You can argue the point that's where good coaching comes in--but my belief is since statistics rule the day over the long-term--an intelligent coach would stick to the bot's thinking if he wants to be successful long term. I will say that the bot does not account for how good either team is, but regardless, there is very very very few scenarios where I would go for it instead of take the lead. And to me, that's up to personal opinion, not probability. Should you ever go for it on 4th and 55? Everyone would say "no." Just because some dumbass goes for it doesn't make it a viable solution. I would still say "NEVER EVER go for it on 4th and 55."
I think JetBlue and I have both provided ample evidence that your original assertion was false. I don't see the need to keep beating this dead horse.
I think I've proved beyond reasonable doubt that the correct call was to kick the FG (original argument) and also that in every situation....EVERY....it makes logical sense to kick the FG.
Sorry, bud, there are many professionals in all fields who are complete morons at their specialty. Anyone competent who works in statistics would know they don’t lead to absolute conclusions like you have. Again, you aren’t doing yourself any favors. The analysis of the statistics requires reasonable thinking skills to draw reasonable conclusions. Anyone who would attempt to “win” and argument by invoking a logical fallacy such as an argument to authority as you just have clearly lacks the reasonable thinking skills required to actually win the argument because you have just shown your ability to think reasonably and draw reasonable conclusions is suspect. Your appeal to authority has completely undermined your credibility to claim any authority in analyzing statistics.
Nobody argued that. That’s your opinion, it inherently can’t be proven either way. You don’t even grasp the discussion.
I was told by Colorado that the simulator would go for it--he was wrong, I was only proving that he was wrong. Fortunately I am able to think past that data, and far past you and conclude that you should always kick the FG late in the 4th within the 30, when it's a tie game. I am unable to help you see what you cannot see. You can't give an ant algebra and expect him to get it--but that's no fault on you.
Yes actually I was originally responding to ForeverCursed before you bumbled over with your funny opinion. So you are incorrect again, the decision for the Jets to kick the FG was the original discussion. Anything else I can aid you in learning today or are you finished?
No, I never said the bot said to go for it. Go back and re-read my post. I simply said that according to scientific research - i.e. the NY Times bot - there are many times that you would NOT kick, and go for it instead. YOU were the one making ABSOLUTE assertions. And you have succeeded only in proving that you're incapable of admitting when you're wrong, so there's not point in continuing this discussion with you.
no, the simulator doesn't prove anything. Outcomes prove whether something was the right call; the simulator is simply stating whether it was a good call or not based on its own set of parameters it has arbitrarily used to determine it's conclusions. That's not proof of anything other than it's own parameters.
No, there is NEVER a time that the bot won't kick the FG in the 4th, tie game, within the 30. Once again, I'm correct and under the scenario that I'm arguing, that bot ALWAYS kicks the FG....as every coach should.
Yeah, wrong use of the word arbitrary. It's not arbitrary if it's backed up by statistics. It's the correct call based on historical observation--therefore it's the best call to the best of football knowledge--which you do not possess lol.
In our game there was no doubt you go for the FG. To much time and distance. That's a no brainer. Let me ask you do you make adjustments for the statistical difference in situations based on the opponent, time outs, time on the clock, etc., etc., etc.? It seems like in football there are a huge number of statistical variables including who's actually on the football field. I suspect if your facing a QB with 50 game winning drives vs. a QB who has zero and your D has a history of giving up drives when teams are in a 2 minute O and your D is fatigued because they have been on the field for a long time does that change the statistical variable? There are a lot of moving parts when you use broad stats in specific football situations. I do think analytics has it's place in pro-football. I think it's still a mistake to make a universal argument without looking at the situation in it's entirety.
I don't believe the statistics take into account strength of teams, it does take into account time on clock, down distance, maybe a few other things. My original post was really only directed to the person who was trying to discredit Todd Bowle's decision of kicking the FG. And IMO I think logically you should always go for the lead--I think most coaches would agree, but there are some coaches who do things on 4th down that don't "make sense." But yes I agree, you can't overlay statistical probability in every situation in every game, it's not like baseball.
I agree, it's up to interpretation. I was only suggesting that the bot will always do that because logically it's always the best choice. Logically the best choice does not equate to always the best outcome.
I suspect Statistical probability would probably dictate going for 2 points on every conversion and going for it on 4th and 1 on every drive. Of course we don't have enough data to prove it.
And yet the greatest coach in history does not adhere to these statistical restrictions. That’s the difference between football knowledge from a great coach and ignorant fans like yourself who know nothing and depend on exaggerating the importance of statistics to justify your argument because you have no ability to understand the game as it is actually occurring. The stats give you an out when the outcome proves you wrong; that’s why bad coaches depend on statistics just like ignorant fans such as yourself. The only person’s football knowledge that is in doubt in this discussion is yours. The stats do not offset that. My argument was based on the outcome; if the outcome proves my argument correct the argument is correct. You aren’t playing to take the lead you pkaybto win the game, and kicking the FG caused us to lose the game.
You're using an already cemented outcome to argue predictive behavior? That's like saying I should've bet all my money for the Eagles to win the superbowl last year--just because they won doesn't mean it was an intelligent bet back then.
Statistically, you hand the ball to Bo Jackson and let him run for a TD.... 60% of the time, it works everytime
