Lions News

[-Deborah-]

Some of these stats seem like a reach, but I'll take it. Hock who?

[-Deborah-]

[-Deborah-]

[El Axe]

In the GBU thread, I did my own simple probability tree. That's basically what this bot does (though probably on a more complex level). The difference is that it looks like the bot just uses generic teams and situations and doesn't consider context. Considering full context would be really hard if not impossible to program, so that's why we have human coaches make the decisions :-)

Anyway, in most situations, the bot says that whether to go for it or kick is about the same (only 1% difference). I think we can all agree that the situation in yesterday's game where neither team could stop the opposing offense that going for it was obviously the correct call.

Even though it was the correct call that gave the Lions the best chance of victory, it still takes major cojones to make that call and here's why:
- If the conversion fails, the Lions likely lose quickly and Campbell looks like an idiot.
- If the field goal works, the Lions still probably lose, but the loss occurs later, so Campbell is not immediately blamed for the decision because of the delay AND because it's the "proper" traditional decision.

In other words, going for it was the correct call, but it's the call that gives the best chance of drawing blame on the coach by the fans. That's why so many coaches don't make those calls because they're fearful of fan wrath and losing their job because of it.

[CGVT]

In the GBU thread, I did my own simple probability tree. That's basically what this bot does (though probably on a more complex level). The difference is that it looks like the bot just uses generic teams and situations and doesn't consider context. Considering full context would be really hard if not impossible to program, so that's why we have human coaches make the decisions :-)

Anyway, in most situations, the bot says that whether to go for it or kick is about the same (only 1% difference). I think we can all agree that the situation in yesterday's game where neither team could stop the opposing offense that going for it was obviously the correct call.

Even though it was the correct call that gave the Lions the best chance of victory, it still takes major cojones to make that call and here's why:
- If the conversion fails, the Lions likely lose quickly and Campbell looks like an idiot.
- If the field goal works, the Lions still probably lose, but the loss occurs later, so Campbell is not immediately blamed for the decision because of the delay AND because it's the "proper" traditional decision.

In other words, going for it was the correct call, but it's the call that gives the best chance of drawing blame on the coach by the fans. That's why so many coaches don't make those calls because they're fearful of fan wrath and losing their job because of it.

They need to throw that stupid assed Denny's menu with the analytics bullshit on it in the trash.

Fucking Penn State went for two in the first fucking half because the chart told them to. Jesus. That is stupid shit.

[froot loops]

Analytics has its place, Dan Campbell gets a huge advantage over some other coaches because he uses them more than the opponents. In this case, that model says that is basically a tie. One percent difference is statistically insignificant. That model probably doesn't have any indication that the Lions have just given of 5 straight TDs.

Before analytics, it was commonplace to see coaches in neutral conditions punt on the opponents 45 on 4th and 2.

[LightninBoy]

One thing I believe the analytics don't capture is the effect the willingness to go for it on 4th down has on 3rd down.

A glaring difference between this Lions teams and past teams is 3rd down play selection. Even with the better Stafford led teams, any 3rd and greater than 1 was an almost automatic pass. With this team however, if its 3rd and less than 6, there's a legitimate threat to run the ball. Even more so if they are in 4th down territory. True, the running game is light years ahead of past teams and thats a factor. But another factor is the knowledge that if you come up a bit short on the run, you have the 4th down still to convert.

I wasn't a fan of a couple of the early decisions to go for it, but that last one was absolutely the right call.

[whatever_gong82]

I was quite tired from all the posting about the game late last night and early this morning but I had a weird thought: What if we someday win the Super Bowl?


I'm then going to have to post Tweets and online articles until my hands get sore when that day comes!!


And it'll be worth it.

😁

[whatever_gong82]

[froot loops]

One thing I believe the analytics don't capture is the effect the willingness to go for it on 4th down has on 3rd down.

A glaring difference between this Lions teams and past teams is 3rd down play selection. Even with the better Stafford led teams, any 3rd and greater than 1 was an almost automatic pass. With this team however, if its 3rd and less than 6, there's a legitimate threat to run the ball. Even more so if they are in 4th down territory. True, the running game is light years ahead of past teams and thats a factor. But another factor is the knowledge that if you come up a bit short on the run, you have the 4th down still to convert.

I wasn't a fan of a couple of the early decisions to go for it, but that last one was absolutely the right call.

Sometimes I think the Lions are a little too conservative on 3rd down because they are going to go for it on 4th down.

[whatever_gong82]

[whatever_gong82]

[whatever_gong82]

[whatever_gong82]

[whatever_gong82]