• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bradsha'w's TD, should he or shouldn't he?

AnonymousDeac said:
You seem to have a decent background with statistics. One understanding within stats is that if you're sample size is great enough, and your confidence level is great enough, those variables you mention often become less important.

There were 1207 XPs attempted this year, and only 7 missed. All those variables such as weather, team, kicker, etc become pretty much irrelevant when the success rate of all XPs was 99.4%.

The only way those would matter is if one specific variable had a great enough affect to directly influence those 7 missed XPs. However, that is not the case. They were simply random misses. Thus, the ease of making an XP far outweighs any random variables you might come up with.
Click to expand...

Let me simplify this coming from the perspective of a Giants fan. Fuck the statistics. You score the TD. The reason you score the touchdown?





 
IAppreciateIt said:
Eh, that's not entirely correct.

He wasn't talking about random variables, but characteristics of the teams that deviate from the average. For example, the quality of each team's kicker would weigh into the win probabilities fairly heavily (relatively speaking). If the Patriots had Sebastian Janikowski, the win probabilities would change.

That said, the disparity in win probabilities between the two situations was so big that I don't think any factor would make up the difference.
Click to expand...

I must not have been that clear. What I was saying is that with a 99.4% success rate across the league, even the variables that matter such as skill of kicker or holder, skill of the other team's defense at blocking XPs, etc, are still negligible since 99.4% were still successful.

Hypothetically, if of the 7 that were missed, 5 were by the Giants, then yes that would be relevant. However, that was not the case as I mentioned.

I also just don't feel any other variables are strong enough to change the win percentage dramatically, as we already decided the Pats would have < 20 seconds and no timeouts to drive 40+ yards.
 
AnonymousDeac said:
I must not have been that clear. What I was saying is that with a 99.4% success rate across the league, even the variables that matter such as skill of kicker or holder, skill of the other team's defense at blocking XPs, etc, are still negligible since 99.4% were still successful.

Hypothetically, if of the 7 that were missed, 5 were by the Giants, then yes that would be relevant. However, that was not the case as I mentioned.

I also just don't feel any other variables are strong enough to change the win percentage dramatically, as we already decided the Pats would have < 20 seconds and no timeouts to drive 40+ yards.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are applying the numbers right. The league-wide numbers have little to do with the success of a potential kick for the Giants. Now, Tynes has a career 98.1% success rate on PATs, so little difference there. But if Tynes got hurt and the Giants had to use Eli to kick their extra points, the 99.4% wouldn't mean anything, regardless of how big the sample size was.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
I don't think you are applying the numbers right. The league-wide numbers have little to do with the success of a potential kick for the Giants. Now, Tynes has a career 98.1% success rate on PATs, so little difference there. But if Tynes got hurt and the Giants had to use Eli to kick their extra points, the 99.4% wouldn't mean anything, regardless of how big the sample size was.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is very true. My point was just that given the factors of the game, and nothing being too far of an outlier (meaning Eli would not be kicking the XP), the variables within the game were negligible.

In other words, no variables within the game were strong enough to make the correct decision anything but kicking the FG.
 
That presumes that the game itself is not a variable that would significantly change the outcome - and if you listen to any people who play the game they say that it is.
 
w84it said:
That presumes that the game itself is not a variable that would significantly change the outcome - and if you listen to any people who play the game they say that it is.
Click to expand...

In Super Bowl history, two XPs have been missed. I do not know how many XPs have been attempted in all of the SBs, but given there's been 46 SBs, and a game on average has maybe 5 TDs, that would still be over 200 attempts.

Success rate still greater than 99%.
 
I think you score the TD and live with the rest. I don't care about percentages in this case. If you are given a TD and you play the statistical game, you are opening yourself up to becoming the biggest goat in Superbowl history. Anyone remember the ending to the Cowboys/Seahawks playoff game several years ago? Can you imagine the fall-out if that happens in the superbowl?

It's one thing to settle for a FG if you are at the 20 and it takes effort to score a TD. It's another thing if you are at the 5 and the other team GIVES you 6 points.
 
So I assume anyone who thinks the TD was the right decision also believes that the Patriots were wrong to try and let the Giants score? Because you can't have it both ways in this zero-sum game.
 
AnonymousDeac said:
In Super Bowl history, two XPs have been missed. I do not know how many XPs have been attempted in all of the SBs, but given there's been 46 SBs, and a game on average has maybe 5 TDs, that would still be over 200 attempts.

Success rate still greater than 99%.
Click to expand...

Still not there, because you're still looking at extra points and not field goals. And even then you're not looking at field goals with less than two minutes to play that would have changed the lead. So, in reality, you're looking at a sample size of four - Super Bowl V, XXV, XXXVI, and XXXVIII with one missed field goal, a conversion rate of... 75%

Yup, I'd take the points.
 
94wfudeacon said:
I think you score the TD and live with the rest. I don't care about percentages in this case. If you are given a TD and you play the statistical game, you are opening yourself up to becoming the biggest goat in Superbowl history. Anyone remember the ending to the Cowboys/Seahawks playoff game several years ago? Can you imagine the fall-out if that happens in the superbowl?

It's one thing to settle for a FG if you are at the 20 and it takes effort to score a TD. It's another thing if you are at the 5 and the other team GIVES you 6 points.
Click to expand...

no romo, no "romo-esque" plays
 
w84it said:
Still not there, because you're still looking at extra points and not field goals. And even then you're not looking at field goals with less than two minutes to play that would have changed the lead. So, in reality, you're looking at a sample size of four - Super Bowl V, XXV, XXXVI, and XXXVIII with one missed field goal, a conversion rate of... 75%

Yup, I'd take the points.
Click to expand...

The missed field goal in your sample was a 47 yard attempt on slick natural grass. LOL at comparing that to a potential 18 yard attempt indoors.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
The missed field goal in your sample was a 47 yard attempt on slick natural grass. LOL at comparing that to a potential 18 yard attempt indoors.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that there are important variables that aren't being taken into consideration.
 
w84it said:
So you're admitting that there are important variables that aren't being taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm saying that your example ignores important variables. I don't think the indoor/outdoor, grass/plastic, or dry/slick conditions make much difference on PATs and PAT-length FGs.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
So I assume anyone who thinks the TD was the right decision also believes that the Patriots were wrong to try and let the Giants score? Because you can't have it both ways in this zero-sum game.
Click to expand...

But it's not. By your logic, baseball managers should instruct batters to try to hit intentional walks. But they don't. They take their base and make the other team pay for it.

If the Giants trust their D, they should take a gift Super Bowl-winning TD. If the Pats trust their O, they should give a Super Bowl lead to have a better chance at getting their own winning TD.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Not at all. I'm saying that your example ignores important variables. I don't think the indoor/outdoor, grass/plastic, or dry/slick conditions make much difference on PATs and PAT-length FGs.
Click to expand...

That may certainly be true, but how many of those have been attempted in the last two minutes of the Super Bowl to win the game? None. So you're left with a flawed data set regardless of what you do, which renders the entire point of statistical analysis moot.
 
w84it said:
That may certainly be true, but how many of those have been attempted in the last two minutes of the Super Bowl to win the game? None. So you're left with a flawed data set regardless of what you do, which renders the entire point of statistical analysis moot.
Click to expand...

How much of a difference do you think the final 2 minutes of the Super Bowl makes in kicking an extra point?

Twice as hard? Three times as difficult? Just curious of your opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top