peyton4heisman
Senior Lurker New Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
- Likes
- 3,566
Here are a brief summary of the conclusions from a 2005 study, included in the book, done by an economist from Cal-Berkeley. This is using NFL data.
-Inside the opponent's 45-yard line, facing anything less than fourth and eight, teams are better off going for it than punting.
-inside the opponent's 33-yard line, they are better off going for it on anything less than fourth and 11.*
-regardless of field position, on anything less than fourth and five, teams are ALWAYS better off going for it.
*the exception: if little time remains and a field goal would decide the game.
To understand the methodology behind those numbers takes several pages of the book. All I can do is just point you to the chapter titled "Go For It" and let you read it yourself. Whether you ultimately agree or disagree, I think you will find it interesting, if not compelling.
Maybe. As the authors of this, and Freakonomics point out, life is about incentives. If fans participate regardless of success, then there is no incentive to spend in a way that increases the chances for success. At least that is the well reasoned argument in this book.
Of course the question could be: well if fans don't participate, where would the money come from to spend to create the on-field success? I can't answer that.
I'm not reading this book. I only have so many days on this planet, and reading this stack of meaningless idiocy is not in my itinerary. Why don't these economists get coaching gigs? Nice edit, btw.
I agree with this premise if you have a Jerry Jones type who is satiated with economics alone. His fixation on megalomania rather than commitment to building a super bowl winner at all costs (i.e. he hire a real general manager) has become a huge problem for the Cowboys fanbase.
University of Texas football is a good example too. Raking in cash but the product on the field sucks. They've been fortunate the Big 12 stinks; they would have gone sub 500 with our schedule. Their AD is proposing games in Mexico and China(?) to promote the "longhorn" brand. Millions of longhorn fans couldn't see a few games the last couple of years on the longhorn network because most major carriers hadn't picked it up. (hahaha) The common fan suffers immensely.
All that said, applied to the college game, if the administration is committed to winning (case in point Alabama), the wins will come period. Even Alabama didn't fill Bryant Denny up for all games last year... but they are still at the top (gag).
BTW, good thread as usual from you.
the key to the whole argument is "on average". the book seems to state what many football fans know intuitively, and runs counter to other things common sense would tell you. teams should go for it on fourth more, but not 90% of the time. just because a book says so does not make it so. kelley's reasoning for going for it on fourth, ( the hs coach from ark) is that it is a way of limiting the opposing offense's possessions, a form a defense. the onside kick is one of his specialties and his teams have multiple types that are called.
the fact that the cubs can fill a 41,072 stadium in a city with a population of 2.715 million (0.0151) would be more logically attributed to population density rather than an extreme outlier, which would question the point about adverse effects of fans. it is safe to deduce that it has provided a disincentive for owners to improve the team tho, seeing as how its so easy to fill with a subpar team. it would also tell you they are throwing money away by not building a bigger stadium
fans know that home field advantage is not a huge deal. "on average" tho, it is worth about 3 points, as vegas continually tells us. some of it is due to crowd enthusiasm and support, while some is the pressure on referees affected by their own psyche.
coaches know that icing the kicker doesnt work.... most of the time, but youre calling a timeout for that one instance where the moment may get to a young man, youre in a situation where thats all you can do... so you should try it
as for the point about defense, that is where averaging all teams together would get you in trouble. it seems logical to deduce that a good d would limit an offenses posessions. if that offense scores 70% of the time "on average" that would include the stats generated against crappy defenses. i think why you see great defenses matched up with good running games is a way of eating the clock and limiting the opposing offenses chances to score. so the point about great offenses being as important as d's seems counterintuitive to common sense... on average. combining a great offense with a propensity to go for it on fourth is a nice combination tho, as we saw last year with auburn, and yet they lost to a team with a very good defense. and no you cant use a one game result to extrapolate a conclusion anymore than you can average all teams together to tell a coach what he should do in every instance. A good d is superior to a good o.. "on average" because General Neyland said so.
Ive read dubner and leavitts works and am interested in reading the book tho, because there are certain instances where knowledge of the laws of averages and a certain team's proclivities can work to your advantage.
Simple summary, do you play to win or not to lose.
Always enjoy your posts. This may have been mentioned but I don't have the time right now to read all the responses.
1) Sounds like Chip Kelly's philosophy.
2) It appears that all the 4th down situations in your scenarios involve lining up in normal formation. I just wonder how many times we could have gotten 1st downs with just the occasional fake punt. It seems like at least half the time that the receiving team is immediately dropping back to block their assigned man.
If you examine the numbers, you would find that the majority of the time a big dog defeats a smaller dog in a fight. Then you would say "big dogs beat little dogs." But if you had a pitbull and a Labrador you would be wrong. So personnel clearly matters.
You do with your time as you will. If you are so pressed for time, though, why spend so much time arguing something that you admit you won't read or consider?
All I can do is lead a horse to water...
First: Is defense really the key to championships? Nope, as intuitive as it is to say, offense is just as important, if not more so, in every major sport.
All of your points are addressed in the book.
The authors discuss psychology a great deal as well. Including the fact that most people who try to integrate new data that challenges what they believe they know, suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias. Therefore most fans or decision makers are driven into a very real and quantifiable mental trap, where they have to believe data before they see it.
If I say something works 70% of the time, that means it doesn't 30%. I am sure you understand that, right?
The discussion about dogs, or exceptions to a rule, doesn't change the rule. You are probably correct, that personnel matters. In fact, my personal studies have mathematically shown that they matter a great deal.
But that doesn't change the fact that I am still more likely than not to affect the outcome in my favor if I follow these general rules, than if I try to plan for an exception that is already factored into the rule.
Nice. Create a thread where you bring up a book about theoretical strategy based on statistics. Then tell everybody that they need to read it before they can argue with you. Nice strategy. Nobody will ever give enough shats to read this waste of trees, and you will forever maintain a position of authority on the subject. Kudos to you.
Do you understand the difference between statistics and applied statistics? I'm guessing not with your oversimplification of the data. Each individual play and each series has to be taken within the context of the game more so in football than baseball. That was my point.
As a side note, coaches recruit the talent and get them to sign so they are indeed worth a good deal more than what you say in college football. Your argument might hold more water on an NFL board.