The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-17-2019 04:58 PM)AimHigh Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 04:37 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 10:57 AM)Grommet Wrote:  Ice only read a few blurbs so maybe i missed something, but how do y'all feel about his lack of coordinator or HC experience? He's been all over hell's half acre as an RB coach but that's as high as he's gone aside from ST, yes?

Its a concern but the coordinators are running each side of the ball and the HC is the “manager” of the team. If he hires the right people, recruits, and makes good in game decisions; thats probably fine.

Im waiting for a team to hire a stat nerd to tell the coach when to go for it on 4th, when to kick FGs, etc. lets do that!

Bobby has been quoted saying they hired an analytics company to help them make judgment calls. I've heard him say it after a game in 2016 and after the VT game in 2018.

I think they essentially have a chart. I mean someone sitting in the booth and available on gamedays.

(11-17-2019 04:53 PM)Grommet Wrote:  Giles gonna Giles. smdh

Its a no brainer. Coaches (some) are too brain dead to do so.

I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

For clarity:

(11-17-2019 04:37 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 10:57 AM)Grommet Wrote:  Ice only read a few blurbs so maybe i missed something, but how do y'all feel about his lack of coordinator or HC experience? He's been all over hell's half acre as an RB coach but that's as high as he's gone aside from ST, yes?

Its a concern but the coordinators are running each side of the ball and the HC is the “manager” of the team. If he hires the right people, recruits, and makes good in game decisions; thats probably fine.

Im waiting for a team to hire a stat nerd to tell the coach when to go for it on 4th, when to kick FGs, etc. lets do that!

Giles gonna Giles. SMDH

What was the problem?

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

I would do it! Fans would hate me though bc they already think Wilder goes for it too much and he doesnt enough!

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

Reducing sports decisions to mathematical formulas somehow takes some of the fun out of it. I like injecting the human element, even when refs and umpires make wrong calls.

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

(11-17-2019 06:49 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  Reducing sports decisions to mathematical formulas somehow takes some of the fun out of it. I like injecting the human element, even when refs and umpires make wrong calls.

So making smarter decisions makes the game less fun?

(11-17-2019 06:57 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

Like the old lady that loses half her pension every week playing roulette and knowing black is coming cause it hit red 3 times in a row.

(11-17-2019 08:25 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:57 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

Like the old lady that loses half her pension every week playing roulette and knowing black is coming cause it hit red 3 times in a row.

Agreed - or b/c it hit ten times in a row. If only they would acknowledge the “law of averages” is a falsehood. Random home run be damned.

Get him if he can recruit an offensive line. Not so worried about play calling. An offensive line would take care of most problems.

(11-17-2019 06:12 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

I would do it! Fans would hate me though bc they already think Wilder goes for it too much and he doesnt enough!

There are 3 types of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a statistic.

(11-17-2019 08:55 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 08:25 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:57 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

Like the old lady that loses half her pension every week playing roulette and knowing black is coming cause it hit red 3 times in a row.

Agreed - or b/c it hit ten times in a row. If only they would acknowledge the “law of averages” is a falsehood. Random home run be damned.

I hear stats people refer to regressing to the mean pretty often. What is the difference in that and the law of averages? Of course the law of averages or regressing to the mean is a real thing. It doesn't mean that the hitter is going to hit a home run in his next at bat of course, but it does mean that a career .300 hitter who is on an 0-10 streak will at some point string a few hits together to get back to his average.

As for purely data driven decisions in sports, it completely ignores the human element and the effects that can have on an outcome. If you have a 3 on 2 fast break at a critical point in the game and there is the option to get an open 3 pointer from a 50% shooter or a chance to get a thunderous Zion alley oop that is going to completely bring the house down and provide momentum from a raucous crowd, it is not clear cut that the 3 pointer is the best option. If you go for it on 4th down at your own 29 yard line in a game where you are hanging on by a thread as a huge underdog, it MAY be the right decision from a data perspective, but in doing so, you are telling your team, this is it. This play is do or die, if we fail, we probably aren't going to win. When you fail, that effects the confidence of both your team and the other and the outcome falls outside of the purely data driven expectation.

Of course using data to make better decisions is useful, but completely ignoring the human element in order to follow random data, will never be the most effective approach.

