Jameson_Neat Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I think it's easier just to realize that a lot of people are scared of math and don't understand the percentages no matter how many times it's explained. Tim Robinson's climate change skit would work for math, too, IMO. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Just now, Jameson_Neat said: I think it's easier just to realize that a lot of people are scared of math and don't understand the percentages no matter how many times it's explained. Tim Robinson's climate change skit would work for math, too, IMO. I do suck at math ain't gonna lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 20 minutes ago, offbyone said: It is one thing if it is their last possession, but there was plenty of time left in the game. Tying the game with that much time left in the game leaves it to be anyone's ball game and it fires the troops back up. The math is pretty simple, being tied is better than losing. Being tied gives you a better chance of winning than losing. Except, being up is better than being tied. And leading gives you an actually better chance of winning, than being tied. Where being tied doesn't actually give you a better chance of anything. It's just...being tied. Except for "momentum" which is the argument being used against decisions made...but could have easily swung the other way completely if they executed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 9 minutes ago, TecmoSuperJoe said: I do suck at math ain't gonna lie. It was just a weird half of football for the Lions. They just didn't execute and it was clearly a talent and/or player issue. Campbell was trying to shorten the game and his players kept extending it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilpimp972 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, offbyone said: Completely agree. Momentum is massive. They were holding on by a thread at that moment and not taking the points cut the thread. I hate the fact that FGs are considered "automatic points". There's still a chance that they miss. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) Variance always catches up. In poker you can run hot but when she comes she takes all of it and then some. It’s just variance, the worst part is that they didn’t have to bluff. The went all in with 3-4 off suit vs pocket aces. You take the points, you’re ahead. Being aggressive works when you’re down not up. Math has to be applied there. It was ugly and head scratcher. But it’s what got them there man. Like the titanic they went down. But it was literally a head scratching strat. You left 6 points on the board and you’re up??? Edited January 29 by El Ramster 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 22 minutes ago, Jameson_Neat said: I think it's easier just to realize that a lot of people are scared of math and don't understand the percentages no matter how many times it's explained. Tim Robinson's climate change skit would work for math, too, IMO. It's not even just "percentages" that trip people up. It's statistics, which are often expressed as percentages...but require more depth to understand what those percentages even mean. I genuinely believe we'd have a much better, more reasonable society if they ditched some of the useless, detached abstract stuff that will never be used in the math curriculum and installed Statistics as a requisite High School course instead. Though i guess a lot of that requires algebra, so until you've got that in place, you can't really move forward. Womp womp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towerbridge Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 7 minutes ago, evilpimp972 said: I hate the fact that FGs are considered "automatic points". There's still a chance that they miss. Tucker wouldn't miss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melbourne 9er Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 8 minutes ago, Towerbridge said: Tucker wouldn't miss. Nor would Robbie Gould in the playoffs and he's still available Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 3 minutes ago, El Ramster said: Variance always catches up. In poker you can run hot but when she comes she takes all of it and then some. It’s just variance, the worst part is that they didn’t have to bluff. The went all in with 3-4 off suit vs suited aces. You take the points, you’re ahead. Being aggressive works when you’re down not up. Math has to be applied there. It was ugly and head scratcher. But it’s what got them there man. Like the titanic they went down. But it was literally a head scratching strat. You left 6 points on the board and you’re up??? The real math mistake, is assuming that "the math" somehow changes favorably because you're up or down. What altering decision-making based on that when you're "down" is called, is actually "desperation". And being desperate can change the math...in a bad way. Same as making overly conservative decisions on the other end of things can negatively change "the math" by giving away easy conversions. You're trying to apply "variance" without context and that doesn't work. