Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Paydirt] Re: COMMITTEE TWO MINUTE WARNING-FG's

Expand Messages
  • Matt Floray
    ... have a 50% chance to set the NFL record. As it is he hit 75% of those attempts of over 50 yards. I wish I had more data. Have any suggestions?
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >>MY MISTAKE...there should have been 103/206 good. So yes, they will
      have a 50% chance to set the NFL record. As it is he hit 75% of
      those attempts of over 50 yards. I wish I had more data. Have any
      suggestions?<<

      I would say 100/200 good, but that's me.

      >>Do you think that his chance of hitting the 63 yarder was only 1-in-
      36? I think that if his coach thought that he had a 1-in-36 chance,
      he would have thown a hail-mary.<<

      No he wouldn't. Denver was winning 24-10 and it was the second quarter.
      They were in no danger of losing the game. They could have knelt down or
      just ran a safe play. The point was, they wanted him to try and tie the
      record and he did. They were undefeated and 2 TD's ahead. They had no
      concerns about points at that time nor ever in that game, as it turned out.

      >>Thanks for the comments! REALLY I DO! I appreciate someone
      checking my #'s (obviously I made an error that you found for me)!<<

      Thanks for taking it as intended!

      >>I don't know what to do about these really long FG's that are really
      out of our realm of sufficient data. I wish that Elam had missed a
      few more out there so we could have more data, but he didn't. I'm
      not quite sure what to do about that.<<

      Yep, Elam caused a problem with that 63, but what can you do?

      Matt


      -WW







      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • werderwayne
      ... Is this stuff classified? ;o) ... Why would 36 be 100%? 35 and less is 100%, 37 is 75%, so 36 should be between 100% and 75%. BTW, the reason that 35
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Floray" <butchcassidy@e...>
        wrote:
        > First off, let me say that I would not have posted one of our
        >formula's to a
        > public forum. But since you did... :-)

        Is this stuff classified? ;o)

        >
        > Why is 36 not 100%? I'm not saying it should be, I'm just
        >wondering why it
        > isn't.

        Why would 36 be 100%? 35 and less is 100%, 37 is 75%, so 36 should
        be between 100% and 75%.

        BTW, the reason that 35 isn't 100% is the blocked kick. Had there
        been no block, I would have used an NG on #39.

        >And for that matter, why is 37 only 72% when you say it should be
        > 75%?

        Must be another goof on my part...I put this together at great
        expense and at the last minute. ;o)

        >
        > And, if they can kick one longer than they actually did, why can't
        they miss
        > one shorter than they actually did?

        They can...if it is blocked.

        I could see having the block include an F-X also.

        >Isn't the theory something like "if
        > they played 100 games they may have kicked one longer"? If so,
        >then the
        > converse is also true. Therefore, should there not be a chance of
        >an NG no
        > matter what? Ditto for a fumbled snap?
        >
        > Or did I miss something?

        You're right! Elam went 16 for 16 under 36 yards...with that block
        there, his chance of missing at least one of those 16 with this
        chart is 38%. So he'd average missing one (have it blocked,
        actually) under 36 yards a little more often than one every three
        seasons.

        You bring up really good points that Rupert and I bandied about. I
        wanted to put something up so that people could try to rip it apart
        and also for people to check it.

        We didn't know if we should put a F-X on 19 on all the charts, or an
        NG. There is only 1 #19. Too bad. We could make a NG on 19 and a
        F-X on 10, if we move the penalties. Sounds good to me.

        There are some things I am quite adamant about...like trying to
        recreate the % of makes where we have enough data, as opposed to
        just plunking the made FG's on the chart, but on other things I am
        WAY open to suggestion.

