aluminum seats
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,440
- Reaction score
- 11,324
See 90% of Bolden’s carriesnow it seems they just do things to be contrarian for its own sake.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.See 90% of Bolden’s carriesnow it seems they just do things to be contrarian for its own sake.
I wonder if Ernie Adams no longer being in the both has anything to do with this. I recall reading on here that adams would sit up in the both and relay down to BB if he should challenge a play or the stats for going for it on fourth down. This could be a thread un to itself.That and he hasn't challenged any calls either. A red flag could have helped their chances last Sunday.
I disagree with you partly
Is this the best way to analize agressiveness? doubtful
Is this a decent proxy? Yes, I think it is
Again, 1% doesn't mean ****. The context of slippery paint on the grass is more important than a 1% geek claim. The variance among players, weather, wind, game pressure, etc... so many things are more important than the geeks' 1%.It’s not the best way to quantify the risk:reward, but it does align with the extreme risk averse nature of the team this year, no? I agree; I would rather see the ranks and percentages used differently. @venecol noted all four coaches at the bottom are also the four oldest coaches in the league. That’s a notable coincidence that may suggest correlation. There’s no way to really assess this perfectly because of all the factors for each decision, but the overall rankings seem to align pretty well with perception.
See 90% of Bolden’s carries
The translation from the historical data sample on which the 1% difference in average win probability is determined to any particular real-world situation has a much larger variance than 1%. For in-game decision making this is a meaningless distinction.Is this a decent proxy? Yes, I think it is
Again, 1% doesn't mean ****. The context of slippery paint on the grass is more important than a 1% geek claim. The variance among players, weather, wind, game pressure, etc... so many things are more important than the geeks' 1%.
But the number of questionable decisions needed to form a reliable database would likely require longer careers than just about any HC ever has, because you'll never be able to get pure analysis without context.On any individual call, sure, it could be a tiny percentage gain by analytics and not supported in the reality of the game. Over a larger sample size, the degree of risk per coach can theoretically start to solidify.
I Truly dont see where they said they gain 1% in average or studied only changes of 1% in average. And I also dont see any averages in this picture...The translation from the historical data sample on which the 1% difference in average win probability is determined to any particular real-world situation has a much larger variance than 1%. For in-game decision making this is a meaningless distinction.
I Truly dont see where they said they gain 1% on average. And I also dont see any averages in this picture...
It says gains of at least of 1%.
And saying with confidence what is the variance of any given equation is... bold.
Ps - if you did the math (like, adding all samples, derivating the average based on graphs) and reversed engineering these probabilites, I just applaud you.
Fat Matt took his place in the booth. Problem is every time Matt sees a play to challenge and calls Bill, he's got a mouthful of food and Bill can't understand a fv&king thing he's saying.I wonder if Ernie Adams no longer being in the both has anything to do with this. I recall reading on here that adams would sit up in the both and relay down to BB if he should challenge a play or the stats for going for it on fourth down. This could be a thread un to itself.
You hit it on the head. Coaching decisions are based on results. If you make the right call as a coach, and the players do not execute, the coach is said to have made a bad decision. If he makes a stupid call and somehow the players pull it off, then the coach is a genius. Bill didnt forget how to coach and make decisions, but maybe the players are not executing like they did before.But the number of questionable decisions needed to form a reliable database would likely require longer careers than just about any HC ever has, because you'll never be able to get pure analysis without context.
Or, to put it another way:
BB went for it on the famous 4th down when facing Manning and the Colts. Says it's because he's facing Manning. Well, regardless of whether or not it was the "right" call, how many times is that situation ever going to arise over the course of even the longest career? It happened only once.
If you're going to bring up Butler, we have to talk about SB 52.You hit it on the head. Coaching decisions are based on results. If you make the right call as a coach, and the players do not execute, the coach is said to have made a bad decision. If he makes a stupid call and somehow the players pull it off, then the coach is a genius. Bill didnt forget how to coach and make decisions, but maybe the players are not executing like they did before.
Carroll was called an idiot and trashed when Wilson threw that pick in the superbowl. Had that been a td pass, its a genius call because the pats were in goal line and didnt expect it and were loading up on the run, etc etc, but since it didnt work, he is an idiot becuase Butler made a spectacular play.