The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

[tm3]

Yeah, it is too contentious to be discussed rationally. It's a shame really, people no longer look for information they simply look for affirmation.

"Political correctness" will keep it buried.

Superfreakonomics is not as good a read, but has some interesting out of the box stuff also.

 

[daj2576]

When football is played by robots your theory will apply. Until then, I like the human version. But then again, I suppose I am old enough to have witnessed enough numerically proven sure bets fall flat on their face.

I strongly doubt that you have ever actually been confronted with a "numerically proven sure bets", except death.

I'm fairly certain none of us will escape that.

This is a discussion about the probability of how likely certain outcomes are. In that case even something that is 99.99% likely is still uncertain. This doesn't require robots.

This discussion is about making a decision that has the greatest chance of success. Example: Smoking is likely to kill you, so you shouldn't smoke. That statement is true, but it also doesn't mean that smoking will kill you. Does that help illustrate the difference between what you and I are saying and how it applies to this discussion of football?

 

[daj2576]

When there are strings of heads, there are going to be strings of tails. I think people are often as hot as they are cold.

This is of course assuming that all other variables are the same.

I'm not sure if I understand your statement. If you're saying what I think you are, I disagree.

The attached image should begin to explain it, but is admittedly incomplete (I cant photograph the whole book). From "Mathletics":

 

[daj2576]

"Political correctness" will keep it buried.

Superfreakonomics is not as good a read, but has some interesting out of the box stuff also.

I definitely blew through "Superfreakonomics" much quicker than the other. I did enjoy the stuff about global warming and why drug dealers live at home.

 

[Oskie Volum]

Absolutely, I usually like dry material, but zig is a great storyteller. He is great at using analogies to make his points. I should see if I can get you the actual study sportscasting and those books use. It's absolutely crazy.

Agree with u on ZZ. I grew up in the church he was a member of. He would hold classes, and I would catch the ones I could make. Loved them. Was sad when he died last year (I think) cause I wish I would have taken in more of his classes.

-------
On a side note: Anyone watch the Freakanomics Documentary/movie?? Saw it on my guide a few weeks ago, and set the recording but it was deleted. Any good??? Worth the effort of finding it some other way??
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Boca Vol]

Dude, get an ereader device. No more driving to the library, all checkouts and returns are via the www, it is really slick.

I'm old school. I like books. The e-readers aren't the same, for me anyway.

 

[Hoghater]

C) Tennessee punts and pins Bama inside the 5. The defense holds Bama to three and out Bama shanks punt tennessee scores in 6 plays.
D) Tennessee punts Bama fumbles punt, tennessee scores in 6 plays.

 

[daj2576]

C) Tennessee punts and pins Bama inside the 5. The defense holds Bama to three and out Bama shanks punt tennessee scores in 6 plays.
D) Tennessee punts Bama fumbles punt, tennessee scores in 6 plays.

E) a 20 mile wide meteor smashes into Neyland ending humanity.

Are we just listing events from most likely to least likely?

I'll still take A every time.

 

[Boca Vol]

C) Tennessee punts and pins Bama inside the 5. The defense holds Bama to three and out Bama shanks punt tennessee scores in 6 plays.
D) Tennessee punts Bama fumbles punt, tennessee scores in 6 plays.

Go back and look at the UT/Bama game last year. It didn't matter if UT went for it or punted on 4th down, the result was the same. Palardy's 1st 3 punts resulted in TD drives for Bama. The last 2 were pretty inconsequential as the score was 45-10 and Bama's last 2 drives were clock killers.

 

[utknate]

I feel like going for it on 4th down would be an advantage to your team. If you expect to go for it every time then you can play call accordingly for 4 downs instead of 3, a 33.3% increase in chances of achieving your goal, to get a first down. You see the pressure and importance put on an offense to convert a 3rd down conversion. What if the emphasis was only to get even closer to that 1st down marker instead of HAVING to make it at that point.

Look at rushing stats for an example. Say a team averages 3 yards per rush, which isn't very good. Averaging 3 downs per drive you aren't averaging a first down. However, if you are going for 4 downs every time the chances of you picking up a first down greatly increases.

