2023 NFL Conference Championships

Ya idk what to say

This was the football equivalent of the duhamel affleck hand

I’m just gonna hide in my hoodie and not be mad about massive luck

don't take this personally Tom bc you are one of SE's GOAT posters and this isn't aimed at you but more the tribe of ppl that have posted similarly sounding twisting myself into a pretzel posts

throwing away WP is simply that ... throwing away WP. it's actively taking an action which takes you further away from your goal -- winning. you don't get to recoup the WP you disregarded at a later date. it's gone. it's not coming back

ppl have mentioned "give me a 3 score lead in a championship game to reach the SB ..." but this is faulty thinking. why do something different bc it's a CG and not a regular season game? it's like sitting at the final two tables of a major MTT and saying i'll pass up this obv good spot bc ldo i'm one table away from the final table!!!

- - - - - - - - - -

off topic: i was watching the game w my dad and early on in the 1st quarter i told my dad the final score is going to be 38-31. it had that feel to it early on, didn't it?

when DET was contemplaiting kicking a FG right before half i told my dad DET would go for it ... that their coaching staff and head coach error on aggressiveness which is good bc analytics typically say play for TDs. when they lined up for the FG i had an uneasy feeling that perhaps DET was making a mistake ... that they would need to get to 38 pts to win this game. welp, they had to get to 38 to win the game didn't they

Duhamel smirked like he had just gotten away with murder.

I am kind of shocked by the WP that the model spits out for the end of half decision.

4th and 2 is essentially a 2PC attempt which are converted 48.2% of the time. So even by an Expected Points scored calculation, going for it is 3.37 expected points where a FG is basically 3.

I wouldn't be surprised if end of half scenarios are really hard to program into the model, and it's calculating it with the added value of SF getting the ball at their 2 when that doesn't hurt them at all.

No worries about my taking it personally.

As to the paragraph I bolded:

Is it? Is it really? Is that WP applicable to this game specifically? Or is it applicable only generally to a very broad sample of games of widely varying characteristics?

I'm simply saying that there is more to decision making than looking at a WP chart. I'm not into momentum, gut feeling, and all that, so let's not get off on a crazy tangent for no reason.

I'm only maintaining that the 2.2% WP figure is an averaged number among differing teams in various years with countless unknown variables. What would be the percentage if you could magically run it 1000 times between these two teams today? Would it be the same? Maybe. Maybe not. Heck, it could be 5%. Or 0%. Or 1% in the other direction.

I'm just saying that the available WP numbers are a general guide to be considered with other available information. In the absence of other contradictory information, sure, take them at face value and rely more heavily on them.

The figure given for the FG at the end of the half really surprises me and gives me pause about blindly relying on the data available for the third quarter FG as well.

I get people saying all of this stuff can't be put into a model and there is a lot of guesswork when it is close, but what about the fact the lions have 1 of the best offenses in the league, Amon Ra/Laporta were getting open all game, the Packers with less talent had similar success last week as well AND you know your pass D is a sieve and you're gonna need points? If we think neutrally these decisions are close, in the context of Lions/9ers yesterday, they seem kinda no brainer.

They barely lost with all these decisions going horribly wrong, if any of them had gone right, there is a good chance they win and we just aren't even talking about this. Same way we don't talk about all the GTO moves that the 2017 Eagles made and won a ring with Nick Foles

all fair points. for me, i lean into the math and massive databases. i also think some (not including you) simply handwave away 2.2% WP thinking that can't be much. after all, 2.2 is a small number. but we both know that not understanding how adding passed on WP onto passed on WP can add up quickly

I think in the mahomes 1st SB year, houston was up 21-0 and kicked a FG on 4th and 1 at the 20 and then the chiefs just killed them after that and people said they needed to know their D sucks, stay aggressive and go for it.

4th and 1 is different than 4th and 2/3 but taking 3 up 21-0 makes more sense than taking 3 up 24-10 on the road against an offensive juggernaut when your pass D sucks

Below are a few of the problems using league averages.

1. The data is old. The game changes every season, with new players, new coaches, new rules, new strategies, new tactics, etc.

2. The game is not played with "average" defenses and offenses. The analytics folks are lazy and use averages because it generates the largest set of data, thus reinforcing one's belief that it is the most statistically accurate projection. Would using league averages be appropriate if the QB cannot run the ball in, thus providing the defense with a huge edge? Would it be correct to apply league averages to arguably the top defense ITL?

