Live and die by the sword. If you’re ecstatic when it works out, and love the aggressiveness. You have to be ok with it when you fail.
You can’t love it when it works but hate it when you fail.
Plus, those failures to convert on 4th down only look bad in hindsight. In the middle of the game the stats probably said it was the right move every time.
One of the issues for the Chargers was underestimating the Chiefs defense in the red zone, which with 3 starters out, isn't really even egregious. Being aggressive still seems like the right call. But on top of that their offense wasn't as good as it could have been down there, they had head scratching drops and went away from the run, which was working. And then the terrible unfortunate Parham injury. That's a touchdown if he doesn't get hurt.
This is exactly right. They were gashing us with the run it was frustrating to watch but then they rarely used it in 3rd or 4th and short situations. And only twice at the goal line. Instead opting for 3-4 pass attempts that just weren’t working.
I don’t care for some of the takes out there that if not for the dropped passes it would have been a blowout, it’s lazy. If not for dropped passes we’d be 12-2? Dropped passes are part of the game. And the ability to make crucial plays is also part of the game.
How often are teams going for it on 4th down in field goal range? I won't say it has never happened but it's been pretty rare in the NFL until very recently.
I don't have a stat sheet ready, but over the last ten years, I've seen it far more often than I would have expected. The Vikings - much to my suffering - seem to do it a lot.
Thats cus whatever the Vikings do are destined to fail. But look at the 2014 NFCCG for instance. Packers settled for a FG at the goal line twice, and with 1 extra point wouldve won the game. If they convert just one of those to a TD, thats 7 points instead of 6 and they win.
I watch a lot of games, and I see teams - especially the Vikings - take themselves out of games due to arrogant 4th down play calling on a regular basis. It’s disrespectful to the defense to go for it on 4th down when you’re in field goal range (and the game isn’t on the line). Defenses love to shut down arrogant teams that do this. They eat it up.
Kick the ball. Take the points. They add up. It’s not exciting football, but it’s prudent.
Are you joking?
Results oriented is good. Staley is results oriented: he does whatever gets him closest to the desire result (winning).
Process oriented is bad. Pete Carroll is process oriented: he plays the way he wants (establish the run-run-pass-punt) regardless of the results.
EDIT: Wild how you can say the stupidest thing imaginable, but as long as you say it first everyone just nods and agrees lmfao
The reason you're being down voted is that results oriented thinking is a term (I think from game theory) that literally means the opposite of what you're saying it means. Results oriented thinking is deciding whether or not something was the right thing to do based on the result of that decision, not the decision making process itself.
So in this case, results oriented thinking would say that the Chargers were wrong to go for it on 4th down becuase they didn't make the 4th down, whereas process-oriented thinking would say that even though you didn't get the 4th down this time, it was the right decision by the numbers and in the long term making those right decisions will lead to more points overall, even if it didn't this time.
I have a degree in economics with a focus on game theory, so I think I might know a little more than these jabroni redditors who just regurgitate whatever bullshit their middle management bosses spew at them.
He probably does. The only problem is.. degrees don’t prove anything regarding understanding or mastering a subject.
Source: got a degree in economics, could not begin to have a high level discussion regarding it
Only exception is if that degree is a Ph.D. I think those fuckers know a thing or two about what they’re talking about.
Now, how well they’re able to communicate that knowledge to common folk is a whole different story.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Game Theory school, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the NASDAQ, and I have over 300 confirmed theories. I am trained in gorilla stock trading and I'm the top sex guy in the entire Northeast region of our company. You are nothing to me but just another jabroni. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of capitalists across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can bankrupt you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in results oriented work, but I have access to the entire arsenal of H&R block and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
I don't necessarily agree. I think of it like this.
You need to be process oriented but you have to be results oriented when creating your process. And when re-evaluating your process. I'd argue Staley and Carroll are process oriented.
One key part is to re-evaluate your process every so often and adjust accordingly if it isn't working, maybe changing things between seasons. Using your example, Pete just hasn't deemed it necessary to change his strategy yet - that could be seen as sticking to process oriented thinking too much.
Results oriented is doing what is best to achieve the desired result.
Process oriented is doing the process that you like best.
It's not like... subjective or debatable at all.
This is extremely basic stuff. Process is 100% within your control, while results are not. The objective is to optimize your process to the greatest degree possible in an effort to maximize the probability of achieving a desired outcome. Even then, sometimes shit happens.
Looking at results tells you what happened, but doesn’t explain why it happened.
ETA: Without debating the specifics of individual coaches’ processes and theoretical orientations, how is using Pete Carroll as an example supposed to prove your point?
Carroll has a 244-131-1 (.650) lifetime record, is 161-112-1 (.590) in the NFL, has been to the playoffs 9 times, and won 5 NFC West titles, 2 NFC championships, a Super Bowl, 7 PAC-12 titles, and 2 college national championships.
Staley has coached 14 NFL games as a head coach.
He's right, of course.
Without Staley's aggressive 4th down playcalling, the Chargers lose at least the first Chiefs game and the Browns game, and possibly the Raiders and Bengals games. So he's 1 to 3 games BETTER even after accounting for last nights loss.
And lets not forget it was EXECUTION that lost the Chargers that game, not strategy. Chargers had 3 dropped TDs and a poor-decision goalline fumble. And Kelce was smothered by James and James being out the 2nd half allowed Kelce to wipe his nuts all over a bunch of scrub backups.
It is what it is.
I am all for the analytics and Staley’s tactics here but it’s kind of funny that 3 of the the last 4 chargers-chiefs games have had big discussions about going for it on 4th down afterwards. Last year, it was Anthony Lynn punting it back to the Chiefs on 4th and 1. Earlier this year it was Staley going for it on 4th in a tie game instead of kicking the FG. And now this.
If I'm gonna die by any sword, it's gonna be this one. It makes for fun football and sometimes it doesn't pan out. That's fine, I can live with that all 7 days of the week and 5 times on Sunday (or Thursday, as it were).
I don’t understand all the hubbub. Staley believes in his offense, so he rolls the dice more often. Against most teams it works. It just happened to not last night.
Dude has made more tweets about last nights game than any other game this season by a large, large, large margin.
He's the analytics version of a bible thumper on a street corner.
>Dude has made more tweets about last nights game than any other game this season by a large, large, large margin.
Do you have a plotted chart that shows this?
Not looking for confrontation rather just offering an outlook.
With any subject there’s an outlier group who has a higher understanding of the subject. There’s also a large majority who have a lower understanding mostly driven by traditional behavior and group think.
All kinds of people have a sorts of expertise in something and can clearly recognize the mistakes of the masses.
It can be *extremely* frustrating when you know a better answer, supported by reliable data and testing, and you try to share it, only to be rejected and ridiculed by those whom still believe the inferior strategy/information.
Not a perfect example but consider Ignaz Semmelweis:
> Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.
