Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

What specific career in sports data do you do?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

…and one is providing the methodology of this perfect bot. With where the data comes from.

It’s not blackjack. It’s football

Not sure what strawman bot you’re referring to but you accidentally quoted me.

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

 

[JohnnyU]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

I agree. You don’t have any argument with me on that. It’s just there a lot of variables at play here that a computer model doesn’t account for.

Certainly. Figuring out a simple game like blackjack took years and much modeling, and that does not even come remotely close to the numbers of variables with football and which are also much more complex human performance.. It is very easy to second-guess a call after the fact. It is hard to make real-time decisions and be held accountable. That is why most coaches kick. If it fails, all the blame goes on the kicker.

That’s where we disagree. Coaches (especially younger ones) go for it a lot more than coaches used to. I wish I had the exact stats, but I witness it every time I watch a game.

 

[dgreen]

I think we might have so much bias based on so many years of watching football and the way we expect things should be. We have prior data telling us what "should" happen in certain scenarios that that's our default and we need overwhelming evidence to change our mind. But, I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of asking "Should they go for it or kick the FG?" we asked "Should they do X or Y?" with no knowledge of what X and Y are. Because I'm not sure it really matters what X and Y are. I get the feeling that one side in this discussion don't really differentiate much between "go for it" and "kick the FG". They just see them as "X and Y", while the other sees them as "go for it" and "kick the FG" with a built-in bias of the value of each.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

My guess is nobody is going to share their formula. Teams are probably advanced enough at this point that they consider that stuff confidential.

But, in general, my guess is it is all driven by predicting the probability of success or failure of a particular play, the expected value added of each potential outcome, and the impact that change in expected value has on win probability.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The ironic thing about this entire conversation is that Dan Campbell is about as far from an "analytics" guy as you can get.

I'm sure it helps him that his ultra-aggressive nature is validated by some of the self-anointed analytics left-brained types, but it's far from the basis of his decision-making. That comes from his own intuition and years coaching/playing under guys like Sean Payton.

And yes, momentum is a real thing as it relates to Campbell's decision-making.

"I just felt really good about us converting, getting our momentum, and not letting them play long ball,” Campbell said. “They were bleeding the clock out. That’s what they do, and I wanted to get the upper hand back.

It’s ok for the analytics to be accidentally right about a decision. We all get lucky from time to time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

What specific career in sports data do you do?

I’m in the sportsbook trading industry. Can’t be much more specific than that without basically doxxing myself.

But when you’re wrong about this kind of thing, you just sound stupid to a bunch of strangers on the internet. If I’m wrong about this kind of thing, we lose a bunch of money.

 

[Bankerguy]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

…and one is providing the methodology of this perfect bot. With where the data comes from.

It’s not blackjack. It’s football

Not sure what strawman bot you’re referring to but you accidentally quoted me.

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I’ve not brought up momentum. Calm down.

I fully recognize that it can help (with betting) but it’s not an exact science or you would be a billionaire.

I specifically am talking about wanting to see how the calculations were made. The ones in media saying analytics supported the decision.

I also would love to see what data points are being used to calculate Det’s offense going for 4th and 3 vs. SF defense by throwing to their 3WR on the road on grass.

Please share those…

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I would probably have kicked the 2nd one, but don't blame him at all.

 

[JohnnyU]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

What specific career in sports data do you do?

I’m in the sportsbook trading industry. Can’t be much more specific than that without basically doxxing myself.

But when you’re wrong about this kind of thing, you just sound stupid to a bunch of strangers on the internet. If I’m wrong about this kind of thing, we lose a bunch of money.

Sports betting is dangerous. My stepson is now involved in it. I hope he can control it. Lives are ruined by out of control gambling.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

The analytics were very close. So momentum and the human element should play no factor here and the decision should be made based off of a variance of 0.3%?

Nppe, not what anyone is saying. But if the argument is that Dan Campbell made a mistake, you'd have to show that "momentum" and the "human element" moved the needle so far that the analytics were no longer close. That he should go against his nature and the way he's generally always coached, because the decision was no longer the coin flip that the analytics indicated, but much more in favor of kicking.