(11-17-2019 08:24 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:49 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  Reducing sports decisions to mathematical formulas somehow takes some of the fun out of it. I like injecting the human element, even when refs and umpires make wrong calls.

So making smarter decisions makes the game less fun?

It certainly makes talking about games less fun.

(11-17-2019 06:57 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:02 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 05:35 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I'm thinking Giles should submit an application for stat nerd.

Yes, and stats can prove an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy.

Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

There's probably a term for it, but it's a fallacy you see with the Sports Illustrated/Madden Cover Curse, the kicker or free-throw shooter clanging one off the post/rim because the announcer brings up how accurate they've been, and the granddaddy of 'em all, "you can't say he's throwing a no-hitter because it'll jinx him!" The numbers don't add up, but because it's more memorable when they verify, we count up the times it happens and forget when it doesn't, making it seem like an insurmountable pile of evidence.

(11-18-2019 10:58 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 08:55 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 08:25 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:57 PM)ODUDJ96 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 06:17 PM)Petey Hodge Wrote:  Just like your stats prof who said the law of averages is false... when hearing the MLB announcers say the batter was “due for a homerun based on The Law of Averages”

:)

I’ll never forget it. My statistics professor opened the class by saying he watched a baseball game the night before, and a batter was up in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. Further, he noted a tv announcer observed the batter was 0-15 in his last at-bats and “was due” according to the “law of averages.” The professor went on to emphasize to us there is no such thing as the “law of averages” (i.e., the concept of “being due” in sports is false according to statistics). He started to conduct the class and someone raised their hand and asked “so what happened?” The professor responded....”he hit a home run.” True story.

Like the old lady that loses half her pension every week playing roulette and knowing black is coming cause it hit red 3 times in a row.

Agreed - or b/c it hit ten times in a row. If only they would acknowledge the “law of averages” is a falsehood. Random home run be damned.

I hear stats people refer to regressing to the mean pretty often. What is the difference in that and the law of averages? Of course the law of averages or regressing to the mean is a real thing. It doesn't mean that the hitter is going to hit a home run in his next at bat of course, but it does mean that a career .300 hitter who is on an 0-10 streak will at some point string a few hits together to get back to his average.

As for purely data driven decisions in sports, it completely ignores the human element and the effects that can have on an outcome. If you have a 3 on 2 fast break at a critical point in the game and there is the option to get an open 3 pointer from a 50% shooter or a chance to get a thunderous Zion alley oop that is going to completely bring the house down and provide momentum from a raucous crowd, it is not clear cut that the 3 pointer is the best option. If you go for it on 4th down at your own 29 yard line in a game where you are hanging on by a thread as a huge underdog, it MAY be the right decision from a data perspective, but in doing so, you are telling your team, this is it. This play is do or die, if we fail, we probably aren't going to win. When you fail, that effects the confidence of both your team and the other and the outcome falls outside of the purely data driven expectation.

Of course using data to make better decisions is useful, but completely ignoring the human element in order to follow random data, will never be the most effective approach.

Over the course of a large sample, the coin will regress to a 50/50 split between heads/tails. That doesn't mean that if you hit tails 10 times in a row that heads or tails are more likely on the next toss; it's still a 50/50 proposition. Law of averages is pretty much a made up term.

Your second paragraph would require proof the thunderous dunk and subsequent rowdy crowd has a identifiable impact on the game. People like to remember the huge dunk and spart by the team, but forget the times when the opposition hit a 3 on their next possession.

In all likelihood, that was the game on the 4th and 1 from the 29. ODU was a huge underdog. The chances of them continuously holding off UVA from scoring are slim. (UVA is ranked roughly 55 on offense; ODU is ranked roughly 85 on defense...thus, given enough of a sample, UVAs offense is going to win more than ODUs defense. So take your chances that the ODU can continue to fare better than the superior side or try to prevent or limit the chances that UVA has at scoring.

Therein lines the problem. There are unquantifiable (human) factors that happen within sports. Stats will always win out for those who are so inclined, because they don't believe in the unquantifiable, but reality is that human factors exist. Surely you have experienced times in your life where your state of mind (tired, stressed, overwhelmed, confident, overconfident, nervous, excited etc) has effected the quality of your output.