I'm not sure about this one. Statistics probably say that if he's fumbled once, and especially if it's twice, that his probability of fumbling again is very low. However, due to this practice, I'm not sure the data is fair. Some guys just have bad days. The phenomenon of trying to do too much to make up for a mistake is also a very real thing. Sitting a guy down for a bit in this situation probably actually makes sense some of the time and should be judged more on a case by case than on a sweeping philosophy.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by TheSexecutioner

Member since Mar 2011

5247 posts

Posted on 1/15/15 at 8:29 am to ReauxlTide222

quote:
Yeah that's for sure out there.

Nobody has even mentioned my biggest problem of this nature...sitting RBs who fumbled for quarters, halves, even full GAMES!

Teach them not to fumble. If they can't stop it, don't play them. If the guy's production outweighs his fumbles, then don't sit him when he does it.

That is nowhere remotely close to the biggest problem of this nature. Outside of rare cases, running backs are incredibly interchangeable. By far the biggest distinction in running back play between two backs is not fumbling. The social science aspect of it might dictate a guy already having fumbled is more likely to fumble again. IDK, maybe not, but the fact of the matter is there really isn't that much to gain.

Sitting players with foul trouble and kicking a 20 yard field goal in the first quarter are just so objectively wrong that the social aspects can't begin to justify them.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by TheSexecutioner

Member since Mar 2011

5247 posts

Posted on 1/15/15 at 8:35 am to chalmetteowl

quote:
lol nah

i want my anthony davis, lebron, etc. on the floor at winning time

No you wouldn't. You are just too illogical to realize it. The reason you want AD or Lebron on the court is because they make the team way better. That close game wouldnt be close if they had played. You would have a sizable lead. Nobody's ever missed a game winning shot up 10 points.

People overstate terms like clutch. What was more impressive and useful? The amount and percentage of times Michael Jordan led his team to a victory in the last 2 minutes, or the amount and percentage of times Michael Jordan's team led by 5+ points with 2 minutes to go?

The 72 win Bulls had a 12.3 margin of victory. Michael Jordan was the greatest player of all time because of the first 40 minutes of the game a lot moreso than because of the final 5.

FYI, the data shows points to be very close to equal in terms of their correlation to likelihood of that team winning in all quarters. A bucket halfway through the 2nd quarter is just as valuable as a bucket with a minute left.

This post was edited on 1/15/15 at 8:39 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Tiger Ryno

#WoF

Member since Feb 2007

103070 posts

Posted on 1/15/15 at 8:41 am to Roger Klarvin

Coaches don't go for it on 4th in these situations because they can "play it by the book" and blame it on the player for not executing instead of them not making the correct call. In my opinion unless you up against the greatest defense in the world you should never punt the ball once you cross the 50 if its less than 10 yards to go. just dumb to give up possessions.

The game is slanted toward offense these days you need as many chances to score as possible.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by EastNastySwag