No problem, easy:

34-31

 

[Gally]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

It's not a misconception at all. I have been in games where nothing is going your way and you just need something to turn that around. Getting the opportunity for a big turn in momentum is what you are grasping for.

Why didn’t they just stop the game once the 49ers had taken the momentum then, if that’s what they needed?

The scoreboard - which is what we use to determine who wins the game - doesn’t keep track of momentum. It keeps track of points. The 49ers needed points. You don’t need momentum to score points.

This sounds like a comment from someone that has never played a competitive sport. Momentum matters. How to quantify it is impossible and varies from sport to sport and person to person. Football is a very emotional game. Momentum is a factor, but just because it's impossible to quantify doesn't mean it isn't a factor in the course of a game.

Played sports my whole life. My career is in sports data. If momentum was quantifiably predictive of success it would make me rich. I would happily be proven wrong if you or anyone else wants to do it. No one ever does…

It is impossible to quantify the effect momentum has on an emotional game. That's why it hasn't been done. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You keep going with math, math, math which is part of the equation. So is momentum even if you can't accurately quantify it. That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making. It's not as simple as taking 1000 results of 4th and 3 at the XX yd line as being successful 53% of the time across 32 teams in 32 different game situations to say always go for it no matter what.

 

[fantasycurse42]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

I think this is a key point for this exact situation. "you have momentum until - suddenly you don't". At the time SF needed a momentum jolt. The best way they could get this is to get a 4th down stop. By going for it DC is risking SF getting the jolt of momentum they needed to turn the game around. By attempting the FG he is keeping the momentum at status quo. A miss isn't as big of a momentum swing as a 4th down stop. It's good for SF but not as good as a 4th down stop. A blocked FG could rival that swing but that is much less likely than anything else in this scenario.

This is the main reason why I think the FG attempt would have been far and away the correct choice. The downside of not getting the 4th down conversion and subsequent momentum shift was the biggest risk to Detroit it leading to SF getting back into the game. It's not a risk I would have taken.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

The 9ers proved it.

In other words, you can’t and never will. Boring.

The Lions had the momentum for most of the game. Why didn’t they win?

Bc that momentum disappeared at the 7 minute mark of the 3rd quarter.

 

[Football Jones]

At the time SF needed a momentum jolt.

This is a common misconception. They didn’t need momentum, they needed points. If momentum was predictive of points it would be easy to prove. But it’s not.

Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

I think this is a key point for this exact situation. "you have momentum until - suddenly you don't". At the time SF needed a momentum jolt. The best way they could get this is to get a 4th down stop. By going for it DC is risking SF getting the jolt of momentum they needed to turn the game around. By attempting the FG he is keeping the momentum at status quo. A miss isn't as big of a momentum swing as a 4th down stop. It's good for SF but not as good as a 4th down stop. A blocked FG could rival that swing but that is much less likely than anything else in this scenario.

This is the main reason why I think the FG attempt would have been far and away the correct choice. The downside of not getting the 4th down conversion and subsequent momentum shift was the biggest risk to Detroit it leading to SF getting back into the game. It's not a risk I would have taken.

It's almost like momentum = points.

If that was true it would be easy to prove. Can’t wait to see your results.

The 9ers proved it.

In other words, you can’t and never will. Boring.

The Lions had the momentum for most of the game. Why didn’t they win?

Bc that momentum disappeared at the 7 minute mark of the 3rd quarter.

Fo sho

 

[fantasycurse42]

At the end of the day, I think we’re all dug in here and nobody will concede to either side. We’re just going to go in circles on this one. I’d love to withdraw from this, but I’m so on one side of this I find it impossible to. Furthermore, I don’t think I can be persuaded and I don’t think anyone on the DC side can be either.

 

[Football Jones]

Like many things in our world, momentum isn't tangible. It has no precise value. That said, its importance doesn't hinge on its ability to be measured. It's art, not science.

Sports, in particular, is susceptible to its effects. The nerds will be confused, but fear not, nerds...momentum is real and it's a beautiful thing.

