• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Battling, The Injuries and More Injuries

RavensMania

RavensMania

Staff Member
Administrator
ThatsMyJoeTerback said:
like you said - confirmation bias my friend. one of my biggest pet peeves is when people are so results-oriented. they don't care for the process on how to get to said result AT ALL.

the same people who complain about Roman's play calling are same people who praise the players when shit magically works??? like wtf is that logic?

the same people who complain about Harbaugh's decision to go for 2 when analytics and BASIC MATH say you should were the same people who complained about last week's 2 point try when Harbs put the game in the hands of his best player(s). yet these are the same people who will heap praise on Harbs for going for it on 4th down and 2 pointers when it works. it just makes no sense...

people who think only in terms of results have such an antiquated way of thinking about sports, and it carries over into their lives. it's impossible to discuss sports (and other things) with some of my friends because they think this way. it's the way people have thought for a long time, and it needs changing.

i swear some people need to take like an introductory econ class.
ok rant's over sorry lmao
Click to expand...
and a big reason why you need to come here to discuss anything remotely knowledgeable. I have the same problem with some of my. Skins fan friends. Now that is major doink.
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
UPennChem said:
Look my gut feeling was similar to some of the other guys who think keep the momentum is important. However, when I said it in the game chat and Rossi explained the other side, I can totally see that too. I think this is something that certain people will see one way and others will see another. I'm not sure either is technically wrong because we know teams have one both ways. Now if it is true teams have won more going for two earlier than that's quite interesting and I'd like to see by how big a margin given sample sizes and such.

If it's is substantial say by greater than 3 or 4% than I say it's unambiguous, go for it early. If it is like 1 or 2%, I'm not sure it's actually meaningful.

My only point is to say without the actual data it's hard for me to see how "obvious" it is because I can see both arguments.
Click to expand...

but the problem here is that there is clearly one right answer (both logically and analytically) - when down 15 points the answer has been settled (for years)

what can really bake some people's noodles is that when down 14 late in a game you should also go for the 2 pt conversion on the 1st TD too
 
ThatsMyJoeTerback

ThatsMyJoeTerback

Ravens Ring of Honor
rossihunter2 said:
what can really bake some people's noodles is that when down 14 late in a game you should also go for the 2 pt conversion on the 1st TD too
Click to expand...
and guess what? we did that against Cleveland week 4 of 2019, when we went for 2 after an Andrews TD which put us down 24-16. it worked and we got the 2 to make it 24-18.

no one remembers tho because... *drumroll please*... we lost.
 
OURavensFan

OURavensFan

Ravens Ring of Honor
QuothTheRaven said:
Why would they go for two both times? You go for two there because if you don't get it, you can factor in needing two scores to your tempo and playcalling. If you leave it until late to go for two, the game is over if you don't get it. Either way, you have to go for two sometime. So give yourself the advantage.
Click to expand...
But Bill Cowherd said Harbaugh has fallen in love with the analytics and has no comment sense
 
UPennChem

UPennChem

Hall of Famer
rossihunter2 said:
but the problem here is that there is clearly one right answer (both logically and analytically) - when down 15 points the answer has been settled (for years)

what can really bake some people's noodles is that when down 14 late in a game you should also go for the 2 pt conversion on the 1st TD too
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be annoying I promise. I'm 100% open minded to their being 1 completely right answer and it even being the one I didn't originally represent.

My point from above but succinctly now is if there is a clear answer the data would obviously represent that. I just haven't seen the data so I can't guage if it is close or totally obvious. I'll try and look for it.
 
Q

QuothTheRaven

Veteran
rossihunter2 said:
but the problem here is that there is clearly one right answer (both logically and analytically) - when down 15 points the answer has been settled (for years)

what can really bake some people's noodles is that when down 14 late in a game you should also go for the 2 pt conversion on the 1st TD too
Click to expand...
I was just reading about this and I kind of hated it... But then I realised that it's a statistic about *winning* rather than not losing. So it seems to maximise your chances to win, even if you're also more likely to lose than if you go for one. And of course you definitely can't go to OT if you take the 2.

