Jump to content

The 2020 NFL thread...14 teams in the playoffs? A 17 game regular season? wtf???


laughedatbytime
 Share

Recommended Posts

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

The major problem with baseball, at least IMO, is the unequal resources teams have to work with. The least interesting baseball was when the two most unlikable teams, Red Sox and Yankees were playing four and a half hours every Sunday night.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we just need to hide to avoid hearing all the pre-game pablum. This year's captain obvious is 'hey the buccaneers are playing in their home stadium!'. Soon to replace the 'hey the coaches are brothers!' in popularity.

 

Ever watch the superbowl in a room of people that watch one game a year? It's a special slice of hell; 'I just watch to see the commercials', 'wow they both have red in their uniforms...how do they tell who's on their team?', 'doesn't brady play for the New England team?'.

 

One question that's definitely been answered: was it belichick or brady carrying the Pats all these years. It's Brady bitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

The major problem with baseball, at least IMO, is the unequal resources teams have to work with. The least interesting baseball was when the two most unlikable teams, Red Sox and Yankees were playing four and a half hours every Sunday night.

 

So you're a closet socialist then? If fair competition is what you want financially, then you need to drastically reduce the amount of teams in the major league. Set it up like the British Premier league with a lower tier that teams can be relegated to if they suck. Why should the Yankees be penalised because Cincinnati is Cincinnati?

 

Every team is playing longer games now. Watching 10 pictures take 45 seconds between pitches to strike out 25 guys a game who are only trying to hit home runs anyway has become boring as hell no matter who the teams are. That is the only way for teams like Tampa for Oakland to compete means perhaps they don't belong in the league after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

The major problem with baseball, at least IMO, is the unequal resources teams have to work with. The least interesting baseball was when the two most unlikable teams, Red Sox and Yankees were playing four and a half hours every Sunday night.

 

So you're a closet socialist then? If fair competition is what you want financially, then you need to drastically reduce the amount of teams in the major league. Set it up like the British Premier league with a lower tier that teams can be relegated to if they suck. Why should the Yankees be penalised because Cincinnati is Cincinnati?

 

Every team is playing longer games now. Watching 10 pictures take 45 seconds between pitches to strike out 25 guys a game who are only trying to hit home runs anyway has become boring as hell no matter who the teams are. That is the only way for teams like Tampa for Oakland to compete means perhaps they don't belong in the league after all.

i'm all for equality of opportunity in Major League Baseball.

 

Maybe it's the Yankees who should be relegated for wasting all of their advantages and winning zero World Series the last decade. Sad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

The major problem with baseball, at least IMO, is the unequal resources teams have to work with. The least interesting baseball was when the two most unlikable teams, Red Sox and Yankees were playing four and a half hours every Sunday night.

 

So you're a closet socialist then? If fair competition is what you want financially, then you need to drastically reduce the amount of teams in the major league. Set it up like the British Premier league with a lower tier that teams can be relegated to if they suck. Why should the Yankees be penalised because Cincinnati is Cincinnati?

 

Every team is playing longer games now. Watching 10 pictures take 45 seconds between pitches to strike out 25 guys a game who are only trying to hit home runs anyway has become boring as hell no matter who the teams are. That is the only way for teams like Tampa for Oakland to compete means perhaps they don't belong in the league after all.

i'm all for equality of opportunity in Major League Baseball.

 

Maybe it's the Yankees who should be relegated for wasting all of their advantages and winning zero World Series the last decade. Sad!

 

It's always fun debating with you until you start getting like this. Gee, if I insult his team he'll get mad. You did it earlier with Eli, and you it a lot with other folks in SOCN. Sticking to the one insult that must've worked one time. I don't know whether you run out of things to say, or perhaps you have that Trumpian trait that you have to try and knock other things down because of your own bitterness. Either way, that's generally my sign to check out. It was nice for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

So the main difference in the game was Tampa Bay gave their star a chance to do something special from near midfield at the end of the 1st half, and Green Bay didn't with a 1st and goal at the end of the game.

I don't think the decision to go for it was that cut and dried. Let's say you had the following probabilities:

 

40% chance of scoring the TD

50% chance of the two point conversion

100% chance of making the FG

50% chance of keeping the Bucs from running out the clock

50% of keeping the Bucs from scoring with the game tied

60% chance of the Packers kicking a game winning FG

30% chance of the Packers scoring a TD to tie the game

50% chance for the team winning in OT

 

if these were the actual probabilities, kicking the FG would give you a 15% chance of winning and going for the TD would give you 13.25% chance. (Keep in mind these scenarios don't completely define the universe of things that could happen but come pretty close. With different odds the resukts would be different, if you're interested, please give me your estimates and I can run them through. But it's not a no brainer to go for it unless you find the probabilities to be considerably different.

