new column. the man shouldn't be trusted with numbers.

"Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005. Here's how the list looked before that fourth-and-2 call.

2005: 1
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 1
2009: 0
In 78 weeks of football dating back to 2005, it happened a whopping four times. Four! If you're playing the statistics card, why not play that one?"

because peyton doesn't have to make three drives. he already made the first two. he only has to score once. to say "you're playing the statistics" assumes that, somehow, the fact that he scored on two drives already decreases the chance he scores on a third. fairly ridiculous.

he goes on to say peyton was a gimme to score from the 28, but it would somehow be easy to stop them from peyton's own 30, and he wants to use two-point conversion numbers instead of "teams going for it on fourth-and-two" numbers.

anyway. no point to this post. just usually like simmons and am disappointed to see him protesting math.

He got on the wrong side of the argument and now is grasping at straws to defend it imo

 

Originally Posted by TheAlbatross

He got on the wrong side of the argument and now is grasping at straws to defend it imo

this. I, like him, initially thought punting was the best idea both before/during/after the play.

However, after seeing the statistics, I realized I was wrong. I don't mind admitting it, but I guess he doesn't want to.

 

Originally Posted by heavyj80

dpotttttz ftwww as usuallllll

Next time I'll post it, then read it, just to beat that guy... jeesus, do you have like a Batman symbol that flashes into your apartment whenever he posts? How else do i lose by 1 minute always?

Simmons NBA writing > Simmons NFL writing

Seriously reading this article made me feel like Simmons was Dan Shaugnessy. Not impressed

Probability is just hard to grasp for most people. It goes against your intuition. I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of it, so when I listen to sports talk radio it sometimes drives me crazy.

I remember in the beginning of they year when the Titans started 0-2 one of the announcers said that only 14% of teams had started 0-3 and made the playoffs, so he stated it as fact that if they lost that day that would be their chance to make the playoffs. Of course this is silly, because many bad teams who never had a shot of making the playoffs will start 0-3. When a good team (which everyone thought the Titans were at that time) start 0-2 you can't just lump them in like that.

Another one was this year when the Yankees lost game 1 of the world series. Someone on the radio said something like only 35% of teams that lost game 1 won the series (prob not the right %), so it would be real hard for the Yankees to win. This stat is also skewed because more often than not the better team wins game 1. When the better team loses game 1 (as the Yankees did), it isn't as significant.

Bottom line is most people just don't get it and it can be frustrating (especially listening to Mike Francesa saying Belichick's call was the worst one he had ever seen). Take comfort in the fact at least, that people not getting these things gives you a huge edge in poker as well as other areas.

Living in a world where Easterbrook makes more sense in Simmons is not a world i want any part of

I just think he's a little bitch who has a column that should be a homerun and 90% of the time sucks.

 

Originally Posted by dallasttu

Belichick was correct in going for it in my opinion, however he did make a mistake and that was not thinking 2 downs ahead; if he knows he was going to go for it on 4th, he should have run the ball on 3rd and 2 instead of passing it, setting himself up for an easier 4th down conversion.

With that being said, check this out, it's from Gregg Easterbrook, the best columnist (by far) employed by ESPN.com:

wow. you sir should be suspended from p5's after this comment.

First things first, Easterbrook is a bore. There is so much unedited dribble that they throw his column in the background and make you search for it. I don't even think he has to follow any word guidelines. There's a reason Simmons is on the front page and his column usually makes it to the main headline. Simmons is entertaining and fresh, and decently intelligent. Reading Easterbrook is like reading a college professor. Is he smarter? Sure. Is that what I want out of my ESPN writers? Hell no.

With that said, Simmons does need to stick to basketball. As bad as he wants to be an NFL guru, he is very primitive and immature in his NFL reasoning. Whereas a good handicapper will point out trends and yard per play averages and comparative statistics, Simmons will base his picks a majority of the time based on ROOKIE QB ON THE ROAD or NO WAY THEY LOSE THIS GAME logic that obviously Vegas sportsbooks have figured out if someone like Simmons can recognize it.

When he writes columns like the one he did today, I will read them waiting for the rest of the anecdotes that accompany the picks that make his column entertaining. Today I get to the end and realize he just threw the rest of the games in a box, like we actually fucking care about his season record against the spread. Come on Willy. Nobody outside of New England really wants to discuss a game that happened five days ago and has already been dissected. If you want to make a point, do it with a column on monday and let us return to our regularly scheduled broadcast. I don't want to hear about Belichick losing his fastball (which is false IMO, Belichick and the Pats are still strong favorites to win this and every year, and his decision was a coin flip), I want to hear JaMarcus Russell jokes and stupid pop culture lists that make you entertaining.

This might be worthy of it's own post soon : Has Simmons lost HIS fastball? Is he still the best sportswriter in the country?

My favorite part of Simmons was always his Friday column. It was the only piece of journalism I routinely looked forward to every week. Now I can safely say that Drew Magary's Balls Deep column at deadspin.com is not only better, but without much of an argument. Not only that, but Magary also has a Tuesday column that wraps up the previous week. As far as content, humor and originality go, and with a better, more liberal forum, I don't think it's much of an argument. Give Magary the nod while Simmons seems to stick mostly to podcasts.