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start to apply variance to "4th down conversions when you're down" vs "4th down conversions when you're up" for any given team, you're probably going to find find that it's a lot more likely to convert a 4th down when you're up. And that's not even accounting for the most important variable, which is the team itself and their performance (which for Detroit, has been extremely good). The thing is...Football isn't poker. In Football, when it comes to "4th down conversion"...your hand is largely set. You're not being dealt a different hand of probabilities each time like a card game. You have your team, and that team and your playbook and ability to execute...is what gives you the probabilities of conversion. That's your "hand". Whether you're "up" or "down" doesn't actually change the probability of conversion in a meaningful way. It's also just a purely binary outcome. It's "yes/no" or "pass/fail" or "convert/turnover on downs". That's radically different from Poker "math". What moves the math around, is when you start "picking spots" because you're desperate and have already dug a hole. Or when you get conservative and don't take opportunities to steamroll when things are cruising and it's an easy conversion. That moves the overall average numbers around. Things like the Titanic sinking, are also not really pertinent to this situation. That's into an entirely different branch of statistics and the math is completely different. That's into the realm of "statistically improbable events". The odds are so low that it becomes difficult to even estimate. These things happen...but think about it. How many cruise ships have crossed the Atlantic and not hit and iceburg and sank? Vs...the one time it did happen and a ton of people died. Same way people are "scared of airplanes" when you're far more likely to die in a car accident. But that's the way people often seem to misinterpret statistics these days. No different from suddenly crying after the fact about how Campbell is a moron because he did what he's always done all year long to great effect, and happened to roll snake eyes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 20 minutes ago, Tugboat said: The real math mistake, is assuming that "the math" somehow changes favorably because you're up or down. What altering decision-making based on that when you're "down" is called, is actually "desperation". And being desperate can change the math...in a bad way. Same as making overly conservative decisions on the other end of things can negatively change "the math" by giving away easy conversions. You're trying to apply "variance" without context and that doesn't work. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start to apply variance to "4th down conversions when you're down" vs "4th down conversions when you're up" for any given team, you're probably going to find find that it's a lot more likely to convert a 4th down when you're up. And that's not even accounting for the most important variable, which is the team itself and their performance (which for Detroit, has been extremely good). The thing is...Football isn't poker. In Football, when it comes to "4th down conversion"...your hand is largely set. You're not being dealt a different hand of probabilities each time like a card game. You have your team, and that team and your playbook and ability to execute...is what gives you the probabilities of conversion. That's your "hand". Whether you're "up" or "down" doesn't actually change the probability of conversion in a meaningful way. It's also just a purely binary outcome. It's "yes/no" or "pass/fail" or "convert/turnover on downs". That's radically different from Poker "math". What moves the math around, is when you start "picking spots" because you're desperate and have already dug a hole. Or when you get conservative and don't take opportunities to steamroll when things are cruising and it's an easy conversion. That moves the overall average numbers around. Things like the Titanic sinking, are also not really pertinent to this situation. That's into an entirely different branch of statistics and the math is completely different. That's into the realm of "statistically improbable events". The odds are so low that it becomes difficult to even estimate. These things happen...but think about it. How many cruise ships have crossed the Atlantic and not hit and iceburg and sank? Vs...the one time it did happen and a ton of people died. Same way people are "scared of airplanes" when you're far more likely to die in a car accident. But that's the way people often seem to misinterpret statistics these days. No different from suddenly crying after the fact about how Campbell is a moron because he did what he's always done all year long to great effect, and happened to roll snake eyes. The go missing in the Bermuda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Just to be clear? The Math supposedly suggested let's take the 3pts before 1/2 on (4th and goal from inside the 5) to go up 24-7, not Campbell using actual common sense? 👌 However that same math suggested we should Go for it on 4th down instead of possibly going up 27-10 with a 40 yd FG? Even if Badgely missed the FG, that would not of been the same momentum change, as a 4th down stop! Take the points. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WheresWallace Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 4 hours ago, Tugboat said: The real math mistake, is assuming that "the math" somehow changes favorably because you're up or down. What altering decision-making based on that when you're "down" is called, is actually "desperation". And being desperate can change the math...in a bad way. Same as making overly conservative decisions on the other end of things can negatively change "the math" by giving away easy conversions. You're trying to apply "variance" without context and that doesn't work. