Concepts some posters could benefit from learning

[makewayhomer]

Everybody misses clutch shots. That's not the point.

I hate statistics, but I just happen to be in the middle of a graduate research course.

I'm begging for a qualified statistician out there to tell me the odds this is totally by chance (what's known as the null hypothesis.

Carl Yastrzemski carried the 1967 Red Sox after Conigliaro went down.

The last weekend of the season the Red Sox needed two win both games against the Twins to have a chance at the pennant.

What were the odds our clutch leader could hit 7-8 in those two games for a .875 average?

In a twenty three year career, he hit over .300 six times. Career average was .285. Average in 1967 was .326.

Put it on a curve, standard deviations, whatever you want.

it's useless arguing what are the odds it did happen. what's more usefull is arguing the odds is will happen AGAIN.

again, the roulette wheel example.

I've seen plenty land on red 10 times in a row. that happens .1% of the time. the odds it falls on red the next time? 50%

there is no explanation necessary- that is the natural order of distributions. that Roulette isn't good at falling on red, it just happened a bunch of times in a row by chance


(this is assuming no green on the wheel )

 

[Joker]

heh...this is really making me use brain cells I never wanted to use again....heh

ok...a null hypothesis...uh...let me take a stab at it Ray...

there is no 100% certainty of an event occuring every single time

is this a null hypothesis to the sun rises in the east everyday?

 

[pats-blue]

.


the conclusion, by Baseball Prospectus author Nate Silver, is that he is indeed clutch, but the ability is far far overstated.

in football, what does this mean? Well, read the Adam Vinatieri Mr. Clutch thread. my basic opinion is that AV makes the frozen ball kick vs the Titans or the blizzard kick vs the Raiders AT MOST 50% of the time. The odds of him hitting both? 25%. of course, he ended up making both. this doesn't make him clutch, it makes him a beneficiary of positive variance - instead of the likely 75% outcome (him missing 1) he got the 25% outcome. like a roulette wheel landing on red twice in a row.

now, I realize this is a foreign concept to most of you, so I'll give another example. This week AV missed a 29 yarder to win the game. Does this mean he has lost his magical clutchiness? Or that is he now a choker b/c he's on the Colts? No, neither - it just means that variance turned against him. even at his age, AV makes that kick 95% of the time. but THIS time he missed. too bad for him, funny for us. but please just recognize that AV benefited from variance in 2001 and 2003 - it wasn't b/c he was magically clutch.

given a large enough sample size, things tend to even out, which is what baseball analysis has taught us, and what AV is beginning to show.

2) The best team doesn't always win

Related to the above. the Patriots winning the SB 3 years in a row meant we were the beneficiaries of variance. even if you think the Patriots had a 70% chance to win each game, that means we win all 3 games 34% of the time. but we won all 3.

of course, there was no way we were 70% to beat the Rams. We were 14 point underdogs; we win that game MAYBE 15% of the time. but on that day we won. Ty Law had a ridiculous game, Mike Martz inexplicity stopped giving the ball to Marshall Faulk - these are things that don't always happen, but that day they did. sometimes the calls go against you (ie vs the Colts 2 weeks ago) sometimes key players get hurt at the worst times (the AFCCG last year), sometimes the ball bounces your way (almost the entire 2001 season), and sometimes the strangest, most unlikely timing means the game is not lost and you have a chance to win the game (Tuck Rule). teams don't plan these things, but they happen, and they are all reasons why on any given day the better team can lose. If the Pats lose to the Bills on Sunday b/c 100 things go wrong, everyone here will say that the Pats are the better team...but if you take a poll here, the majority of people will also say we were a better team than the Rams in 2001. learn to embrace variance guys, it happens and there is nothing you can do about it except build the best team possible and play the best you can.

