What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Indianapolis (8-6) at Arizona (10-4)*** (-3) O/U 48.5 The Carson Claus-Elf Murray Bowl, full of fruits and nuts (1 Viewer)

travdogg said:
If I'm being honest, I think Brown is a better WR than Godwin or Evans. 
Click to expand...
From what I saw this year, when AB is healthy, he's the best of the three, besides Evans's size advantage and Godwin's all-around toughness. 

His problem is age. Injuries happen with it. 

 
rockaction said:
That's pretty optimistic. 20+? I can see a nine or ten point spread, but no more than that. 
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the spread will be 20+, but Carolina and the Jets are circling the drain, with awful QB play, and middling(at best) defenses. I don't see either team putting up more than 14 points on TB, and I can't see TB under 30 against either team. 

I especially think TB will have a chip on their shoulder after that NO game.

 
I’d rather just take one more shot at the endzone on 3rd down then finally taking the field goal at that point in the drive. 

 
travdogg said:
Ministry of Pain said:
At what point will Coach KK show how smart he is and kick the FG, extending the game to an onside kick opportunity for the Cardinals? Should he try and kick it right now? Will he just go TD or Bust? 
Click to expand...
I think you wait until its under a minute at least to do that. 
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure it's the right move. You are going to need a TD to win, so isn't a drive where you're already at the 10 a good time to try to get it? 

Then again, as a Prater manager I'll take the 3pts.

 
dmac37 said:
I get that it is Christmas Day but guy in our $200 money league left Conner in his starting lineup in the semi final, $900 for first place.
Click to expand...
Christmas Day is really tough. Family situations are wildly different. Sometimes even checking phones is not an option depending on the setting. That stinks, though I'll bet nobody feels worse than he does. 

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I'm not so sure it's the right move. You are going to need a TD to win, so isn't a drive where you're already at the 10 a good time to try to get it? 

Then again, as a Prater manager I'll take the 3pts.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. The point of the two-score issue is to kick the field goal from a distance to begin with. Once you've used that time to get to around the fifteen, you go for the score. 

 
rockaction said:
Yes, exactly. The point of the two-score issue is to kick the field goal from a distance to begin with. Once you've used that time to get to around the fifteen, you go for the score. 
Click to expand...
Would love to see a Chase Stuart type break down all the permutations of that type of situation.

The one that bugs me the most is when a team is down 10 (or even worse, 11) and announcers are urging them to kick the FG. In those situations, you should almost always try to score the TD, because then you also have the possibility of scoring a second TD and winning in regulation. Also, if you're down 11 and you score a TD, you get to go for two right away and then know whether you still need another TD or a FG.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Also, if you're down 11 and you score a TD, you get to go for two right away and then know whether you still need another TD or a FG.
Click to expand...
I agree with your post. But I quoted this because something had occurred to me a long time ago about this. Depending on the situation, knowing that you need to go for a touchdown vs. a field goal is overrated. You might want to save that knowledge until the end, because their coach will adjust his own game plan to milk clock if you need more than a touchdown. To wit: A 35-20 game. You might score a touchdown and have a choice of a two-point conversion or an extra point. Most analytic models say to go for two, so that you know if you need more than one more score so that you can plan appropriately. 

What those models (and who knows whose models are whose and what "analytics" announcers are talking about) don't tell you is that if you fail the two-point conversion, you're now down nine, which makes it a two-score game. The other coach can then adapt with this (perfect) knowledge and just run clock or run plays that run clock, whereas if it's a one-score game, he might not do that. 

Anyway, it's a small quibble with a game situation that I have where the overwhelming analytical majority says go for two, but I'd rather go for one and leave the score to catch up to as eight. And there really is no "assume the other team will score more points" to be made, because if they do score another, you're sunk anyway. 

At the point I'm talking about, and in that situation, it actually behooves one to go for the XP because of game theory and the finite time nature of time-kept games. 