 

[Bankerguy]

I think we might have so much bias based on so many years of watching football and the way we expect things should be. We have prior data telling us what "should" happen in certain scenarios that that's our default and we need overwhelming evidence to change our mind. But, I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of asking "Should they go for it or kick the FG?" we asked "Should they do X or Y?" with no knowledge of what X and Y are. Because I'm not sure it really matters what X and Y are. I get the feeling that one side in this discussion don't really differentiate much between "go for it" and "kick the FG". They just see them as "X and Y", while the other sees them as "go for it" and "kick the FG" with a built-in bias of the value of each.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

My guess is nobody is going to share their formula. Teams are probably advanced enough at this point that they consider that stuff confidential.

But, in general, my guess is it is all driven by predicting the probability of success or failure of a particular play, the expected value added of each potential outcome, and the impact that change in expected value has on win probability.

Can we just agree then, that it’s not a science. There is no math that proves Campbell’s decision was “correct”.

 

[Spartans Rule]

It’s also time to put to rest the argument that you “can’t quantify” things like momentum. You can, it just doesn’t matter as much as people think (or, at all). You think our machine learning models can’t look at a data feed of an NFL game and figure out which team “has the momentum?” We do things 1,000x harder than that routinely. If having momentum mattered it would jump right out of the data. It doesn’t. Otherwise one team would get momentum to start the game and never give it up, but obviously that’s not what happens. You have momentum until - suddenly - you don’t.

We’ve all played sports, we know what momentum feels like. It’s just a completely useless predictor of the future.

I played a lot of Strat-O-Matic games growing up, and what fascinated me is how all these unquantifiable human elements - momentum, clutch play, hot streaks, etc. - seem to show up in the same way as real life, even when there are no humans. I could feel the momentum shift from one team to the other. I knew this player would come through in the clutch because he always does. If I showed people logs of those games and told them they were real regular season NFL games from the 90s, they would point out the big momentum swings. But there was no momentum and there were no players. Just a nerdy teenager in his basement rolling dice.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

 

[dgreen]

I think we might have so much bias based on so many years of watching football and the way we expect things should be. We have prior data telling us what "should" happen in certain scenarios that that's our default and we need overwhelming evidence to change our mind. But, I wonder what the reaction would be if instead of asking "Should they go for it or kick the FG?" we asked "Should they do X or Y?" with no knowledge of what X and Y are. Because I'm not sure it really matters what X and Y are. I get the feeling that one side in this discussion don't really differentiate much between "go for it" and "kick the FG". They just see them as "X and Y", while the other sees them as "go for it" and "kick the FG" with a built-in bias of the value of each.

I would simply like to see the math that go into calculating these probabilities.

I’m confident there would be interesting things omitted or over stated. Just my opinion.

My guess is nobody is going to share their formula. Teams are probably advanced enough at this point that they consider that stuff confidential.

But, in general, my guess is it is all driven by predicting the probability of success or failure of a particular play, the expected value added of each potential outcome, and the impact that change in expected value has on win probability.

Can we just agree then, that it’s not a science. There is no math that proves Campbell’s decision was “correct”.

It's possible we define some words differently here, but I don't think I can agree that this doesn't fall in the realm of math and science. I used some math-y/science-y words in my post so it seems weird to then ask me to agree that it's not math/science.

And I don't think many people are arguing there's some 100% lock proof that he was correct and any other decision would be incorrect. It's been mentioned repeatedly that the stats showed a very slight advantage to going for it and I think everyone agrees there's some level of error to these estimates.

 

[Gally]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

I never said I know better than DC. I have said momentum has some affect on football games. I have said I would have attempted the FG. I have said he has made questionable aggressive decisions that are much worse which leads me to believe that he isn't a very good in game coach so maybe he doesn't know what he is doing.

 

[fantasycurse42]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

Can’t it simply be he is a good coach who made a terrible decision?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

I never said I know better than DC. I have said momentum has some affect on football games. I have said I would have attempted the FG. I have said he has made questionable aggressive decisions that are much worse which leads me to believe that he isn't a very good in game coach so maybe he doesn't know what he is doing.

Hmm so then getting paid the big bucks as an NFL coach isn’t an indicator that their experience and knowledge of these intangibles is valuable? Hard to keep it straight when you guys keep changing your minds.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

Can’t it simply be he is a good coach who made a terrible decision?

