Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 01:43:06 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Thanks for repeating yourself...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6988.msg192607#msg192607

Ready to be told to get fucked again?

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 08:47:22 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 01:43:06 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Thanks for repeating yourself...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6988.msg192607#msg192607

Ready to be told to get fucked again?

Wow. This was a bit harsh.

I blame falling asleep on the couch and waking up to Andy Dick on my TV for putting me in a foul mood.

Here's the argument against this in statfag terms...

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php

With 4:08 remaining in the 2nd quarter...

First and 10 on your opponent's 13:

Expected Points: +4.5
First Down Prob: 0.67
TD Prob: 0.54
FG Prob: 0.33

First and goal on your opponent's 9:

Expected Points: +4.8
First Down Prob: 0.00
TD Prob: 0.60
FG Prob: 0.28

There's a positive expected return of 0.3 points on picking up those extra four yards in spite of your complaints.

This looks consistent with letting your players do what they're paid to do: advancing the ball as far down the field as they can.

And this is just based on the actual outcome of that play versus your preferred scenario, without factoring in the possibility that Olsen breaks that pass for a few more yards or even a touchdown.

For shits and giggles, here's the expected points swing on Lovie's challenge...

Third and goal on the opponent's 1 with 2:23 remaining in the half:

Expected Points: +5.3
First Down Prob: 0.00
TD Prob: 0.52
FG Prob: 0.37

Opponent first and 10 pinned at their own 2:

Expected Points: -0.7
First Down Prob: 0.67
TD Prob: 0.11
FG Prob: 0.05

That's -0.7 expected points to Seattke, or 0.7 to the Bears, for a 4.6 point swing in the Bears' favor on the overturning of the fumble.

Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2009, 07:26:52 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 29, 2009, 09:20:20 AM

Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2009, 07:26:52 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

That whole first & goal thing. It leads to stupid shit, like running backs reaching for the goal line out of desperation without the calming presence of an orange first down marker to assuage them. DOOOOM

Quote from: Fork on September 29, 2009, 09:27:43 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 29, 2009, 09:20:20 AM

Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2009, 07:26:52 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

That whole first & goal thing. It leads to stupid shit, like running backs reaching for the goal line out of desperation without the calming presence of an orange first down marker to assuage them. DOOOOM

They get the first, then Utler runs back 10 yards and takes a knee. Gives him room to work.

Quote from: IrishYeti on September 29, 2009, 09:15:42 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 08:47:22 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 01:43:06 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Thanks for repeating yourself...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6988.msg192607#msg192607

Ready to be told to get fucked again?

Wow. This was a bit harsh.

I blame falling asleep on the couch and waking up to Andy Dick on my TV for putting me in a foul mood.

Here's the argument against this in statfag terms...

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php

With 4:08 remaining in the 2nd quarter...

First and 10 on your opponent's 13:

Expected Points: +4.5
First Down Prob: 0.67
TD Prob: 0.54
FG Prob: 0.33

First and goal on your opponent's 9:

Expected Points: +4.8
First Down Prob: 0.00
TD Prob: 0.60
FG Prob: 0.28

There's a positive expected return of 0.3 points on picking up those extra four yards in spite of your complaints.

This looks consistent with letting your players do what they're paid to do: advancing the ball as far down the field as they can.

And this is just based on the actual outcome of that play versus your preferred scenario, without factoring in the possibility that Olsen breaks that pass for a few more yards or even a touchdown.

For shits and giggles, here's the expected points swing on Lovie's challenge...

Third and goal on the opponent's 1 with 2:23 remaining in the half:

Expected Points: +5.3
First Down Prob: 0.00
TD Prob: 0.52
FG Prob: 0.37

Opponent first and 10 pinned at their own 2:

Expected Points: -0.7
First Down Prob: 0.67
TD Prob: 0.11
FG Prob: 0.05

That's -0.7 expected points to Seattke, or 0.7 to the Bears, for a 4.6 point swing in the Bears' favor on the overturning of the fumble.

Statfaggotry always wins.

Quote from: Waco Kid on September 29, 2009, 09:29:21 AM

Quote from: Fork on September 29, 2009, 09:27:43 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 29, 2009, 09:20:20 AM

Quote from: SKO on September 29, 2009, 07:26:52 AM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 28, 2009, 11:37:13 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

That whole first & goal thing. It leads to stupid shit, like running backs reaching for the goal line out of desperation without the calming presence of an orange first down marker to assuage them. DOOOOM

They get the first, then Utler runs back 10 yards and takes a knee. Gives him room to work.

And the security of knowing that he can get yet another first down.

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Statfaggotry says Brad Maynard should be out of a job.

QuotePulaski hasn't punted since 2007 (when it did so as a gesture of sportsmanship in a lopsided game), and here's why: "The average punt in high school nets you 30 yards, but we convert around half our fourth downs, so it doesn't make sense to give up the ball..."

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 09:38:53 AM

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Statfaggotry says Brad Maynard should be out of a job.

