Game 3: Saints at Packers - Noon - Fox

[Kerb Hohl]

You may disagree with that decision as many do, but it was much closer than most would seem to think and it's very likely the Packers analytical model had slightly different numbers that told MLF kicking was actually the slight advantage.

Read on Twitter

?t=0iq3Q6huSPjbokZtikA2OQ&s=19

And every time this gets brought up, yes, I defer to "sometimes you throw out the analytics" and "know your personnel", which in this case, you had MVP Rodgers and Davante Adams. On the other side it was Tom Brady vs. the Packers defense when just getting one first down ices the game. Probably the most predictable outcome ever after that decision.

I think every time I comes up, I'm reminded that the human brain considers an extremely unlikely event (Packers converting 4th and goal from the 11 AND getting a 2 point conversion) in the realm of victory.

If the Packers score 8 there, they don't walk off the field and hand them the trophy. Actually, they have to stop Tom Brady from getting 3 first downs instead of 1 first down still. If we're assuming he'd get 1, he'd probably get 3. Or if you get a stop eventually, you have to beat Tom Brady in overtime.

That's why the analytics are basically even. The human brain is bad at processing all of the scenarios and also considers tying the game a victory. Even if Rodgers pulls off a miracle and ties the game, the Packers still only have like a 30% chance to win after said miracle.

Here. I'm a pedantic nerd. Here's some simple analytics that show it. Note that every single one involves the defense having to stop and/or the game continuing and needing to do more on offense. The game does not end after the 12.5% chance they score 8 points (I gave "MVP Rodgers and Davante Adams" a slightly higher chance. As the Tweet gives them credit. It's probably more like a 10% chance they score 8 points)

Get TD 25% * Get 2PC 50% * Stop Brady immediately 30% * Get FG 50% = 1.9%
Get TD 25% * Get 2PC 50% * Stop Brady from scoring 60% * Win in OT 50% = 3.8%
Get TD 25% * Miss 2PC 50% * Stop Brady from 1st down 30% * Get FG 60% = 2.25%
Miss TD 75% * Stop Brady from 1st down 30% * Score TD 30% * Get 2PC 50% * Win in OT 50% = 1.6%

Throw some other improbable ways to win in there and you're at about 10%

Get short FG 98% * Stop Brady from 1st down 30% * Score TD 30% = 9%

Throw in other improbable ways to win and you're at about 9.5%

[Ron Swanson]

I get it. Some of you guys will never, ever, deviate from statistical probability models to base your situational play-calling off of. That's your prerogative but it's not mine. I find pretty much any philosophy that dogmatic and inflexible in allowing exceptions to be incredibly stubborn. It's really just that simple.

[Kerb Hohl]

I get it. Some of you guys will never, ever, deviate from statistical probability models to base your situational play-calling off of. That's your prerogative but it's not mine. I find pretty much any philosophy that dogmatic and inflexible in allowing exceptions to be incredibly stubborn. It's really just that simple.

I'm allowing exceptions...I would totally have been in favor of Lafleur going for it on 4th down as is slightly higher probability. And I agree that you have Aaron Rodgers and they have Tom Brady so it bends the probabilities slightly.

However:
1. It was not "an extremely stupid decision" to do what he did as most think.
2. Whatever fans say about Tom Brady "changing the probabilities" - 'you can't stop Brady' also nerfs your chances to win if you go for it on 4th down.

If a fan says, "I would've gone for it because X and Y, but I understand why the chance to win in regulation by taking the quick FG is essentially an even decision" this is completely good and fine. Not understanding that a tie game is not a victory and calling LaFleur an idiot because "it's an obvious decision" is where most fans (understandably) don't get it.

Which event in my back-of-the-napkin probability do you take exception to?

[MVP2110]

I get it. Some of you guys will never, ever, deviate from statistical probability models to base your situational play-calling off of. That's your prerogative but it's not mine. I find pretty much any philosophy that dogmatic and inflexible in allowing exceptions to be incredibly stubborn. It's really just that simple.

I'm allowing exceptions...I would totally have been in favor of Lafleur going for it on 4th down as is slightly higher probability. And I agree that you have Aaron Rodgers and they have Tom Brady so it bends the probabilities slightly.

However:
1. It was not "an extremely stupid decision" to do what he did as most think.
2. Whatever fans say about Tom Brady "changing the probabilities" - 'you can't stop Brady' also nerfs your chances to win if you go for it on 4th down.

If a fan says, "I would've gone for it because X and Y, but I understand why the chance to win in regulation by taking the quick FG is essentially an even decision" this is completely good and fine. Not understanding that a tie game is not a victory and calling LaFleur an idiot because "it's an obvious decision" is where most fans (understandably) don't get it.

Which event in my back-of-the-napkin probability do you take exception to?

This is where I'm at. I probably would have gone for it myself without the knowledge of a specific model and what went into designing that process. Where I get a little frustrated is when fans says the decision was obvious and that MLF was an idiot for making the decision he did. It was a super close call either way and I wish it would be treated as such