• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

NFL

The analytics on the FG decision is interesting. The Packers had a 10% chance of winning if they went for it on 4th down, which would require:

  • scoring from the 8 in only one try
  • scoring from the 2 in only one try (the 2-point conversion needed to tie the game)
  • stopping the Bucs from driving into FG range with 2 minutes left
  • winning in OT, where they might never possess the ball

vs. 9% by kicking the FG, which would require:

  • making the chip shot FG (98% probability)
  • stopping the Bucs when their intent would be to simply run out the clock (and GB had all three of their timeouts)
  • driving for a touchdown with plenty of time left on the clock, if they held the Bucs to a 3-and-out.

So it wasn't a gutsy call, i.e. the easy call that would leave people saying "he played to win" regardless of the outcome, but it was far from a bad call.

Consider also the Packers' results inside the TB 10-yard line to that point:
  • touchdown pass (8 yards)
  • incomplete pass
  • incomplete pass
  • incomplete pass
  • field goal
  • run for no gain
  • incomplete pass
  • touchdown pass (2 yards)
  • failed 2-point conversion
  • incomplete pass
  • incomplete pass
  • incomplete pass

That's pretty bad.
 
hurtinbuckaroo said:
The analytics on the FG decision is interesting. The Packers had a 10% chance of winning if they went for it on 4th down, which would require:

  • scoring from the 8 in only one try
  • scoring from the 2 in only one try (the 2-point conversion needed to tie the game)
  • stopping the Bucs from driving into FG range with 2 minutes left
  • winning in OT, where they might never possess the ball

vs. 9% by kicking the FG, which would require:

  • making the chip shot FG (98% probability)
  • stopping the Bucs when their intent would be to simply run out the clock (and GB had all three of their timeouts)
  • driving for a touchdown with plenty of time left on the clock, if they held the Bucs to a 3-and-out.

So it wasn't a gutsy call, i.e. the easy call that would leave people saying "he played to win" regardless of the outcome, but it was far from a bad call.
Click to expand...
I hate the analytic percentage crap. Life doesn't operate like that. In a game, it is what is certain.

The Packers had the ball at the 8 yard line. This was a guarantee. They would not be guaranteed ever having the ball back again in that game. So they have the ball for likely one play (barring a penalty) that close to the goal line. If they don't go for a touchdown, they may never have another chance, and they definitely lose. These are facts. And a strong argument to go for it.

Add to that, the position on the field. If they fail, Tampa has the ball deep in their own end. If Green Bay's defense holds, Green Bay gets the ball back near mid-field. Not the greatest, but when the risk of failure can put the other team deep in their own end... and the benefit is a touchdown, there is absolutely no reason to no go for it.

If they kick a field goal, Tampa almost certainly gets better field position, making Green Bay likely to get the ball back twenty plus yards further back, with no more time on the clock to make up that distance. Yes, a touchdown at that point wins, but you've got 60 to 70 yards to cross with almost no timeouts and very little clock. So the benefit is nearly an assured 3 pts and if you score a TD if you get the ball back, you win. But Tampa gets better field position meaning Rodgers gets worse position, minus an Interception or Fumble.

Going for it was the only viable option. Of course...

Consider also the Packers' results inside the TB 10-yard line to that point:
  • *a lot of failure*
Click to expand...
This does imply, it wouldn't have worked, but going for it was the only reasonable option as failure in converting was minimal, giving Tampa the ball inside their own ten.
 
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/TomBrady/status/1353580080623210498?s=20[/TWEET]

:)
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
hurtinbuckaroo said:
The analytics on the FG decision is interesting. The Packers had a 10% chance of winning if they went for it on 4th down, which would require:

  • scoring from the 8 in only one try
  • scoring from the 2 in only one try (the 2-point conversion needed to tie the game)
  • stopping the Bucs from driving into FG range with 2 minutes left
  • winning in OT, where they might never possess the ball

vs. 9% by kicking the FG, which would require:

  • making the chip shot FG (98% probability)
  • stopping the Bucs when their intent would be to simply run out the clock (and GB had all three of their timeouts)
  • driving for a touchdown with plenty of time left on the clock, if they held the Bucs to a 3-and-out.

So it wasn't a gutsy call, i.e. the easy call that would leave people saying "he played to win" regardless of the outcome, but it was far from a bad call.
Click to expand...
I hate the analytic percentage crap. Life doesn't operate like that. In a game, it is what is certain.

The Packers had the ball at the 8 yard line. This was a guarantee. They would not be guaranteed ever having the ball back again in that game. So they have the ball for likely one play (barring a penalty) that close to the goal line. If they don't go for a touchdown, they may never have another chance, and they definitely lose. These are facts. And a strong argument to go for it.

Add to that, the position on the field. If they fail, Tampa has the ball deep in their own end. If Green Bay's defense holds, Green Bay gets the ball back near mid-field. Not the greatest, but when the risk of failure can put the other team deep in their own end... and the benefit is a touchdown, there is absolutely no reason to no go for it.

