Overtime change passes for playoffs, regular season could come in May

[Deus Irae]

See this is the problem with statistics you can grab any sample size you want and the results can be very different.

Other than the fact that in the Playoffs the game could not end in a tie there are no other differences between the old Regular season rules and the old postseason rules so there is no reason to throw out those samples other than the fact that by using the sample you did it helped make your case. Again I am against the new rule but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a useless gathering of data.

How can using the playoffs sample be useless when the logical underpinning for the change was the possibility of how the playoffs would be affected? You're acting as if the regular season database is large enough that you can just ignore the possibility of statistical variation, when that's not the case.

 

[Wolfpack]

See this is the problem with statistics you can grab any sample size you want and the results can be very different.

Then please feel free to provide some playoff statistics of your own to counter what I have written.

Other than the fact that in the Playoffs the game could not end in a tie there are no other differences between the old Regular season rules and the old postseason rules so there is no reason to throw out those samples other than the fact that by using the sample you did it helped make your case. Again I am against the new rule but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a useless gathering of data.

Well considering that right now this rule is only approved for the playoffs, I don't see why you consider my using playoff games only is a "useless gathering of data."

 

[emoney_33]

Then please feel free to provide some playoff statistics of your own to counter what I have written.
Well considering that right now this rule is only approved for the playoffs, I don't see why you consider my using playoff games only is a "useless gathering of data."

I just flipped a coin 10 times and the result was 4-6 Heads to Tails. Would you like to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of me flipping heads or tails?

 

[Wolfpack]

I just flipped a coin 10 times and the result was 4-6 Heads to Tails. Would you like to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of me flipping heads or tails?

This post makes so little sense and is so irrelevant that I feel compelled to ask: What's your point?

 

[emoney_33]

This post makes so little sense and is so irrelevant that I feel compelled to ask: What's your point?

It's exactly as relevant as your post.

Of the last 10 playoff overtime games, the team that won the coin toss is 4-6. That's not "4 wins on their first possession" - that's 4 total wins and 6 total losses for the team that won the coin toss. So that pretty much blows away the people who complain about how the coin toss decides the winner of the game.

Of course I expected you'd avoid my question. Your 10 playoff OT games prove exactly the same thing my 10 coin tosses prove... absolutely NOTHING.

Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

 

[Wolfpack]

It's exactly as relevant as your post.



Of course I expected you'd avoid my question. Your 10 playoff OT games prove exactly the same thing my 10 coin tosses prove... absolutely NOTHING.

Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

It seems many of you don't realize that right now, the new rule only affects the playoffs. Therefore it is perfectly relevant to use only playoff games in my sample. In fact, if you ever took Statstics 101, you would know it makes more sense to use such a sample set than it does to grab samples from games not impacted by the rule. In the playoffs, defenses are stronger so it logically follows that the coin flip is far less of a factor.

Now if anyone wants to do the research beyond my sample set, I would love to see the results. But my data, which goes back 7 years, demonstrates there is absolutely no unfair advantage given to the team that wins the coin toss in playoff games.

 

[emoney_33]

It seems many of you don't realize that right now, the new rule only affects the playoffs. Therefore it is perfectly relevant to use only playoff games in my sample. In fact, if you ever took Statstics 101, you would know it makes more sense to use such a sample set than it does to grab samples from games not impacted by the rule.

In statistics 101, one of the first things they will teach you is sample size. Considering that your sample size is 10, it leads me to believe that you either have not taken one or did not pay attention in your statistics course.

In the playoffs, defenses are stronger so it logically follows that the coin flip is far less of a factor.

I'm sure you have the statistics to back this up? It is your hypothesis that the 124 games used in the link I stated above were of poor quality defenses whereas your 10 sample size is of high quality defenses. So first of all you should prove your hypothesis if you don't want your tiny sample size thrown out.