3) our memories are awfully selective

again, related to the clutch discussion. most people here have no memory of the huge, clutch kicks AV has missed. the 2 kicks in the SB vs Carolina, the miss vs Denver in the playoffs, previous game winning misses. this is b/c they don't want to cloud their memory of the perfect clutch kicker.

another example: most people remember Tom Brady winning MVP of the SB in 2001. what most people don't remember is his actual performance in that game: 16 of 27 passes for 145 yards with a touchdown. Don't give me BS about "the gameplan calling for that". the gameplan certainly didn't call for Brady to complete only 59% of his passes, a below average mark. the gameplan didn't call for him to make 5.3 Yards/Attempt and only 92 yards with 2 minutes to go, and abysmal result. yes, he was awesome on the last drive, but before that he had completed 58% of his passes and had 4.8 yards/attempt - terrible. was the final drive great? Sure, but we were largely in that situation only b/c the offense and Brady had been so ineffective for the entire game leading up to that.

the lesson is that stats can give us a much more objective view of things. traditional stats tend to be bad, as they don't adjust for all kinds of things like strength of schedule, luck, and the effect one unit has on the other. Football Outsiders is the "Baseball Prospectus" of football, and every serious football fan should be reading this site. their team and unit stats DVOA and DPAR are far, far better than Points Scored, Yards Allowed, etc.

check it out: http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff.php

Ok besides trying to be condesending and bringing a geek factor to Sunday football....WTF is the point to this thread? Really what is your point our definition of "clutch" isn't valid?

So we can't use "clutch" anymore right? Because statistics say so?

I do have a few questions though on your "statistics". How many kicks were analyzed of the 45 yarder in a snowstorm variety to come up with your 50%. What about other kickers? Basically you took baseball statistics and opinions applied BS "stats" you pulled out your ass and then tried to make a condesending point so "we" lose the ability to use the word "clutch"?

Second on your other BS AV point on the 29 yarder. How about a stat where the kic is made in a driving rain and the kickers plant foot slips. Did you notice that because on TIvo it was obivous his plant foot slipped. NOw go back to what ever board you came from because really you acting like a Pat fan is really old and immature.

 

[Frezo]

Grady Little and Pedro Martinez say hello.

Hi Grady. Hi Pedro. Watch out for Zimmer.

 

[makewayhomer]

pats blue, I'm trying to bring the level of discussion up. I would love a board where I could discuss the Pats objectively and intelligentyl, but far too much discusssion around here is just "Pats rulllllll!!!"

 

[makewayhomer]

off to bed all, see you in the morning

 

[RayClay]

it's useless arguing what are the odds it did happen. what's more usefull is arguing the odds is will happen AGAIN.

again, the roulette wheel example.

I've seen plenty land on red 10 times in a row. that happens .1% of the time. the odds it falls on red the next time? 50%

there is no explanation necessary- that is the natural order of distributions. that Roulette isn't good at falling on red, it just happened a bunch of times in a row by chance


(this is assuming no green on the wheel )

2 World Series 0-2 14 54 11 19 2 0 3 9 8 2 .352 .438 .556 0 0 0 1 1
3 Postseason Series 1-2 17 65 15 24 3 0 4 11 9 3 .369 .447 .600 0 0 0 1 1

My friend, you officially don't know what you're talking about.

You really should take a course in stats or something, because you don't even know the basics.

You might note Yaz also randomly hit for higher than his top career average in World Series and playoffs.

A real statistician could take his mean average (285), his highest ever (326) and compare that to his world series avg. (352) and his playoff average (369) as well as his pennant clinching weekend average (.875) and conclude to an extremely high degree of probability that Yaz was a clutch hitter.

By the way, until a statistician checks in, I'm sure this degree of probability is much much higher than the average "proved" hypothesis.

 

[Joker]

I can't say I've seen more than a very few "Pats rule!" posts here at Ian's Patriotsfans.com since the board's inception and Zip still had his eyesight. What has proliferated in the past year is the number of Colt trolls who attack this board ad nauseum with every kind of cokamamie slant and rant possible...which leads to more than a few suspicious long time board members when a new face comes on the scene and seems to pontificate. I'm sure you can understand this.