Obviously there will be circumstances in which it will be downright idiotic to still go for it on 4th down, such as on your own 5 yard line with 15 yards to pick up the first. But if you have the mindset throughout the entire game that you have 4 downs instead of 3 then I believe going for it on 4th would prove to be an advantage .

 

[daj2576]

I feel like going for it on 4th down would be an advantage to your team. If you expect to go for it every time then you can play call accordingly for 4 downs instead of 3, a 33.3% increase in chances of achieving your goal, to get a first down. You see the pressure and importance put on an offense to convert a 3rd down conversion. What if the emphasis was only to get even closer to that 1st down marker instead of HAVING to make it at that point.

Look at rushing stats for an example. Say a team averages 3 yards per rush, which isn't very good. Averaging 3 downs per drive you aren't averaging a first down. However, if you are going for 4 downs every time the chances of you picking up a first down greatly increases.

Obviously there will be circumstances in which it will be downright idiotic to still go for it on 4th down, such as on your own 5 yard line with 15 yards to pick up the first. But if you have the mindset throughout the entire game that you have 4 downs instead of 3 then I believe going for it on 4th would prove to be an advantage .

All great points.

 

[tm3]

I'm old school. I like books. The e-readers aren't the same, for me anyway.

trust me on this one -- i have a kindle AND a bge. i love the bge, cooks the best food i have ever eaten. but if i had to give one up ......... i would keep the kindle.

 

[tm3]

OK i am 25% into the book, and i have to echo what daj says = read it.

or, for the bama fans who hang out on VN, get someone to read it to you.

the analysis of belichek coaching cleveland vs belichek coaching new england is very illuminating.

the discussion of risk aversion and hindsight bias should be required reading for everyone who believes that fulmer should still be coaching UT.

 

[Hoghater]

Go back and look at the UT/Bama game last year. It didn't matter if UT went for it or punted on 4th down, the result was the same. Palardy's 1st 3 punts resulted in TD drives for Bama. The last 2 were pretty inconsequential as the score was 45-10 and Bama's last 2 drives were clock killers.

I agree with you and to an extent I agree with op, but he said imagine two scenarios and pretend so I was pretending.

 

[daj2576]

OK i am 25% into the book, and i have to echo what daj says = read it.

or, for the bama fans who hang out on VN, get someone to read it to you.

the analysis of belichek coaching cleveland vs belichek coaching new england is very illuminating.

the discussion of risk aversion and hindsight bias should be required reading for everyone who believes that fulmer should still be coaching UT.

I laughed, literally, out loud.

I also clicked like so hard I almost broke my mouse.

 

[daj2576]

I'm old school. I like books. The e-readers aren't the same, for me anyway.

I love technology. Love it. I have android phones, iPads, Android tablets, windows laptops, internet integrated blu-ray players. All that, and I tend to agree that when I read, I want the actual book.

I get a little silly though, because I will buy the book and download the digital copy. Then, I will put the book on the shelf and read the digital book while I'm in bed (because I can have the lights off and not disturb the wife). That is mostly true except for books like this where I tend to need to flip back and forth to reconsider figures and arguments (or my law school texts). Then, exclusively, I read the hard copy and totally avoid the digital copy. So I see both sides of this debate, and how ridiculous I can be about hording volumes of paper books.

I am seriously considering buying an ascot, a smoking jacket, and a pipe, just so I can sit among, and on top of, piles of my books, and condescend. lol

 

[Volosaurus rex]

I actually don't believe in momentum, either (not at least in the way fans throw it around). The authors studied it. For instance they looked at having a "hot hand" in basketball and found that making x numbers of shots in a row does not increase the chances of making the next (based off of years of historical data).

They explain this simply by stating that most people completely misunderstand probability. The example they use is a stats teacher who tells his students to flip a coin hundreds of times and record the results. He says, "don't cheat and if you do I'll catch you." Every year some students cheat and he catches them. How?

Students believe in the law of averages, insofar as 100 flips of a coin should have roughly 50 heads and 50 tails, and there would be no long strings of either heads nor tails.