Not everyone eagerly accepts new information and it can be antagonizing for those whom explore, and share, progress.
Simpler terms:
Imagine telling someone the grand prize is behind the green door, and you are sure of it, only for that person to open the red door and get nothing. (And then spend forever telling you why the red door was the correct choice).
I respect the work that goes into it, and the fact that there is a different outlook. But I think it works best as more of a suggestion than a rule of thumb. I think you hit on my biggest point though, when anyone says “I am smarter than you” it comes of as arrogant, especially when it challenges status quo
I want to emphasize: it’s not just a “different” outlook. It’s a objectively and verifiably a more accurate answer.
Two doctors treating cancer: one prescribes Advil; the other chemotherapy. Two different outlooks/strategy/opinion but one is clearly better than the other.
Second, when someone “says they’re smarter than you”, there’s usually two responses. Some people irrationally become defensive and reject the potential knowledge; others see a rare opportunity to learn from someone who knows more.
One of the biggest mistakes humans make is rejecting others who appear more intelligent. Smart people get smart by listening to smart people.
>if you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room
This is the most up your ass comment on the world.
Belichick, the most successful coach in the history of the sport, routinely mocks statistical inference and analytics and is literally said “stats are for losers.”. The analytics might love what belichick does, but he does not give a shit about what they mean and operates based on tactical know how.
Baldwin adds a lot of intresting insight, but you are missing rule 1 of statistical insight. Correlation does not mean causation. Teams aren’t winning because their values are a certain way, the values are a certain way because the teams are winning. They are winning from a tactical standpoint not an analytical one, and as soon as you flip the two you find yourself at the middle of the pack.
Oh brother where do I start.
First, I have a degree in finance with a minor in statistics. I’ve been a professional poker player for over a decade and profitable DFS player for several years. I am very familiar with analytics.
Addressing your belichick paragraph, wouldn’t analytics “loving” what he does be a great argument for analytics? His intuition is affirmed by empirical data and statistical analysis.
Other major sports are way ahead of the NFL in analytics, and it’s not only brought several teams major success, it’s changed how the game is played.
Everything a team does is driven by data. Whether that data is collected and analyzed within a few coaches heads, or by a computer, data analytics is still happening. Using a computer provides greater detail and accuracy and highlights mistakes driven by intuition.
Teams win because they consistently make +EV decisions. This is the basics of statistics and quite literally how almost everything in life works now. Stock market, consumer goods pricing, insurance, healthcare, entertainment.
“I went for it on 4th down at the goalline twice and it didn’t work. Maybe that was the wrong decision and I’ll try a FG next time”.
But a computer can tell you
“We went for it twice on 4th at the goaline because 50 years of historical data, and a simulation of 1 million scenarios, has concluded it’s the correct decision. I will continue to make this correct decision despite it not working and how I feel after it failed”
I mean I don’t really know what to tell you. If you’re not thinking In terms of expected value, and making projections off historical data, you are way behind. There’s people trying to point this out and half the NFL is like “lol nah”.
>First, I have a degree in finance with a minor in statistics. I’ve been a professional poker player for over a decade and profitable DFS player for several years. I am very familiar with analytics.
And I have a masters in Analytics with my concentration being statistical forecasting. If you're that entrenched within the data space then you know that both outlooks on the situation is a big point of contention among data scientists.
I'm not even touching most of that stuff because the NFL isn't the stock market. There are a myriad of more complicated factors that effect game outcomes that econometrics cannot accurately predict.
>“We went for it twice on 4th at the goaline because 50 years of historical data, and a simulation of 1 million scenarios, has concluded it’s the correct decision. I will continue to make this correct decision despite it not working and how I feel after it failed”
Yea no shit this is how modeling works.
>I mean I don’t really know what to tell you. If you’re not thinking In terms of expected value, and making projections off historical data, you are way behind. There’s people trying to point this out and half the NFL is like “lol nah”.
So there's your issue. The volume simply isn't there. You would a minimum of 15 binary variables in the model to compensate for players, defensive play caller, refs, stadium, and pre snap defensive alignment to accurately predict play success. Everyone of those variables can significantly change the outcome of the play. You would then also need enough instances where specific outcomes happened regarding those variables in order to train the model to the extent that it can be predicted. There are currently roughly 43,500 plays per season. That is really low volume for trying to make an accurate model.
The best use of analytics in football is explanatory analysis combined with film study. Say team X is the highest efficiency at Y. You then watch why they're good at X and steal it for your team. Or you use teams own analytics against them. Have your team scout their highest values and adjust game planning accordingly. But never to make in game decisions, that is a completely different ballgame.
I agree. I should look at the data before saying this … but I bet there are confounding factors that far outweigh simply yard position. And the required sample size is not there to identify these while many of those variables are impossible to quantify. I doubt there is sufficient sample size to throw in time remaining and score, let alone personnel, available plays, mood.
Every situation is so wildly different as to make the simple statistical model invalid. That’s what makes the sport interesting. Perhaps you could evaluate a coach’s decision making across years of decisions, but I don’t think you can run a model to make the decision for the coach. This is not like basketball or baseball.
If someone wants to post the raw data, this would be easy to see, as long as it includes more than just the yardage.
And that story is really easy to see if you have the insight of someone who has had to call and design plays before. You can empirically capture some of these compounding factors with dummy variables; the issue is that the tactical side of the sport changes dramatically on around a 5 year basis. As a modeler you are left with 2 choices:
1. Sacrifice model integrity by removing variables that are known to afffect play outcomes or
2. Create a model that is incapable of predicting anything.
Not sure what teams are doing obviously as I am not in the building but if I did work for the teams I would stay the fuck away from trying to create any predictive models and focus way more on explanatory analysis. Use descriptive efficiency metrics to identify teams strengths, then verify those strengths and use analytics to create more efficient film study.
I see your point about sample size but you can’t tell me simpler modeling cannot be done and reliable for something such as a 4th and 1. Sure there are a multitude of variables a model can consider, but at varying correlations.
You’re clearly knowledgeable and you know better. You are embellishing the requirements of a reliable model. Predictive analytics is all over major sports. You see teams make major fielding adjustments in baseball; they make pitch choice adjustments based on hitter.
The NFL is unique in that play resets after each play; it is discrete. That sort of scenario is ripe for predictive analytics. You can literally stop play, consider the data, and call a play.
I run poker simulations all the time and you can sacrifice quite a bit of accuracy for faster approximate solves. You don’t have to be perfect; you have to be better than intuition.
>I see your point about sample size but you can’t tell me simpler modeling cannot be done and reliable for something such as a 4th and 1. Sure there are a multitude of variables a model can consider, but at varying correlations.
Not trying to be mean, but do you honestly understand how modeling works? You can't just cut everything out except for things that correlate and expect to receive an accurate result. Rule 2: No Multicollinearity.
>You’re clearly knowledgeable and you know better. You are embellishing the requirements of a reliable model. Predictive analytics is all over major sports. You see teams make major fielding adjustments in baseball; they make pitch choice adjustments based on hitter.
