- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,863
- Reaction score
- 753
The issue with analytics is always the same. No matter how they might slant in one direction or another, they cannot, or at least currently do not, take the immediate context into account. Is it Brady going against the worst defense in history? Context tells you to favor analytics that imply a QB win. Is it Luke Falk going against the best defense in history? Context tells you to be very careful about analytics that imply a QB win.
Even Truthseeker's attempt to justify going for 2 when down 14 demonstrates the folly of relying on analytics. Using his numbers, the chance of losing if you go for 2 ends up being 27.56%. The chance of losing if you go for 1 is just 8.23%. So, barring unusual circumstances, you're a fool if you go for 2. Yet Truthseeker thinks it's a no brainer to go for it, because the analytics has him twisted to the point of ignoring the loss potential in favor of the win potential. And that's not a shot at Truthseeker. That's just an inherent problem with relying on the analytics. In football, a loss is what kills you. If you're tied, you still have a shot in overtime.
I certainly agree with you that all circumstances need to be taken into account and that, when that is done, what appears obviously correct with no context can be questionable or even wrong within a specific context.
I am disappointed that you pulled the loss percentages out of the broader context to present a misleading overall picture. But it is what it is.