|
Post by localsonly on Sept 4, 2012 15:51:10 GMT -8
If you assume you can make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time, you should never, ever kick a PAT. So any assumptions over 50% should preclude you from kicking a PAT.......ever. If there are any ancillary benefits from going for a 2-point conversion (and I agree with Rocky that there are) that makes the logic of going for it even stronger. clearly, if Rocky or any other teams could assume 50% success, then they would and should go for it. However, since very few teams have ever been that successful, they don't try and settle for the "sure" kick.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 16:01:18 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. You claim you can determine the percentage chance that the Aztecs had of converting their 2 point try on that day, at that time, against that opponent, in that city, with the play they would call, in the current flow of the game. The best that can be done is a very rough approximation. The uncertainty in your attempt would be so high that a seat of the pants informed guess by Rocky would be closer. That is what should be used. So maybe you can at least tell us how large your uncertainty would be? 10%?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 16:02:57 GMT -8
If you assume you can make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time, you should never, ever kick a PAT. So any assumptions over 50% should preclude you from kicking a PAT.......ever. If there are any ancillary benefits from going for a 2-point conversion (and I agree with Rocky that there are) that makes the logic of going for it even stronger. clearly, if Rocky or any other teams could assume 50% success, then they would and should go for it. However, since very few teams have ever been that successful, they don't try and settle for the "sure" kick. But if you are 2 TDs down going with "the plan" is better, even with a 40% conversion rate.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 16:22:19 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. Doesn't Vegas do this sort of thing all of the time - especially with their prop bets? No. They only have to worry about where the money will go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 16:22:47 GMT -8
I want to hear Rocky explain it.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Sept 4, 2012 16:28:06 GMT -8
I want to hear Rocky explain it. Rocky doesn't strike me as a guy who'll do much elucidating.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 16:32:16 GMT -8
If you assume you can make a 2-point conversion 50% of the time, you should never, ever kick a PAT. So any assumptions over 50% should preclude you from kicking a PAT.......ever. If there are any ancillary benefits from going for a 2-point conversion (and I agree with Rocky that there are) that makes the logic of going for it even stronger. Wow. Someone goes off the other end. Making a tie game 1 or 2. Making a 3 point lead 4 or 5. Making an 8 point lead 9 or 10. These are a few of the times kicking is correct.
You're the coach: Late in the game, assuming you can convert at a 50% rate and you have a 7 point lead. Go for 2 and either have a 7 point lead or a 9 point lead? Go for 1 and have an 8 point lead? Assume your opponet converts at 40%. And OT is 50/50.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 16:34:04 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: 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. You claim you can determine the percentage chance that the Aztecs had of converting their 2 point try on that day, at that time, against that opponent, in that city, with the play they would call, in the current flow of the game. The best that can be done is a very rough approximation. The uncertainty in your attempt would be so high that a seat of the pants informed guess by Rocky would be closer. That is what should be used. So maybe you can at least tell us how large your uncertainty would be? 10%? Why would i state alpha before completion of the association rules in my data partitions? Your question is premature and further illustrates the knowledge gap here. Look Bill, as intrigued as I am now, i do not have the time or capacity to play to a crowd such as yours. If you want to obtain the data for me to mine, perhaps... to illustrate the thinking, let's consider if passing plays have a significant difference from running plays in terms of success. But is running play the variable? Or is it mean OL weight? we must analyze the data from this angle first (unsupervised learning). Population probabilities are inadequate, as I've repeated to you, for stastistically significant analysis.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 16:54:42 GMT -8
You claim you can determine the percentage chance that the Aztecs had of converting their 2 point try on that day, at that time, against that opponent, in that city, with the play they would call, in the current flow of the game. The best that can be done is a very rough approximation. The uncertainty in your attempt would be so high that a seat of the pants informed guess by Rocky would be closer. That is what should be used. So maybe you can at least tell us how large your uncertainty would be? 10%? Why would i state alpha before completion of the association rules in my data partitions? Your question is premature and further illustrates the knowledge gap here. Look Bill, as intrigued as I am now, i do not have the time or capacity to play to a crowd such as yours. If you want to obtain the data for me to mine, perhaps... to illustrate the thinking, let's consider if passing plays have a significant difference from running plays in terms of success. But is running play the variable? Or is it mean OL weight? we must analyze the data from this angle first (unsupervised learning). Population probabilities are inadequate, as I've repeated to you, for stastistically significant analysis. I just googled "ncaa 2 point conversion rates" to find the data and to my surprise the second listing was a study that confirms my plan of going for 2 points when trailing by 14. Playing with the Percentages When Trailing by Two Touchdowns I will also show that going for the extra point after the first touchdown is only correct if either the coaches believe that they have about a two thirds chance of winning in overtime (which seems rash after a tied game when the result of the coin toss is still obviously not known) or if they believe that their chances of making a two-point conversion are far below national averages.The author, Denbigh Starkey, Merton College, Oxford University, 1965--68 BA, Honour School of Mathematics University of Pennsylvania, 1968--72 PhD, Computer & Information Sciences
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 17:02:14 GMT -8
Wait, you mean the article argues not going for 2 if the coach believes the team has a below average probability of success? I'm not sure if you're joking again or what...
