Desipio Message Board

Quote from: CT III on October 12, 2009, 08:01:24 PM

Quote from: Oleg on October 09, 2009, 03:00:31 PM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on October 09, 2009, 02:54:41 PM
Good news for Hawks fans--and for those of us who relish in Detroit's misery...Franzen out 4+months w/ an ACL injury.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=501652

Fuck that.  The Hawks are better than Detroit AND The Penguins.

But not Calgary.  Guh.

What a gutless comeback.

Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
What Nate Silver said.

It's interesting that Silver would mention the behavior economics stuff--this idea has Cass Sunstein's fingerprints all over it.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that he's the architect of this compromise within the administration/Obama's inner-circle of advisers. 

Quote from: Pre on October 12, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
Dumb people did that cost analysis.

Canceled games (rarely) cost the home team much money at all.  They do day/night
double headers instead of the fun kind (for fans).  What does cost a lot of money is
no one wanting to go to your games early in the season because it's fucking freezing
out and they know there will be another 70+ home games coming up.

I guess Miller Park will be the ultimate winner when Bud makes the Twins use it for
playoff games.

Given the % of tickets they're selling to season-ticket holders, I don't think it's going to cost them much $$.  Unlike Pissburgh, there's a strong enough base of fan support to sell the season tickets.

Quote from: Simmer on October 12, 2009, 01:53:31 PM
I had no idea this stadium was being built without a roof.  I just assumed "yeah, it will have a roof".  The Twins should be able to complete about 147 games out of their schedule next year.

From what I've read, the Twins did a cost-benefit analysis of adding a roof, and it costs around $10k to open and shut the roof each time.  Looking at long-term weather trends, the average number of games that would be canceled to weather didn't even out the overall costs of operating the roof.

Quote from: Kermit, B. on October 09, 2009, 09:47:32 PM
The Twins have no excuse for not winning that game.  Ugh.

Well, the left-field ump missing an obvious call on Mauer's double is a pretty damned convenient one...even if you're also right.

Fuck Pay-Rod.

Good news for Hawks fans--and for those of us who relish in Detroit's misery...Franzen out 4+months w/ an ACL injury.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=501652

I'm not sure what thread it would belong in--but how's that Holliday trade working out for you now St. Louis?  I'm pretty sure Chris Duncan would've made that play...

Quote from: BH on October 06, 2009, 11:19:46 AM
Bump.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-03-cubs-dbacks-chicago-oct03,0,3289676.story

Miles sucked because of injuries. And his divorce.
""The fans Wives can be won back pretty quickly," he said. "I've had a tough year. I definitely feel (management) gave me a good chance, but the injuries have gotten in the way. I've had a tough year personally off the field too (with a divorce).""

""The key thing is I'm a player that needs to be 100 percent and needs to be able to keep up my strength," he said. "I have to get everything out of my body that I can.""

Nobody stays married to a shitty baseball player'd

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on October 04, 2009, 04:47:19 PM
I too took a risk this week with the 49ers.  Let's see how that pans out.

I took them thinking there was nothing risky about it.  St. Louis is horribad.

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 30, 2009, 02:39:56 PM

The scoring probabilities are generic (ignoring the clock and scoreboard), and reflect only (as far as I can tell) probable drive outcomes, regardless of situation.

Considering the essence of your argument more or less boiled down to "a first down at your opponent's 13 yard line is, generally speaking, better than a first down at their 9 yard line" (as opposed to, say, "a first down at your opponent's 13 is better than a first down at their 9 when you're down by 13 with around 4 minutes remaining in the first half"), I chose the generic probability.

Which probability suggests what most of us intuit: that getting closer to an opponent's goal line makes it more likely that you'll score a touchdown on that drive.

Fair enough--the win probability could be noise, but it is a large sample size, which makes me think that it still could suggest something.  I wonder if teams in 1st and long-goal situations are more prone to go for it on 4th down, which might go a long ways toward explaining the TD/FG differential (that almost lines up perfectly).

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 29, 2009, 08:47:22 AM

Wow. This was a bit harsh.

I blame falling asleep on the couch and waking up to Andy Dick on my TV for putting me in a foul mood.

Here's the argument against this in statfag terms...

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php

With 4:08 remaining in the 2nd quarter...

First and 10 on your opponent's 13:

Expected Points: +4.5
First Down Prob: 0.67
TD Prob: 0.54
FG Prob: 0.33

First and goal on your opponent's 9:

Expected Points: +4.8
First Down Prob: 0.00
TD Prob: 0.60
FG Prob: 0.28

I'm not sure if this is due to rounding or not, but you left out the ultimate statistic that supports me: Win probability.

In the two scenarios:

1st and Goal at the 9: Win Probability:    0.25

1st and Ten at the 13: Win Probability:    0.26

What I'm not clear on is whether the TD probability is your odds of scoring a TD at any point in the future or on that series.  Given that it breaks down 1st down and TD probability, I could see it being based on that series, not inclusive of other series.  I think that this is right:

If you have a .67 chance of a first down, but a .54% chance of a TD, that leaves 13% of the times you're getting a first down without scoring.

If you then have First and goal from the 3 (worst case 1st down scenario--it only gets better), you have a 78% chance of scoring a TD.  When you take that times the 13% of instances from the 13 you're getting a first down without scoring, you get an extra 10% chance of scoring a TD.

So your TD probability (maybe) from your own 13 is really .54 + .10 = .64.

That .04 difference is the only thing that I can think of to explain the win% discrepancy.

But if you want to get all statfaggy with it, at least include the probability that truly matters, even if it (ever so marginally) doesn't support your argument.

Quote from: Internet Apex on September 28, 2009, 02:03:38 PM
Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Plenty of time to win it, but the Bears should have a 10+ point lead right now...Guh.

Quote from: TDubbs on September 27, 2009, 04:33:44 PM

Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on September 27, 2009, 04:18:47 PM
Genius call--a pass to get you first and goal at the 10 instead of a QB sneak to get you first and 10 at the 13.

This team is being coached by a bunch of fucking retards, and being played by a bunch of incompetents*.  Holy shit this team is awful right now.

*You'd think there would be a page in the RB training manual that says "don't stretch for a TD when you're held up and vulnerable somewhere inside the 3, because a fumble is likely," and that'd be taught to RB's--but Forte and the Bears got bailed out of a very poor decision, and I'm not sure what evidence there was to bail Forte out.

This game is still winnable at 13-0, but I feel like it may also ride on this 4th down.

I totally hate it when players try their hardest to get the ball into the end zone and score points for the team that I'm rooting for.  What a cocksac.

I totally hate it when players put the ball in a very vulnerable position and severely increase the risk of turning the ball over when they aren't 100% certain they're going to score and then take points off the board by turning the ball over.