Comments on: Smart Notes 9/17/2009

By: Buckeyes Required Reading | Red Renee

Buckeyes Required Reading | Red Renee — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:37:37 +0000

[...] article is found here, one particularly pointed quote listed below. Finish the article by clicking this link for some positive words about the OSU defense. Look at the numbers. Ohio State’s failure to [...]

By: Going for it « Get The Picture

Going for it « Get The Picture — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:21:21 +0000

[...] a look at this intriguing article about decision making on fourth down (h/t Smart Football), which argues in part that “Every single serious study of 4th-down decisions has found that, [...]

By: T. Kyle King

T. Kyle King — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:32:38 +0000

Thanks, Chris. Much obliged.

By: jgordon1

jgordon1 — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:05:45 +0000

Regarding the TFA analysis…looks like OSU moved the 5 tech to a 3 tech..surely a common adjustment that a big time coach should be practicing..cripes, we do this on the hs level all the time..in TFA’s third picture..this is just a very common under adjustment to double tight..they put a safety on the los..in the last picture..they are playing a “wide” under with a nickle substution for a defensive lineman..again the front is a 5,0,5. again, I don’t know how a guy with NFL experience could be fooled..we play these fronts all the time and judging by our points against… we aren’t fooling anyone

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:59:47 +0000

Michael Jordan wasn’t cut from his high school team: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-44-34/Michael-Jordan-Doesn-t-Need-Your-Favors.html

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:30:14 +0000

In addition to the factors you mention, I also believe that psychology has to be a factor. Even if a coach can train himself not to be swayed by his emotions what about his players?

My father who was a highschool coach for 30 years mantra is always, get the lead, get points on the board if you haven’t scored. This changes the dynamic of the game if only for psychological reasons. This refers more to the field goal vs go for it decision.

Once you have the lead your position is no longer likely or statistical but it is real. You may not accurately know the probabilities that you will score against a given team on a given night from a certain yard line or vice versa. But once you score you know you are ahead that is a certainty.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:09:35 +0000

Kyle, I edited it. It did sound snarkier than I intended. I linked to it because I thought it was worth linking to.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:06:26 +0000

Kyle: Sorry! I didn’t mean for it to sound negative. I took your post as just savoring a sweet win. I’ll edit it to clarify. Totally didn’t mean to be negative.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:05:36 +0000

Brad: I hear you totally on the fourth down. I do think the analysts have come far enough to say that in those situations where (a) you’re in your opponent’s territory, where the value of their having the ball is either negative to them (meaning you are more likely to score first), or very low, and (b) the fourth down is makeable, and (c) depending on where how close to the goal line and how good your kicker is, it is a good idea.

In fact, a lot of these studies assume NFL level field goal kickers and punters, which is arguably the biggest difference between the pro game and the lower levels: how routinely amazing the kicking is. I think Fourth and four from the 33 should be gone for more, and fourth and one on the goal line in the first half is, to me, an automatic “go for it.”

Other than that, I agree you accept all the conclusions at your own peril.

By: T. Kyle King

T. Kyle King — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:05:10 +0000

Chris, you know I think very highly of you, so I’m going to operate from the understanding that a miscommunication has occurred here. I don’t know how what I wrote is markedly different from what Senator Blutarsky wrote. I did not “dismiss” the statistics, I merely noted that they only told us so much, as evidenced by the fact that Dr. Saturday misapprehended the course of the game because he read only the stat sheet and (by his own admission) did not see it.

As I indicated, stats often are more useful in assigning blame than in giving credit. What Dr. Saturday characterizes as “wasted yards” weren’t wasted by South Carolina; their effectiveness was limited by a Georgia defense that bowed up in the red zone. South Carolina’s offense looked a lot like Georgia’s in the mid-1990s, when the Bulldogs passed effectively but failed to run the ball well, so they moved freely between the 20s but had trouble with the short field.

I’m not dismissive of statistics. I merely recognize their limitations in games involving emotional young men rather than seasoned professionals. There is a difference. I didn’t indicate that statistics were meaningless, but only that they are incomplete. The Senator and I were making the same point using different words, and the Doc (despite usually being quite right) was simply mistaken.