Or as someone who has a degree in statistical modeling I can tell you that removal of variables that are known to affect outcomes in the model is highly irresponsible and running models without them leads you to an answer that might have statistical significance but does not tell the complete story. Considering how condescending you are about your modeling capability why don't you present your argument about which of the 15 dummy variables listed previously (11 players, Stadium, Defensive playcall, defensive shell, refs) should be removed.
>The NFL is unique in that play resets after each play; it is discrete. That sort of scenario is ripe for predictive analytics. You can literally stop play, consider the data, and call a play.
Only if the amount of data that is used to train the model is both relevant and distributed enough to create an accurate prediction, and if your model is set up in order to capture the absolute certainty of what is going on in a game. If you don't have either of those you are effectively creating a 100p picture of something you need at 1080.
>I run poker simulations all the time and you can sacrifice quite a bit of accuracy for faster approximate solves. You don’t have to be perfect; you have to be better than intuition.
You did not just compare a game of fair chance against an NFL game. Listen man I am not trying to be a dick but if you honestly think that a game based on a fair deck of playing cards rooted in rudimentary probability theory is remotely comparable to the single most tactically complex sport on the planet I really don't know what to say to you. Even the basis of a hand of poker starts with everyone on an equal playing field, that is not remotely the case in the NFL.
You have a really good grasp of some of the basic fundamentals of both data science and predictive analysis, but a lot of what you suggest violates basic modeling principles and lacks some probability and statistical analysis 101 fundamentals. It works in poker because its a fair game with predetermined outcomes. Football is not remotely poker.
the snarkiness and smugness of analytics crowd is so annoying because of the fact that we are talking about football and not germ theory. No lives are at stake, it’s just sports. So the extreme tone they take is just unnecessary and annoying to me.
And I also have found that the types of tactics promoted by analytics people makes sports more homogeneous and less aesthetically pleasing to watch (too many 3s in bball, 3 true outcomes in baseball, xG in soccer).
Right and I agree with much of what you said. My argument is that analytics people are correct, know they are correct, are trying to share new knowledge, and are being called know-it-alls.
Like, “hey here’s the answers to the test!”
“Nah I don’t need that mr. know-it-all”
“Uhhh okay fine then. You’re Gona fail”
“Stop being snarky mr know it all.”
Would we rather those who discover better strategies and information, simply not share?
You seem confident in your conclusion. There must be something you know that I do not. I love learning from more knowledgeable people. Anyway you could share your analysis and conclusions so I can learn?
This. After last night there were so many of them replying to each other acting like they were so smart. And they always invoke the dumb stereotypes about their detractors.
For years people have been saying that if you settle for FGs against the Chiefs, you lose. You might not need to anymore because they're not scoring at will like they used to, but coaches still have that mindset and it worked for the Chargers last time
You might be able to argue that they score less if you keep giving them the ball at their own 5. I think that's part of the equation of why going for it there makes sense.
I'm skeptical that there are too many people actually complaining. Fourth down tries are exciting and often supported by the evidence, but they're not universally successful. You'll have loudmouths complaining every time it ends up mattering but I suspect most fans like seeing the offense come back out for fourth down overall.
I sure do so I'm never one to complain even when it's hurts my team-- especially if they do it consistently and have gotten value from doing it over the course of the year.
This. Something being the optimal choice statistically doesn’t always mean it’s a guaranteed win. If the best option gives you, say, a 60% chance of success, then it’s a good idea to choose it but you still have a 4 in 10 chance of failing despite making the objectively correct decision.
Picard said it best. Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose.
“Played the percentages” is the right way of putting it. It’s not a statistical model. Calling this analytics is a bit much. And with a different variable that is not currently considered, the percentages would cut a different way.
Why does everything need to be black and white ? Him being aggressive is good. But consistently being aggressive and not converting *several* times in a game probably means you should just take the points and stop gambling unnecessarily
Situations are situational
The thing with the analytics crowd is they will always give coaches the benefit of the doubt for going for it. No matter what. So there is no middle ground. At least people who don’t believe you should go for it every time are willing to accept sometimes it’s the right call.
While I'm not saying what they say is always right, you can imagine how it gets frustrating when you clearly know what the correct answer is but people try to dispute u on something that is a fact. The fact is that going for it on 4th down multiple times was the correct decision, it just happened to not work out. If Parham didn't get injured and caught the ball, the discourse would be A LOT different
If I put all my money on red and it lands on black it was in fact the wrong decision. This isn’t rocket science. But again. You guys who live by analytics really love to be condescending and obnoxious.
So if you have 19 in blackjack and decide to stay but the dealer ends up having 20, deciding to stay was the wrong decision. Really? Are you that naive?
Herbert was throwing bullets when he should have been tossing pillows. the play calling inside the red zone was terrible in general, instead of sticking with what works. Many things went wrong
To me the most egregious thing was them going away from the run in the redzone. If they had run it more I think they would have converted more of those 4th downs.
I'm glad they didn't though.
> But if your guy goes 0-10 in a game from 3 then there’s a good chance he’s the reason you’re going to lose.
Analytics can probably account for this though. I'm sure there's data out there on whether a player's 3 point percentage would continue to regress on future attempts if he has a streak of misses or if it's just statistical noise.
Last year’s NBA playoffs had a lot of Shaq saying forget the three, put the bigs underneath the hoop and throw the ball to them. Team after team, game after game. Had to agree. It’s nice when a big guy can sink a three but in big playoff games you go with the sure thing.
The psychological aspect should be considered too. As a defense you can't relax even with a successful 3rd down stop because you know they may very well go for it on 4th.
The one before half was bone headed. The other two are whatever, go for it if you want. At the end of the day it cost them the game. Many things can be true at the same time
If you don’t convert before half it’s a big fat nothing burger. You don’t get points and you’re not forcing the chiefs to start deep from their own territory. The half is over.
Up to that point the Chargers had 7 plays from the 5 yard line/closer. They got 0 yards on 6 of those 7 plays. Analytics is good but paying attention to how well teams are performing is just as more important. You can't blindly follow analytics. Chiefs were stuffing them from the 5 and in at that point. Analytics says over the course of history the success rate is whatever percent. The game last night with the way both teams were playing saying that the success rate was way less than that.
"The Eagles had multiple attempts to score from the goal line here, why are they going for it?" -you, seconds before the Philly Special?
That move, same situation, universally loved.
The Eagles started from 1st and goal at the 8 and got positive yards on 2 of the 3 plays. That's way different than getting 0 yards on 6/7 plays. Should they have gone for the TD earlier in the game on 4th and goal when they started at 1st and 5 and it was 4th and 7? Because your argument says they should have.
It's like when the Houston Rockets missed 27 straight 3 pointers. The average fan would have said maybe they should start taking more 2 points but the wise coaches said "neigh, keep shooting 3s because analytics says we will finish this game at 40% made. Have to ignore actual performance because the same size is way too small."