 

[Frezo]

pats blue, I'm trying to bring the level of discussion up. I would love a board where I could discuss the Pats objectively and intelligentyl, but far too much discusssion around here is just "Pats rulllllll!!!"

mmmm...You probably shouldn't have said that. The Pats do rule this year. Even the math proves it.

 

[jays52]

As much as I want to buy the argument, football cannot be quantified. It's far too intricate, with far too many variables. Baseball is about as troglodytic as a sport comes. A complex defense is when people shift to one side of the field in anticipation of hitting tendencies. Baseball is easily expressed numerically. Football is a game that must be observed and analyzed to be understood. Statistics might provide an indication of schematic bias, but in no way are an accurate representation of what happens on each play.

I have said for a long time that anyone who cites statistics does not understand football. There are nuances to the game in both the macro and micro, and ESPN quantification will never be able to articulate the game. Now, if you wanted to see football greatness articulated, watch the pats play and absorb everything you see from technique to scheme. They are quite eloquent in their description.

 

[Joker]

jeezus...run for office...you got my vote ,Jay

 

[RayClay]

heh...this is really making me use brain cells I never wanted to use again....heh

ok...a null hypothesis...uh...let me take a stab at it Ray...

there is no 100% certainty of an event occuring every single time

is this a null hypothesis to the sun rises in the east everyday?

I hate this stuff, but. You can't really "prove" anything. What you try to do is estimate the probability something happened by chance. If you try to prove the null hypothesis, that means you proved a high probability it could happen by chance.

You wouldn't test batting against a coin flip, nless you know lots of .500 hitters.

I can't crunch the numbers, but random chance says Yaz had a 3/10 chance of getting a hit each time because hw was a .326 hitter. He performed almost almost 9/10. (7/8 or .875).

You put that stuff on a curve and it's way off, It could be random, but it seems significant for a small sample.

Things regress to the mean, in this case, his world series and playoff performances regress closer to his mean average and they do.

His mean average .285 career. His 1967 .326 was his best.

That means his career WS .352 and playoff .369 are still way over his mean .285.

Looks statistically significant to me.

 

[RayClay]

As much as I want to buy the argument, football cannot be quantified. It's far too intricate, with far too many variables. Baseball is about as troglodytic as a sport comes. A complex defense is when people shift to one side of the field in anticipation of hitting tendencies. Baseball is easily expressed numerically. Football is a game that must be observed and analyzed to be understood. Statistics might provide an indication of schematic bias, but in no way are an accurate representation of what happens on each play.

I have said for a long time that anyone who cites statistics does not understand football. There are nuances to the game in both the macro and micro, and ESPN quantification will never be able to articulate the game. Now, if you wanted to see football greatness articulated, watch the pats play and absorb everything you see from technique to scheme. They are quite eloquent in their description.

Actually, BB compiles and uses statistics constantly.

Oh crap, I still have to read an article and post for my class. I'll be the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about, but hopefully my "A" will say otherwise. (not like I ever want to do research).

 

[Tunescribe]

I knew this guy's post was going nowhere when he tried to extrapolate baseball statistical logic onto football. Fundamentally flawed from the get-go. Jays52 pegged it right.

 

[jays52]

Actually, BB compiles and uses statistics constantly.

Yup. Because they accomplish exactly their utility and nothing else. They show schematic tendencies. He doesn't look for YPCarry in a gameplan, he looks at lineplay and how the back hits the subsequent hole. He doesn't look at YPCatch, he looks at how an offensive cordinator utilizes his recievers in a down/distance situation. To quote BB, "It is what it is".

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

now, I realize this is a foreign concept to most of you....

An obvious Dale Carnagie graduate!!!

Interesting, but I'll counter with...

Lies.

Damn lies.

And statistics.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

good point here. as a fan, it doesn't matter that the Rams were better than the Patriots in 2001. we won, woo-hoo!

however, as a GM, it's my job to judge players/teams and figure out which performances are likely to be repeated and which ones aren't, and cut bait/make moves where needed.