Second of all even if you can prove defenses are stronger in the playoffs, there are far more things to consider. You have things like defenses wearing down during the game and not being the same in OT as they are in the 1st half. You have field position and if both teams have good defenses, the statistics might still show that the receiving team is MORE likely to score first.

Now if anyone wants to do the research beyond my sample set, I would love to see the results. But my data, which goes back 7 years, demonstrates there is absolutely no unfair advantage given to the team that wins the coin toss in playoff games.

Again, like my coin toss example. I really flipped a coin 10 times and got 6 tails. Oh I flipped it with my right hand, so I will now state that tails is more likely to be flipped when using your right hand. I will then put the onus of proof on you and ask others to do the research to disprove my hypothesis. Does that make any sense?

Please do not backtrack, spin, move the goalposts, ignore the points or nitpick just to try to "win" an argument.

 

[Wolfpack]

In statistics 101, one of the first things they will teach you is sample size. Considering that your sample size is 10, it leads me to believe that you either have not taken one or did not pay attention in your statistics course.

That's why I said I would love to see a bigger sample size and if you want to do the research, I would very much enjoy seeing the results. I went back 7 years for my sample set. If you want to go back even further, please feel free to do so - but one of the problems with going back further and further is those advocating the new OT often refer to how much "easier" it is to score these days than it used to be due to various rules changes geared to favor the offense and an alleged improvement in kicker accuracy.

By the way, a sample size of 10 (which I have provided) is better than a sample size of 0 (which you have provided).

I'm sure you have the statistics to back this up?

I think most football fans would agree that on average the defenses are stronger in the playoffs than in any other regular game so I am gloing to let that statement stand at face value.

Again, like my coin toss example. I really flipped a coin 10 times and got 6 tails. Oh I flipped it with my right hand, so I will now state that tails is more likely to be flipped when using your right hand. I will then put the onus of proof on you and ask others to do the research to disprove my hypothesis. Does that make any sense?

Please do not backtrack, spin, move the goalposts, ignore the points or nitpick just to try to "win" an argument.

Your coin flip example is irrelevant because I gladly admit the outcomes of each coin flip is independent of previous results. I believe the term is it is an Independent Bernoulli Trial.

The whole basis of those advocating this change in the rules is that the "coin flip should not determine the winner of the game." Essentially they are trying to state the correlation between winning the coin flip and winning the game is so great as to be a completely unfair rules mechanic, leaving the winner of the game determined more by random chance as opposed to team skill.

My sample set contradicts the belief that there is a direct correlation between the winner of the coin flip and the winner of the game in the playoffs. Hence my belief that the rule change is an unnecessary one.

 

[emoney_33]

That's why I said I would love to see a bigger sample size and if you want to do the research, I would very much enjoy seeing the results. I went back 7 years for my sample set. If you want to go back even further, please feel free to do so - but one of the problems with going back further and further is those advocating the new OT often refer to how much "easier" it is to score these days than it used to be due to various rules changes geared to favor the offense and an alleged improvement in kicker accuracy.

It matters not how many years you went back, the fact is you have 10 samples. Then you go and make assumptions as well as throw around how long you went back to make your data seem more than useless.

By the way, a sample size of 10 (which I have provided) is better than a sample size of 0 (which you have provided).

I'll provide some math though. Assuming an average of 30% chance to score on a given drive, the receiving team is expected to score first 59% of the time. Let's get great defenses together and go with an average of 20% chance to score on any given drive and the receiving team scores first 55% of the time. Like flipping a coin, any sample of 10 may show any amount of different outcomes, but as the samples get larger and larger the numbers get closer to the actual probability.

Note that while I understand this method is not perfect, it's far less flawed than any other analysis you have done and does a much better job of depicting the likelihood of a team scoring first on any kickoff including OT.

I think most football fans would agree that on average the defenses are stronger in the playoffs than in any other regular game so I am gloing to let that statement stand at face value.Your coin flip example is irrelevant because I gladly admit the outcomes of each coin flip is independent of previous results. I believe the term is it is an Independent Bernoulli Trial.