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 17:05:31 GMT -8
Wait, you mean the article argues not going for 2 if the coach believes the team has a below average probability of success? I'm not sure if you're joking again or what... " Far below national average" - not simply "below average". I guess this Oxford Mathematician didn't have all the problems with association rules in his data partitions
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 17:14:20 GMT -8
So now we're introducing nominal data concepts into our mode of thinking. Just when i thought the discussion couldn't be more amateur. And citing unpublished studies, too!
Frankly the real amateur here is me for sticking around.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 4, 2012 17:36:10 GMT -8
So now we're introducing nominal data concepts into our mode of thinking. Just when i thought the discussion couldn't be more amateur. And citing unpublished studies, too! Frankly the real amateur here is me for sticking around. There is no nominal data in his paper. That was a feeble attempt at deflection.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 17:40:56 GMT -8
No scrub, i was talking about you. Far below vs below.
|
|
|
Post by Strawberry Puppy Kisses on Sept 4, 2012 17:47:11 GMT -8
I've read this thread and compared my comments/info to yours. My conclusion based on your mixups is that you are Googling the concepts.
This has reached a level of absurdity that is staggering. Goodbye, scrub.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Sept 4, 2012 20:15:30 GMT -8
From a purely statistical standpoint, you probably need to throw out any 2-pt. conversions in games that were decided early or without any doubt. In other words, only count those 2-pt conversions that truly decided the outcome of games. My suspicion is that "going for it" in close games was probably worth it. But there is no way you can have an intelligent discussion without knowing EXACTLY the input data. Even then there is plenty of room for doubt. The mere fact that Bill Belechick has been successful does not matter when you have the best quarterback in the NFL. Keep this in mind.....
Rocky will quit before any of you clowns get a chance to fire him.......MARK MY WORDS!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fatmanaztec on Sept 5, 2012 8:23:23 GMT -8
Math nerds, why is it then that both Chip Kelly and Lane Kiffin were going for 2-point conversions against teams that were so INFERIOR that the game was decided the second the ball left the kickers foot at the start of the game?
There has to be some 'reason' behind their decisions as it is NOT due to lack of a good kicker on scholarship. So therefore it may have something to do with getting his players prepared for this circumstance 'when' there is a game on the line? Maybe it is to get into the head of the opposition down stream on the schedule as they now have something else to think about, put in a plan to defend, practice against potentiall occurence that in the end results in taking time away from the main game plan for that week?
Too much analytics, maybe it something more primal relative to head games, preparation for potential need in the future and/or just a statement that just 'because' everyone else does something does not necessarily mean it 'has' to be done that way?
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 5, 2012 9:10:17 GMT -8
No scrub, i was talking about you. Far below vs below. You quoted him but changed his words, "far below", to "below". I merely corrected your incorrect quote of his words. In the paper he defined what he meant by "far below" to four decimal positions - hardly nominal.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 5, 2012 9:16:07 GMT -8
I've read this thread and compared my comments/info to yours. My conclusion based on your mixups is that you are Googling the concepts. This has reached a level of absurdity that is staggering. Goodbye, scrub. I have a feeling you are accusing me of doing what you have done. Again deflection, because you have lost the issue. You now realize you can not come up with the percentage that you claim can be calculated. That is because there is a lack of relevant data.
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Sept 5, 2012 9:19:07 GMT -8
Math nerds, why is it then that both Chip Kelly and Lane Kiffin were going for 2-point conversions against teams that were so INFERIOR that the game was decided the second the ball left the kickers foot at the start of the game? There has to be some 'reason' behind their decisions as it is NOT due to lack of a good kicker on scholarship. So therefore it may have something to do with getting his players prepared for this circumstance 'when' there is a game on the line? Maybe it is to get into the head of the opposition down stream on the schedule as they now have something else to think about, put in a plan to defend, practice against potentiall occurence that in the end results in taking time away from the main game plan for that week? Fat man, I thnk you answered your own question. And for the record, as someone who grew up shredding local breaks and skating everything and anything with a concrete/metal/wooden surface, who once worked as a race instructor for AMG alongside an Andretti, and who's future ex-wife is a former Miss India contestant, until such time I ammend or change my username to incorporate "math nerd" into the title, you may feel free to address me as, "sir," "Your Awesomeness," or "Mr. San Diegan."
|
|