Sure. He could also be half-human, half-horse. I can’t prove it, obviously, just trust me bro.

 

[Gally]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

I never said I know better than DC. I have said momentum has some affect on football games. I have said I would have attempted the FG. I have said he has made questionable aggressive decisions that are much worse which leads me to believe that he isn't a very good in game coach so maybe he doesn't know what he is doing.

Hmm so then getting paid the big bucks as an NFL coach isn’t an indicator that their experience and knowledge of these intangibles is valuable? Hard to keep it straight when you guys keep changing your minds.

Really? Come on man. There are good coaches and bad coaches. Good coaches are good at making decisions factoring in the math and the emotion. Bad coaches aren't good at doing that and don't coach for long.

The jury is still out on DC as to which side he falls in. To date I am leaning he falls into the bad side of things.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

I never said I know better than DC. I have said momentum has some affect on football games. I have said I would have attempted the FG. I have said he has made questionable aggressive decisions that are much worse which leads me to believe that he isn't a very good in game coach so maybe he doesn't know what he is doing.

Hmm so then getting paid the big bucks as an NFL coach isn’t an indicator that their experience and knowledge of these intangibles is valuable? Hard to keep it straight when you guys keep changing your minds.

Really? Come on man. There are good coaches and bad coaches. Good coaches are good at making decisions factoring in the math and the emotion. Bad coaches aren't good at doing that and don't coach for long.

The jury is still out on DC as to which side he falls in. To date I am leaning he falls into the bad side of things.

You’re the one who used “that’s why they get paid the big bucks” in support of your argument for the importance of all these mystical factors we can’t quantify. If you’re now acknowledging that isn’t actually a good argument, consider it noted.

 

[Gally]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

I never said I know better than DC. I have said momentum has some affect on football games. I have said I would have attempted the FG. I have said he has made questionable aggressive decisions that are much worse which leads me to believe that he isn't a very good in game coach so maybe he doesn't know what he is doing.

Hmm so then getting paid the big bucks as an NFL coach isn’t an indicator that their experience and knowledge of these intangibles is valuable? Hard to keep it straight when you guys keep changing your minds.

Really? Come on man. There are good coaches and bad coaches. Good coaches are good at making decisions factoring in the math and the emotion. Bad coaches aren't good at doing that and don't coach for long.

The jury is still out on DC as to which side he falls in. To date I am leaning he falls into the bad side of things.

You’re the one who used “that’s why they get paid the big bucks” in support of your argument for the importance of all these mystical factors we can’t quantify. If you’re now acknowledging that isn’t actually a good argument, consider it noted.

The point was coaches get paid to make quality decisions factoring in those things. People get paid all the time for things they are bad at......especially coaches. Doesn't change that the reason coaches get paid is to make the right decision. I stand by the statement........but execution isn't always on point. GM's make bad decisions too (hiring bad coaches). Doesn't change the fact coaches get paid "big bucks" to make right decisions. Doesn't mean they always make the right choices....and if they don't do it often enough they will no longer be paid the "big bucks".

If it was all analytics then you wouldn't even need a coach.

 

[fantasycurse42]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

Can’t it simply be he is a good coach who made a terrible decision?

Sure. He could also be half-human, half-horse. I can’t prove it, obviously, just trust me bro.

He took a team that nobody thought was going to do anything and looked like he was heading to the SB. Detroit was roughly -400 midway through the 3rd. Can’t question him doing an excellent job up until that point. The decisions he made were wrong and the outcome is the proof, no trust me bro needed, just outcomes that we’re able to see.

 

[Gally]

That is why coaches get paid the big bucks. Their experience in game play can help influence their decision because it does affect the game. It is a factor that needs to be included in the decision making.

Cool then why do 75% of barely-numerate idiots on a magic football forum think they know better than Dan Campbell did in the moment? Can’t have it both ways.

Can’t it simply be he is a good coach who made a terrible decision?

Of course it can be that. But start rolling out too many bad in game decisions and he starts to move towards the bad coach side of things. The jury is still out. He is a great motivator and seems to be well liked by his team but in-game decisions and outcomes are also part of that equation.