So it would be like:

Go for one-
Win 33.3%
Lose 33.3%
OT 33.3%

Go for two-
Win 60%
Lose 40%
OT 0%

where I have obviously pulled those numbers from nowhere to illustrate the point.
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
UPennChem said:
I'm not trying to be annoying I promise. I'm 100% open minded to their being 1 completely right answer and it even being the one I didn't originally represent.

My point from above but succinctly now is if there is a clear answer the data would obviously represent that. I just haven't seen the data so I can't guage if it is close or totally obvious. I'll try and look for it.
Click to expand...

here's some articles and data on 14 pt deficits:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/risky-business/2021/going-two-down-14
https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up
 
rossihunter2

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
QuothTheRaven said:
I was just reading about this and I kind of hated it... But then I realised that it's a statistic about *winning* rather than not losing. So it seems to maximise your chances to win, even if you're also more likely to lose than if you go for one. And of course you definitely can't go to OT if you take the 2.

So it would be like:

Go for one-
Win 33.3%
Lose 33.3%
OT 33.3%

Go for two-
Win 60%
Lose 40%
OT 0%

where I have obviously pulled those numbers from nowhere to illustrate the point.
Click to expand...

this article gives some idea of why it works:
https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/...y-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up

and you can end up in OT still (that's why you can attempt the 2 pt on the first one because if you screw it up you've got another shot at a 2 to tie it and go to overtime)
 
Q

QuothTheRaven

Veteran
OURavensFan

OURavensFan

Ravens Ring of Honor
rossihunter2 said:
drive felt pretty good to me
didnt change momentum at all...

going for 2 early meant we had a chance at an onside kick and a field goal to win it later rather than losing 2 consecutive weeks on failed 2 pt attempts...

i find it bizarre that there are at least 3 people arguing this on this forum - this isnt even a debate around the league... like it's settled that you go for the 2 pt at the earliest possible opportunity
Click to expand...
It’s because Boomer, Simms and Cowhard crucified Harbaugh over it
 
Q

QuothTheRaven

Veteran
ThatsMyJoeTerback said:
guys... this isn't even an analytics thing. this is just basic common sense/game theory.

you go for 2 earlier because you will have more information to make decisions later on in the game. also, you have to convert a 2 point try at some point...

analytics comes in when the math backs up the decisions.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/
Click to expand...
I agree with you but careful with that link; it doesn't argue what we were saying. If you look at the "down 9" box, it shows that the two decisions are equal - but the key is that they're equal in producing a win in normal time, not avoiding a loss, which is more what was being argued about. I think the reason is that adjusting the game script is beyond the scope of the model.
 
UPennChem

UPennChem

Hall of Famer
After looking at the above materials, it's pretty clear to me that going for 2 earlier gives you more information and a higher win % as has been said by give or take a few percent based on somewhat crude models.

However, again as has been said, kicking the Pat maximizes the chance on OT.

So I think it becomes a question as a coach do you think it's better to play for the win in regular time or do you think you have a better chance to win on OT? Or is a tie actually much more important than a loss for your season.

I would guess in most situations going for 2 earlier is the right thing to do but I'm certain there are circumstances where kicking would also be the better option.
 
ThatsMyJoeTerback

ThatsMyJoeTerback

Ravens Ring of Honor
QuothTheRaven said:
I agree with you but careful with that link; it doesn't argue what we were saying. If you look at the "down 9" box, it shows that the two decisions are equal - but the key is that they're equal in producing a win in normal time, not avoiding a loss, which is more what was being argued about. I think the reason is that adjusting the game script is beyond the scope of the model.
Click to expand...
yeah i understood that. i was really just trying to emphasize that math/data goes hand-in-hand with decision making in football. the article debunks a bunch of common ways of thinking when it comes to going for 2, because it works in theory and in practice.

i think the whole "not avoiding a loss" thing goes without saying lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top