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start to apply variance to "4th down conversions when you're down" vs "4th down conversions when you're up" for any given team, you're probably going to find find that it's a lot more likely to convert a 4th down when you're up. And that's not even accounting for the most important variable, which is the team itself and their performance (which for Detroit, has been extremely good). The thing is...Football isn't poker. In Football, when it comes to "4th down conversion"...your hand is largely set. You're not being dealt a different hand of probabilities each time like a card game. You have your team, and that team and your playbook and ability to execute...is what gives you the probabilities of conversion. That's your "hand". Whether you're "up" or "down" doesn't actually change the probability of conversion in a meaningful way. It's also just a purely binary outcome. It's "yes/no" or "pass/fail" or "convert/turnover on downs". That's radically different from Poker "math". What moves the math around, is when you start "picking spots" because you're desperate and have already dug a hole. Or when you get conservative and don't take opportunities to steamroll when things are cruising and it's an easy conversion. That moves the overall average numbers around. Things like the Titanic sinking, are also not really pertinent to this situation. That's into an entirely different branch of statistics and the math is completely different. That's into the realm of "statistically improbable events". The odds are so low that it becomes difficult to even estimate. These things happen...but think about it. How many cruise ships have crossed the Atlantic and not hit and iceburg and sank? Vs...the one time it did happen and a ton of people died. Same way people are "scared of airplanes" when you're far more likely to die in a car accident. But that's the way people often seem to misinterpret statistics these days. No different from suddenly crying after the fact about how Campbell is a moron because he did what he's always done all year long to great effect, and happened to roll snake eyes. "The Math" is not yet sophisticated enough to predict the 4th down success probability of: - an inexperienced heavy underdog - on the doorstep of their first SB ever - facing an incredible defense - who had just scored on their previous drive - where if they make it, they probably win You can't apply the math of similar situations to this one because it is unique. It is up to a person with a "feel" for the situation to determine whether they're analogous. This is art. Not just an algorithm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasperX22 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 10 hours ago, Tugboat said: Again though, you're treating that moment as a "fixed point" with 20-20 hindsight. That point is actually a Fulcrum. It can tip either way. For example, if they convert that and go on to put another 7 on the board, it's potentially an absolutely demoralizing death blow that completely alters the momentum of the game the other way. They're presenting the trophy to the Superbowl bound Detroit team and their players are giving an interview citing, "that call to go for on 4th down just showed so much confidence in us as a group and we ran with it to put them away". Momentum isn't just some set outcome, it's molded by the decisions that are made, and the outcomes of how those things pan out. You can't talk about "game scripts" retroactively like it's all already written. Not in the moment. It's like when people pick through a draft class years later and "wah obviously should've chosen this guy or that guy". When in reality, you can nitpick practically every pick in the draft and come up with a "better" decision that could have been made. But that's unreasonable and requires retroactive reasoning. The more important factor is...are you making more decent decisions than poor ones, and are you coming out ahead more often than not? The identity of that Lions team is heavily contingent on the tone Campbell has set with that very aggressive "vote of confidence" type decisionmaking. As the commentators hinted at, it's almost a core component of that team identity and what turned the franchise around and got them there in the first place. That swagger and mentality of, "**** it, let's go for it we got this". In the big picture, that tends to outweigh "game script" because it becomes part of writing that game script - and for Detroit this year, it was overwhelmingly positive overall. If you kick the FG and go up 27-10 with what roughly 22 mins left in the game SF has maybe 4 possessions left in a 3 possession game. This is not a hindsight moment. You kick the FG and you are 1 stop or one score from likely putting the game out of reach. The benefit of going up 31-10 does not out weigh the damage of missing and it being a 14 or game. You basically have SF a free possession AND the momentum when SF couldn't get anything going consistently on either side of the ball. It was a ridiculous decision in any context you want to put it in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkcola Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 If my team had a lead in the 3rd, trading FGs is something I would be completely happy with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.