 

I don't have a clue about any statistical probabilities. I just know Aaron Rodgers is the league MVP this year and had a first and goal from the 8. You let your star take the reins at that point.

WWMATMDD, huh?

 

If that means stop letting stat geeks take over decision making in sports, then yes. It cost Green Bay yesterday. It cost the Rays in the World Series. The games are not played on laptops.

Optimal decision making doesn't guarantee success but it maximizes the probability of it. The Rays wouldn't have even been in the World Series without it.

 

And baseball is finally realising, probably too late, that it is destroying their game.

I don't agree, but even if it's true they can adjust the rules to produce the game they want and the analytics people would be forced to adjust. There are still optimized strategies that should be considered.

 

It's why they hired Theo Epstein. An attempt to undo the damage he helped inflict on the game.

 

The major problem with baseball, at least IMO, is the unequal resources teams have to work with. The least interesting baseball was when the two most unlikable teams, Red Sox and Yankees were playing four and a half hours every Sunday night.

 

So you're a closet socialist then? If fair competition is what you want financially, then you need to drastically reduce the amount of teams in the major league. Set it up like the British Premier league with a lower tier that teams can be relegated to if they suck. Why should the Yankees be penalised because Cincinnati is Cincinnati?

 

Every team is playing longer games now. Watching 10 pictures take 45 seconds between pitches to strike out 25 guys a game who are only trying to hit home runs anyway has become boring as hell no matter who the teams are. That is the only way for teams like Tampa for Oakland to compete means perhaps they don't belong in the league after all.

i'm all for equality of opportunity in Major League Baseball.

 

Maybe it's the Yankees who should be relegated for wasting all of their advantages and winning zero World Series the last decade. Sad!

 

It's always fun debating with you until you start getting like this. Gee, if I insult his team he'll get mad. You did it earlier with Eli, and you it a lot with other folks in SOCN. Sticking to the one insult that must've worked one time. I don't know whether you run out of things to say, or perhaps you have that Trumpian trait that you have to try and knock other things down because of your own bitterness. Either way, that's generally my sign to check out. It was nice for a bit.

We were about done anyway; we're at an impasse since we obviously value different things in these sports.

 

I will admit that the shots at Eli were gratuitous.

 

But not inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know we are at an impasse? Since we both know a salary cap will virtually never happen, baseball has to do something to stay viable. Especially if as rumoured, the nba moves the start of its season to Christmas Day which would push it out to late August. That will kill baseball both in national and regional ratings. Regional revenue will shrink drastically because the networks now have something else to fill the programming time with.

 

And say what you want about Eli, he gets to ride Gisele whenever he wants.

Edited by edhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure MLB and the NBA have a lot of overlap in appeal. At least in baseball the outcome isn't predetermined in nearly as many cases as the NBA. The Cavs, when they beat the Warriors in 2016, had as much chance, a priori, as the worst team in baseball had of beating the best in a four game series. The vast majority of regular season NBA games are also meaningless, though that could be argued for MLB too I guess.) And even the opening two rounds of playoffs are pretty much faits accompli.

 

It will be interesting to see how sports are delivered five years from now; things seem to be moving to streaming. It may be that all teams will have their own networks. As is the case for The Analog Cub, MLB HAS fubared their local TV deals. I hope they hire someone savvy enough to do it right and maybe it's too optimistic to expect they'll do it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article on regional sports network raings for MLB vs NBA. MLB certainly holds their own.

 

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/contextualizing-mlb-s-regional-business-dominance-compared-to-the-nba-01dwa6f4r11s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Future Looks Bright! Department:

 

The Packers have fired their Defensive Coordinator and Special Teams Coach.

 

 

 

applause-o.gif

 

 

 

:haz: :haz: :haz:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21) Edited by laughedatbytime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

 

The Lions should rename themselves the Bandits. :laughing guy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the NFL Network coverage of the trade. A ton of Stafford highlights. All positive. A ton of Goff highlights...a ton of picks, fumbles and misfires.