I think people forget that the assumption made by the models forgets what perfectly held knowledge means and how it relates to the game itself. The other coach knows the score. It's not mysterious like a play call. The longer you can get away from letting them use this perfect knowledge for their own gain, the better off you are, actually. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I agree with your post. But I quoted this because something had occurred to me a long time ago about this. Depending on the situation, knowing that you need to go for a touchdown vs. a field goal is overrated. You might want to save that knowledge until the end, because their coach will adjust his own game plan to milk clock if you need a touchdown. To wit: A 35-20 game. You might score a touchdown and have a choice of a two-point conversion or an extra point. Most analytic models say to go for two, so that you know if you need more than one more score so that you can plan appropriately. 

What those models (and who knows whose models are whose and what "analytics" announcers are talking about) don't tell you is that if you fail the two-point conversion, you're now down nine, which makes it a two-score game. The other coach can then adapt with this perfect knowledge and just run clock or run plays that run clock, whereas if it's a one-score game, he might not do that. 

Anyway, it's a small quibble with a game situation that I have where the overwhelming analytical majority says go for two, but I'd rather go for one and leave the score to catch up to as eight. And there really is no "assume the other team will score more points" to be made, because if they do score another, you're sunk anyway. 

At the point I'm talking about, and in that situation, it actually behooves one to go for the XP because of game theory and the finite time nature of time-kept games. 
Click to expand...


so basically you'd rather not find out bad news until you're totally ####ed. Got it.

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Would love to see a Chase Stuart type break down all the permutations of that type of situation.

The one that bugs me the most is when a team is down 10 (or even worse, 11) and announcers are urging them to kick the FG. In those situations, you should almost always try to score the TD, because then you also have the possibility of scoring a second TD and winning in regulation. Also, if you're down 11 and you score a TD, you get to go for two right away and then know whether you still need another TD or a FG.
Click to expand...
The rationale for the 3rd down FG, I believe, is to avoid a rushed FG in the event of a bad snap or player with the ball in bounds and the clock running.

 
Army Eye said:
They need a TD + FG.  They just passed up prime field position for that touchdown. 
Click to expand...


I think the only time kicking the FG first makes sense is if you save enough time to theoretically get the ball back if you DON'T recover the onside.  Once they lost that opportunity, agreed they should have went for the TD at least 1 more play

 
JaxBill said:
so basically you'd rather not find out bad news until you're totally ####ed. Got it.
Click to expand...
No, that's not it at all. Why give the other team the advantage of knowing they're up two scores? It's the same information that is shared by both teams. People forget both sides use that information and that it affects game play and how plays are called, which is not to the losing team's advantage in the fifteen point scenario I just laid out. If there's eight or so minutes left to go, the other team can just kill clock up two scores if you don't make it. They have much less incentive to kill clock with eight minutes left if they're up only one theoretical score. 

But yes, it does mean you wait until the end to find out if you're successful. But we're big boys, and so long as it increases WP or XP, then we should do it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I agree with your post. But I quoted this because something had occurred to me a long time ago about this. Depending on the situation, knowing that you need to go for a touchdown vs. a field goal is overrated. You might want to save that knowledge until the end, because their coach will adjust his own game plan to milk clock if you need a touchdown. To wit: A 35-20 game. You might score a touchdown and have a choice of a two-point conversion or an extra point. Most analytic models say to go for two, so that you know if you need more than one more score so that you can plan appropriately. 

What those models (and who knows whose models are whose and what "analytics" announcers are talking about) don't tell you is that if you fail the two-point conversion, you're now down nine, which makes it a two-score game. The other coach can then adapt with this perfect knowledge and just run clock or run plays that run clock, whereas if it's a one-score game, he might not do that. 

Anyway, it's a small quibble with a game situation that I have where the overwhelming analytical majority says go for two, but I'd rather go for one and leave the score to catch up to as eight. And there really is no "assume the other team will score more points" to be made, because if they do score another, you're sunk anyway. 