So you are arguing that the outcome of one OT game is NOT independent of the results of another OT game? Before you answer this, make sure you understand what independence means as it pertains to probability.

The whole basis of those advocating this change in the rules is that the "coin flip should not determine the winner of the game."

Umm no, no one has ever argued that aside from exaggerating with their usage of words.

Essentially they are trying to state the correlation between winning the coin flip and winning the game is so great as to be a completely unfair rules mechanic, leaving the winner of the game determined more by random chance as opposed to team skill.

The fact is that the winner of the coin flip is at a not insignificant advantage. By claiming others are arguing something they aren't, you are in effect creating your own exaggerated opposition to argue against.

My sample set contradicts the belief that there is a direct correlation between the winner of the coin flip and the winner of the game in the playoffs. Hence my belief that the rule change is an unnecessary one.

Your sample set is WORTHLESS. An insignificantly small sample size. The fact that you continue to harp on it shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of probability.

 

[patriotscpfc]

I think most football fans would agree that on average the defenses are stronger in the playoffs than in any other regular game so I am gloing to let that statement stand at face value.Your coin flip example is irrelevant because I gladly admit the outcomes of each coin flip is independent of previous results. I believe the term is it is an Independent Bernoulli Trial.

I can't be bothered to read the entire argument, but i'd also say that on average the offenses are stronger in the playoffs as well.

 

[Wolfpack]

It matters not how many years you went back, the fact is you have 10 samples. Then you go and make assumptions as well as throw around how long you went back to make your data seem more than useless.

Gee speaking of assumptions...

I'll provide some math though. Assuming an average of 30% chance to score on a given drive, the receiving team is expected to score first 59% of the time. Let's get great defenses together and go with an average of 20% chance to score on any given drive and the receiving team scores first 55% of the time.

Let me see if I get this straight. You're criticizing my sample size as being too small, but then you just pull random statistics out of thin air and use those completely-made-up "facts" to draw your conclusions? Are you serious..?!? Thank you, my friend, for starting my day with one of the best laughs I have had in quite some time!

Like flipping a coin, any sample of 10 may show any amount of different outcomes, but as the samples get larger and larger the numbers get closer to the actual probability.

Note that while I understand this method is not perfect, it's far less flawed than any other analysis you have done and does a much better job of depicting the likelihood of a team scoring first on any kickoff including OT.

You're using completely made up statistics and then trying to find the likelihood of something happening based on those made up statistics. Meanwhile I am using historical fact. Yeah, that's a no brainer which one of us is using the better method.

So you are arguing that the outcome of one OT game is NOT independent of the results of another OT game? Before you answer this, make sure you understand what independence means as it pertains to probability.

You know for someone who is always complaining about other people changing the subject or "moving the goalposts" you sure seem to do that an awful lot on your own.

I have tried to explain this to you several times, but it apparently has not yet sunk in. I will type the following very slowly so as to help you understand: What I am arguing is that there is no significant correlation between "winning the coin toss" and "winning the game" in overtime playoff games. I have provided facts and data to support that conclusion. You have provided nothing other than completely bogus, made-up assumptions.

Your sample set is WORTHLESS. An insignificantly small sample size. The fact that you continue to harp on it shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of probability.

You know, I didn't want to have to humiliate you by mentioning this but the you have forced my hand. I was hoping you would figure it out on your own. Forget about Statistics 101, this is the sort of thing you learn in high school.

To say a sample size of 10 is "WORTHLESS" is a completely meaningless statement without knowing stating the size of our universe. Sure, if I wanted to find the average height of all human beings, then a sample of 10 would be too small because there are about 6 billion humans. But guess what? There have only been 27 NFL Playoff overtime games. So a sample of 10, taken from a universe of 27, is indeed a significantly large sample.

There isn't a single statistician that would look at a universe of 27, see a sample size of 10, and consider that an "insignificantly small sample size". So that blows another argument of yours completely out of the water. The fact that you continue to harp on it shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of statistics.

