Wild Card Games

[MacReady]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Knowledge is a human construct. There's no such thing as absolute truth, only ideas that are the best fit to the data. As the data change, so do the ideas. Humans see the new data and construct new and better ideas. That's why offenses and defenses keep evolving. The same can be said for scientific theories, political ideas of governance, medical procedures, etc. 

I disagree. One of us is right. That might change, but it doesn't change the fact that right now, one of us is right and the other is wrong.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

18 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I disagree. One of us is right. That might change, but it doesn't change the fact that right now, one of us is right and the other is wrong.

For a long time I was in your camp. Then I read Thomas Kuhn's (no relation to John!) ideas of theory change in science. There are certain facts that are true, like the truck parked across the street right now is red. But facts are not ideas/theories. Facts can be data that can be used to help construct a theory, or modify a theory. We're seeing this now with analytics in football. When to go for it on fourth down; when to try for a two point conversion. The old idea was to always punt unless losing and under a minute left, i.e., situation DESPERATE. Now we're seeing teams going for it more often on 4th down. As more data comes in, the decision to go/not go for it may become even more sophisticated.

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

For a long time I was in your camp. Then I read Thomas Kuhn's (no relation to John!) ideas of theory change in science. There are certain facts that are true, like the truck parked across the street right now is red. But facts are not ideas/theories. Facts can be data that can be used to help construct a theory, or modify a theory. We're seeing this now with analytics in football. When to go for it on fourth down; when to try for a two point conversion. The old idea was to always punt unless losing and under a minute left, i.e., situation DESPERATE. Now we're seeing teams going for it more often on 4th down. As more data comes in, the decision to go/not go for it may become even more sophisticated.

Ahhhhhh HA! I knew your whole intent was to post some "pro-Staley" stuff

[Mr. Fussnputz]

Staley? The name is vaguely familiar (seriously). Is he an analytics guru?

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Staley? The name is vaguely familiar (seriously). Is he an analytics guru?

Yes. He's an analytics guru masquerading as an NFL HC

[MacReady]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

For a long time I was in your camp. Then I read Thomas Kuhn's (no relation to John!) ideas of theory change in science. There are certain facts that are true, like the truck parked across the street right now is red. But facts are not ideas/theories. Facts can be data that can be used to help construct a theory, or modify a theory. We're seeing this now with analytics in football. When to go for it on fourth down; when to try for a two point conversion. The old idea was to always punt unless losing and under a minute left, i.e., situation DESPERATE. Now we're seeing teams going for it more often on 4th down. As more data comes in, the decision to go/not go for it may become even more sophisticated.

But… No, that’s not right. It was always right that you should go for it more often than you punt it, analytics are just proving that point. If you looked at analytics in the 50’s, they’d likely prove you punt. So the truth in this era (2010-) was always that you should go for it more, we’re just seeing that proof in analytics.

The truth was always there. The truth is I’m alive. A branch of that truth is I will die. So the truth I’m alive is currently absolute, but there’s more truth to it.

The truth of going for it on 4th down in the year 1957 was, “You should more often than not punt, but this will change in 50 some years.”

So there was always an absolute truth to that question, and the truth that it would eventually change was always the absolute truth.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

But… No, that’s not right. It was always right that you should go for it more often than you punt it, analytics are just proving that point. If you looked at analytics in the 50’s, they’d likely prove you punt. So the truth in this era (2010-) was always that you should go for it more, we’re just seeing that proof in analytics.

The truth was always there. The truth is I’m alive. A branch of that truth is I will die. So the truth I’m alive is currently absolute, but there’s more truth to it.

The truth of going for it on 4th down in the year 1957 was, “You should more often than not punt, but this will change in 50 some years.”

So there was always an absolute truth to that question, and the truth that it would eventually change was always the absolute truth.

Don't confuse facts with theories, or if you want to wash science out of it, don't confuse facts with ideas. You can use ideas to make predictions, direct behaviors, and explain past occurrences. Facts are just neutral observations, like that truck across the street is red. I can't do anything with that fact, except to confirm or disconfirm an idea. Analytics uses facts to confirm or disconfirm an idea like going for it. It doesn't prove anything, in the sense that it's an absolute truth that you should go for it. Proofs are for mathematicians. In the physical world we form ideas and look for facts to confirm or disconfirm the idea. But the idea is not infallible. Even if the facts strongly support the idea of going for it on fourth down, you might fail. Even if you make the first down, you still might lose the game. That's why I don't like the idea of absolute truth. The idea might be stronger or weaker depending on how well supported it is by the facts, but no idea/theory is ever absolutely true. The history of science, for example, is littered with examples of theories that were thought to be absolute truth, turning out not to be true. Newton's Laws of Motion are good examples. They work OK on everyday scales, but don't work on very small and very large scales. Enter Einstein. 

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Don't confuse facts with theories, or if you want to wash science out of it, don't confuse facts with ideas. You can use ideas to make predictions, direct behaviors, and explain past occurrences. Facts are just neutral observations, like that truck across the street is red. I can't do anything with that fact, except to confirm or disconfirm an idea. Analytics uses facts to confirm or disconfirm an idea like going for it. It doesn't prove anything, in the sense that it's an absolute truth that you should go for it. Proofs are for mathematicians. In the physical world we form ideas and look for facts to confirm or disconfirm the idea. But the idea is not infallible. Even if the facts strongly support the idea of going for it on fourth down, you might fail. Even if you make the first down, you still might lose the game. That's why I don't like the idea of absolute truth. The idea might be stronger or weaker depending on how well supported it is by the facts, but no idea/theory is ever absolutely true. The history of science, for example, is littered with examples of theories that were thought to be absolute truth, turning out not to be true. Newton's Laws of Motion are good examples. They work OK on everyday scales, but don't work on very small and very large scales. Enter Einstein. 