        -WW

        >
        > Matt
        >
        >
        > >Here's the 98 Denver FG chart:
        > 10 D 5
        > 11 O 5
        > 12 19
        > 13 18
        > 14 37
        > 15 31
        > 16 19
        > 17 O15
        > 18 D15
        > 19 31
        > 20 18
        > 21 37
        > 22 46
        > 23 18
        > 24 47
        > 25 47
        > 26 46
        > 27 18
        > 28 37
        > 29 19
        > 30 BK -X
        > 31 19
        > 32 36
        > 33 47
        > 34 46
        > 35 46
        > 36 47
        > 37 19
        > 38 36
        > 39 18
        >
        > Here's the DATA:
        > FG's
        > MAKES MISSES
        > 63 50%
        > 55 50%
        > 53 67%
        > 52 49 67%
        > 48 70%
        > 46 70%
        > 44 70%
        > 44 70%
        > 43 70%
        > 42 70%
        > 42 42 70%
        > 38 38 70%
        > 37 75%
        > 37 75%
        > 37 37 75%
        > 35 100%
        > 35 100%
        > 35 100%
        > 35 100%
        > 34 100%
        > 33 100%
        > 33 100%
        > 32 100%
        > 32 100%
        > 31 100%
        > 31 100%
        > 30 100%
        > 26 100%
        > 26 100%
        > 24 100%
        > 23 100%
      • Matt Floray
        ... be between 100% and 75%.
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 6, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > Why is 36 not 100%? I'm not saying it should be, I'm just
          >wondering why it
          > isn't.

          >>Why would 36 be 100%? 35 and less is 100%, 37 is 75%, so 36 should
          be between 100% and 75%.<<

          He didn't miss one from 36, did he?

          >>BTW, the reason that 35 isn't 100% is the blocked kick. Had there
          been no block, I would have used an NG on #39.<<

          Like I said, I would go with 200, therefore, the block is irrelevant. And a
          block is not a miss. They are a different thing altogether. I would rather
          miss an FG than have one blocked any day.

          >And for that matter, why is 37 only 72% when you say it should be
          > 75%?

          >>Must be another goof on my part...I put this together at great
          expense and at the last minute. ;o)<<

          Actually, if you are going with 206, then it is only 70%! :-)

          >
          > And, if they can kick one longer than they actually did, why can't
          they miss
          > one shorter than they actually did?

          >>They can...if it is blocked.

          I could see having the block include an F-X also.<<

          But a miss and a block are not the same thing. If they were the Block would
          have the same weight as all the misses combined.

          >Isn't the theory something like "if
          > they played 100 games they may have kicked one longer"? If so,
          >then the
          > converse is also true. Therefore, should there not be a chance of
          >an NG no
          > matter what? Ditto for a fumbled snap?
          >
          > Or did I miss something?

          >>You're right! Elam went 16 for 16 under 36 yards...with that block
          there, his chance of missing at least one of those 16 with this
          chart is 38%. So he'd average missing one (have it blocked,
          actually) under 36 yards a little more often than one every three
          seasons.<<

          Thanks! I like to be right, as we all do. But unfortunately, I don't think
          you are. A Block and a miss are two different animals. If you are going to
          count a block as a miss, then your numbers are all off. Way off!

          >>We didn't know if we should put a F-X on 19 on all the charts, or an
          NG. There is only 1 #19. Too bad. We could make a NG on 19 and a
          F-X on 10, if we move the penalties. Sounds good to me.<<

          Sometimes finding the right size box for your package is part of the problem
          when making a chart. I think anyone who has ever even tried to make a chart
          has realized that very early on.

          >>There are some things I am quite adamant about...like trying to
          recreate the % of makes where we have enough data, as opposed to
          just plunking the made FG's on the chart, but on other things I am
          WAY open to suggestion.<<

          So far, you seem pretty open. This is a good thing, to quote Martha the
          jail bird.

          Matt
        • werderwayne
          ... No, his shortest miss is from 37...he didn t make any from 36 either. He was 16-16 from 35 and less. He missed from 37. He was 0-0 from 36 yards. As a
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Floray" <butchcassidy@e...>
            wrote:
            >
            > > Why is 36 not 100%? I'm not saying it should be, I'm just
            > >wondering why it
            > > isn't.
            >
            > >>Why would 36 be 100%? 35 and less is 100%, 37 is 75%, so 36
            >>should
            > be between 100% and 75%.<<
            >
            > He didn't miss one from 36, did he?

            No, his shortest miss is from 37...he didn't make any from 36
            either. He was 16-16 from 35 and less. He missed from 37. He was
            0-0 from 36 yards. As a result I must interpolate. From 1-35 he
            made 100%. From 37, he was 3-4 (this section of 5% values of 20 I
            accidentally ommitted). So he should be about [(100+75)/2]% from 36
            yards. From 38-48 he made 7-10.

