The only two Good Decisions Jim Zorn Made vs St. Louis

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Are chronicled here:

Advanced NFL Stats: Jim Zorn on 4th Down

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:

Short yardage conversion attempts near the goal line are less successful than elsewhere on the field.
One-yard conversions are successful 68% of the time

Where a FG:

A FG attempt from that distance is virtually automatic—99%.

All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

If that were the case you would call for a one yard dive everytime on 3rd and 10. Why, because it's a 99% chance that you will succeed. You have to look at the what was left to do in order for us to win the game, and if that is your focus, you go for it, don't pass it, and give it to someone who does not fumble(lest you see a fumble return for a td like in last year's st louis game).

If we get the FG, we probably squib kick, but whatever, they have a chance for a decent return, and then they are airing it out, against 2 CBs who had less then stellar days.

I think playing the odds for winning, it was the right call, and really even the play call kept the ball from being put in a precarious situation.

the big IFs in this game if Sellers holds on or DT catches it, or JC doesn't underthrow Kelly.(that still would have been awesome to see him get his first(i believe) NFL TD on a 80ish yard pass play.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

I think you are totally missing the point. This isn't some fancy statistical theory here. All the calculations are result based. He made the right decision. In that same situation 1000 times we win more games going for it both times than not because the outcome percentages, as long as they hold true, dictate it. All Tripp has shown is the mathematical algorithm that replicates proper human decision making in this situation. Which option gives us the best chance to WIN THE GAME? Going for it did.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure how that author gets the numbers for his 'model' so its hard for me to put much faith in his 'model' but using his own metrics:



All that matters imo are the odds for success of the play at hand and we went with the lesser option.

Remedial statistics.