 

Originally Posted by Goal4Ziggy

(especially listening to Mike Francesa saying Belichick's call was the worst one he had ever seen).

Yeah, I have the radio on at work all day, and it has been 4 days of Mike bashing Belichick for a good 1 hour + per day. I'm sure it has more to do with their personal dislike of each other than the actual play call, but it has gotten ridiculous already.

 

Originally Posted by Bob Futon

I don't like comparing Magary versus Simmons. It's like comparing a show on network TV to something on HBO. Magary has an unfair edge because he can make dick, poop and cunt jokes while Simmons has to stick with the PG Label.

I think Simmons is still a good writer but that edge is definitely lacking in general. Deadspin has been terrible as well lately. I think there is a void for someone to come in and do some elite sports blogging here. I'm actively looking for new sites to read.

The comparison is true, but Magary has simply outworked Simmons this year. Simmons wants to be an NFL guru without the work. He thinks that simply watching all the games makes him know it all (he has come out and stated this multiple times), while it may actually hinder his ability to forecast games. It's all about what happens next in the NFL, and Simmons will get a mental picture in his head and has trouble thinking any other way. He becomes stubborn and lazy.

Betting the NFL is a very tricky thing to do. One of my favorite guidelines : Zig when you should Zag. If logic leads you to the water, do not drink. Run like hell in the other direction. This is something Simmons has yet to figure out.

Magary doesn't pretend to be a guru, and that's what I love about his columns. The average reader does not visit ESPN or Deadpin or any site like that for sports picks. They pay the elite handicappers or go to gambling based sites. Magary realizes this, Simmons does not. There is very little in Drew's column about who he likes that week, or lead pipe locks. He offers one game a week vs. the spread and one team to take on a suicide pool. That's it. Simmons picks every game like our personal welfare is at stake, when really we couldn't give a shit less.

Simmons, whether he likes it or not (and he probably doesn't), is the general public. If you fade his generalizations, it will make you a winner.

As much as I love Magary I do feel like he takes a lot of weeks off with his column. Really felt like he mailed it in this week. But I can't wait for the Thanksgiving Jambaroo

so what if he's already made the first two drives? the odds were for 3 drives in the 4th to win. the odds say it is very unlikely a qb has 3 drives. obviously past performance is no guarantee of future production, but if one is "playing the odds"...

you don't think peyton would have scored from the 28 with plenty of time? or that it would be much harder for the colts to march all the way down and score from their own 30? that's a lot of real estate in a limited time. (at the patsies' 28 time is not really an issue.) and he said to use the 2-pt convo numbers because the patriots ran a 2-pt convo play (in a formation that guaranteed it would be a 2-pt covo play.)

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

so what if he's already made the first two drives? the odds were for 3 drives in the 4th to win. the odds say it is very unlikely a qb has 3 drives. obviously past performance is no guarantee of future production, but if one is "playing the odds"...

think you're just being contrarian, but...

what bill gives is the probability that someone has three TD drives in the fourth quarter, NOT the probability that they have a third drive given that they've already had two. he tries to say they are the same and they most certainly are not.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

you don't think peyton would have scored from the 28 with plenty of time? or that it would be much harder for the colts to march all the way down and score from their own 30?

give me some numbers. what do you think the probability is that manning scores from each point? i don't think they're different enough to change the correct decision.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

that's a lot of real estate in a limited time. (at the patsies' 28 time is not really an issue.)

actually, time IS an issue since giving them the ball at the 28 should, at least some of the time, result in getting the ball back with time on the clock needing a field goal to win. i think people have already pointed this out on here, but one of the bigger mistakes on that drive was not letting addai score so the pats would have a chance.

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

and he said to use the 2-pt convo numbers because the patriots ran a 2-pt convo play (in a formation that guaranteed it would be a 2-pt covo play.)

i don't think that's the case, but let's look more into what he did: he cherry-picked road team numbers and only used them for the last three years (when you have sample sizes that are much larger available). further, he didn't actually LOOK at the data. for example, that same sunday, the bengals botched an extra point. the snap was bobbled and the holder got up and tried to throw the ball. check one for "failed two point conversion attempt." that's how it's recorded.

and it's not a two point conversion. it's silly to even think of it the same. there is significantly more field for the defense to cover. they don't have the luxury of using the back of the endzone as another defender.

On his podcast, he compared this Belichik move to a poker player calling with "a 6 and a 9 hoping to hit a flush draw."

This struck me as one of the most idiotic comments of a lot of idiotic comments he has made. Going for it on 4th and 2 is the exact opposite of calling off your stack with a flush draw...in fact, as we know, in poker, there are many times where you have to be aggresive with draws and especially against player that are as good or better than you, you have to be aggresive with draws "go for it on 4th and 2" when the opportunity presents itself to finish the game.

Listening to him and Cousin Sal talk statistics is laughable and leads me to think he probably loses a lot of money gambling if he has trouble grasping pretty simple game theory ideas.