            >
            > >>BTW, the reason that 35 isn't 100% is the blocked kick. Had
            >there
            > been no block, I would have used an NG on #39.<<
            >
            > Like I said, I would go with 200, therefore, the block is
            >irrelevant.

            Did I have any #'s in there less than 18?

            >And a
            > block is not a miss.

            Huh? From what aspect?

            >They are a different thing altogether.

            Other than the obvious, in what way?

            >I >would rather
            > miss an FG than have one blocked any day.
            >
            > >And for that matter, why is 37 only 72% when you say it should be
            > > 75%?
            >
            > >>Must be another goof on my part...I put this together at great
            > expense and at the last minute. ;o)<<
            >
            > Actually, if you are going with 206, then it is only 70%! :-)
            >
            > >
            > > And, if they can kick one longer than they actually did, why
            >>can't
            > they miss
            > > one shorter than they actually did?
            >
            > >>They can...if it is blocked.
            >
            > I could see having the block include an F-X also.<<
            >
            > But a miss and a block are not the same thing.

            They aren't the same, but a block is considered a miss. We can't
            have a different chart for attempts from different areas. The
            chances of getting a 50 yarder blocked and a 20 yarder blocked are
            the same in Paydirt. If I have a block and an NG on #39, that would
            add up to 9/206 auto-misses. At that point, one would have less
            than a 50-50 chance to make all 16 kicks of 35 or less.

            >If they were the >Block would
            > have the same weight as all the misses combined.

            I REALLY don't get the reasoning on that.

            >
            > >Isn't the theory something like "if
            > > they played 100 games they may have kicked one longer"? If so,
            > >then the
            > > converse is also true. Therefore, should there not be a chance
            >>of
            > >an NG no
            > > matter what? Ditto for a fumbled snap?
            > >
            > > Or did I miss something?
            >
            > >>You're right! Elam went 16 for 16 under 36 yards...with that
            >>block
            > there, his chance of missing at least one of those 16 with this
            > chart is 38%. So he'd average missing one (have it blocked,
            > actually) under 36 yards a little more often than one every three
            > seasons.<<
            >
            > Thanks! I like to be right, as we all do. But unfortunately, I
            >don't think
            > you are. A Block and a miss are two different animals. If you
            >are going to
            > count a block as a miss, then your numbers are all off.
            >Way off!

            Are you saying that we should remove the blocked kicks from the data
            and add them in later? That's great if we have that data, but under
            most circumstances, we won't have that information, so I won't have
            that option. I don't have it for '98 Denver. It is possible that
            from 2001-2004 I could gleen most of it out of NFL.com.

            -WW


            >
            > >>We didn't know if we should put a F-X on 19 on all the charts,
            or an
            > NG. There is only 1 #19. Too bad. We could make a NG on 19 and
            >a
            > F-X on 10, if we move the penalties. Sounds good to me.<<
            >
            > Sometimes finding the right size box for your package is part of
            >the problem
            > when making a chart. I think anyone who has ever even tried to
            >make a chart
            > has realized that very early on.
            >
            > >>There are some things I am quite adamant about...like trying to
            > recreate the % of makes where we have enough data, as opposed to
            > just plunking the made FG's on the chart, but on other things I am
            > WAY open to suggestion.<<
            >
            > So far, you seem pretty open. This is a good thing, to quote
            >Martha the
            > jail bird.
            >
            > Matt
          • Matt Floray
            ... and add them in later? That s great if we have that data, but under most circumstances, we won t have that information, so I won t have that option. I
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              >>Are you saying that we should remove the blocked kicks from the data
              and add them in later? That's great if we have that data, but under
              most circumstances, we won't have that information, so I won't have
              that option. I don't have it for '98 Denver. It is possible that
              from 2001-2004 I could gleen most of it out of NFL.com.<<

              I did make one mistake. I was thinking of the 29-yarder that got blocked
              but that was Atlanta. The only Denver FG that got blocked was from 37.
              Therefore, the numbers are not as far off as I was thinking last night.