 

[jon_mx]

Dan Campbell follows the analytics and odds more than any coach in the NFL. He also makes some adjustments for how his offense and defense are performing and how confident he is in his kicker. The idea that Campbell is a meathead or stubborn or is gambling is ridiculous. He is extremely analytical and in touch with his players. Campbell puts all his time and heart into this team and makes sound decisions. It is far easier to go with the conventional wisdom and punt or kick the field goal way more than optimal. No one will ever second guess you. It is much more difficult to do what actually gives you the best chance to win and to take the heat if it does not work.

No offense, but I’m not sure Dan could spell math, even if you gave him the A-T-H.

Ok, so you are just trolling.

Nope, I like Dan Campbell the man, the general leader of getting grown men to buy into a vision. Top notch even.

I question his smarts. That’s not trolling.

I again, just want an opportunity to see the math that seems to be supportive of Dan’s decision (whether he used it not).

I will wait for that response.

Lol...it is not a math problem. It is a complex model based on millions of data points and millions of calculations. But taking an 86% chance at continuing going for 7 points a d eating up more clock versus a 73% chance at trying for 3 seems like there is a good chance going for it could be advantageous.

….until it isn’t

Sure. Hitting a 13 against a 10 in blackjack is the optimal play, but just because you win by staying in one case, does not change that.

I agree. You don’t have any argument with me on that. It’s just there a lot of variables at play here that a computer model doesn’t account for.

Certainly. Figuring out a simple game like blackjack took years and much modeling, and that does not even come remotely close to the numbers of variables with football and which are also much more complex human performance.. It is very easy to second-guess a call after the fact. It is hard to make real-time decisions and be held accountable. That is why most coaches kick. If it fails, all the blame goes on the kicker.

That’s where we disagree. Coaches (especially younger ones) go for it a lot more than coaches used to. I wish I had the exact stats, but I witness it every time I watch a game.

Where did you disagree? Young coaches are moving thr league towards going for it more, but still not as much as Dan or optimal. There is still fear of massive backlash for going for it and not making it in key situations. You will never get backlash for 'taking the points', even if the kicker misses.

 

[fantasycurse42]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

human factors

human element

human elements

human element

human factor

momentum

momentum

momentum

momentum

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

We know for a fact that some players play better in the regular season than the playoffs. Coaches do, too. When they play worse when the stakes are higher, we call that "choking." When they play better, we call it "clutch." Analytics doesn't take into account how each and every player, or position, or coach, performs in each and every situation-- especially if they haven't been in that situation yet. We can't assume it will have NO bearing, so we have to make assumptions that analytics can't make about whether someone will come up big or small, or hardly change.

In poker, analytics can't assess whether an opponent is on tilt, which has everything to do with how to play the hand.

Teens who are excellent drivers can fail a test four times because they get nervous when their license depends on it. Some people simply don't test well in general. Excellent lawyers fail the bar multiple times. These are all parts of the human condition.

In the 1990s, a young Shaquille O'Neal-led Magic lost game one of the Finals because Nick Anderson (who made about 2/3 of his free throws in his career) missed four in a row at the end.

In baseball, some baserunners barely try to reach first base when they know their hit will be scooped up by the shortstop. Never mind that there could be an error in catching or a bad throw. They stop trying.

Those are all examples of the human condition, and analytics will have trouble accounting for it. Can we agree that those factors are important, and over-using analytics will leave you at a deficit by ignoring them? If you agree, we can move on to those particular circumstances surrounding the game.

 

[fantasycurse42]

You will never get backlash for 'taking the points', even if the kicker misses.

You will get backlash for losing though. So, making the right decision is still optimal.

 

[fantasycurse42]

human factors

human element

human elements

human element

human factor

momentum

momentum

momentum

momentum

Feel like Eminem in the final 8 Mile battle. "I know everything he's about to say against me." We get it guys. There are "human elements" and "momentum" in football games. We're all familiar with the script you're reading from, it's the same one every time the boogeyman "analytics" gets brought up and has been for the 20+ years I've been here.

