A "percentage point derived from the amount of instances?" You are very confused. I asked a straight forward question, you are struggling mightily with it. Don't bother to try and sound like you know about statistics by using terms you think sound authoritative, it's ridiculously obvious you are just spewing nonsense here.
For one, your question was not straight forward. It was a loaded question. That you don't understand how it was a loaded question is not my issue. In the definition itself, should you chose to have read it (doubtful based upon your insistance here), it states, clearly: "Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda". In this instance, you directly admitted that a few posts ago. In other words, I can ask you to go look up the amount of instances in which a team up by three scores and barely in their opponent's territory has gone for it and accomplish the same thing since there is no viable way to look up the information requested and, if you tried, you'd be limited to replies that only served my stance.
For another, you've clearly never heard of the terms mean, median, and mode. Those are three ways, for starters, you can take the amount of instances that something happened, compare it with the amount of instances it was successful, and find a percentage. But what do I know? I'm just spewing nonense.
Like how do you cite to wikipedia's definition of loaded question and still misuse the term so badly? There is simply no source to get the data from?
I just showed you that I very clearly didn't misuse the term. Again, here is your question:
I'll ask again, what % of the time do you think an extra 20 yards is the difference between winning and losing against Peyton Manning when up 17 with 8+ minutes to go?
So here is what I have to peel through the game logs, historical contests between the two teams, Google, NFL, and ESPN.com for...
1. Games played against Manning.
2. Times that we punted and gave him an extra 20+ yards of field to navigate.
a) Times that we did this when up three scores.
b) Times that we did this when up three scores with 8+ minutes left to go.
c) How many times did we win when this happened?
d) How many times did we lose when this happened?
3. Formulate percentage based on the results.
Again, if you can't see how this isn't a loaded question, then I can't help you. I can tell you that off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of instances, the last of which came when Manning fired a pick to James Sanders in 2010. But the score was closer than three scores... which sort of plays into my point.
As for your second weak question, here is what a Google search nets when I input your incredibly loaded question into it:
what % of the time do you think an extra 20 yards is the difference between winning and losing against Peyton Manning when up 17 with 8+ minutes to go - Google Search
Happy hunting. :rocker:
Why not just toss a coin on every decision? I framed my question in the most standard way possible. Sorry.
Standard questions net standard results when an explanation is searched for. A standard question is something like: What is the fourth down conversion rate for the 2011/2010/2009 New England Patriots? Or, how many times has going for it when having a lead against Peyton Manning netted a win for the Patriots? Your's was not standard. It was loaded. As such, it has no place in a debate no matter how much you want it to. But if it makes you feel better, than keep on trucking.
You want to talk about holding on for dear life and logical fallacies here's one; a silly statement followed by a completely tautological statement.
The Patriots were running out of time, out of downs, and needed a field goal to win in the Cardinals game. A field goal was the ONLY thing that made sense there so the comparison sucks, as I'm sure you already know. In the Broncos game, the Patriots were up multiple scores, had under ten minutes on the clock, were on Denver's 48, and had the momentum. Going for it with a 47% probability that you won't convert and, thus, give the Broncos the momentum based on the previous three seasons did not make sense.
"and seeing if" - what are the chances of this happening? If they are low is it a good decision? How much do you think this improves our chances of winning? (I know you won't answer this).
Let's dig into it without looking at the size of the leads then...
1. 2009: Go for it. Fail to convert. Game results in a loss.
2. 2010: Punt. Manning throws interception. Game results in a win.
In the last two instances, going for it has netted a loss while punting it ultimately netted a win. In THIS instance, the lead was more sizeable than the other two. You punt it every time in this situation because it's the decision that isn't completely boneheaded. In THIS instance, we went for it and botched it. The Broncos scored a touchdown on the ensuing drive pulling it to within a two score lead. They were then driving for what looked like another touchdown on their next drive until McGahee fumbled the football and saved the game. That would have pulled it to within a three point lead with an ample amount of time to go. Further, we've already seen that the Patriots weren't exactly "running the ball" at will on them at that point in the game. So, again, how exactly was going for it the decision that made sense?
You mention Manning like 20 yards of field position is greater equity for him than lesser QBs/running teams. It's the exact opposite for obvious reasons.
How so? For one, anything could have happened. For another, Manning showed at numerous times throughout that game, either forced or through a failure of execution either on his part or his receiver's part, that 20 or 30 yards of field position (depending on the quality of the punt) wasn't as easy to make up as you say it is. And, at the very least, the way we were playing on defense (conservatively) to that point in the game, it would have taken one to two plays to make it up.
so you were just informing me that 53% is "not that much higher" than 47%? Umm ok?
When you're assessing risk vs. reward when trying to decide to punt or go for it, it's not. Your point here? Oh you didn't have one. Moving on then...
So you're now saying that if it's 1-3 plays that is a significant change in the Pats chances of winning?
Your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. 1-3 plays takes more time off the clock on average. Note that nowhere did I say that the chances of winning improve (though I'm sure I could make a case).
This really isn't that complicated, and I think if you hadn't chosen to dig yourself in you'd probably get it fairly easily.
The irony is thick.
The number of times you successfully complete a 4th and 5 in that situation makes it the correct decision irrespective to almost any game-specific conditions. The 53% chance (it's actually about 59%) of increasing your winning percentage to virtually 100% by converting is a better decision than the high percentage chance that you punt and increase your winning percentage a negligible amount.
There's your reading comprehension going against you again. 53% has been the success rate of going for on 4th downs over the last three seasons. 47% has been the rate of failure. When up three scores with under 10 minutes left to play, why take that chance?
Are you even reading what I'm writing? I said YOU foolishly DIDN'T incorporate that.
The fact that you've capped off your awful argument with the statement that Belichick must have not incorporated the chance of an event occurring and what it meant if it did, simply because in hindsight that event did occur is so lulzy it speaks for itself.
If he took it into account, the decision looks that much more awful.