Maybe if the Bears were a high school team...

QuotePulaski hasn't punted since 2007 (when it did so as a gesture of sportsmanship in a lopsided game), and here's why: "The average punt in high school nets you 30 yards, but we convert around half our fourth downs, so it doesn't make sense to give up the ball..."

And in that case, Gould would be out, too.

/internet buzzkill

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 29, 2009, 09:48:06 AM
Not to be a dick or anything but I really hope Helen Huntermeyer stays on the sideline for an assload of games.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-29-bears-chicago-sep29,0,3695600.story

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:47:01 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 09:38:53 AM

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Statfaggotry says Brad Maynard should be out of a job.

Maybe if the Bears were a high school team...

QuotePulaski hasn't punted since 2007 (when it did so as a gesture of sportsmanship in a lopsided game), and here's why: "The average punt in high school nets you 30 yards, but we convert around half our fourth downs, so it doesn't make sense to give up the ball..."

And in that case, Gould would be out, too.

/internet buzzkill

Did you read the whole article?

"Much of Kelley's analysis has support among number crunchers. In 2005 David Romer, a prominent Cal economist, published a study that argued that over the course of the three NFL seasons he studied there had been 1,068 fourth-down situations in which teams, mathematically, would have been better off going for it. In all but 109 cases the teams either kicked or punted."

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:47:01 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 09:38:53 AM

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Statfaggotry says Brad Maynard should be out of a job.

Maybe if the Bears were a high school team...

QuotePulaski hasn't punted since 2007 (when it did so as a gesture of sportsmanship in a lopsided game), and here's why: "The average punt in high school nets you 30 yards, but we convert around half our fourth downs, so it doesn't make sense to give up the ball..."

And in that case, Gould would be out, too.

/internet buzzkill

Did you read the whole article?

"Much of Kelley's analysis has support among number crunchers. In 2005 David Romer, a prominent Cal economist, published a study that argued that over the course of the three NFL seasons he studied there had been 1,068 fourth-down situations in which teams, mathematically, would have been better off going for it. In all but 109 cases the teams either kicked or punted."

QuoteOn the 1,604 fourth downs in the sample for which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off kicking, they went for it only nine times. But on the 1,068 fourth downs for which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off going for it, they kicked 959 times

QuoteOn the team's own half of the field, going for it is better on average if there is less than about 4 yards to go. After midfield, the gain from kicking falls, and so the critical value rises. It is 6.5 yards at the opponent's 45 and peaks at 9.8 on the opponent's 33. As the team gets into field goal range, the critical value falls rapidly; its lowest point is 4.0 yards on the 21. Thereafter, the value of kicking changes little while the value of going for it rises. As a result, the critical value rises again. The analysis implies that once a team reaches its opponent's 5, it is always better off on average going for it.

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 10:34:19 AM

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:47:01 AM

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 09:38:53 AM

Quote from: flannj on September 29, 2009, 09:32:44 AM
Statfaggotry says Brad Maynard should be out of a job.

Maybe if the Bears were a high school team...

QuotePulaski hasn't punted since 2007 (when it did so as a gesture of sportsmanship in a lopsided game), and here's why: "The average punt in high school nets you 30 yards, but we convert around half our fourth downs, so it doesn't make sense to give up the ball..."

And in that case, Gould would be out, too.

/internet buzzkill

Did you read the whole article?

"Much of Kelley's analysis has support among number crunchers. In 2005 David Romer, a prominent Cal economist, published a study that argued that over the course of the three NFL seasons he studied there had been 1,068 fourth-down situations in which teams, mathematically, would have been better off going for it. In all but 109 cases the teams either kicked or punted."

Yes I read the whole article. And that happy little stat leaves out an important number.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf

QuoteOn the 1,604 fourth downs in the sample for which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off kicking, they went for it only nine times. But on the 1,068 fourth downs for which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off going for it, they kicked 959 times

His analysis says that, for all the fourth down situations he looked at between 1998 and 2000, the optimal strategy would have been to kick 1,604 times and to go for it 1,068 times.

So, even in Romer's Magical World of Numbers, NFL teams would still punt and attempt field goals 60% of the time...

QuoteOn the team's own half of the field, going for it is better on average if there is less than about 4 yards to go. After midfield, the gain from kicking falls, and so the critical value rises. It is 6.5 yards at the opponent's 45 and peaks at 9.8 on the opponent's 33. As the team gets into field goal range, the critical value falls rapidly; its lowest point is 4.0 yards on the 21. Thereafter, the value of kicking changes little while the value of going for it rises. As a result, the critical value rises again. The analysis implies that once a team reaches its opponent's 5, it is always better off on average going for it.

Also, he and his wife are dirty socialists.

Quote from: BC on September 29, 2009, 07:48:25 AM
I liked the challenge, the timeout there doesn't matter a ton and watching the play live I thought Forte was down... The only negative of that particular challenge is that the Bears would only have had one more challenge if the call were confirmed.