, with individual matchups, individual circumstances, individual results. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 29, 2008 11:52:37 GMT -6
Well then you quite possibly don't understand statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Sept 29, 2008 16:44:42 GMT -6
I think scoring a touch down on 4th down is one which will put a frown on the face of the other town.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 29, 2008 18:07:58 GMT -6
Well then you quite possibly don't understand statistics. 
Just what in the Hell are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 29, 2008 19:08:02 GMT -6
Well then you quite possibly don't understand statistics. Not quite sure who you were directing this to. My point was simply that although one can combine the data and make inferences as to what the %'s are, the game of football is not a closed environment and each situation could be different. Statistically, the stats might say one thing. If you were playing against the 2006 Bears...it might not have been such a great idea, while doing the same thing against the 2008 Rams might yield better than projected results... |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 29, 2008 19:47:19 GMT -6
I was talking to coachd. Any my point remains: Yes statistics are imperfect, and yes, football is far and away the most complex game of all. But it does no one any good to say that, well, you could compare these two fourth and 1s by the same team with about the same amount of time on the clock and the same part of the field, but hey in this one they had a goal line package and that one they ran a stunt this way, etc. Yes, there are variances, but you can still glean trends and use information usefully.
I won't even bother trying to explain how regression analysis works, but it also helps avoid a lot of these problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Sept 29, 2008 19:57:48 GMT -6
I was talking to coachd. Any my point remains: Yes statistics are imperfect, and yes, football is far and away the most complex game of all. But it does no one any good to say that, well, you could compare these two fourth and 1s by the same team with about the same amount of time on the clock and the same part of the field, but hey in this one they had a goal line package and that one they ran a stunt this way, etc. Yes, there are variances, but you can still glean trends and use information usefully. I won't even bother trying to explain how regression analysis works, but it also helps avoid a lot of these problems. I maintain that in the piece provided, the viewpoints of the author has assumed away many of the factors in the game that affect the outcomes of both plays and games as a whole. This creates statistical difficulties regardless as to what you place as the dependent or independent variables, constants or coefficients. |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Sept 30, 2008 6:06:28 GMT -6
Well then you quite possibly don't understand statistics. Remember: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think... |
|