All you have to do now is demonstrate that those elements changed the numbers in this situation so drastically that it made the conversion attempt a terrible idea. It doesn't actually prove anything to just keep saying the words "humans" and "momentum" like some kind of magic spell - you have to demonstrate that they are so much more important than the data that it's worth ignoring the data. That's the part you all keep forgetting to do.

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

We know for a fact that some players play better in the regular season than the playoffs. Coaches do, too. When they play worse when the stakes are higher, we call that "choking." When they play better, we call it "clutch." Analytics doesn't take into account how each and every player, or position, or coach, performs in each and every situation-- especially if they haven't been in that situation yet. We can't assume it will have NO bearing, so we have to make assumptions that analytics can't make about whether someone will come up big or small, or hardly change.

In poker, analytics can't assess whether an opponent is on tilt, which has everything to do with how to play the hand.

Teens who are excellent drivers can fail a test four times because they get nervous when they their license depends on it. Some people simply don't test well in general. Excellent lawyers fail the bar multiple times. These are all parts of the human condition.

In the 1990s, a young Shaquille O'Neal-led Magic lost game one of the Finals because Nick Anderson (who made about 2/3 of his free throws in his career) missed four in a row at the end.

In baseball, some baserunners barely try to reach first base when they know their hit will be scooped up by the shortstop. Never mind that there could be an error in catching or a bad throw. They stop trying.

Those are all examples of the human condition, and analytics will have trouble accounting for it. Can we agree that those factors are important, and over-using analytics will leave you at a deficit by ignoring them? If you agree, we can move on to those particular circumstances surrounding the game.

@Ignoratio Elenchi

This is a good post that deserves a thought out response. I'd also appreciate a yes/no on my question if you actually believe momentum is real when you respond to this.

 

[Gally]

Those are all examples of the human condition, and analytics will have trouble accounting for it. Can we agree that those factors are important, and over-using analytics will leave you at a deficit by ignoring them? If you agree, we can move on to those particular circumstances surrounding the game.

Your entire post is well said.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It appears this thread has hit a dead end.

It might have run its course.

Kind of like Jack Torrance in the maze when he freezes to death.

Spoilers!!

 

[jabarony]

This thread is a mess. But a serious question for the analytics hounds in here - Could you provide the data that shows going for it was the right call? Based on what? I'm looking for details outside of TD > FG. I'm truly interested.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

Nope.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

Why are you asking me to agree before you demonstrate it? Just demonstrate it. You guys keep dancing around the thing. If you believe you can show that momentum is something that can be used to improve decision-making, then just show it instead of claiming that you could and asking me to agree.

I'd love it if you did, by the way, it would be worth a lot of money.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

Why are you asking me to agree before you demonstrate it? Just demonstrate it. You guys keep dancing around the thing. If you believe you can show that momentum is something that can be used to improve decision-making, then just show it instead of claiming that you could and asking me to agree.

I'd love it if you did, by the way, it would be worth a lot of money.

Because I don't want to waste our time and I don't want to argue multiple things at once. If we can find common ground, and agree that the "human factor" COULD make a very big difference that analytics is not designed to assess (as in the examples I gave across multiple scenarios in life) then we can establish that and move on to whether those conditions were present in those particular situations.

Do you agree that this human factor could make such a difference? As in, we've seen it happen in other circumstances so it could theoretically apply here?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

Why are you asking me to agree before you demonstrate it? Just demonstrate it. You guys keep dancing around the thing. If you believe you can show that momentum is something that can be used to improve decision-making, then just show it instead of claiming that you could and asking me to agree.

I'd love it if you did, by the way, it would be worth a lot of money.

Because I don't want to waste our time and I don't want to argue multiple things at once. If we can find common ground, and agree that the "human factor" COULD make a very big difference that analytics is not designed to assess (as in the examples I gave across multiple scenarios in life) then we can establish that and move on to whether those conditions were present in those particular situations.

Do you agree that this human factor could make such a difference? As in, we've seen it happen in other circumstances so it could theoretically apply here?