3. As alluded to earlier, historical games have been played sub-optimally. Think of a chess match with 2 world class players. Would a top player play the move that beats "average" opponents? Or would the player need to think more about deeper lines to counter the ability of the opponent to respond to "average" moves?

4. Of course there is convergence to the mean with large data sets. But why would that be of any interest in a specific situation? Averaging out all future results will converge to a mean, but the mean is not known, and there are plenty of valid reasons why averages would not apply to a specific situation. In reality the data set offers a multitude of means, each appropriate for the specific situation. Using a mean of means would be analogous to a model projecting rate of traffic deaths using collision speed and ignoring make/model of the vehicles.

5. Subsets using more intelligent historical data to reduce the averaging effect could improve accuracy of the projection, but at a cost of using smaller data sets.

6. Also noted earlier, using averages almost always results in the "chicken or the egg" scenario. Without seemingly "bad" decisions mixed in with "good" decisions, there would be no average to calculate because all decisions would be the "average" decision.

7. Using averages to determine the proper play goes against game theory. For example, a team should not always punt from the 50 because that is giving away too much to the opponent. Without the threat of an alternate play, defenses can play more efficiently. Another example: runs on 2 pt conversions succeed at a higher rate than passes. But does that mean that all teams should always run the ball because the average run is more effective than the average pass?

I am quite familiar with constructing models for game projections. I can tell you that using a simple model to project win probability based solely on historical averages of point margin and time remaining is weak, and should not be part of the conversation beyond a rough first order approximation.

A drive or play model that takes into account compositions of teams, playing surface, weather, injury rates, correlations of previous plays to future plays, coaching tendencies, etc. that can be iterated over millions of times will produce a much better result than using generic league averages compiled over years of historical data.

The 1H play was on the 3, and the historic average for TD is 33%. Assuming the FG is 98%, the break even going for TD over FG using historical averages is 42%.

0.98 x 3 / 6.94 = 0.424

where 6.94 is the expected points from a TD and 94% XP. This could be improved slightly by going for 2 pts assuming the offense has an effective 2 pt play.

Of course this ignores win probability and falls into the averaging trap. If Lions indeed had a 4th and 3 play that could be expected to succeed higher than 42%, and their models showed that points were not at a premium (thus improving WP), than going for TD there would be the correct play.

As the game continues, kicking FG becomes the better play assuming same point margin.

Texans had the ball 4th and 1 from the 16 up 21-0 mid 2Q. There was a long thread here with stinkypete being the sole defender of the FG decision. According to a suzzer post Texans were over 90% to get 1st down, actually higher than a successful FG.

Nice post.
Thanks!

someone asked yesterday why anyone hates the chefs or niners, and it's like yeah, not the most hateable teams ever tbf, but i get why people hate either. there are a few obvious reasons. but i was at the same time wondering why lamar jackson has haters, has he ever done ... anything? i haven't heard anything, and the scandal portion of his wiki is empty, yet he seems to have many haters ... for some reason (???)

I also don't get any sort of LJax hate, but as a Raider hate for both teams in the Owl is completely justified at all times

let the hate floooow through you

yeah i don't see how people can think the texans were wrong to kick but the lions were also wrong not to kick

unless you just think chiefs 2019 offense vs texans >>>>>>>>>> 9ers vs lions

racists, man

An ~ 75% to go up 17 versus an ~ 25% chance to go up 21 ... which is better? Plus the myriad of accompanying psychological factors of stemming any momentum of having just cut the game to two scores. Potentially staving off any possession to cut it to one score. Time getting deep.

They were hardly turning down points to go up 3 scores deep into the third quarter. Do you even know what the debate is?

FYP

All games in NFL history (to get a much larger sample than just playoff games): What is the difference in win rate when up 14 half way thru the 3Q versus up 17? What is the difference in win rate between up 17 and up 21 at same point?

I actually think this is probably close to as reliable than 4th down bot. If your opponent really doesn't want you to do one of two things, then generally doing that thing is best.

That no one contested the main point here even though my position is unpopular seems important. Cliff Notes: You don't introduce explosive swing factors into the game when you are in an 75% win position already. Nope, you increase the 75% equity to 85%.

.

Dan Campbell is the Eric Persson of the NFL

He’s just in there mashing buttons

Lol any of this punditry bullshit my iPhone feeds to me for Apple News but I agree with the premise here

We can go back and forth forever on the FG but the timeout was a truly horrible timeout in the context of what they needed to pull off