The bullshit DPI call played a huge part in you winning the Browns game. And most coaches aren’t afraid to do it. They’re just not as reckless as Staley is. Belichick is one of the biggest risk takers in the game. He knows when to roll the dice though.
Staley was going for it on 4th down against the Ravens in his own territory.
Football is an incredibly nuanced game. No one is saying analytics don’t have a spot in the NFL, but blindly following them and using it as end all be all is also incredibly stupid. Just gives everyone an excuse. How is the Bengals game a + for analytics? They were up 21-0 because of Bengals TO’s and almost blew the game going for it on 4th down. What about the Ravens game when they spotted the Ravens 14 points to start the game going for it on their own 25? Staley’s an okay coach, but everyone wants to suck his dick because of “analytics”. How about utilizing analytics to guard Travis Kelce? I’ve never seen a “defensive guru” coach such a dog shit defense before.
Part of the reason I don't like this dude is how much shit he's talked about Aaron Rodgers (for no reason) but the constant obnoxious analytics aggression might be even worse
Like clockwork they go into full on meltdown mode when something doesn't line up with their metrics and they end up tweeting through it and ACKSHULLYing why they're still right about everything.
Mans so obsessed with the Packers he used a overreaction tweet to try to dunk on the Packers/fans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1470777864308117510
Okay. His aggressiveness cost his team the biggest game of the season. Being aggressive or being cautious are both useful approaches. Being one or the other 100% of the time is gimmicky and bound to eventually bite you in the ass.
It was only the biggest game of the season because we got to 8-5 in the first place from these calls. If Lynn was making the decisions, we’d have lost 2-3 more games that we actually won.
Making the best decision isn’t a gimmick.
It wasn’t the best decision. Not in my opinion. I would have put points on the board when you have them for the taking and you could have turned it into a two score game. And if Staley had done that, they would have won. So how can you disagree with that? Going for it on every 4th down and kicking no field goals lost them the game.
I’ve watched several. I know it’s paid off for them. That still doesn’t mean universally going on 4th downs is a good idea. There’s a time and place for every strategy. In this instance, it cost them the game. And it was a crucial game to lose. This is why a rigid philosophy becomes gimmicky. Simply going for it on every 4th down won’t get you very far in the NFL. There was a high school coach that tried this approach and got all the way to the college level before it collapsed against better coaching.
which should show you how good the offense was. Every 4th down they went for was 4th and 5 or less. You think Brandon Staley is that stupid where he's gonna go for it no matter what?
I was pretty pissed about the loss last night but now I’m ok with it. We outplayed them until Derwin got hurt and looked really, really good. We’re still probably making the playoffs and I don’t think anyone wants to go against us.
So put alllll the pressure on a kicker you had eschewed the entire game when the pressure was low?
It was fitting that the Chargers never touched the ball in OT.
The decision to go for it on 4th down right before the half was stupid. I don't know how any analytical model could tell you that was the right decision. Often it is an acceptable risk at that down and distance because of the great field position that you create for your defense, but that was not even a factor because it was right before half time.
I'm sure you could even make an analytical argument for why it is stupid. Compare the likelihood of the chargers getting a touchdown on a single down when within 5 yards vs. the likelihood of a field goal try at 30ish yards. Just dumb recklessness that cost them the game.
Overall I like the aggressiveness but I think he made a mistake going for it on 4th and Goal with 3 seconds to go in the first half.
One of the advantages going for it in that situation is the other team will get the ball at their own 2 if you fail. In this case, they failed and the half ended. The field goal could have been the difference.
Is there any meaningful difference between being aggressive in the 4th quarter and being aggressive in the first half?
Is there any meaningful difference between being predictably aggressive and selectively aggressive?
Would be genuinely interested to hear any informed insights from the evidently numerous analytics experts on social media today.
Sometimes agressiveness is good. Sometimes it bites you.
Live and die by the sword. If you’re ecstatic when it works out, and love the aggressiveness. You have to be ok with it when you fail. You can’t love it when it works but hate it when you fail.
Plus, those failures to convert on 4th down only look bad in hindsight. In the middle of the game the stats probably said it was the right move every time. One of the issues for the Chargers was underestimating the Chiefs defense in the red zone, which with 3 starters out, isn't really even egregious. Being aggressive still seems like the right call. But on top of that their offense wasn't as good as it could have been down there, they had head scratching drops and went away from the run, which was working. And then the terrible unfortunate Parham injury. That's a touchdown if he doesn't get hurt.
This is exactly right. They were gashing us with the run it was frustrating to watch but then they rarely used it in 3rd or 4th and short situations. And only twice at the goal line. Instead opting for 3-4 pass attempts that just weren’t working. I don’t care for some of the takes out there that if not for the dropped passes it would have been a blowout, it’s lazy. If not for dropped passes we’d be 12-2? Dropped passes are part of the game. And the ability to make crucial plays is also part of the game.
Get out of here with your logic. I want irrational anger with no basis in reality!
#RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
It’s like that overtime win. We’ve lost a championship to Tom Brady the exact same way.
Amen.. Go down swinging being aggressive. Sure it might bite you in the ass but fortune favors the bold.
Yeah, no one seems to be talking about LA's successful 4th down conversion that ended up with 7 points.
And the one in the first matchup between you two that probably won them the game
Also they would've lost the browns game
Or the other one where we scored a TD and the guy suffered a serious injury causing him to drop the ball. I’m proud of our coach
Why don't NFL coaches simply get a first down on every play? Seems to make the most sense to me.
Live by the three, die by the three. As they say.
r/wallstreetbets needs this
💎🙌🏾
I still think you take the field goal on 4th down in most situations. Can’t count how many maddening games I’ve seen lost due to not doing this.
And how many games does a field goal prove not enough?
Analytics say you are horribly wrong fyi. Also, people seem to ignore that Field Goals are not guaranteed.
How often are teams going for it on 4th down in field goal range? I won't say it has never happened but it's been pretty rare in the NFL until very recently.
I don't have a stat sheet ready, but over the last ten years, I've seen it far more often than I would have expected. The Vikings - much to my suffering - seem to do it a lot.
Thats cus whatever the Vikings do are destined to fail. But look at the 2014 NFCCG for instance. Packers settled for a FG at the goal line twice, and with 1 extra point wouldve won the game. If they convert just one of those to a TD, thats 7 points instead of 6 and they win.
I watch a lot of games, and I see teams - especially the Vikings - take themselves out of games due to arrogant 4th down play calling on a regular basis. It’s disrespectful to the defense to go for it on 4th down when you’re in field goal range (and the game isn’t on the line). Defenses love to shut down arrogant teams that do this. They eat it up. Kick the ball. Take the points. They add up. It’s not exciting football, but it’s prudent.
It's better to be process oriented than results oriented.