At the point I'm talking about, and in that situation, it actually behooves one to go for the XP because of game theory and the finite time nature of time-kept games. 
Click to expand...


One quibble: The argument that you should go for two in that situation is not based on "analytics", in the sense that doing so increases your WP by X%. It is, in fact, based on game theory.

(By contrast, the argument that you should go for two if you're down 14 and score a TD is an analytic one; I think the base-case scenario is that it increases your WP by 12%.)

Anyway, I think your point is a good one, and I don't know enough about game theory to answer you definitively, but I think there's a thing where you can end up in an infinite loop of overanalyzing each side's reaction to the other side's decisions and there's ultimately no correct answer (think of the poison scene in "Princess Bride")

 
rockaction said:
No, that's not it at all. Why give the other team the advantage of knowing they're up two scores? It's the same information that is shared by both teams. People forget both sides use that information and that it affects game play and how plays are called, which is not to the losing team's advantage in the fifteen point scenario I just laid out. If there's eight or so minutes left to go, the other team can just kill clock up two scores if you don't make it. They have much less incentive to kill clock with eight minutes left if they're up only one theoretical score. 

But yes, it does mean you wait until the end to find out if you're successful. But we're big boys, and so long as it increases WP or XP, then we should do it. 
Click to expand...


Either way, the Big Boys need to make a stop.  Sometimes trying to kill clock backfires for the team in the lead. 

Of course the other team knows how big their lead is. That's ridiculous. 

But if you'd rather find out that you're out of options inside of a minute instead of exploring earlier options, more power to you.

 
JaxBill said:
Either way, the Big Boys need to make a stop.  Sometimes trying to kill clock backfires for the team in the lead. 

Of course the other team knows how big their lead is. That's ridiculous. 

But if you'd rather find out that you're out of options inside of a minute instead of exploring earlier options, more power to you.
Click to expand...
I think my "Big Boys" comment means that the knowledge that you've left to be determined will actually help you because it decreases the other team's knowledge of the score. It means you're going to have to have to look at the loss of your own knowledge of events and forget about it, because not knowing actually puts you in the advantage as far as game theory goes. In the situation I posit, the other team actually reaps the advantage of knowing more than you do, because they have the next possession once the score gets flipped. Especially if you don't make it and you're down two scores. All other things being constant, you should take the one-point conversion first. Traditionalists had this right, but for the wrong reasons. 

My point about my "ridiculous" perfect knowledge is that not a lot of these "pure" go-for-two/don't-go-for-two models take into account the assumption that both teams will know the score and they posit that it's only your team that adjusts, which would of course be beneficial. The other team adjusts as well, and their adjustments may leave you at a disadvantage because it is a finite event (a block of time) within which the game happens. 

 
ignatiusjreilly said:
One quibble: The argument that you should go for two in that situation is not based on "analytics", in the sense that doing so increases your WP by X%. It is, in fact, based on game theory.

(By contrast, the argument that you should go for two if you're down 14 and score a TD is an analytic one; I think the base-case scenario is that it increases your WP by 12%.)

Anyway, I think your point is a good one, and I don't know enough about game theory to answer you definitively, but I think there's a thing where you can end up in an infinite loop of overanalyzing each side's reaction to the other side's decisions and there's ultimately no correct answer (think of the poison scene in "Princess Bride")
Click to expand...
Thanks. I should have not integrated the two. What I was envisioning was a probabilistic matrix that took play calling into account. Perhaps that asks too much. 

I generally trust that the advances made in going for it and which conversion to attempt are beyond my ken. But I've never seen this particular point argued. If it falls under the rubric of game theory or analytics really isn't my concern. What I would be concerned with is the maximum probability of tying the game, which I think going for one in this situation does. 

 
rockaction said:
Thanks. I should have not integrated the two. What I was envisioning was a probabilistic matrix that took play calling into account. Perhaps that asks too much. 