You're still doing the thing. The human factor could be overwhelmingly important. It could be also be the kind of meaningless apophenia humans are constantly falling for. If you think you can prove the former, just do it. Or don't, if you're worried it would be a waste of your time.

 

[fantasycurse42]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

Nope.

Thanks, do you think it is pointless to measure, or it is not measurable?

 

[fantasycurse42]

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

Why are you asking me to agree before you demonstrate it? Just demonstrate it. You guys keep dancing around the thing. If you believe you can show that momentum is something that can be used to improve decision-making, then just show it instead of claiming that you could and asking me to agree.

I'd love it if you did, by the way, it would be worth a lot of money.

Because I don't want to waste our time and I don't want to argue multiple things at once. If we can find common ground, and agree that the "human factor" COULD make a very big difference that analytics is not designed to assess (as in the examples I gave across multiple scenarios in life) then we can establish that and move on to whether those conditions were present in those particular situations.

Do you agree that this human factor could make such a difference? As in, we've seen it happen in other circumstances so it could theoretically apply here?

You're still doing the thing. The human factor could be overwhelmingly important. It could be also be the kind of meaningless apophenia humans are constantly falling for. If you think you can prove the former, just do it. Or don't, if you're worried it would be a waste of your time.

I think he's just trying to find some common ground, somewhere where we can meet and stop going in circles.

 

[Gally]

I can show how it changes numbers. We can discuss how it changes those particular numbers, but if you agree with me we can at least accept that numbers DO change based on human factors, including momentum.

Why are you asking me to agree before you demonstrate it? Just demonstrate it. You guys keep dancing around the thing. If you believe you can show that momentum is something that can be used to improve decision-making, then just show it instead of claiming that you could and asking me to agree.

I'd love it if you did, by the way, it would be worth a lot of money.

Here are the points where momentum swung to SF with my experienced *calculation of the momentum shift:

• SF stopping (or getting lucky Reynolds dropped a pass) Det on 4th down changed some momentum (swing from Detroit with momentum to favor SF momentum at 5%).
• 50 yd pass that clanged off Det helmet for a completion increased SF momentum/confidence (+10%).
• TD by SF to bring the game to within 7 points increased SF momentum (+20%).
• Detroit fumble deep in their territory increased SF momentum (+25%)
• SF scores tying TD increased SF momentum (+20%)
• Det 3 and out (+5%)
• SF 11 play drive for FG (+5%)
• Det loss of downs (+5%)
• SF TD to take 10 pt lead with 4 minutes left (+5%)
• Det 11 play drive for TD with under a minute left (no momentum change because game is essentially over)

*Percentages are estimates based on game flow and experience watching/playing football over the years. Not an exact calculation with margin of error +/-75%


To take it a step further I would put these percentages on some of the decision points:

• Go for it on 4th down and make it: Increase Det momentum by 5%
• Miss on 4th down: swing momentum from Det favor to minor SF favor
• Make FG to go up 3 scores: momentum stays in Det favor of 30%
• Miss FG: loss of 20% momentum in Det favor to bring it down to 10%
• Go for it on 4th in lieu of tying FG and make it: bring momentum in game significantly down but still in SF favor of about 30% (not better because you haven't tied the game or taken the lead but it is a big swipe at the overall momentum)
• Go for it and don't get it: Adds to SF momentum to a healthy 95%
• Kick tying FG and make it: bring momentum significantly down to about SF of 10%
• Kick FG but miss it: Adds to SF momentum to a healthy 95%
• Run on 3rd and goal and burn a timeout: All momentum goes to SF because game is over.

NOTE: Momentum calculations are impossible to calculate especially if you are not in the game. It is not quantifiable but is present.

 

[dgreen]

This thread is a mess. But a serious question for the analytics hounds in here - Could you provide the data that shows going for it was the right call? Based on what? I'm looking for details outside of TD > FG. I'm truly interested.

This was posted earlier: https://forums.footballguys.com/thr...the-2nd-half-of-the-nfcc.811879/post-24837066

Is that what you're looking for? Or something more detailed?

 

[fantasycurse42]

I enjoyed the footnote/citation at the bottom the most!

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

Nope.

Thanks, do you think it is pointless to measure, or it is not measurable?