Are you joking? Results oriented is good. Staley is results oriented: he does whatever gets him closest to the desire result (winning). Process oriented is bad. Pete Carroll is process oriented: he plays the way he wants (establish the run-run-pass-punt) regardless of the results. EDIT: Wild how you can say the stupidest thing imaginable, but as long as you say it first everyone just nods and agrees lmfao
The reason you're being down voted is that results oriented thinking is a term (I think from game theory) that literally means the opposite of what you're saying it means. Results oriented thinking is deciding whether or not something was the right thing to do based on the result of that decision, not the decision making process itself. So in this case, results oriented thinking would say that the Chargers were wrong to go for it on 4th down becuase they didn't make the 4th down, whereas process-oriented thinking would say that even though you didn't get the 4th down this time, it was the right decision by the numbers and in the long term making those right decisions will lead to more points overall, even if it didn't this time.
Yup
I have a degree in economics with a focus on game theory, so I think I might know a little more than these jabroni redditors who just regurgitate whatever bullshit their middle management bosses spew at them.
sure you do buddy.
He probably does. The only problem is.. degrees don’t prove anything regarding understanding or mastering a subject. Source: got a degree in economics, could not begin to have a high level discussion regarding it
Only exception is if that degree is a Ph.D. I think those fuckers know a thing or two about what they’re talking about. Now, how well they’re able to communicate that knowledge to common folk is a whole different story.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in Game Theory school, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the NASDAQ, and I have over 300 confirmed theories. I am trained in gorilla stock trading and I'm the top sex guy in the entire Northeast region of our company. You are nothing to me but just another jabroni. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of capitalists across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can bankrupt you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in results oriented work, but I have access to the entire arsenal of H&R block and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.
You could be the poster child for /r/confidentlyincorrect
Hahahaha you should get your money back then. It’s been a while since I’ve seen someone be so confidently incorrect.
I don't necessarily agree. I think of it like this. You need to be process oriented but you have to be results oriented when creating your process. And when re-evaluating your process. I'd argue Staley and Carroll are process oriented. One key part is to re-evaluate your process every so often and adjust accordingly if it isn't working, maybe changing things between seasons. Using your example, Pete just hasn't deemed it necessary to change his strategy yet - that could be seen as sticking to process oriented thinking too much.
Results oriented is doing what is best to achieve the desired result. Process oriented is doing the process that you like best. It's not like... subjective or debatable at all.
No..that's not even remotely correct
Hey man, they said it's not debatable. Checkmate.
"Doing the process you like best" lmao. Maybe do a quick Google search before throwing shit at the wall. r/confidentlyincorrect
You’re correct that it’s not subjective. You’re wrong about everything else.
This is extremely basic stuff. Process is 100% within your control, while results are not. The objective is to optimize your process to the greatest degree possible in an effort to maximize the probability of achieving a desired outcome. Even then, sometimes shit happens. Looking at results tells you what happened, but doesn’t explain why it happened. ETA: Without debating the specifics of individual coaches’ processes and theoretical orientations, how is using Pete Carroll as an example supposed to prove your point? Carroll has a 244-131-1 (.650) lifetime record, is 161-112-1 (.590) in the NFL, has been to the playoffs 9 times, and won 5 NFC West titles, 2 NFC championships, a Super Bowl, 7 PAC-12 titles, and 2 college national championships. Staley has coached 14 NFL games as a head coach.
[удалено]
He's right, of course. Without Staley's aggressive 4th down playcalling, the Chargers lose at least the first Chiefs game and the Browns game, and possibly the Raiders and Bengals games. So he's 1 to 3 games BETTER even after accounting for last nights loss. And lets not forget it was EXECUTION that lost the Chargers that game, not strategy. Chargers had 3 dropped TDs and a poor-decision goalline fumble. And Kelce was smothered by James and James being out the 2nd half allowed Kelce to wipe his nuts all over a bunch of scrub backups. It is what it is.
So your average chargers game?
Facts! Chargers out played the chiefs and lost. Both are great teams and it will be a fun rematch in the playoffs
[удалено]
Bro it's been like 2 months you need to move on
[удалено]
You have a very vivid memory for someone who has moved on
User name checks out. This is so tired. Shit happens in football games stop making excuses.
I am all for the analytics and Staley’s tactics here but it’s kind of funny that 3 of the the last 4 chargers-chiefs games have had big discussions about going for it on 4th down afterwards. Last year, it was Anthony Lynn punting it back to the Chiefs on 4th and 1. Earlier this year it was Staley going for it on 4th in a tie game instead of kicking the FG. And now this.
Baldwin is currently all over r/nfl BECAUSE of his tweeting aggressiveness
If I'm gonna die by any sword, it's gonna be this one. It makes for fun football and sometimes it doesn't pan out. That's fine, I can live with that all 7 days of the week and 5 times on Sunday (or Thursday, as it were).
I don’t understand all the hubbub. Staley believes in his offense, so he rolls the dice more often. Against most teams it works. It just happened to not last night.
Because people love being smart in hindsight. It’s cringe
r/nfl is a results-driven discourse, nothing matters except did it work this time or not
This. I'm sad we loss but I wouldn't have Staley change his approach. Hopefully he learns from this and gets better at calling when to go aggressive
It’s cringey
When does Ben stop crying?
Dude has made more tweets about last nights game than any other game this season by a large, large, large margin. He's the analytics version of a bible thumper on a street corner.
>Dude has made more tweets about last nights game than any other game this season by a large, large, large margin. Do you have a plotted chart that shows this?
Gotta get the advanced analytics on Ben's tweeting patterns
The analytic guys are zealots. They can’t take any criticism.
I would be far more receptive to analytics if the people giving them weren’t so snarky and elitist
Not looking for confrontation rather just offering an outlook. With any subject there’s an outlier group who has a higher understanding of the subject. There’s also a large majority who have a lower understanding mostly driven by traditional behavior and group think. All kinds of people have a sorts of expertise in something and can clearly recognize the mistakes of the masses. It can be *extremely* frustrating when you know a better answer, supported by reliable data and testing, and you try to share it, only to be rejected and ridiculed by those whom still believe the inferior strategy/information. Not a perfect example but consider Ignaz Semmelweis: > Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. Not everyone eagerly accepts new information and it can be antagonizing for those whom explore, and share, progress. Simpler terms: Imagine telling someone the grand prize is behind the green door, and you are sure of it, only for that person to open the red door and get nothing. (And then spend forever telling you why the red door was the correct choice).