Wow! This is like shooting ducks in a barell!

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Wow! This is like shooting ducks in a barell!

Just great. Thanks a lot. Now we'll have PETA trolling this site.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just great. Thanks a lot. Now we'll have PETA trolling this site.

Excellent..... we'll put the PETA members in the barrel with the ducks.

 

[HarkDawg]

Gee speaking of assumptions...
Let me see if I get this straight. You're criticizing my sample size as being too small, but then you just pull random statistics out of thin air and use those completely-made-up "facts" to draw your conclusions? Are you serious..?!? Thank you, my friend, for starting my day with one of the best laughs I have had in quite some time!
You're using completely made up statistics and then trying to find the likelihood of something happening based on those made up statistics. Meanwhile I am using historical fact. Yeah, that's a no brainer which one of us is using the better method.
You know for someone who is always complaining about other people changing the subject or "moving the goalposts" you sure seem to do that an awful lot on your own.

I have tried to explain this to you several times, but it apparently has not yet sunk in. I will type the following very slowly so as to help you understand: What I am arguing is that there is no significant correlation between "winning the coin toss" and "winning the game" in overtime playoff games. I have provided facts and data to support that conclusion. You have provided nothing other than completely bogus, made-up assumptions.
You know, I didn't want to have to humiliate you by mentioning this but the you have forced my hand. I was hoping you would figure it out on your own. Forget about Statistics 101, this is the sort of thing you learn in high school.

To say a sample size of 10 is "WORTHLESS" is a completely meaningless statement without knowing stating the size of our universe. Sure, if I wanted to find the average height of all human beings, then a sample of 10 would be too small because there are about 6 billion humans. But guess what? There have only been 27 NFL Playoff overtime games. So a sample of 10, taken from a universe of 27, is indeed a significantly large sample.

There isn't a single statistician that would look at a universe of 27, see a sample size of 10, and consider that an "insignificantly small sample size". So that blows another argument of yours completely out of the water. The fact that you continue to harp on it shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of statistics.

Wow! This is like shooting ducks in a barell!

But its about 7 Billion not 6. OT passed and there is nothing you can do about it but whine and complain. I do not want new OT rules for regular season and I do not think it will happen. Get over this rule change.

 

[emoney_33]

Gee speaking of assumptions...
Let me see if I get this straight. You're criticizing my sample size as being too small, but then you just pull random statistics out of thin air and use those completely-made-up "facts" to draw your conclusions? Are you serious..?!? Thank you, my friend, for starting my day with one of the best laughs I have had in quite some time!
You're using completely made up statistics and then trying to find the likelihood of something happening based on those made up statistics. Meanwhile I am using historical fact. Yeah, that's a no brainer which one of us is using the better method.

And I knew you'd nitpick and completely lack any intelligent discussion. I am confident that an NFL teams scores on average around 30% of their drives. It's not lower than 20% so I provided an example calculation of the probability based on using 20% and 30% number. If you had one ounce of understanding on the topic you would have seen this rather than nitpicking inexact numbers. You can go and look it up for yourself, simply calculate the percentage of drives that result in a score. It's abundantly clear now that I am not having a discussion with someone who has any clue at all about probability and statistics.

I have tried to explain this to you several times, but it apparently has not yet sunk in. I will type the following very slowly so as to help you understand: What I am arguing is that there is no significant correlation between "winning the coin toss" and "winning the game" in overtime playoff games. I have provided facts and data to support that conclusion. You have provided nothing other than completely bogus, made-up assumptions.
You know, I didn't want to have to humiliate you by mentioning this but the you have forced my hand. I was hoping you would figure it out on your own. Forget about Statistics 101, this is the sort of thing you learn in high school.

Not a single person who knows anything about probability will agree with anything you are saying. You might want to call up your local high school math teacher and ask them to explain the basics to you.