I generally trust that the advances made in going for it and which conversion to attempt are beyond my ken. But I've never seen this particular point argued. If it falls under the rubric of game theory or analytics really isn't my concern. What I would be concerned with is the maximum probability of tying the game, which I think going for one in this situation does. 
Click to expand...
No, it's definitely a fair point. I think one of the challenges of game theory is that you can spend not enough time considering your opponent's reaction or you can spend too much, and it's never entirely clear which is the greater danger. I first learned about it in the context of the Cold War, and the efforts American strategists were making to get inside the heads of their Soviet counterparts were both fascinating and terrifying (since making the wrong assumption could have ended up leading us down the path to nuclear annihilation.)

So you're definitely right that it's a mistake to simply assume that more information benefits one team but not the other. But what's the impact if you know that they know, and they know that you know that they know, etc.? That's where I generally bow out.

I suppose the best counterargument I can come up with is that the decision making is largely driven by the offense. An offense up by 9, 8 or 7 points will probably do the same basic thing in any of those scenarios (try to run the ball, burn clock, and get first downs). But the opposing offense will behave very differently if they're down 9 as opposed to 7, in terms of pacing, throwing in the middle of the field, etc. And a team down 8 is stuck in a weird no-man's land, where they don't know if they need to leave time on the clock (since they might miss the XP and need to onside kick) or use up as much of it as possible (since if they tie it up, they don't want to leave their opponents enough time to drive for a game-winning FG).

So maybe even though both teams have the extra info, the trailing team can do more with it? I'm just noodling here.

 
rockaction said:
Sam, your syntax is so garbled here with typos and omissions I can't make out what you're saying. 
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that season changing information was right in front of everybody’s face and not a single person who gets employed to analyze fantasy sports pointed it out.

 
Sam Quentin said:
What I am saying is that season changing information was right in front of everybody’s face and not a single person who gets employed to analyze fantasy sports pointed it out.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought you might be being sarcastic. Yeah, that's pretty important stuff, but nobody gets down to the nitty-gritty of holders. Just doesn't happen. Injuries are hard enough to come by for the kicking game, never mind concentrating on the entire kicking unit. 

Sorry if you had Prater, though. That's awful. 

 
The Cardinals should have went for the TD and not kick the FG, because they are giving up prime field position to score a TD even if they recover the onside kick.  It's a lot easier to score a FG if they recover the onside kick than it is to score a TD.  The Arizona coach made a bad decision IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without their entire OL at times and without 4 of them most of time, plus without their best defensive player (Leonard) and two of their DBs, the Colts played with a lot of heart and truly exemplified what a team is.  The Cardinals appeared to be the exact opposite of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Oh, I thought you might be being sarcastic. Yeah, that's pretty important stuff, but nobody gets down to the nitty-gritty of holders. Just doesn't happen. Injuries are hard enough to come by for the kicking game, never mind concentrating on the entire kicking unit. 

Sorry if you had Prater, though. That's awful. 
Click to expand...
It might very well cost me a title

I will be salty about this until I am in the ground

 
Sam Quentin said:
It might very well cost me a title

I will be salty about this until I am in the ground
Click to expand...
As long as I am of sound mind, I will never forget in one of my first title runs after being a newbie that Graham Gano scored over twenty points as a kicker and Nick Novak got me a whopping one point, costing me the championship, which I lost by four points. 

Never forget. 

 
Rally Monkey said:
Ego, arrogance and ignorance. No other reason, if it was about strategy and doing whats right for the team, you flatted those fists out wide and walk away every time.

But these people want highlight films, instead they get embarrassed at the 13 yard line with an embarrassing hit 9 times out of 10. Whats worse is the coaches still put them back there. I have never seen such a bad group of coaches in the NFL too. No wonder the hoody can throw a rook out there and dominate with throwing just 3 times. 
Click to expand...
I think the philosophy is to try to make a play and that a couple of yards of field position is worth that gamble that he KR could make a big play.   

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top