|
Post by k5james on Sept 4, 2012 12:53:09 GMT -8
Math nerd fight!
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 13:10:41 GMT -8
That is not the correct method to use in situations like this. Coaches have to make assumptions. Those assumptions must be used as input to whatever decisions they come to. Coach "A" Assumptions: Everyone kicks extra points so it must be correct. Rocky's assumptions: We will make a 2 point conversions against Washington at a 43% rate. So if we are down 2 TDs, I will go for 2 instead of 1.
Things change too fast and there are too many variables that are not constant to use the method you describe. This is called real life. You can't use some soft mamsy pamsy social science model of life. This isn't science, it is game theory. You're a good guy and enjoy RPI calculations. You seem to have a genuine interest in application of some mathematical derivations relative to sports. I respect you, in that regard. But, Bill, you're stepping all over your logic. Further, you're making inane statements relative to my comments. You stated above that using the foundation of data mining, i.e. establishment of supervised learning for multivariate models, is not the correct method to use in situations "like this." Further, you can't use "mamsy pamsy social science" here. I can't tell if you're being ignorant on purpose... or if you truly think that analysis of data using multivariate statistical methods qualifies as social science. Game theory, as you alluded to, is rooted in the correlation of data equillibrium and spatial data analysis. Such a technique is extremely valuable in practical data mining application. It is also realized as part of the inception done through unsupervised learning, i.e., the association rules that derive the correlations for your multivariate model! There is linear progression here in the logic - are you sure you understand what I'm talking about? Your post above is so incredibly inane that, given you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, you must be simply misunderstanding. Right? You simply do not have the data to come any conclusion about the percentage chance of converting on a 2 point try. There is only data about other teams trying to convert against teams other than Washington. No data - no statistics. A coach has to assume the percentage chance based upon what he knows about his team, what he knows about the opponent, and what he knows about average conversation rates. Once that assumption is made, the rest is simple arithmetic. Reading your post has me convinced that you have a buzz word generator. You use words that when placed together make no sense in the context of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by beatnavy on Sept 4, 2012 13:24:13 GMT -8
If you're a good offensive team with a good OL you should be able to make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time or better. Oregon seems to think so. Boise goes for it a lot more than other teams also. And everything over 50% becomes "gravy" points which you would never get unless you go for it. For example, assume you score 4 TD's with 4 PAT = 4 points while 3 of 4 two-point conversions would be 6 points. You arbitrarily decide that a good O will make a 2 pointer half the time, but show nothing to support it. Great, a college basketball player ought to make at least 80% of their FTs. They ought to, because no body is guarding them and they always shoot from the same spot. But, they don't If Rocky and his math Prof ran the numbers over the last 3-4 years and came up with 50%, great. I wonder what that percentage would be if they looked at every play run from the 3 yd line or closer. I bet is wasn't close to 50% and it is really about the same. Going forward may be even tougher, because the element of surprise probably accounts for some of the 50%, and if opposing coaches know we are going for 2 most of the time, they will certainly spend more time D'ing it. Is defending against a 2-pt attempt (excluding fake kicks) any different than defending against any other play from inside the 5-yard line (excluding FG attempts)?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 13:29:01 GMT -8
You arbitrarily decide that a good O will make a 2 pointer half the time, but show nothing to support it. Great, a college basketball player ought to make at least 80% of their FTs. They ought to, because no body is guarding them and they always shoot from the same spot. But, they don't If Rocky and his math Prof ran the numbers over the last 3-4 years and came up with 50%, great. I wonder what that percentage would be if they looked at every play run from the 3 yd line or closer. I bet is wasn't close to 50% and it is really about the same. Going forward may be even tougher, because the element of surprise probably accounts for some of the 50%, and if opposing coaches know we are going for 2 most of the time, they will certainly spend more time D'ing it. Is defending against a 2-pt attempt (excluding fake kicks) any different than defending against any other play from inside the 5-yard line (excluding FG attempts)? It is the same as any 4th down try from the 3. That is why there isn't enough data unless you use all teams in all games. That dissallows using team similar to you and your opponent. So all you get is an overall average stated in prior posts.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 13:32:10 GMT -8
I see your viewpoint, now. Your knowledge in this area is constrained to decomposition of probabilistic outcomes based on (likely unrelated) samples. You believe the decision made is data driven. A stronger statistical knowledge would show you the inherent flaws in your method and help you correct its misapplication. I'm not out to 1-up anyone. This is an Aztec forum, not a course on "k nearest neighbor" statistics. Your application is definitely simple arithmetic. I can assure you simple arithmetic is insufficient to solve the problem. Bill, please just trust me that your application of the data, if actually adopted by Rocky, is flawed. To properly solve this puzzle, we'd need to start at inception and understand how the data was sampled, whether oversampling was used to account for rarity of 2pt conversion tries, and how the unsupervised/supervised learning methods were applied across data partitions. I'm growing more and more tempted to work on this... just for fun
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 13:33:38 GMT -8
A buzz word generator?
