Game 11: Pack at Falcons - Noon

[OBF-MKE]

It took us 4 plays to score from the 3. And you don't think 50% is generous? We were horrid all day inside the 10.

The Packers had plenty of near misses throughout the game that I'd say colour those failures better. Throw in regression to the mean, how gassed the defense was, yes.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Wouldn't you basically use the same numbers (minus the very low .001) to see the probability of the Packers winning in OT?

That's a whole different can of worms. There's winning or losing the coin toss, then the likelihoods for the receiving team of scoring from the different set of field positions, then the likelihoods of where a stop would give the defending team the ball and their probabilities from there, etc etc.

Can't we assume a 50% chance of winning in OT? I would say the Falcons and us have the same chance of scoring on first drive, say 80% for both of us. Obviously, the coin flip is an even 50%. The probability of winning I would say is equal for both teams.
I think it basically comes down to if you think we have a better chance of converting the 2 or winning is OT. I take my chances in OT. We were absolutely horrid in short situations.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

It took us 4 plays to score from the 3. And you don't think 50% is generous? We were horrid all day inside the 10.

The Packers had plenty of near misses throughout the game that I'd say colour those failures better. Throw in regression to the mean, how gassed the defense was, yes.

Can't say I understand what you mean by this. But I think to me it means they were close a couple times and came up just short. Do we really want the game to hinge on 1 play?

[OBF-MKE]

The probability of winning I would say is equal for both teams.

Heh, indeed. I was more listing events, and I definitely should've worded that better. Yes, the teams have an equal chance at the cointoss.

Even if I grant the 50/50 chance of winning or losing in overtime, there's still the rest of regulation to worry about that tilts it in favour of the Falcons--they had a 60% chance of winning the game after that extra point, including the overtime possibilities. If I looked at it this way, only worried about the odds of the one play being better than the Packers' odds of winning the rest of the game, then I could say--and you should say--the Packers should've gone for two if they had even a 41% chance of making it, as they had a 60% chance of losing if they successfully converted the PAT. But it'd be disingenuous to do that, because it doesn't count what will happen the rest of regulation.

If, say, the TD happened as time expired? Then it would be strictly P(2PC) vs P(W in OT).

[OBF-MKE]

It took us 4 plays to score from the 3. And you don't think 50% is generous? We were horrid all day inside the 10.

The Packers had plenty of near misses throughout the game that I'd say colour those failures better. Throw in regression to the mean, how gassed the defense was, yes.

Can't say I understand what you mean by this. But I think to me it means they were close a couple times and came up just short.

Pretty much. That it could just have been variance and noise attributing to their in-game failures.

EDIT: Kevin Seifert, from ESPN's NFC North Blog:

"The game was tied at 3 midway through the second quarter when Rodgers led the Packers from their 15-yard line to a first-and-goal at the Falcons' 2. His first-down pass to fullback Quinn Johnson was high, and on second down, Rodgers audibled into a quarterback draw. But during the process of the ensuing tackle, he took a "funny bone" hit to the elbow.

Rodgers said the elbow was "fine," but the hit was impactful enough that the Packers' medical staff examined him on the sideline a few minutes later. Regardless, we all know what that needle sensation feels like, and it's fair to wonder if Rodgers was at full capacity on the next play -- a called quarterback sneak.

Rodgers was holding the ball in his left arm when the ball popped loose. Falcons linebacker Curtis Lofton "hit right on the ball," Rodgers said of his first fumble this season. "Inexcusable on my part."

Would Rodgers have maintained possession if he had the ball in his right arm as usual? We'll never know, but these are the kind of micro-questions we have to ask in a close and mostly well-played game between two really good teams. "

It's special-case things like Rodgers getting funny-boned helping cause the fumble that makes me think a non-funny-boned Rodgers would've had better success on the 2pt play.

Do we really want the game to hinge on 1 play?

In this case, I would.

[humanrefutation]

I STAYED ON THIRTEEN VERSUS THE DEALER SHOWING A SIX! THE DEALER HAD SIXTEEN AND GOT A FIVE! AND THE NEXT TWO CARDS OUT WOULD'VE BEEN FIVES! I WOULD HAVE LOST EITHER WAY!