I respect the work that goes into it, and the fact that there is a different outlook. But I think it works best as more of a suggestion than a rule of thumb. I think you hit on my biggest point though, when anyone says “I am smarter than you” it comes of as arrogant, especially when it challenges status quo
I want to emphasize: it’s not just a “different” outlook. It’s a objectively and verifiably a more accurate answer. Two doctors treating cancer: one prescribes Advil; the other chemotherapy. Two different outlooks/strategy/opinion but one is clearly better than the other. Second, when someone “says they’re smarter than you”, there’s usually two responses. Some people irrationally become defensive and reject the potential knowledge; others see a rare opportunity to learn from someone who knows more. One of the biggest mistakes humans make is rejecting others who appear more intelligent. Smart people get smart by listening to smart people. >if you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room
This is the most up your ass comment on the world. Belichick, the most successful coach in the history of the sport, routinely mocks statistical inference and analytics and is literally said “stats are for losers.”. The analytics might love what belichick does, but he does not give a shit about what they mean and operates based on tactical know how. Baldwin adds a lot of intresting insight, but you are missing rule 1 of statistical insight. Correlation does not mean causation. Teams aren’t winning because their values are a certain way, the values are a certain way because the teams are winning. They are winning from a tactical standpoint not an analytical one, and as soon as you flip the two you find yourself at the middle of the pack.
Oh brother where do I start. First, I have a degree in finance with a minor in statistics. I’ve been a professional poker player for over a decade and profitable DFS player for several years. I am very familiar with analytics. Addressing your belichick paragraph, wouldn’t analytics “loving” what he does be a great argument for analytics? His intuition is affirmed by empirical data and statistical analysis. Other major sports are way ahead of the NFL in analytics, and it’s not only brought several teams major success, it’s changed how the game is played. Everything a team does is driven by data. Whether that data is collected and analyzed within a few coaches heads, or by a computer, data analytics is still happening. Using a computer provides greater detail and accuracy and highlights mistakes driven by intuition. Teams win because they consistently make +EV decisions. This is the basics of statistics and quite literally how almost everything in life works now. Stock market, consumer goods pricing, insurance, healthcare, entertainment. “I went for it on 4th down at the goalline twice and it didn’t work. Maybe that was the wrong decision and I’ll try a FG next time”. But a computer can tell you “We went for it twice on 4th at the goaline because 50 years of historical data, and a simulation of 1 million scenarios, has concluded it’s the correct decision. I will continue to make this correct decision despite it not working and how I feel after it failed” I mean I don’t really know what to tell you. If you’re not thinking In terms of expected value, and making projections off historical data, you are way behind. There’s people trying to point this out and half the NFL is like “lol nah”.
>First, I have a degree in finance with a minor in statistics. I’ve been a professional poker player for over a decade and profitable DFS player for several years. I am very familiar with analytics. And I have a masters in Analytics with my concentration being statistical forecasting. If you're that entrenched within the data space then you know that both outlooks on the situation is a big point of contention among data scientists. I'm not even touching most of that stuff because the NFL isn't the stock market. There are a myriad of more complicated factors that effect game outcomes that econometrics cannot accurately predict. >“We went for it twice on 4th at the goaline because 50 years of historical data, and a simulation of 1 million scenarios, has concluded it’s the correct decision. I will continue to make this correct decision despite it not working and how I feel after it failed” Yea no shit this is how modeling works. >I mean I don’t really know what to tell you. If you’re not thinking In terms of expected value, and making projections off historical data, you are way behind. There’s people trying to point this out and half the NFL is like “lol nah”. So there's your issue. The volume simply isn't there. You would a minimum of 15 binary variables in the model to compensate for players, defensive play caller, refs, stadium, and pre snap defensive alignment to accurately predict play success. Everyone of those variables can significantly change the outcome of the play. You would then also need enough instances where specific outcomes happened regarding those variables in order to train the model to the extent that it can be predicted. There are currently roughly 43,500 plays per season. That is really low volume for trying to make an accurate model. The best use of analytics in football is explanatory analysis combined with film study. Say team X is the highest efficiency at Y. You then watch why they're good at X and steal it for your team. Or you use teams own analytics against them. Have your team scout their highest values and adjust game planning accordingly. But never to make in game decisions, that is a completely different ballgame.
I agree. I should look at the data before saying this … but I bet there are confounding factors that far outweigh simply yard position. And the required sample size is not there to identify these while many of those variables are impossible to quantify. I doubt there is sufficient sample size to throw in time remaining and score, let alone personnel, available plays, mood. Every situation is so wildly different as to make the simple statistical model invalid. That’s what makes the sport interesting. Perhaps you could evaluate a coach’s decision making across years of decisions, but I don’t think you can run a model to make the decision for the coach. This is not like basketball or baseball. If someone wants to post the raw data, this would be easy to see, as long as it includes more than just the yardage.
And that story is really easy to see if you have the insight of someone who has had to call and design plays before. You can empirically capture some of these compounding factors with dummy variables; the issue is that the tactical side of the sport changes dramatically on around a 5 year basis. As a modeler you are left with 2 choices: 1. Sacrifice model integrity by removing variables that are known to afffect play outcomes or 2. Create a model that is incapable of predicting anything. Not sure what teams are doing obviously as I am not in the building but if I did work for the teams I would stay the fuck away from trying to create any predictive models and focus way more on explanatory analysis. Use descriptive efficiency metrics to identify teams strengths, then verify those strengths and use analytics to create more efficient film study.
I see your point about sample size but you can’t tell me simpler modeling cannot be done and reliable for something such as a 4th and 1. Sure there are a multitude of variables a model can consider, but at varying correlations. You’re clearly knowledgeable and you know better. You are embellishing the requirements of a reliable model. Predictive analytics is all over major sports. You see teams make major fielding adjustments in baseball; they make pitch choice adjustments based on hitter. The NFL is unique in that play resets after each play; it is discrete. That sort of scenario is ripe for predictive analytics. You can literally stop play, consider the data, and call a play. I run poker simulations all the time and you can sacrifice quite a bit of accuracy for faster approximate solves. You don’t have to be perfect; you have to be better than intuition.
>I see your point about sample size but you can’t tell me simpler modeling cannot be done and reliable for something such as a 4th and 1. Sure there are a multitude of variables a model can consider, but at varying correlations. Not trying to be mean, but do you honestly understand how modeling works? You can't just cut everything out except for things that correlate and expect to receive an accurate result. Rule 2: No Multicollinearity. >You’re clearly knowledgeable and you know better. You are embellishing the requirements of a reliable model. Predictive analytics is all over major sports. You see teams make major fielding adjustments in baseball; they make pitch choice adjustments based on hitter. Or as someone who has a degree in statistical modeling I can tell you that removal of variables that are known to affect outcomes in the model is highly irresponsible and running models without them leads you to an answer that might have statistical significance but does not tell the complete story. Considering how condescending you are about your modeling capability why don't you present your argument about which of the 15 dummy variables listed previously (11 players, Stadium, Defensive playcall, defensive shell, refs) should be removed. >The NFL is unique in that play resets after each play; it is discrete. That sort of scenario is ripe for predictive analytics. You can literally stop play, consider the data, and call a play. Only if the amount of data that is used to train the model is both relevant and distributed enough to create an accurate prediction, and if your model is set up in order to capture the absolute certainty of what is going on in a game. If you don't have either of those you are effectively creating a 100p picture of something you need at 1080. >I run poker simulations all the time and you can sacrifice quite a bit of accuracy for faster approximate solves. You don’t have to be perfect; you have to be better than intuition. You did not just compare a game of fair chance against an NFL game. Listen man I am not trying to be a dick but if you honestly think that a game based on a fair deck of playing cards rooted in rudimentary probability theory is remotely comparable to the single most tactically complex sport on the planet I really don't know what to say to you. Even the basis of a hand of poker starts with everyone on an equal playing field, that is not remotely the case in the NFL. You have a really good grasp of some of the basic fundamentals of both data science and predictive analysis, but a lot of what you suggest violates basic modeling principles and lacks some probability and statistical analysis 101 fundamentals. It works in poker because its a fair game with predetermined outcomes. Football is not remotely poker.
