Week 18 Thread

[Ken]

Raiders were FUCKING IDIOTS for attempting that FG.

Funny, push logic to the side, they are because you say they are and you use obscene language and capitalize it.

Got it.

You really showed them!

JDM sucks!

[Ken]

I may be scarred for life but this was the ending to the first FSU game (my school) that I brought my son to:

So I dont take the whole FG thing for granted.

Ah, the classic statistical folly of anecdote over data. I do the same thing all the time. It's a natural reaction to value those experience over the actual data. I hear ya.

[Pauly]

Ah, the classic statistical folly of anecdote over data. I do the same thing all the time. It's a natural reaction to value those experience over the actual data. I hear ya.

Im not going to beat a dead hose anymore but the argument isnt a fallacy. Better to be there than not 😀

[Gregg]

I may be scarred for life but this was the ending to the first FSU game (my school) that I brought my son to:

So I dont take the whole FG thing for granted.

Wow the odds of that happening in college ball is about 1.2%. Still, I don't think it was your son's fault and would not blame him.

Kidding aside that is a terrible way to lose a game.

[madducks]

Raiders were FUCKING IDIOTS for attempting that FG.

[chancellor]

Gettleman supposed to be retiring. One down, revo!

I missed the Joe Judge announcement yesterday. Just saw it at lunch.

[Mithrandir]

Funny, push logic to the side, they are because you say they are and you use obscene language and capitalize it.

Got it.

You really showed them!

JDM sucks!

Logic? Let's see:

Choice 1: kneel down and tie means 100% in playoffs. Or

Choice 2: Attempt FG and 99.99999998% chance to make playoffs (blocked kick run back for TD although very unlikely still a possibility)

So yeah, I'm dumb taking the 100% option.

Sigh.

[Mithrandir]

Im not going to beat a dead hose anymore but the argument isnt a fallacy. Better to be there than not ��

Not sure why Ken doesn't understand this. And he snidely says we're dumb for taking the 100% option. I thought Ken knew statistics?

[Ken]

Not sure why Ken doesn't understand this. And he snidely says we're dumb for taking the 100% option. I thought Ken knew statistics?

Heh, it's not about me understanding - I completely understand what you guys are saying, you are just ignoring a piece of the puzzle, which quite frankly, is ridiculously wrong.

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but I'll play along.

Lets start by establishing the baselines --
what are the odds of the blocked FG being returned for a TD (estimate if you need to)
what are the relative odds of beating the Bengals vs the odds of beating the Chiefs?
what is the relative value of making it to the playoffs vs proceeding to (at least) the second round of the playoffs?

I'm open to any reasonable answers you provide for those. Given those numbers we can analyze the choice "statistically".

[Gregg]

Logic? Let's see:

Choice 1: kneel down and tie means 100% in playoffs. And Face KC Or

Choice 2: Attempt FG and 99.99999998% chance to make playoffs (blocked kick run back for TD although very unlikely still a possibility) and play Bengals.

So yeah, I'm dumb taking the 100% option. You are not dumb, you are just wrong.

Sigh.

Fixed.

[Ken]

Logic? Let's see:

Choice 1: kneel down and tie means 100% in playoffs. Or

Choice 2: Attempt FG and 99.99999998% chance to make playoffs (blocked kick run back for TD although very unlikely still a possibility)

So yeah, I'm dumb taking the 100% option.

Sigh.

Why are you just blatantly ignoring information? We're not just talking about "making the playoffs". Are you so "dumb" that you think the season is over and all teams just give up now and flip coins and choose a winner? Do you think once teams mathmatically make the playoffs they just stop playing the regular season (the Packers could have had a nice long vacation)?

The football season is not JUST about making the playoffs. There is seeding involved which, based on the evidence, many teams actually care about. And rightfully so, they aren't just trying to make the playoffs, the goal is moving forward in the playoffs, and making the superbowl, and winning the superbowl.

This isn't hard.