Oh boy. That respect I mentioned is rapidly dwindling, Bill.
You're showing an awful lot of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 13:38:30 GMT -8
I see your viewpoint, now. Your knowledge in this area is constrained to decomposition of probabilistic outcomes based on (likely unrelated) samples. You believe the decision made is data driven. A stronger statistical knowledge would show you the inherent flaws in your method and help you correct its misapplication. I'm not out to 1-up anyone. This is an Aztec forum, not a course on "k nearest neighbor" statistics. Your application is definitely simple arithmetic. I can assure you simple arithmetic is insufficient to solve the problem. Bill, please just trust me that your application of the data, if actually adopted by Rocky, is flawed. To properly solve this puzzle, we'd need to start at inception and understand how the data was sampled, whether oversampling was used to account for rarity of 2pt conversion tries, and how the unsupervised/supervised learning methods were applied across data partitions. I'm growing more and more tempted to work on this... just for fun It is I who stated that the coach has to assume a percentage success rate and base further decisions upon that assumption. I can't tell what your point of view is. It seems you think you can come to some conclusion on the percentage chance success rate the Aztecs would have against Washington last Saturday by crunching numbers. You are wrong. There is not enough data and no amount of buzz words can change that. Usually I don't feed trolls but there are many here who have fallen for you bull - so I tried.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 13:48:57 GMT -8
You've stated "I'm wrong" using logic that is inadequate for the problem space. I can explain to you why, but the fact you believe my comments are "buzzwords" tells me you wouldn't understand.
But now I'm a troll? That's disappointing.
Bill, in this case, it saddens me to conclude with a quote.
“Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
¯ Mark Twain
You simply don't understand this subject to the degree you think you do. I cannot debate this subject with you any longer.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 14:17:28 GMT -8
You've stated "I'm wrong" using logic that is inadequate for the problem space. I can explain to you why, but the fact you believe my comments are "buzzwords" tells me you wouldn't understand. But now I'm a troll? That's disappointing. Bill, in this case, it saddens me to conclude with a quote. “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ¯ Mark Twain You simply don't understand this subject to the degree you think you do. I cannot debate this subject with you any longer. If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 14:24:00 GMT -8
You've stated "I'm wrong" using logic that is inadequate for the problem space. I can explain to you why, but the fact you believe my comments are "buzzwords" tells me you wouldn't understand. But now I'm a troll? That's disappointing. Bill, in this case, it saddens me to conclude with a quote. “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ¯ Mark Twain You simply don't understand this subject to the degree you think you do. I cannot debate this subject with you any longer. If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. Doesn't Vegas do this sort of thing all of the time - especially with their prop bets?
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Sept 4, 2012 14:24:07 GMT -8
Math nerd fight! You can put out someone's eye with a protractor. Then, while they're half-blind and writhing around in pain, you could club them like a baby seal with a sock filled with pocket calculators. Don't underestimate us.
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Sept 4, 2012 14:24:50 GMT -8
If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. I'm your huckleberry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 14:28:31 GMT -8
It's gettin' testy.
Where's the popcorn?