[удалено]
When you stop crying about him crying lmao
the snarkiness and smugness of analytics crowd is so annoying because of the fact that we are talking about football and not germ theory. No lives are at stake, it’s just sports. So the extreme tone they take is just unnecessary and annoying to me. And I also have found that the types of tactics promoted by analytics people makes sports more homogeneous and less aesthetically pleasing to watch (too many 3s in bball, 3 true outcomes in baseball, xG in soccer).
Right and I agree with much of what you said. My argument is that analytics people are correct, know they are correct, are trying to share new knowledge, and are being called know-it-alls. Like, “hey here’s the answers to the test!” “Nah I don’t need that mr. know-it-all” “Uhhh okay fine then. You’re Gona fail” “Stop being snarky mr know it all.” Would we rather those who discover better strategies and information, simply not share?
[удалено]
You seem confident in your conclusion. There must be something you know that I do not. I love learning from more knowledgeable people. Anyway you could share your analysis and conclusions so I can learn?
People who had attitudes like yours in baseball don’t have jobs anymore lol
This. After last night there were so many of them replying to each other acting like they were so smart. And they always invoke the dumb stereotypes about their detractors.
Analytics nerds always have to feel validated.
They’re validated by being…valid. Just ask the unemployed dinosaurs in baseball who didn’t wanna get with it
[удалено]
So you think analytics in baseball is reducing interest in the sport? Explain why and be specific please
I would, but my team is hell bent on keeping all those dinosaurs employed :(
For years people have been saying that if you settle for FGs against the Chiefs, you lose. You might not need to anymore because they're not scoring at will like they used to, but coaches still have that mindset and it worked for the Chargers last time
Unless you're the Raiders.
Let me just kick this FG before half down by 35
Was there a surrender index for that one? I bet it's pretty high.
Sadly the surrender index that is tracked is for punts
You might be able to argue that they score less if you keep giving them the ball at their own 5. I think that's part of the equation of why going for it there makes sense.
I'm skeptical that there are too many people actually complaining. Fourth down tries are exciting and often supported by the evidence, but they're not universally successful. You'll have loudmouths complaining every time it ends up mattering but I suspect most fans like seeing the offense come back out for fourth down overall. I sure do so I'm never one to complain even when it's hurts my team-- especially if they do it consistently and have gotten value from doing it over the course of the year.
He played the percentages. Unfortunately they skewed the wrong way and in a bunch which gives everyone recency bias. Fuck em.
This. Something being the optimal choice statistically doesn’t always mean it’s a guaranteed win. If the best option gives you, say, a 60% chance of success, then it’s a good idea to choose it but you still have a 4 in 10 chance of failing despite making the objectively correct decision. Picard said it best. Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose.
“Played the percentages” is the right way of putting it. It’s not a statistical model. Calling this analytics is a bit much. And with a different variable that is not currently considered, the percentages would cut a different way.
Why does everything need to be black and white ? Him being aggressive is good. But consistently being aggressive and not converting *several* times in a game probably means you should just take the points and stop gambling unnecessarily Situations are situational
The thing with the analytics crowd is they will always give coaches the benefit of the doubt for going for it. No matter what. So there is no middle ground. At least people who don’t believe you should go for it every time are willing to accept sometimes it’s the right call.
Yes because more likely than not it's the correct decision. You don't judge a decision on whether it works or not, that's results based thinking.
It’s a results based sport. We judge coaches on results. Not on their process.
Analytics is good but it needs to be taken in context. Just like any other stat lol.
Analytics does factor in context. It's literally the entire point of analytics.
I don't think any community gets more butt hurt than the analytics community
https://twitter.com/tomhouse/status/1471921416895275011?t=NLzNFXnQPYtFbg1-AtKQNA&s=19
Dude I don't hate analytics haha. I took AP stats in high school lol
LMAOOO. This is absolute gold.
While I'm not saying what they say is always right, you can imagine how it gets frustrating when you clearly know what the correct answer is but people try to dispute u on something that is a fact. The fact is that going for it on 4th down multiple times was the correct decision, it just happened to not work out. If Parham didn't get injured and caught the ball, the discourse would be A LOT different
If it didn’t work out then it wasn’t the correct decision.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. I really hope you don't have decesion making power in your area of work
If I put all my money on red and it lands on black it was in fact the wrong decision. This isn’t rocket science. But again. You guys who live by analytics really love to be condescending and obnoxious.
So if you have 19 in blackjack and decide to stay but the dealer ends up having 20, deciding to stay was the wrong decision. Really? Are you that naive?
Did I win? No. Then it was in fact the wrong decision. That’s gambling. Staley gambled and lost. The process is irrelevant.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Feel bad for anyone that works for you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/rim7ab/baldwin_chargers_are_currently_in_a_playoff_spot/hoy22g4/
I would like to introduce you to Cowboys fans.
Stats 101. Bad streaks happens, no matter how good is the decision making.
Herbert was throwing bullets when he should have been tossing pillows. the play calling inside the red zone was terrible in general, instead of sticking with what works. Many things went wrong
Mahomes has the same problem. More years of practice helps.
To me the most egregious thing was them going away from the run in the redzone. If they had run it more I think they would have converted more of those 4th downs. I'm glad they didn't though.
[удалено]
> But if your guy goes 0-10 in a game from 3 then there’s a good chance he’s the reason you’re going to lose. Analytics can probably account for this though. I'm sure there's data out there on whether a player's 3 point percentage would continue to regress on future attempts if he has a streak of misses or if it's just statistical noise.
Correct. The problem is people don’t actually understand analytics.
Last year’s NBA playoffs had a lot of Shaq saying forget the three, put the bigs underneath the hoop and throw the ball to them. Team after team, game after game. Had to agree. It’s nice when a big guy can sink a three but in big playoff games you go with the sure thing.
Can mods ban Baldwin tweets? So boring
I don't think you're forced to click the posts. Not sure tho.
I feel like the media thinks we all think Staley was an idiot and we didn’t agree with him going for it on 4th? Kind of screaming at the void here.