In reality, the students who cheat make up a string of figures that play to this very real misunderstanding and avoid long connections of heads or tails. It is very likely that there will be strings of heads (or tails), and that because each event is completely unaffected by the preceeding event, no matter how many times you hit heads before, the next flip is still 50% likely to be heads.

So, fans ultimately view shooting the basketball the same way they do coin tosses, insofar as they don't believe a long runs of heads is likely(when it is), they believe that making a bunch of shots in basketball is very unlikely which is the same way of saying that fans believe each shot is effected by the previous (when numbers show it isnt).

That's just one example, football kickers would be another, and so on.

Speaking strictly from a statistical, probability-based perspective, I agree. However, if one were, for example, to poll the crowd in attendance for the 1990 Tennessee-Florida game, I doubt you would find anyone who would deny that Neyland Stadium was positively engulfed by a palpable tsunami of momentum, one initiated when Dale Carter returned the second-half kickoff for a touchdown and unleashed a withering 38-0 barrage during the final two periods of play.

Success, particularly electrifying success, feeds players' confidence and provides emotional fuel, especially when the home crowd is stoking the proverbial fire.

 

[Freak]

Solid thread daj and good discussion. I plan on picking up a copy of the book.

 

[Boca Vol]

I love technology. Love it. I have android phones, iPads, Android tablets, windows laptops, internet integrated blu-ray players. All that, and I tend to agree that when I read, I want the actual book.

I get a little silly though, because I will buy the book and download the digital copy. Then, I will put the book on the shelf and read the digital book while I'm in bed (because I can have the lights off and not disturb the wife). That is mostly true except for books like this where I tend to need to flip back and forth to reconsider figures and arguments (or my law school texts). Then, exclusively, I read the hard copy and totally avoid the digital copy. So I see both sides of this debate, and how ridiculous I can be about hording volumes of paper books.

I am seriously considering buying an ascot, a smoking jacket, and a pipe, just so I can sit among, and on top of, piles of my books, and condescend. lol

I laughed!

 

[daj2576]

Speaking strictly from a statistical, probability-based perspective, I agree. However, if one were, for example, to poll the crowd in attendance for the 1990 Tennessee-Florida game, I doubt you would find anyone who would deny that Neyland Stadium was positively engulfed by a palpable tsunami of momentum, one initiated when Dale Carter returned the second-half kickoff for a touchdown and unleashed a withering 38-0 barrage during the final two periods of play.

Success, particularly electrifying success, feeds players' confidence and provides emotional fuel, especially when the home crowd is stoking the proverbial fire.

Oh I agree that it has some effect, I just don't think it is as much as many people think. The interesting thing in the book was about how opposing quarterbacks in the NFL tend to have better passing percentages in opponents stadiums, which is counter to the idea that a hostile crowd would have a negative effect on the visitors offense. Similarly, that regardless of location, kickers and punters had the same performances. I certainly think there is more to it than just completion percentages and kicking yardages, but there is a strong suggestion outlined in the book that the fan influence is actually most measurable on the officials, and not the players.

 

[daj2576]

Solid thread daj and good discussion. I plan on picking up a copy of the book.

Thank you, I think you will really enjoy it. When you read it, let me know what you think.

I am trying to wade through Mathletics, but it is much less a casual read and requires serious participation from the reader. I wouldn't suggest it for the casual sports fan, but certainly would recommend it for those people who are numbers driven.

 

[daj2576]

I laughed!

I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on Scorecasting. Keep me posted.

 

[daj2576]

The book is on paper, and as we all know the games aren't played on paper.

Nope, they're played on TV.

 

[SimplyOrange]

What I get from reading this thread is:

1) There are a lot of people who have no understanding of probability and statistics.
2) It's pointless to debate with people who have no understanding of the topic they are debating. (But I already knew that)

Oh, and thanks for the heads-up on the book. Sounds like a good read.

 

[JohnMarxism]

Great post, daj.

I'm assuming you've read some of Malcolm Gladwell's books.

I will definitely have to check out the books you suggested.