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 14:40:02 GMT -8
You've stated "I'm wrong" using logic that is inadequate for the problem space. I can explain to you why, but the fact you believe my comments are "buzzwords" tells me you wouldn't understand. But now I'm a troll? That's disappointing. Bill, in this case, it saddens me to conclude with a quote. “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ¯ Mark Twain You simply don't understand this subject to the degree you think you do. I cannot debate this subject with you any longer. If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. Now I'm convinced you're trolling me. Demonstrating this would empower you and give me no satisfaction. thesandiegan's response earlier was dead on. I have all the confidence he/she can take it from here. I will warn you again. You do not understand this subject anywhere near the degree you think you do... and are now getting foolish.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 14:46:52 GMT -8
If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. Now I'm convinced you're trolling me. Demonstrating this would empower you and give me no satisfaction. thesandiegan's response earlier was dead on. I have all the confidence he/she can take it from here. I will warn you again. You do not understand this subject anywhere near the degree you think you do... and are now getting foolish.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 14:51:56 GMT -8
If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. Now I'm convinced you're trolling me. Demonstrating this would empower you and give me no satisfaction. thesandiegan's response earlier was dead on. I have all the confidence he/she can take it from here. I will warn you again. You do not understand this subject anywhere near the degree you think you do... and are now getting foolish. thesandiegan's response included: However, as SPK has alluded to, we do not have enough data to accurately assess the 'goodness' of Rocky's statistical model. That is exactly my point. Not enough data. Rocky has to assume a percentage chance and make a decision based upon that assumption. There is no valid statistical method to derive that number.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 14:54:51 GMT -8
If you think you can use data and statistics to determine the percentage chance of the Aztecs converting a 2 point try against Washington - dream on. That I would like to see. I challenge you. Now I'm convinced you're trolling me. Demonstrating this would empower you and give me no satisfaction. thesandiegan's response earlier was dead on. I have all the confidence he/she can take it from here. I will warn you again. You do not understand this subject anywhere near the degree you think you do... and are now getting foolish. So you want to vote present. You don't want to actually be on record with any position that can be judged. That sounds awfully familiar.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 15:11:16 GMT -8
The fact you confuse concepts to such a degree illustrates your difficulty grasping the subject matter. The comment I was alluding to, the part that applies to the topic, was: Furthermore, an effective model should be adaptable to a given set of circumstances. Even in the absence of quantifiable variability, there should still exist Boolean tests to determine when to use the model, and if used, if and when to tailor it. If I were a heavyweight boxing champion, I would not elect to fight the scrub in the gym that throws down a challenge. So, dear scrub, even if I were to show you what a multivariate regression model looks like that could present the probability you're so bewildered by (and associated measures of confidence), frankly, you would not be able to comprehend it. I've broken my rule twice now. I cannot debate this further. Taunt away; it's over.
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Sept 4, 2012 15:27:03 GMT -8
Now I'm convinced you're trolling me. Demonstrating this would empower you and give me no satisfaction. thesandiegan's response earlier was dead on. I have all the confidence he/she can take it from here. I will warn you again. You do not understand this subject anywhere near the degree you think you do... and are now getting foolish. thesandiegan's response included: However, as SPK has alluded to, we do not have enough data to accurately assess the 'goodness' of Rocky's statistical model. That is exactly my point. Not enough data. Rocky has to assume a percentage chance and make a decision based upon that assumption. There is no valid statistical method to derive that number. Hi Bill, Just to clarify, I meant to convey that we don't have enough visibility into Rocky's process, not that Rocky doesn't have enough data... Data is a natural byproduct of the execution of any process (e.g., running a play inside the three yard line), and to be honest, I would be very surprised to learn that Rocky & Co. don't have enough data points make a statistcally valid, data-driven decision on the PK issue in real-time against a given opponent.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 15:51:09 GMT -8
thesandiegan's response included: However, as SPK has alluded to, we do not have enough data to accurately assess the 'goodness' of Rocky's statistical model. That is exactly my point. Not enough data. Rocky has to assume a percentage chance and make a decision based upon that assumption. There is no valid statistical method to derive that number. Hi Bill, Just to clarify, I meant to convey that we don't have enough visibility into Rocky's process, not that Rocky doesn't have enough data... Data is a natural byproduct of the execution of any process (e.g., running a play inside the three yard line), and to be honest, I would be very surprised to learn that Rocky & Co. don't have enough data points make a statistcally valid, data-driven decision on the PK issue in real-time against a given opponent. It is not just running a play inside the 3 yard line. It is running a play from the 3 yard line on 4th down or during a conversion. That severly limits the data. But the data is already suppressed to zero since we have no pertinent Washington versus SDSU data on that day. Rocky and company have zero data points that are an exact match to the situation they faced in Seattle. To use statistics in this situation you must use data that is from other situations on different days with different teams. End of the day, it is a seat of the pants (informed) guess about what percentage chance they feel they have of making a 2 point conversion on that day, at that time, against that opponent, with the play they will run. Once that is assumed, then they can use simple math to determine the best course of action. But the real question is do they feel they have a better than 38% chance. That is the cross over point of the decision. That point should be raised if they feel they have a better than 50/50 chance in OT and lowered if they feel they have less than a 50/50 chance. If the Aztecs are going for it on a lot of 4th downs, going for 2 point conversions will be good experience. I agree with Rocky on that point.
|
|