Anything's measurable if it's well-defined. That's problem A - people use the term "momentum" to vaguely refer to certain circumstances whenever it's convenient for them. There's no definition of what momentum is. It's just a feeling people have sometimes that comes and then - more importantly - goes without notice. Like I said earlier, you have momentum until suddenly you don't. The Lions had all the momentum. Then they lost.

Once you define it, then there would absolutely be value in measuring it. Maybe you'd even find that it IS predictive of future success. That would be a really cool and valuable finding. All the attempts that I'm aware of have failed to do so.

 

[fantasycurse42]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

Nope.

Thanks, do you think it is pointless to measure, or it is not measurable?

Anything's measurable if it's well-defined. That's problem A - people use the term "momentum" to vaguely refer to certain circumstances whenever it's convenient for them. There's no definition of what momentum is. It's just a feeling people have sometimes that comes and then - more importantly - goes without notice. Like I said earlier, you have momentum until suddenly you don't. The Lions had all the momentum. Then they lost.

Once you define it, then there would absolutely be value in measuring it. Maybe you'd even find that it IS predictive of future success. That would be a really cool and valuable finding. All the attempts that I'm aware of have failed to do so.

This is fair, I like this response, and I certainly agree with some of it. I also think @Neil Beaufort Zod brought up some very clever scenarios that cloud the data. The base runner not running to first was a good one.

 

[dgreen]

I think "momentum" is usually used in sports to describe a situation where there was a turn in win probability from one team to another and that turn continued in one team's favor for a certain amount of time. (I don't think they'd put it in those terms, but I think that's the idea.) It's generally something people identify in hindsight and say, "See, that play shifted the momentum!" However, what I think is really going on is a series of mostly independent plays. For example, I don't think Ayuk caught a 51 yard pass that bounced off of the defender's head because Detroit failed on a 4th down conversion two plays earlier. That wasn't momentum. That was a fluke play that happened to go in favor of the same team that benefited from the failed 4th down attempt.

Either that or I usually hear it used to describe the general demeanor of the players. One team is excited while the other has their heads down and hands on their hips. And I didn't see anything like that in this game. I didn't see the Lions slouching after Campbell supposedly killed their momentum.

 

[JohnnyU]

It’s not blackjack and yet professional sports bettors exist. Do you think they rely on data science, or poorly-defined hooey like “momentum?”

I want to understand one thing here:

are you arguing that momentum doesn't exist?

Nope.

Thanks, do you think it is pointless to measure, or it is not measurable?

Anything's measurable if it's well-defined. That's problem A - people use the term "momentum" to vaguely refer to certain circumstances whenever it's convenient for them. There's no definition of what momentum is. It's just a feeling people have sometimes that comes and then - more importantly - goes without notice. Like I said earlier, you have momentum until suddenly you don't. The Lions had all the momentum. Then they lost.

Once you define it, then there would absolutely be value in measuring it. Maybe you'd even find that it IS predictive of future success. That would be a really cool and valuable finding. All the attempts that I'm aware of have failed to do so.

It’s a form of human emotion that can be changed by what happen during the game, giving the team that possesses it an added boost of positive energy. That is my definition of momentum. Of course you can’t measure it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Anything's measurable if it's well-defined. That's problem A - people use the term "momentum" to vaguely refer to certain circumstances whenever it's convenient for them. There's no definition of what momentum is. It's just a feeling people have sometimes that comes and then - more importantly - goes without notice. Like I said earlier, you have momentum until suddenly you don't. The Lions had all the momentum. Then they lost.

Once you define it, then there would absolutely be value in measuring it. Maybe you'd even find that it IS predictive of future success. That would be a really cool and valuable finding. All the attempts that I'm aware of have failed to do so.

It’s a form of human emotion that can be changed by what happen during the game, giving the team that possesses it an added boost of positive energy. That is my definition of momentum. Of course you can’t measure it.

Well that sounds extremely measurable. We have enormous sets of play-by-play and tracking data that tells us what happen during the game, so we should easily be able to see that when teams make good plays, they gain momentum, which presumably makes them more likely to be successful on subsequent plays. Except it turns out that's not what happens.