What the hell are you guys talking about?  Absolute truth?  Einstein and Newton?  Facts and ideas?  I'm confused and going to Norm's bar and talk football.

[TheEagle]

8 hours ago, LLcheesehead12 said:

I don't trust their corners at all going up against Cooper, Gallup, Lamb and Wilson

Nor do I trust Garropolo to be protected and not throw picks.

Gallup tore his ACL, and he’s out for the year.

[Refugee]

9 hours ago, LLcheesehead12 said:

I don't trust their corners at all going up against Cooper, Gallup, Lamb and Wilson

Nor do I trust Garropolo to be protected and not throw picks.

I like your confidence and see thing s breaking the same way, maybe not by that margin. Gallup has been lost for the season a few weeks ago which hurts them but  Cedrick Wilson, a former QB turned WR has been really reliable for them this season filling in and keeps that passing attack a multiheadeded monster. 9ers will try to come in as the bully but Dallas has enough firepower to blow anyone up. Should be a fun game, in any case. 

[Refugee]

4 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Don't confuse facts with theories, or if you want to wash science out of it, don't confuse facts with ideas. You can use ideas to make predictions, direct behaviors, and explain past occurrences. Facts are just neutral observations, like that truck across the street is red. I can't do anything with that fact, except to confirm or disconfirm an idea. Analytics uses facts to confirm or disconfirm an idea like going for it. It doesn't prove anything, in the sense that it's an absolute truth that you should go for it. Proofs are for mathematicians. In the physical world we form ideas and look for facts to confirm or disconfirm the idea. But the idea is not infallible. Even if the facts strongly support the idea of going for it on fourth down, you might fail. Even if you make the first down, you still might lose the game. That's why I don't like the idea of absolute truth. The idea might be stronger or weaker depending on how well supported it is by the facts, but no idea/theory is ever absolutely true. The history of science, for example, is littered with examples of theories that were thought to be absolute truth, turning out not to be true. Newton's Laws of Motion are good examples. They work OK on everyday scales, but don't work on very small and very large scales. Enter Einstein. 

Also to be considered, when teams rarely went for it on 4th down, especially in situations on their side of the 50, their conservative play might not have skewed the win/loss % in an observable way. With some coaches basing the “go for it” on probabilities from an era when teams didn’t roll the dice as often, they will end up changing the metrics and we might see the analysis change. I’m all for aggressive football and used to get into debates about punting inside the between the 42-35 yard line. But some of these 4th downs are risking a complete give away of field position. Only teams that are completely out classed should gamble that way.

When the playoffs come around, good defense and a running game usually out weigh whatever the latest league trend is currently in favor. if you trust your defense, punt and hope you can catch fire on the next possession. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

10 hours ago, Refugee said:

Also to be considered, when teams rarely went for it on 4th down, especially in situations on their side of the 50, their conservative play might not have skewed the win/loss % in an observable way. With some coaches basing the “go for it” on probabilities from an era when teams didn’t roll the dice as often, they will end up changing the metrics and we might see the analysis change. I’m all for aggressive football and used to get into debates about punting inside the between the 42-35 yard line. But some of these 4th downs are risking a complete give away of field position. Only teams that are completely out classed should gamble that way.

When the playoffs come around, good defense and a running game usually out weigh whatever the latest league trend is currently in favor. if you trust your defense, punt and hope you can catch fire on the next possession. 

All valid points. And you begin to peel back my problems with analytics in general. Let's say we have 4 "theories" about what to do on 4th down. (1) Always punt (never go for it)t, (2) never punt (always go for it), (3) go for it only when behind and with less than two minutes left, (4) only go for it when there's less than 4 yards for a first down. 

What data would be needed to test each of these? Should it from all teams for all time? The game has changed much over the years. Just pro teams? Should data for one team only be valid for that team, or can it be applied to all teams? What about defensive looks? How long has the defense been on the field? Were they gassed on that fourth down attempt (Mike Sherman's failure to go for it at the end of that Philly playoff game comes to mind. And the of course, 4th and 26 anyone?) There are too many confounding variables (the data are too soft) to make solid conclusions. 

In other words, there is no absolute truth. Sorry OP31.

[squire12]

30 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

In other words, there is no absolute truth.

lot of irony with this statement

[Mr. Fussnputz]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

lot of irony with this statement

Just call me Irony John

[LLcheesehead12]

On 1/11/2022 at 10:24 PM, TheEagle said:

Gallup tore his ACL, and he’s out for the year.

It was that serious?  Well guess that is one less option for them, but even Wilson and Lamb to go with Cooper along with Pollard and Elliott are enough I think that SF will have their hands full.

I think where I'm coming at it here is the Rams had to rely a bit heavily on dropping Stafford back a lot last game, and Sony Michel doesn't give you that much of a run threat, or at least not enough to make defenses hone in on it.  Plus even though they do have Van Jefferson and the inconsistent OBJ, you can pretty much bank on most of their throws going to Cupp.  Prescott spreads the ball out pretty evenly.

Now if Dak decides to get fancy out there and tries to hold the ball long enough that he feels he has to wait for big plays to develop and hit them, then the Cowboys got a problem with an imminent pass rush on their hands.  But if they use the plan we threw at SF early on in the year with the ball coming out of Rodgers's hands quickly and not giving Bosa and Co a chance to get to him, and I think they will, I definitely don't see the 49ers being able to keep up without exposing Garropolo to a turnover generating defense.