It's irrelevant that they would've lost either way. Not going for two directly impacted their chances of winning.

That is an awful analogy because that outcome is largely unpredictable and out of your control, whereas stopping them is entirely under your control and has to be taken into account on that possession.

I appreciate that you tried to back up your arguments, because a lot of people come on these kinds of boards and say stupid things and don't back them up with any reasonable logic or analysis. I just have a direct problem with your methods - I think play-by-play probabilities are not incredibly useful for macro-level game management, and many individuals who rely upon them have said the same.

(I distinctly recall watching something about this a few months back and the MIT/Harvard/Cal Tech-educated mathematician who espoused the use of probabilities came to a similar conclusion that I have - that they can be useful in a vacuum, but because games change rapidly, they are not reliably predictive on a macro-level game-wise. I also remember someone on the BS Report who was talking with Simmons who made the same argument.)

Thus, responding to my critiques of the probability method with more probabilities doesn't sway me in any way.

[OBF-MKE]

I STAYED ON THIRTEEN VERSUS THE DEALER SHOWING A SIX! THE DEALER HAD SIXTEEN AND GOT A FIVE! AND THE NEXT TWO CARDS OUT WOULD'VE BEEN FIVES! I WOULD HAVE LOST EITHER WAY!

It's irrelevant that they would've lost either way. Not going for two directly impacted their chances of winning.

That is an awful analogy because that outcome is largely unpredictable and out of your control, whereas stopping them is entirely under your control and has to be taken into account on that possession.

It's an analogy of probabilities. Not awful, but relevant to what we're discussing. The manner of different possible outcomes is different, like you noted, but the point of probabilities favourable vs unfavourable remains the same.

I appreciate that you tried to back up your arguments, because a lot of people come on these kinds of boards and say stupid things and don't back them up with any reasonable logic or analysis. I just have a direct problem with your methods - I think play-by-play probabilities are not incredibly useful for macro-level game management, and many individuals who rely upon them have said the same.

(I distinctly recall watching something about this a few months back and the MIT/Harvard/Cal Tech-educated mathematician who espoused the use of probabilities came to a similar conclusion that I have - that they can be useful in a vacuum, but because games change rapidly, they are not reliably predictive on a macro-level game-wise. I also remember someone on the BS Report who was talking with Simmons who made the same argument.)

Thus, responding to my critiques of the probability method with more probabilities doesn't sway me in any way.

Would you at least be willing to grant that going for two would not have been a bad call? Perhaps in your eyes not the best call, but an understandable call? I will grant that saying it was a 'fireable offense' on my end was too full of histrionics and end of game emotion.

[humanrefutation]

It's an analogy of probabilities. Not awful, but relevant to what we're discussing. The manner of different possible outcomes is different, like you noted, but the point of probabilities favourable vs unfavourable remains the same.

Yes, but probabilities become instantly meaningless if the method of outcome isn't taken into account. The whole of a probability to show what outcome is more likely, and one cannot demonstrate that without analyzing the method of determining that outcome. That is why that analogy doesn't accurately fit the situation we're describing.

Would you at least be willing to grant that going for two would not have been a bad call? Perhaps in your eyes not the best call, but an understandable call?

No, I would not. I guess that would go against the probabilities you're using, but because I think that your method (or, I guess, the method of the source your using) is suspect at best, I'm okay with that. I just think it's predictive value isn't reliable or dispositive enough to make that kind of gutsy call reasonable.

[skones]

I find the arguing of probabilities ridiculous. This isn't a game of hard numbers, this is a game where athletes have go to out on the field and execute. You take the point, you take the tie, and you hope you win the toss in OT if you stop them.

[Flames24Rulz]

I don't even know why it's being argued. We couldn't cover a kickoff anyway and Ryan got a couple of first downs to set up the game winner.

I thought it was the right call to go for 1 today. You're on the road against a top opponent and it took a couple of 4th down conversions to even put it in the end zone. Now the Miami game, I was begging and pleading to go for 2 but of course, that was to no avail.