To say a sample size of 10 is "WORTHLESS" is a completely meaningless statement without knowing stating the size of our universe. Sure, if I wanted to find the average height of all human beings, then a sample of 10 would be too small because there are about 6 billion humans. But guess what? There have only been 27 NFL Playoff overtime games. So a sample of 10, taken from a universe of 27, is indeed a significantly large sample.

That's like saying the universe of flipping coins in my room is 30 so my 10 coin flips in comparison is relevant. Flipping a coin 10 times in my room has a 60% chance of landing tails. Once again you fail to understand basic principles. It is NOT about the limited number of games we have had gone to OT. The point is about the likelihood or advantage of a random FUTURE game.

There isn't a single statistician that would look at a universe of 27, see a sample size of 10, and consider that an "insignificantly small sample size". So that blows another argument of yours completely out of the water. The fact that you continue to harp on it shows that you lack a fundamental understanding of statistics.

Wow! This is like shooting ducks in a barell!

You created the universe of 27 by demanding that playoff OT games are special, so you throw out all of the other games. Your excuse for this is because the rule was changed only for the playoffs. So your entire universe 27 argument relies on a terribly flawed assumption that playoff OT games are inherently different than regular season OT games. The bottom line is that you lack an understanding of basic probability on a very fundamental level and there's no point in this discussion anymore.

It's really simple and basic to get a general idea of the advantage the coin flip winner has in the existing regular season OT format. I've already listed it and even as low as 20% would yield a 55% advantage for the coin flip winner. I'm done with you on this topic, you can have the last word, and continue to harp on your 10 games and nitpicked universe.

 

[Wolfpack]

And I knew you'd nitpick and completely lack any intelligent discussion. I am confident that an NFL teams scores on average around 30% of their drives. It's not lower than 20% so I provided an example calculation of the probability based on using 20% and 30% number. If you had one ounce of understanding on the topic you would have seen this rather than nitpicking inexact numbers.

And if you had an ounce of understanding on the subject, you would understand the value of my sample set, which is over 1/3rd the total number of OT playoff games. But ya know what? I'll humor you and say...

You can go and look it up for yourself, simply calculate the percentage of drives that result in a score. It's abundantly clear now that I am not having a discussion with someone who has any clue at all about probability and statistics.

...you're absolutely right that if we assume a team scores 20% of the time, then the chances of the team winning the coin toss is 55% (actually I calculate 56% because I think it should be rounded up instead of down, but let us not split hairs and let us accept your 55% number).

So here's the relevant calculation: How has the new rule changed that 55% number? Well I can't calculate that answer based on the 20% figure you made up because you haven't specified the TD/FG ratio. But since you're making crap up, I am sure you won't begrudge me doing the same so let's say half those scores are TD's and half those scores are FG's (for the sake of argument, let us not worry about safeties). Well guess what? If we do our calculations, we see the coin toss winner now wins 54% of the games instead of 55%.

Wow. We went from 55% to 54%. Yeah, I can sure see how this new rule takes a horribly unfair system and makes a tremendous, tremendous improvement.

That's like saying the universe of flipping coins in my room is 30 so my 10 coin flips in comparison is relevant. Flipping a coin 10 times in my room has a 60% chance of landing tails. Once again you fail to understand basic principles. It is NOT about the limited number of games we have had gone to OT. The point is about the likelihood or advantage of a random FUTURE game.

Wow. The more you talk, the less intelligent you demonstrate yourself to be. If you had even the slightest clue of statistics and/or probability, you would know why your coin flip example is irrelevant.

It's really simple and basic to get a general idea of the advantage the coin flip winner has in the existing regular season OT format. I've already listed it and even as low as 20% would yield a 55% advantage for the coin flip winner. I'm done with you on this topic, you can have the last word, and continue to harp on your 10 games and nitpicked universe.

Well I suppose that's your best attempt to try and bow out gracefully from a discussion where you are getting absolutely hammered. So I'll let you have it.