tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post7396330339983616037..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): When to Intentionally Allow a TouchdownUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-56816057919766291032013-11-08T13:22:41.030-05:002013-11-08T13:22:41.030-05:00I would think if a defense were on the brink of be...I would think if a defense were on the brink of being faced with a "let them score situation" you would want to go with a high risk/high reward defense. A lot of teams play bend but don't break (cover 3/cover 1 blitzes, etc). I would blitz 6 and try to make a big play on defense, if you don't, they score before they have time to think about a situation where they might take a knee at the 1.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-22397926543133657772013-03-02T15:49:00.339-05:002013-03-02T15:49:00.339-05:00I took a look at this post after your session at t...I took a look at this post after your session at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference today. My thoughts were similar to Herm's on this. It's very difficult to ask a defense to allow the opponent to score, even if this is statistically the best decision. I was thinking that it might be better to just go with the defense that has the highest chance to cause a turnover, assuming the offence will score if you fail.(And I see that Mike covers this well above.) The question is, is there a high percentage turnover defense? Could one even be designed for this situation?Brian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17952709537008704621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-86913961160153037802013-01-02T23:03:02.120-05:002013-01-02T23:03:02.120-05:00And when adrian peterson needs to break the nfl ru...And when adrian peterson needs to break the nfl rushing record :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04410939602472935732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-1724407058298470332012-12-11T09:56:55.583-05:002012-12-11T09:56:55.583-05:00Mike, some very smart thoughts there.
Anonymous a...Mike, some very smart thoughts there.<br /><br />Anonymous above, no. Your total probability math is incorrect. If p(FG success) = .5, then you need to multiply the p(responding score) by (1 - .5) for that term.Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-3009037308550869102012-12-10T17:00:49.301-05:002012-12-10T17:00:49.301-05:00Rather than entering situations where it is correc...Rather than entering situations where it is correct to "let them score" it is more intelligent to know in advance when you will enter those situations and design a gameplan accordingly to prevent it. <br /><br />The game plan is designed to either:<br />1) stops opponent, or<br />2) give up a TD rather than a conversion<br />3) Gives up a big enough play to force a 1st and goal, rather than a 1st and 10. <br />The 2nd option is for when a conversion would put defense in "let them score" territory, or close enough to it that providing the extra coverage short and intermediate and/or pressure will be worth sacrificing the deep zones.<br /><br />The 3rd option would be buying you more time by preventing opponent from being able to get ANOTHER conversion after this one. The third option would be relevant when two conversion allows opponent to run out the clock or leave you with such little time that you have minimal time to get a fieldgoal, but one does not IF opponent converts on the next play.<br /><br />Of course, this game-planning would require a good understanding of when those "let them score" opportunities are so you can construct coverages and plan on aggressive "all or nothing" blitzes, so this point actually strengthens the need for this information.<br /><br />Intuitively, I suspect teams should consider playing a "goal line" style of defense where they don't defend deep routes and they come hard into the backfield, or a "cover zero" blitz and more aggressive strategies just before entering this point to essentially either STOP them OR let them score (Or in some cases, prevent them from being able run out the clock by forcing one or more fewer conversions).<br /><br />In some situations a traditional cover two is best. This way the "hole" in the zone of the coverage is deep to the sidelines, while also eliminating short and over the middle. Ideally this coverage IF it doesn't stop the opponent from converting, will set up a first and goal rather than a first and 10 for reasons discussed above.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-47318038147636494502012-12-10T16:32:24.466-05:002012-12-10T16:32:24.466-05:00Is refusing to take the touchdown if the defense l...Is refusing to take the touchdown if the defense leaves the field a 'palpably unfair act'?<br /><br />Could the defense put 15 players on the field (or use some other deliberate dead ball foul) to advance the offense to the goal line without using the clock?<br /><br />There's some strangeness with the way that the clock works in football. In yesterday's blow out, the Seahawks offense could have kneeled the entire fourth quarter, but that would not have gone over well.Natenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-11203907857243684512012-12-10T14:21:49.784-05:002012-12-10T14:21:49.784-05:00Shouldn't we have an extra p(made FG) on the e...Shouldn't we have an extra p(made FG) on the end of wp[force FG], so it becomes:<br /><br />wp[force FG] = p(FG fail) + p(scoring | made FG) * p(made FG)<br /><br />Otherwise, it's possible to have wp[force FG]>1! For example, suppose<br />p(FG fail)= .5<br />p(scoring | made FG) = .6<br /><br />Then the formula given in the article calculates wp[force FG] .5 + .6 = 1.1, instead of the correct wp[force FG]= .5 + .6 * .5 = .9.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-90414178411256296042012-12-09T23:06:03.035-05:002012-12-09T23:06:03.035-05:00That's true. The Giants did that in the SB las...That's true. The Giants did that in the SB last year.Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-16538869168417475212012-12-09T22:49:50.463-05:002012-12-09T22:49:50.463-05:00At the risk of making it even more complicated, if...At the risk of making it even more complicated, if the defense has a one point lead, don't we need to account for the offense potentially going for two and making it?j holzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13428814047654767163noreply@blogger.com