1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Great win, but we have some serious problems on defense.

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by hitman8, Sep 18, 2017.

  1. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's the thing. They've done controlled experiments with free throws. I'm not aware of any with FG's. Whether you're shooting a bow and arrow, throwing darts, throwing free throws or kicking a football, if it's attempting to do any kind of physical task in a controlled situation and we see that hot streaks or cold streaks are (mostly) misperceptions, then we can as a default assumption say it applies in general.

    This is like the speed-accuracy trade-off. They haven't (as far as I know) done controlled experiments with that for throwing footballs (i.e. less time you have the less accurate you should become) but it's just a general principle that for the most part holds for fine motor tasks.

    As with everything there are exceptions, but the onus lies on a person claiming otherwise to show a specific situation is an exception because we're dealing with fairly established observations/principles.

    So yes the default assumption is that even for Younghoe Koo (no one did a controlled experiment with HIM!) each kick can be treated as statistically independent of every other kick. Again.. doesn't mean you don't find exceptions but this is the (justified) default assumption.
     
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It is your opinion it is more logically sound.

    He has not in anyway provided any data or evidence that FGs in game are dependent on each other. 77% is enough for me to say those FGs should have been made. If they aren't for him or you, then those are your opinions as well.

    I never claimed my stance wasn't an opinion. Cbrad, OTOH, has tried to infer that his stance is statically sound without actually using or providing relevant data.

    Case in post, if the 60% or now 46% numbers were a thing, he would have went with it in the beginning.

    The simple fact of the matter, is that defense didn't stop the offense from getting into easily makable FG range those times. The kicker missed those FGs. They weren't blocked. They weren't crazy far. The defense didn't do their job on those drives.

    I'm not changing the score or the results, just how I view what the defense did. Nothing more. I didn't even tell other people they had to view like I did.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You talk about streaks and talk about independent from one another. That is contradictory. If they are independent from each other then streaks don't factor in. If a streaks factor in, then you're saying each kick is dependent on the other.

    Now, for another contradiction, you claimed earlier they've done these studies for all sports across the board, then claim you only know off the ones for FTs. You then apply that to every other sport again.
     
  4. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It is my opinion. Just looking at the stats it makes much more sense. They were not crazy far, but they were still over 40 yards. Those are not gimmie field goals.

    I disagree that his stats were not relevant data. Seemed pretty cut and dry.

    They did stop them for field goals with around 77% chance of being made instead of allowing them to have ones around 92% being made. The defense did put themselves in a better position for those field goals to be made.

    I could see your point if the field goals were in the 20 yard range. I would prefer the defense did not allow them in that situation. Just, in my opinion, your argument with Cbrad is silly and you seemed to have backed yourself into a corner and are not willing to just bail.
     
    ChrisKo likes this.
  5. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    It's valid.

    I have a 50/50 chance when I flip a coin to land on either heads or tails. If I flip it once or twice or 100 times I have a 50/50 chance each of those times.

    However, if I flip the coin 100 times I don't have a 50/50 chance of getting heads 100 times. If I flip heads first, the next time I flip my probability of getting heads again is .25 and so forth. So if I flip a coin 100 times I have a .00000000000000000000000000000079 probability of getting all heads.

    (Edit: If my math is wrong I'm sure cbrad will correct it..lol)
     
    ChrisKo, cbrad and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Again, your opinion.

    In past arguments with brad, he has told me that things with a 75ish% chance of happening are enough to make a definite conclusion on. He has now changed that. And when that didn't work, he made up new percentages based on a different sport.

    If that's enough for you, kudos.
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Flipping a coin is all chance. Kicking FGs is not.
     
  8. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is not what he did.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes it is.
     
  10. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    That doesn't matter in this context.
     
  11. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It is fun being on the right side of a conversation.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    This is just lack of English comprehension on your part. Not only did you not read the 60% correctly, you're not reading what I said about streaks correctly. The general finding has been that most fans, coaches, etc.. think streaks are real. The initial set of findings, first from basketball, then in other sports, but also in gambling and even in the stock market, showed that people generally think streaks are "real" (as in it's more likely there will be success the next time if there was a streak of successes) while statistics shows streaks probably aren't real.