Something just has to be said about 2001 and the Pats and the Rams.

The two teams played a little before the halfway mark of the season, with the Rams winning that one.

But a few points have to be clarified here.

First, late in the first half, if Antowain Smith doesn't fumble at the goal line (Rams recovery, resulting in a TD), and scores instead, I can see the Pats winning that one.

That game was the last loss of the season for the Pats.

It also introduced us (and the Rams!) to the concept of Patriots football in the Bill Belichick era. The following week the Rams lost to Tampa Bay, and that was their last loss of the season until the Super Bowl. They were hurting!

Even Mike Martz was cognizant of what he's just witnessed, telling his team in the locker room immediately after the game, "Congratulations! You've just beaten the team that's going to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl!"

This post is only tangentially appropriate to the theme of this thread, but my point is, the Rams of 2001 may have been better than the Patriots, with more wins, better numbers, bigger names, but then again, maybe they weren't.

 

[RayClay]

Yup. Because they accomplish exactly their utility and nothing else. They show schematic tendencies. He doesn't look for YPCarry in a gameplan, he looks at lineplay and how the back hits the subsequent hole. He doesn't look at YPCatch, he looks at how an offensive cordinator utilizes his recievers in a down/distance situation. To quote BB, "It is what it is".

I agree. I must have misunderstood you. Baseball is a game of stats no doubt.

 

[pheenix11]

I am sorry that I said that other thread about AV was the biggest pile of horse****, because that title clearly belongs to this one. You want to compare a 29 yard field goal in a crap regular season game vs Superbowl winning field goals and write the difference off to variance? That is assinine.

You are missing the one key point in all this. You are dealing with human beings not machines. Many things are random but it is undeniable that in high pressure situations that certain people step up while others fail. The reason for this is because the talent of these athletes is controlled by their brains. They are susceptible to fear and being nervous and being overly excited and not being able to focus. Some people can block everything out and calmy treat a high pressure situation like any other game.

You can't compare even a field goal in the beginning of a Superbowl to one at the end. They are different situations. The points count the same but the human emotion is far different. One is forgettable, one is history and the players know that.

If AV kicks 40 yard field goals in the regular season at a rate of 80% that doesn't mean he has an 80% chance of kicking a Superbowl winning field goal because the situations are not the same. You cannot get an accurate rate of success for AV in Superbowl winning field goals unless you have a large enough sample and you don't. You have 2 situations and he succeeded both times. For all you know AV's success rate at Superbowl winning field goals could be 90%, it could be 50%. You don't know because you will never see enough of them. Instead we are given a few chances and fans base their concept of clutchness on what happens then. Maybe that isn't fair, but thats how it is.

I will never forget David Ortiz' homerun against the Yankees in Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS. I will never forget AV's 2 Superbowl winning field goals. I don't give a crap about what David Ortiz did in the bottom of the 9th on April 7th, 2003 against the Devil Rays or what AV did on October 27th, 1999 against the Chargers because it doesn't matter.

Thats the problem with you statnerds, you ignore you own rules. Regular season performances don't matter when it comes to the high pressure of the playoffs. They are not the same. If you can somehow get a large enough sample of postseason stats for a particular player, then you can talk. Otherwise take your meaningless regular season stats and your little websites and stick them.

In the end there is only 1 stat we all know for sure. AV is 100% in Superbowl game winning field goals and that is why we we call him clutch. If he somehow gets into another Superbowl and misses a game winning field goal then we can talk. Otherwise the situations are not comparable.

 

[RayClay]

Edited to agree with your main point.

Taking percentages of field goals to judge a kicker is a joke. There are probably hundreds of kickers who could make an acceptable amount of kicks when they don't matter.

Gost hasn't had to make many important ones and it has nothing to do with his ability.

You keep a kicker to make the handful of kicks that decide big games.

If you don't have a kicker you have great confidence in, other factors loom larger.