GDT: Super Bowl 49

[tarheelhockey]

if i asked any coach if he had two attempts at 65% or an attempt at 40% and THEN two at 65%

But a lob pass to a rookie isn't going to succeed at a statistically ordinary rate.

In fact, Matthews wasn't even on the field for that last play. The announcers mentioned that he hadn't even practiced the 2-minute drill.

Say what you will about BB's understanding of statistics, but a football game is at heart an athletic contest. At the macro level you can run a system based on mathematical models, but at the micro level -- one play at the goal line to win a championship -- it comes down to athletes competing for a patch of grass. In that situation, you go with the most proven running back in football, the guy who has been shaking defenders like rag dolls all night. If that fails twice in a row, **** it. The better athletes will win.

Throwing a pass because it gets you 3 plays instead of 2 is missing the point of the competition. It's not a Quiz Bowl, you're not going to get an award for having the more statistically sound game plan. You're going to get an award if you knock the **** out of the other team and get the ball over the goal line. Slinging passes around in that situation is just playing with fire, as we saw very clearly illustrated last night.

This is to say nothing of the very real psychological aftermath of that decision. Wilson got Scott Norwooded. Lynch may not say so, but you know that he took it personally. Richard Sherman's face said it all. You had players in the locker room openly saying that it was the worst call they've ever seen. You think Carroll is going to get the genuine trust of that group back?

 

[Ole Gil]

it's not about scoring a td, it's about winning the game.

The math for winning the game includes everything. The risks of turnovers, the likelihood of scoring, the likelihood of a tying field goal. All of it. So when you say "is 1% worth the risk of running a play" you're not understanding that the 1% is the end result of everything, not just a td.

They win the game 84% of the time instead of 83%. That's taking into account everything. Do you want to win 84% or 83% of the time isn't really debatable.

So every time you say "yeah, but what about..." There is no what about. It's already been factored in to the equation. You just aren't getting it because telling the difference between getting a td% and winning% is far from elementary stuff. We just watched 99% of America not get it. Probably more. I certainly didn't until Carroll explained it in the post game.

There's 3 levels:
1) TD% of individual play (you're hung up on this)
2) TD% over series of plays. (A reasonable goal)
3) winning% (where a good NFL coach is)

Re Tarheel: it's a puzzle. The Athletics is just a tack on. It could be monopoly, a civil war battle, an election, etc... even the silly romantic stuff is factored in, and in this scenario, a 2% increased chance of winning the Super Bowl > than Richard Sherman's feelings getting hurt the 1% of the time an interception is thrown.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Actually, the percentages that we've been throwing out recently have been exclusively about the TD% of the play, not the winning %. If we're talking winning %, it would come down to whether it's more risky to run an additional play or to allow your opponent a kickoff return (since that's about all they'd have time for). If we use Anton's stats from earlier, there's an 89% chance they don't score on the 3rd play and lose the game. Is the percentage of kickoffs returned for a TD higher or lower than 11%?

The coach can try and justify his decision all he'd like. I wouldn't expect anything less, given the complete disaster it turned out to be. And his justification seemed to have tided you over, at least. But the fact of the matter is that running the ball on that first play had a better chance of scoring a TD and a less chance of a turnover. Past that, there are far too many variables that could come into play to predict what would have happened.

 

[What the Faulk]

According to 538, the average NFL team wins 5% of the time when down 3 on their own 20 with 20 seconds left (assuming Seattle ran and scored on 2nd down). But it's Tom Brady versus a very banged up Seattle secondary. Still unlikely, but worth worrying about not giving them too much time. Kind of explains the first down call.

I dunno, after thinking about it/looking at win %, I feel like you can't go wrong with a pass or run there, just not a ****ing predictable, dangerous quick slant.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

One thing we can all agree upon, this was ****ing hilarious:

I said when I was watching the game, I need to own that costume.

 

[RodTheBawd]

I get the stats. I get both arguments. And I'm running beast mode 99% of the time, every time, on 2nd and 3rd. IF I'm passing, I'm rolling that Wisconsin QB out to give him the option to run it himself or throw it away if there are no safe options.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

IF I'm passing, I'm rolling that Wisconsin QB out to give him the option to run it himself or throw it away if there are no safe options.

that works too

 

[the halleJOKEL]

wisconsin qb

subtle troll

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

wisconsin qb

subtle troll

At least he's a real person. State recruits cyborgs #fact

 

[the halleJOKEL]

the ncaa regulations on cyborg recruiting are far more lenient tbh

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

the ncaa regulations on cyborg recruiting are far more lenient tbh

often times you dont even need to bribe them plus they write all their own papers they even write papers for unc players lol