    And just to put some key qualifiers in here (not that you'd understand based on your previous responses), there's still a lot of research into this stuff and people have looked at 2nd or 3rd order factors (so not the things that occur on a large scale, but stuff on a smaller scale that overall has less influence) and shown that in many such cases there may be some truth to "streaks being real". But as far as I know those studies are only pointing out the events are not perfectly random. They're not arguing against the general finding that people overvalue streaks.

    And I only claimed I don't know of controlled studies for FG's. I even bolded that word. Lack of English comprehension all the way dude.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sure it does.
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm reading it just fine.

    Streaks aren't statistically real so you use streaks in a statistical manner to disprove something I said. And from another sport.

    Glad we're all on the same page now.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I calculated the probability of a streak assuming events are independent. That means that whether you succeed the first time or the first 10 times doesn't suddenly change the probability of success the next time.

    As I said.. English comprehension problems.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Except that is not what you did.

    If the events are independent, then their chance of being made doesn't have anything to do with how many were tried, cause you know, they are independent from each other.

    You brought streaks into it, which means they are dependent on each other.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I did exactly what I said I did.

    And a streak is just a consecutive sequence of identical outcomes. That on its own doesn't imply dependence or independence among the individual events.
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Gah, the hell you did and the hell it doesn't.

    If each of the kicks are independent, then you don't multiply them by each other. Talk about not understanding English. independent, in this case, means they have no bearing on each other. Your math, means they absolutely have a bearing on each other as each kick from that distance lessens the probability of each kick being made.
     
  19. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Huh? Dude, I like you, but you're not understanding. He IS making each kick independent. Each kick is independent of any other kick. However, the PROBABLITY of making 3 kicks from 40-49 yards is LESS than making one kick from 40-49. Just like in my coin flip example.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    My math means they have no bearing on each other. You just don't know simple probability theory. And you seem not to even care about looking this up. Here I'll do it for you:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)#Two_events
     
    danmarino likes this.
  21. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Come on man! lol

    Do you agree that when you flip a coin ONCE you have a 50/50 probability of getting heads?

    Do you agree that flipping a coin 100 times and getting heads 100 times is a lot less probable?
     
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No.

    If the probability of making 3 kicks from that distance is less than making one kick from that distance then the probability making those 3 kicks are dependent on each other. If they weren't then each kick has 77% chance of being made.

    One kick = 77%.
    For the second kick to now be a 60% chance, it depends on there being a first kick, else it would 77% still.
    For the third kick to now be a 46% chance, it depends on there being a first and second kick, else it would 77% still.
     
  23. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    lol...That doesn't make them dependent. It just changes the probability.

    Do you think that 77% makes all the other kicks dependent on each other? I mean, they all were used in order to get that 77%.
     
    cbrad and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    English comprehension again.

    60% is for BOTH kicks, not for the 2nd kick.
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes i understand that. But for a single kick to go from 77% to 60% it depends on their being a second kick. Depending on a second kick doesn't make the kicks independent.
     
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes the probability of 1 kick is dependent on their being another kick. That isn't independent.

    Maybe in statistics independent and dependent mean something different then they do in English, but considering I keep getting told I don't understand English, I'm guessing not.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Every kick = 77.5% probability success. That never changes. Now let's say we have 1000 different kickers each kick twice.

    Probability of success = 77.5% for every kick and every kicker means we can expect 775 first kicks to be successful and 225 first kicks to be failures. Now.. focus only on those 775 successful first kicks.

    Out of the 775 kickers who had successful first kicks how many will have a successful 2nd kick? The probability still remains 77.5% so that means 77.5% of the 775 will be successful the 2nd time. That equals 600, or 60% of all kickers were successful for both kicks.

    Does that make sense?
     
    danmarino likes this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    And I think skill changes the math.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It makes sense if they are dependent and streaks are a thing.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Independent in statistics means that the outcome of one event doesn't influence the probability of another event occurring.

    So if you kick two field goals and one were to say the following: IF you are successful on the first kick, then you have a 90% chance of making the 2nd kick, but IF you fail on the first kick, then you have a 50% chance of success on the 2nd kick. That's statistical dependence.