If they kick a field goal, Tampa almost certainly gets better field position, making Green Bay likely to get the ball back twenty plus yards further back, with no more time on the clock to make up that distance. Yes, a touchdown at that point wins, but you've got 60 to 70 yards to cross with almost no timeouts and very little clock. So the benefit is nearly an assured 3 pts and if you score a TD if you get the ball back, you win. But Tampa gets better field position meaning Rodgers gets worse position, minus an Interception or Fumble.

Going for it was the only viable option. Of course...

Consider also the Packers' results inside the TB 10-yard line to that point:
  • *a lot of failure*
Click to expand...
This does imply, it wouldn't have worked, but going for it was the only reasonable option as failure in converting was minimal, giving Tampa the ball inside their own ten.
Click to expand...

You have to make it, then make the 2-point conversion, then keep Brady from moving the team 40 yards in 2 minutes, then hope you win the coin toss in OT. Say what you want about analytics, but when it gives you a 10% vs. 9% choice, and your team has looked like crap near the goal line, and your defense has stepped up big-time in the 2nd half, you have to consider the options. Analytics are also the reason why coaches are going for it on 4th down a lot more than they ever did, so they're obviously taking it seriously. I won't say his choice was right, but it wasn't the worst I've seen by any stretch (that honor belongs to Mike Vrabel).
 
Certainly, without a doubt, being down 8 pts is the issue against them. And they need to overcome that, which is the source of the low percentage.

But the chances of scoring a touchdown if they don't regain possession without a Pick 6? 0%! That simple. They have the ball, they have to go for it and take that risk.
 
Yeah, have to agree, I mean your already in the red zone....now if only you had a good quarterback?????? Gotta wonder what Rogers was thinking when they sent on the kicking team?
 
And they were down 8 because they went for 2 in the 3rd quarter. One of my biggest peeves of the NFL today is going for 2 too early in the game, since it relies on the other team not scoring or scoring in just the right way the rest of the game, which hardly ever happens, and then you end up in a situation like they were in.

If some nextgendork stats says I'm wrong :moonie:
 
I don't buy into analytics either. Too many things to account for in a sport as complex as football.

I do think that the Packers did some dumb things, but I don't really have a problem with taking the field goal on 4th & Goal from the 8 when you have all your time outs, the 2 minute warning and your defense is playing fairly well. Rodgers should have scrambled on 3rd down. What I have a problem with is getting themselves in that situation in the first place. Down by 8, I'm okay with cutting the lead so you don't need a 2pt conversion when you have a realistic chance of getting the ball back with some time to operate.

What's with the single high safety at the end of the first half. It's not such a problem if they have to settle for a field goal, but if you didn't turn over the ball in the first place you wouldn't have had that problem. GB had a chance to double up on the Bucs, but ended up giving up 14 points instead, due to turnovers.

Where was the running game? Play-action is more likely to work if the Bucs have to at least consider the run. They could get pressure with 4, and drop 7 in coverage, that's not good if you want to move your offense, even with a future hall of famer at QB.

What's with the 3 & outs after those 2nd half interceptions? Can't you at least get a field goal out of those 2 turnovers? They turned theirs into TDs; you should have scored at least once.

Davante Adams drops that pass & they end up having to settle for 3.

Another dropped interception in the 2nd half. Opportunity missed, again.

12 men on the field after a time out? Did they forget how to count, or who should have been on the field?

Refs not calling holds against the Bucs when they are holding the receivers, but finally decide to throw the flag on a play that decides the game.
 
Terrell said:
Refs not calling holds against the Bucs when they are holding the receivers, but finally decide to throw the flag on a play that decides the game.
Click to expand...

And one very blatant hold was the direct cause of the interception that allowed Tampa to score just before halftime. That one bad call had a larger impact on win probability than the decision to kick that field goal.
 
So Tampa Bay verses Kansas City in the Super Bowl. Tampa has one of the best under-rated QBs in the NFL this year. This late round Draft prospect wasn't resigned by his last team, but managed to get signed in Tampa Bay to a short contract. Despite these shortcomings, he has helped lift Tampa into the Super Bowl by winning every playoff game on the road in near empty stadiums, which has never been done before, as stadiums historically had people in them during the playoffs.

Tampa Bay face a team in Kansas City who just don't lose too often. Kansas City hasn't lost a playoff game since they last lost a playoff game. Their tight end in Kelce is the best Tight End in the NFL whose IQ is higher than the length of his arm in inches (see Gronkowski). Their QB is Patrick Mahomes whose success is rooted in throwing and running the football, being able to out scramble incoming defenses and throwing the ball to wide open receivers after the defensive backs have fallen asleep because the play has been going on for hours.

Tampa Bay's key to winning will be to make Mahomes less effective, by like breaking his leg. Kansas City's offensive line will need to stop that from happening. Kansas City defense will need to be prepared to handle Gronkowski, a former WWE title holder, though will likely follow Buffalo's defense's plan which held Gronkowski to limited numbers by throwing around shiny beads.

Kansas City will no doubt be the favorites and it'll be up to Tampa Bay's QB to rely on his determination as an underdog and his very limited 9 previous Super Bowl appearances to help Tampa Bay overcome Kansas City's dominance

Trivia:
Tampa Bay - Only team who's name is a body of water and not a city.
Kansas City - Play in Missouri... not Kansas.