[Ken]

For demonstration purposes, lets use the Bill Parcell's method of evaluating teams and go with "You are what your record says you are". The Chiefs won 70.6% of their games, and the Bengals won 58.8% of their games. That's probably a fair indicator of the relative odds of beating each team, a 20% difference in odds (70.6/58.8 = 1.2).

The Raiders have the same record as the Bengals (although due to that kick), so lets give them a 50% chance of beating the Bengals and a 40% chance of beating the Chiefs (too high in my opinion, Vegas has it closer to 20%, but lets go with it).

And lets put the "value" in going to two playoff games as 2x the "value" of going to 1. This is subjective, but just counting the games seems pretty fair.

Lets put the odds of Carlson making the kick at 93%, his rate for the 2021 season.

So you have two statistical valuation tables

Scenario (1) Kneel down.

100% of the time you play the Chiefs which is worth 1.4 playoff games.

Scenario (2) kick a fieldgoal.

Based on your odds posted above .00000002% of the time you don't make the playoffs - that's worth 0 playoff games.
In the other 99.99999998% of the time, you MISS your FG 7% of the time and tie, so you face the Chiefs still, providing 1.4 playoff games * 99.99999998% * 7% = a net 0.09799999998 playoff games
And in the other 93% of that scenario you make the FG providing 1.5 playoff games (since you play the Bengals instead) --> 1.5 playoff games * 99.99999998% * 93% = 1.39499999972

In total, Scenario (2) is worth 1.39499999972 + 0.09799999998 = 1.4929999997

So given that 1.4929999997 is more than 1.4 playoff games, statistics would say to kick the FG.



If you have a different set of numbers feel free to provide them and we'll plug them in.

[Gregg]

For demonstration purposes, lets use the Bill Parcell's method of evaluating teams and go with "You are what your record says you are". The Chiefs won 70.6% of their games, and the Bengals won 58.8% of their games. That's probably a fair indicator of the relative odds of beating each team, a 20% difference in odds (70.6/58.8 = 1.2).

The Raiders have the same record as the Bengals (although due to that kick), so lets give them a 50% chance of beating the Bengals and a 40% chance of beating the Chiefs (too high in my opinion, Vegas has it closer to 20%, but lets go with it).

And lets put the "value" in going to two playoff games as 2x the "value" of going to 1. This is subjective, but just counting the games seems pretty fair.

Lets put the odds of Carlson making the kick at 93%, his rate for the 2021 season.

So you have two statistical valuation tables

Scenario (1) Kneel down.

100% of the time you play the Chiefs which is worth 1.4 playoff games.

Scenario (2) kick a fieldgoal.

Based on your odds posted above .00000002% of the time you don't make the playoffs - that's worth 0 playoff games.
In the other 99.99999998% of the time, you MISS your FG 7% of the time and tie, so you face the Chiefs still, providing 1.4 playoff games * 99.99999998% * 7% = a net 0.09799999998 playoff games
And in the other 93% of that scenario you make the FG providing 1.5 playoff games (since you play the Bengals instead) --> 1.5 playoff games * 99.99999998% * 93% = 1.39499999972

In total, Scenario (2) is worth 1.39499999972 + 0.09799999998 = 1.4929999997

So given that 1.4929999997 is more than 1.4 playoff games, statistics would say to kick the FG.



If you have a different set of numbers feel free to provide them and we'll plug them in.

Or you could just read my post #40 where I answered your (Mith) questions Cliff Note Style fixed.

[Ken]

Im not going to beat a dead hose anymore but the argument isnt a fallacy. Better to be there than not 😀

You likely misunderstood, I was noting that your last post was literally what is known as Anecdotal fallacy. Making a choice because of an experience or anecdote rather than the actual statistical data. It wasn't my subjective valuation of your argument, I'm noting the fact that it is the method that you were using, and it is a known fallacy in argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_anecdote

[Ken]

Or you could just read my post #40 where I answered your (Mith) questions Cliff Note Style fixed.

I read it, but mine had more details

We've already reminded him that the FG changed the opponent and he didn't seem to understand that it mattered (since he omitted that from later replies). So I was showing my work.