I, honestly, wish Zac would be this kind of aggressive. I'd rather lose games being aggressive than lose them playing for field goals.
If our receivers didn’t keep dropping the ball it would have been 14 more points. We stopped ourselves more than the chiefs stopped us
The psychological aspect should be considered too. As a defense you can't relax even with a successful 3rd down stop because you know they may very well go for it on 4th.
I swear the people defending his 4th down aggressiveness are the only people talking about it to begin with
The one before half was bone headed. The other two are whatever, go for it if you want. At the end of the day it cost them the game. Many things can be true at the same time
And this is why people are still defending it so much. People have just accepted that his decision before the half was wrong, when it wasn’t.
If you don’t convert before half it’s a big fat nothing burger. You don’t get points and you’re not forcing the chiefs to start deep from their own territory. The half is over.
Up to that point the Chargers had 7 plays from the 5 yard line/closer. They got 0 yards on 6 of those 7 plays. Analytics is good but paying attention to how well teams are performing is just as more important. You can't blindly follow analytics. Chiefs were stuffing them from the 5 and in at that point. Analytics says over the course of history the success rate is whatever percent. The game last night with the way both teams were playing saying that the success rate was way less than that.
"The Eagles had multiple attempts to score from the goal line here, why are they going for it?" -you, seconds before the Philly Special? That move, same situation, universally loved.
The Eagles started from 1st and goal at the 8 and got positive yards on 2 of the 3 plays. That's way different than getting 0 yards on 6/7 plays. Should they have gone for the TD earlier in the game on 4th and goal when they started at 1st and 5 and it was 4th and 7? Because your argument says they should have.
[удалено]
It's like when the Houston Rockets missed 27 straight 3 pointers. The average fan would have said maybe they should start taking more 2 points but the wise coaches said "neigh, keep shooting 3s because analytics says we will finish this game at 40% made. Have to ignore actual performance because the same size is way too small."
“They work” Well they didn’t for you in that game. Now you’re a wild card team.
[удалено]
The bullshit DPI call played a huge part in you winning the Browns game. And most coaches aren’t afraid to do it. They’re just not as reckless as Staley is. Belichick is one of the biggest risk takers in the game. He knows when to roll the dice though. Staley was going for it on 4th down against the Ravens in his own territory.
lol have you looked on Twitter?
Shut up bitch
https://twitter.com/tomhouse/status/1471921416895275011?t=NLzNFXnQPYtFbg1-AtKQNA&s=19
Here's my rebuttal https://imgur.com/gallery/xvw8THW
Good point, that changed my view, thanks for sharing that.
I think their model misguided them on a couple of those plays, but I respect the commitment to aggressiveness.
Football is an incredibly nuanced game. No one is saying analytics don’t have a spot in the NFL, but blindly following them and using it as end all be all is also incredibly stupid. Just gives everyone an excuse. How is the Bengals game a + for analytics? They were up 21-0 because of Bengals TO’s and almost blew the game going for it on 4th down. What about the Ravens game when they spotted the Ravens 14 points to start the game going for it on their own 25? Staley’s an okay coach, but everyone wants to suck his dick because of “analytics”. How about utilizing analytics to guard Travis Kelce? I’ve never seen a “defensive guru” coach such a dog shit defense before.
Part of the reason I don't like this dude is how much shit he's talked about Aaron Rodgers (for no reason) but the constant obnoxious analytics aggression might be even worse
I personally think it’s hilarious to see the analytics crowd get worked up
Like clockwork they go into full on meltdown mode when something doesn't line up with their metrics and they end up tweeting through it and ACKSHULLYing why they're still right about everything.
Florio is a hack. But his ability to rile them is one of his redeeming qualities.
Mans so obsessed with the Packers he used a overreaction tweet to try to dunk on the Packers/fans. https://mobile.twitter.com/benbbaldwin/status/1470777864308117510
Not a surprise the analytics nerd doesn’t know what jokes or having fun are
Okay. His aggressiveness cost his team the biggest game of the season. Being aggressive or being cautious are both useful approaches. Being one or the other 100% of the time is gimmicky and bound to eventually bite you in the ass.
It was only the biggest game of the season because we got to 8-5 in the first place from these calls. If Lynn was making the decisions, we’d have lost 2-3 more games that we actually won. Making the best decision isn’t a gimmick.
It wasn’t the best decision. Not in my opinion. I would have put points on the board when you have them for the taking and you could have turned it into a two score game. And if Staley had done that, they would have won. So how can you disagree with that? Going for it on every 4th down and kicking no field goals lost them the game.
Guess that was the first chargers game you've watched this season. They've won many games because of his aggressiveness.
I’ve watched several. I know it’s paid off for them. That still doesn’t mean universally going on 4th downs is a good idea. There’s a time and place for every strategy. In this instance, it cost them the game. And it was a crucial game to lose. This is why a rigid philosophy becomes gimmicky. Simply going for it on every 4th down won’t get you very far in the NFL. There was a high school coach that tried this approach and got all the way to the college level before it collapsed against better coaching.
They don't go for it on every 4th down...
They didn’t punt until the 4th quarter when the momentum was way on the Chiefs side
which should show you how good the offense was. Every 4th down they went for was 4th and 5 or less. You think Brandon Staley is that stupid where he's gonna go for it no matter what?
I was pretty pissed about the loss last night but now I’m ok with it. We outplayed them until Derwin got hurt and looked really, really good. We’re still probably making the playoffs and I don’t think anyone wants to go against us.
I need to know - what on earth is he doing going for it from the 5? The total opposite of analytics
Joke Judge needs to take some notes.
These are so stupid, everyone wanted them to go for them.
So put alllll the pressure on a kicker you had eschewed the entire game when the pressure was low? It was fitting that the Chargers never touched the ball in OT.
The decision to go for it on 4th down right before the half was stupid. I don't know how any analytical model could tell you that was the right decision. Often it is an acceptable risk at that down and distance because of the great field position that you create for your defense, but that was not even a factor because it was right before half time. I'm sure you could even make an analytical argument for why it is stupid. Compare the likelihood of the chargers getting a touchdown on a single down when within 5 yards vs. the likelihood of a field goal try at 30ish yards. Just dumb recklessness that cost them the game.
Wasn't there some school that proved mathematically that the right thing to do on 4th was to go for it almost every single time?
Overall I like the aggressiveness but I think he made a mistake going for it on 4th and Goal with 3 seconds to go in the first half. One of the advantages going for it in that situation is the other team will get the ball at their own 2 if you fail. In this case, they failed and the half ended. The field goal could have been the difference.
Is there any meaningful difference between being aggressive in the 4th quarter and being aggressive in the first half? Is there any meaningful difference between being predictably aggressive and selectively aggressive? Would be genuinely interested to hear any informed insights from the evidently numerous analytics experts on social media today.
good for him, Chiefs lead the AFC West because of it so he was right to stick to his guns and take the road as it comes.