Line:
Kansas City - 3.1416
Over/Under - Over
 
Probability guides just about everything we do in life, from taking medication to wearing masks in public. But try to apply it to sportsball and everyone turns into Han fucking Solo.

aa
 
Alcoholic Actuary said:
Probability guides just about everything we do in life, from taking medication to wearing masks in public. But try to apply it to sportsball and everyone turns into Han fucking Solo.

aa
Click to expand...

"Never tell me the odds!"
That's an awesome reference, but in defense of those skeptical of sports win probabilities, odds as a decision basis are only as good as the % of all contextual factors they take into account. With your mask example, there are not contextual factors that switch the odds from favoring wearing to not wearing. With sports, there is often ignored context that could be enough to change the odds.

In the current case, the contextual factors actually make the small odds advantage of going for it much larger. The odds are often averaged across teams and seasons, so they can ignore the fact that Tampa has a below average red-zone defense while GB had the #1 red-zone offence in the game, and some argue the best in NFL history. Also, most 4th and goal from the 8 situations are due to the defense being better than the offense (b/c otherwise the offense would have scored already on the first 3 plays). So, the models assume this and ignore or underweight the reality of the actual situation where GB is better in that situation, but just failed to capitalize on scoring chances on 2 of those plays (a pass right into receivers chest that was dropped, and Rogers could have run it in or got within 2 yards). Plus, I think there was a hold on the 3rd of those plays. So, Tampa was not shutting the Packers down in that goal-to-go series as is often the case in typical 4th and goal situations that skew the stats towards not attempting it a 4th time.

General odds are only a starting point to set the Bayesian probabilities prior to taking the particular situational factors and constraints into account.
 
blastula said:
And they were down 8 because they went for 2 in the 3rd quarter. One of my biggest peeves of the NFL today is going for 2 too early in the game, since it relies on the other team not scoring or scoring in just the right way the rest of the game, which hardly ever happens, and then you end up in a situation like they were in.

If some nextgendork stats says I'm wrong :moonie:
Click to expand...

Agreed. Missing the point after touchdown can come back to haunt you later in a game. It's not unreasonable that this was one of the things that the NFL considered when moving the line of scrimmage for the PAT back to the 15. PATs were almost automatic when the 2 was the line of scrimmage. Getting teams to go for 2 more often is another.

I tend to side with the more conservative coaches on their 4th down calls. I do think again it varies by game situation.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
So Tampa Bay verses Kansas City in the Super Bowl. Tampa has one of the best under-rated QBs in the NFL this year. This late round Draft prospect wasn't resigned by his last team, but managed to get signed in Tampa Bay to a short contract. Despite these shortcomings, he has helped lift Tampa into the Super Bowl by winning every playoff game on the road in near empty stadiums, which has never been done before, as stadiums historically had people in them during the playoffs.

Tampa Bay face a team in Kansas City who just don't lose too often. Kansas City hasn't lost a playoff game since they last lost a playoff game. Their tight end in Kelce is the best Tight End in the NFL whose IQ is higher than the length of his arm in inches (see Gronkowski). Their QB is Patrick Mahomes whose success is rooted in throwing and running the football, being able to out scramble incoming defenses and throwing the ball to wide open receivers after the defensive backs have fallen asleep because the play has been going on for hours.

Tampa Bay's key to winning will be to make Mahomes less effective, by like breaking his leg. Kansas City's offensive line will need to stop that from happening. Kansas City defense will need to be prepared to handle Gronkowski, a former WWE title holder, though will likely follow Buffalo's defense's plan which held Gronkowski to limited numbers by throwing around shiny beads.

Kansas City will no doubt be the favorites and it'll be up to Tampa Bay's QB to rely on his determination as an underdog and his very limited 9 previous Super Bowl appearances to help Tampa Bay overcome Kansas City's dominance

Trivia:
Tampa Bay - Only team who's name is a body of water and not a city.
Kansas City - Play in Missouri... not Kansas.

Line:
Kansas City - 3.1416
Over/Under - Over
Click to expand...

lol Does Fox sports need a commentator.
 
rousseau said:
So do people hate Tampa this year, or is that not a thing now?
Click to expand...

People hate winners. I hated the Cowboys and 49ers. I loved the Pats. It is stupid and irrational. But congrats to Brady. Did pretty well last night, though not as well as Tampa’s defensive line.
 
It was disappointing that Kansas couldn’t make it a closer game. Mahomes did a lot of running around but just couldn’t find an opening in that really good Tampa defense. But what an achievement for Tom Brady.
 
TSwizzle said:
It was disappointing that Kansas couldn’t make it a closer game. Mahomes did a lot of running around but just couldn’t find an opening in that really good Tampa defense. But what an achievement for Tom Brady.
Click to expand...

Buc's D-line were the main cause of the Buc's win, but the terrible one-sided reffing in the first half contributed to it being a boring blowout. And wasn't just that they called a tight game, b/c they failed to call clear defensive PI by the Bucs in the endzone. I know complaints about the refs are always made, but the fact is that it basically doubled the points spread. Even Romo and multiple half time analysts commented on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom