NFL Offseason Staff changes

The Game Room
101

Which is exactly the case. One starts on a 4th and 2. The other starts on a 1st and 10.

Tie probability = (.5*.2)+(.05*.1) = .105 = 10.5% chance of overtime by going for it.

.5 = Chance to convert 4th down
.2 = Chance to score a TD once the 4th down is successfully converted

Net chance to score a TD when starting on 4th and 2: 10%

.05 = Chance they go for it, fail, the ensuing FG attempt misses, Jets get the ball back
.1 = Chance to score TD after the missed FG

Net chance to score a TD when starting on 1st and 10: 10%

Huh?

You have a 20% chance to score a TD when starting with a 1st and 10 on around the 23 yard line.

In the same formula, you have a 10% chance to score a TD when starting with a 1st and 10 on around the 27 yard line.

The only difference is timeouts. Yet your cite completely ignores timeouts. Since your own formulas factor timeouts as being so incredibly important – altering the expected TD percent by 100% – you have to concede that your argument and your cite undermine each other, rendering one or both invalid.
Also, you have structured your formula in a suspect way. Because you are adding them, it is possible your formula would result in a greater than 100% chance if some of your individual terms were varied. For example:

If they go for it, 95% of the time they succeed, and they then go on to score a TD, say, 75% of the time. 5% of the time they fail – in this case, NE either scores or runs out the clock (100% NYJ lose) 25% of the time; the other 75%, the Jets get the ball back with a 50% chance to score a TD.

Tie probability = (.95*.75)+(.75*.50) = 1.0875 = 108.75% chance of overtime by going for it.
I question your cite, I question your argument, I question your logic, and I question your math. It’s all well and good to pick on my lack of higher education, but at least I don’t present probability formulas that can end up >100%.

102

It seems Spagnuolo is one of the top candidates for the Browns coaching position. Do you New York guys have any opinion of him as potential HC material?

103

Ellis, seeing as you’re still in error about a couple of things regarding the formulas I posted*, and seeing as there’s a motion and a second that we not continue this discussion here, I’m going to stop participating for now. If you want to start a new thread I’m sure I’ll get sucked into it, but I doubt we’d reach common ground. (You’re not completely wrong about the timeouts, but I don’t think the discrepancy warrants totally disregarding my argument.)

  • = For instance, you got a probability over 100% by plugging numbers into my formula because you entered a 5% chance as .5, when you meant .05. Given the assumptions listed, there would be a 75% chance of scoring a TD, not a 109% chance.
104

I don’t. He’s a relatively high energy guy, and he seems to be good at his current job, but I don’t think there’s any way to know how well he’d do as a Head Coach.

105

Sorry for the triple post, but just one more thing: Ellis, it’s not about higher education. I’m a serious poker player, therefore I have experience doing expected value calculations like this, and, also, I therefore tend to address problems with this sort of approach. Most people never have any need to do this sort of thing and would have trouble jumping right into it. I really wasn’t trying to bash your education or knowledge, and I’m sorry that it came out that way. That’s my fault.

106

Doesn’t matter - the fact that plugging in a 50% chance can cause your end result to go above 100% indicates that it’s a flawed formula. No combination of multiplying numbers between 0 and 1 should exceed 1.

107

No, it doesn’t. He accidentally posited that 95% of the time A happens, and the other 50% of the time B happens. Garbage in (to the formula), garbage out.

108

No, he was right. You need another term for the second set of parens:

Tie probability = (.5*.2)+(.05*.1) = .105 = 10.5% chance of overtime by going for it.

should instead be:

Tie probability = (.5*.2)+0.5*(.05*.1) = .1025 = 10.25% chance of overtime by going for it.

That is: 50% of the time, they convert 4th, and have 20% chance of a TD. The other 50% of the time, they get the ball back 5% of the time with a 10% chance of a TD.

109

Oops.

Yeah, banged out that post the other day in a rush to get out the door, probably should have gone back and double checked it instead of reflexively defending it today, huh? There’s also a smaller problem in the second equation (65%+33%+1%=99%, not 100%).

Sorry.

110

Pack it in. Mike Mularkey is talking to the Lions. His last name starts with an “M”. He’s hired.
They’re also talking to Spagnulo and Jason Garrett as well as Rex Ryan. I heartily endorse those three, with Mr. Ryan getting the nod over Mr. Spagnulo.

111

Frankly, the Lions should hire Shanahan. ASAP. He’s exactly what the doctor ordered there: an established coach who can take what he’s given, add a few pieces, and produce a decent result, without having to play the “I’m new at this and still demand your respect” game.

112

I dunno. I wouldn’t hate it. I think that’s the safest pick, for sure. He’d almost certainly demand personnel responsibilities as well, which is NOT his hallmark. As a mater of fact, that’s a thing he does pretty badly.

The Lions, if they’re smart, should sequester those responsibilities to a different person.

113

Yeah, but then they have to select that different person, and they’re worse at that than Shanahan is at choosing d-linemen. Better Shanahan (who fielded competitive, if not great teams) than promoting someone from inside the least successful franchise in NFL history.

114

I agree, if that’s the other possibility. I think they’re going to try and lure someone that’s been biding their time and wants to try and make their mark. Either that or Bill Cowher.

115

One of my friends has told me that Cower has made it absolutely clear that he will not coach anywhere this year.

Anyone else read this? I cannot find it, but he swears it is true.

116

I hope so. I don’t want Bill Cowher.

117

On the pre-game coach Cower just confirmed that the timing is not right for this year. He did not say he would never coach again, but he has said he will not this year.

118

I thought it was Shanahan I read had said he wants to take 2009 off and return in 2010.

119

Excellent. I’d be cool with Shanahan. I think that’d be a recipe for getting back to “mediocre”.

Please shoot me. I just took “getting back to mediocre” as a plus.

120

The Lions should hire Martz. He is supposedly an offensive genius but conflicts with the head coach. If he is in charge he may do better. Plus his last name starts with M.