    In our case, IF you succeed or IF you fail on the first kick, the probability of the 2nd kick is still the same = 77.5%.
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Then it is different in English.

    And each kick has a 77.5% chance of being made, not 60% and I've been right this whole time.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I always said each kick has a 77.5% of being made. The probability BOTH are made is 60%.

    To be clear.. the probability of 2 successes is dependent on the probability of success for each kick, but the probability of either kick being successful doesn't change just because I'm calculating the probability of a streak. So the "doesn't depend" part is the same in math and normal English vernacular when dealing with the word "independent".
     
  33. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There isn't a condition in the English definition of independent that requires X to be successful for it to be independent or not.

    It is really simple, for a kick in that range to go from 77% to 60% probability of being made, there is dependence on another kick being there and being made. That is absolutely based on streaks and absolutely not independent (English version).

    Now, on to why I still don't buy this.

    Does each pass completed lessen the chance of the next pass being completed?
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's correct. I'm just saying the idea of "doesn't depend on" is the same in both cases.
    You keep misunderstanding no matter how many times I keep saying this. The probability of success of ANY kick stays at 77.5% Please don't misrepresent that anymore. I've said it so many times.

    The probability of 2 successes = 60%. OK? It's like tossing a coin twice. The possibilities are HH, HT, TH and TT where H = heads and T = tails.

    Probability of a single H or T remains the same (let's say H = 77.5%). But probability of the sequence HH = 60%. NEVER does the probability of H change, not on the first throw nor on the second.
    Of course not. That's precisely the assumption I'm making with kicks. Success or failure on the first kick does NOT influence the chance of success or failure on the second kick. That's what statistical independence means, which in spirit is the same as the meaning in English.
     
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Guess i understand English just fine then....

    You can't have a sequence without individual occurences.

    Beyond all that, you still aren't accounting for the ability of a given person. Which is what I was talking about that set you on this path to begin with.

    For everything you're saying to be true then we have to assume, skill isn't involved OR skill across numerous players is equal.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right but the probability of a sequence is (except in exceptional cases) lower than the probability of each individual event. 77.5% refers to each individual event, 60% refers to the sequence.

    These are league-wide stats given whatever level of skill the players have, so skill is involved. Skill across numerous players isn't assumed to be equal. However, I'm making the simplifying assumption that the probability of two FG's made is that for average skill in an average situation. And naturally I made that clear by talking about league-wide averages.

    Obviously based on the very limited data we have for Younhoe Koo he might be on the lower end of the distribution for ability to make a successful FG. And btw.. if that's true, then the probability of success for each kick is less than 77.5% which would make the probability of success for two consecutive kicks less than 60%. That would only hurt the argument we should add 6 points, not help it.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  37. ChrisKo

    ChrisKo Season Ticket Holder

    3,304
    2,590
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Desert
    Actually, you brought streaks into the equation when you said the defense gave up 6 more points on 2 missed fields goals. That implies you think Koo would make both kicks (a streak of 2 successful kicks). That is why cbrad took the product of 2 independent kicks to get the 60% number. So them getting the 6 points you say the defense gave up only had a 60% of succeeding.
     
  38. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    3,040
    2,485
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    That was not that great of a play, it was more the stunt and branch that made it work and not so much harris, and that was the only pressure harris managed all game eventhough he played a lot of snaps. He was also very bad against the run, as is usual with him.

    I really dont see it with this guy, he is slow and undersized, gets manhandled and pushed around a lot againsy the run.
     
  39. hitman8

    hitman8 Well-Known Member

    3,040
    2,485
    113
    Nov 11, 2016
    Here you go again making stuff up. He had one pressure, zero QB hits, and multiple failures at setting the edge and stoping the run.
     
  40. rackhound

    rackhound Well-Known Member

    334
    332
    63
    Jan 4, 2008
    miamisburg ohio
    Look up kicker percentage of makes at 40+ yards then look up kicker percentage of 40+ yards in a row and the argument will end Im almost %100 percent sure....Im just to lazy to do it....:beer: how does it not make sense that the odds of making a kick of 40+ with each success go down? think of it like this....if there is a %70 chance you make it then each time you make it the odds you miss the next are more likely.....because you are at at %100 until you miss.
     
    danmarino likes this.

Share This Page