 

I'm not so sure the Lions made out all that well. The first-round picks are probably going to be in the low to mid 20s, and the Lions aren't exactly known for drafting acumen (though I know you can't make that assumption if you're the Lions). But then they have to take on Goff's contract, about $43 million guaranteed over two years I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do Rams fans think of the deal?

 

This is not good at all... 2 first rounders and a third for a mediocre QB, plus dead money. Just backwards. I d be ok if it was Watson or ARod. We re not dumping salary at this point. We’re mortgaging the future on Stafford. I like Stafford... I don’t like the deal at all. Snead and the FO is being outsold on every single deal.

 

whoever made this deal needs firing asap. worst deal in the history of the rams imo.

 

The fact people are saying Stafford is a top 5 qb just shows how delusional people are. Mahomes, Jackson, Watson, Allen, Brady, Wilson, Rodgers, Murray, herbert, burrow 'before injury' etc are all better then him.

 

Did we really spent FIVE firsts on Goff, 3 to get him and 2 to lose him wow, this guy should change his name to Moriarty or something

 

Lions fans are happy they got all those picks for an average qb. Stafford is basically a slightly better and older version then goff and the rams gave up 2 first rounders for him. When the rams are bounced from the playoffs this year then what will the excuse be then??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

First of all, the Rams had lost faith in a QB they were committed to for at least two years with $43 million guaranteed, who they needed to get rid of. Secondly, Stafford had been in a situation that was a clusterfuck for a long time and had outperformed Goff by a substantial margin in context. Despite their age differences Stafford will be an NFL starter after Goff is. The Rams are built to win now and this gives them a better chance to do so. All IMO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

First of all, the Rams had lost faith in a QB they were committed to for at least two years with $43 million guaranteed, who they needed to get rid of. Secondly, Stafford had been in a situation that was a clusterfuck for a long time and had outperformed Goff by a substantial margin in context. Despite their age differences Stafford will be an NFL starter after Goff is. The Rams are built to win now and this gives them a better chance to do so. All IMO of course.

If the Saints had traded a 2nd rounder for Stafford, I would think it was an ok deal, a 3rd and I would have been happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

First of all, the Rams had lost faith in a QB they were committed to for at least two years with $43 million guaranteed, who they needed to get rid of. Secondly, Stafford had been in a situation that was a clusterfuck for a long time and had outperformed Goff by a substantial margin in context. Despite their age differences Stafford will be an NFL starter after Goff is. The Rams are built to win now and this gives them a better chance to do so. All IMO of course.

If the Saints had traded a 2nd rounder for Stafford, I would think it was an ok deal, a 3rd and I would have been happier.

Now imagine if you had a quickly fading Brees with $43 million guaranteed over the next two years.

 

According to reports, there were six teams with offers including 2021 #1s making the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

First of all, the Rams had lost faith in a QB they were committed to for at least two years with $43 million guaranteed, who they needed to get rid of. Secondly, Stafford had been in a situation that was a clusterfuck for a long time and had outperformed Goff by a substantial margin in context. Despite their age differences Stafford will be an NFL starter after Goff is. The Rams are built to win now and this gives them a better chance to do so. All IMO of course.

If the Saints had traded a 2nd rounder for Stafford, I would think it was an ok deal, a 3rd and I would have been happier.

Now imagine if you had a quickly fading Brees with $43 million guaranteed over the next two years.

 

According to reports, there were six teams with offers including 2021 #1s making the offer.

Washington offered a better deal but Stafford wanted to go to LA so they did him a favour.

 

We've already done that with Brees for the last 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stafford to Rams for Goff, 2 first rounders (2022 and 23) and a third rounder (21)

Stafford isn't much better than Goff and he's older, gets injured now and his contract isn't much different to Goofs. Rams got fleeced!

First of all, the Rams had lost faith in a QB they were committed to for at least two years with $43 million guaranteed, who they needed to get rid of. Secondly, Stafford had been in a situation that was a clusterfuck for a long time and had outperformed Goff by a substantial margin in context. Despite their age differences Stafford will be an NFL starter after Goff is. The Rams are built to win now and this gives them a better chance to do so. All IMO of course.

If the Saints had traded a 2nd rounder for Stafford, I would think it was an ok deal, a 3rd and I would have been happier.

Now imagine if you had a quickly fading Brees with $43 million guaranteed over the next two years.

 

According to reports, there were six teams with offers including 2021 #1s making the offer.

Washington offered a better deal but Stafford wanted to go to LA so they did him a favour.

 

We've already done that with Brees for the last 2 years.

What did WAS offer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...