              Matt
            • rupertsellsitall@aol.com
              In a message dated 11/7/04 8:57:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... and add them in later? That s great if we have that data, but under most circumstances, we
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 11/7/04 8:57:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@... writes:
                >>Are you saying that we should remove the blocked kicks from the data
                and add them in later?  That's great if we have that data, but under
                most circumstances, we won't have that information, so I won't have
                that option.  I don't have it for '98 Denver.  It is possible that
                from 2001-2004 I could gleen most of it out of NFL.com.<<
                 
                 
                With my FG data, I do not make note of blocked FG's, and that is definitely something I will look at doing at a later date, perhaps coloring the text of a blocked FG in red or something like that.  I think I could dig up a lot of that data for past games out of the Sporting News NFL guides and my collection of old Pro Football Weekly from the 1970's, as blocked FG's are one thing which usually get mentioned in written summaries of games.  But I doubt it will be a "complete" listing of all blocked FG's for those seasons.
              • Wayne & Irene Smith
                I SHOULD be able to get that data fro 2001-2004 only. -WW ... From: rupertsellsitall@aol.com [mailto:rupertsellsitall@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
                • 0 Attachment

                  I SHOULD be able to get that data fro 2001-2004 only.

                   

                  -WW

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: rupertsellsitall@... [mailto:rupertsellsitall@...]
                  Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 10:02 AM
                  To: Paydirt@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [Paydirt] Re: COMMITTEE TWO MINUTE WARNING-FG's

                   

                  In a message dated 11/7/04 8:57:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@... writes:

                  >>Are you saying that we should remove the blocked kicks from the data
                  and add them in later?  That's great if we have that data, but under
                  most circumstances, we won't have that information, so I won't have
                  that option.  I don't have it for '98 Denver.  It is possible that
                  from 2001-2004 I could gleen most of it out of NFL.com.<<

                   

                   

                  With my FG data, I do not make note of blocked FG's, and that is definitely something I will look at doing at a later date, perhaps coloring the text of a blocked FG in red or something like that.  I think I could dig up a lot of that data for past games out of the Sporting News NFL guides and my collection of old Pro Football Weekly from the 1970's, as blocked FG's are one thing which usually get mentioned in written summaries of games.  But I doubt it will be a "complete" listing of all blocked FG's for those seasons.



                • Matt Floray
                  I have all the pbp s back to 97 so I have it that far back. According to a post at PFRA the HOF has pbp s back to 62 with only a few games missing. Now
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment

                    I have all the pbp’s back to ’97 so I have it that far back.  According to a post at PFRA the HOF has pbp’s back to ’62 with only a few games missing.  Now getting to that is something different.

                     

                    Matt

                     

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Wayne & Irene Smith [mailto:ismith@...]
                    Sent:
                    Sunday, November 07, 2004 11:10 AM
                    To: Paydirt@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [Paydirt] Re: COMMITTEE TWO MINUTE WARNING-FG's

                     

                    I SHOULD be able to get that data fro 2001-2004 only.

                     

                    -WW

                     

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: rupertsellsitall@... [mailto:rupertsellsitall@...]
                    Sent:
                    Sunday, November 07, 2004 10:02 AM
                    To: Paydirt@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Paydirt] Re: COMMITTEE TWO MINUTE WARNING-FG's

                     

                    In a message dated 11/7/04 8:57:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@... writes:

                    >>Are you saying that we should remove the blocked kicks from the data
                    and add them in later?  That's great if we have that data, but under
                    most circumstances, we won't have that information, so I won't have
                    that option.  I don't have it for '98
                    Denver.  It is possible that
                    from 2001-2004 I could gleen most of it out of NFL.com.<<

                     

                     

                    With my FG data, I do not make note of blocked FG's, and that is definitely something I will look at doing at a later date, perhaps coloring the text of a blocked FG in red or something like that.  I think I could dig up a lot of that data for past games out of the Sporting News NFL guides and my collection of old Pro Football Weekly from the 1970's, as blocked FG's are one thing which usually get mentioned in written summaries of games.  But I doubt it will be a "complete" listing of all blocked FG's for those seasons.





                  • rupertsellsitall@aol.com
                    In a message dated 11/7/04 11:34:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@earthlink.net writes: I have all the pbp’s back to ’97 so I have it that far
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 11/7/04 11:34:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@... writes:
                      I have all the pbp’s back to ’97 so I have it that far back.  According to a post at PFRA the HOF has pbp’s back to ’62 with only a few games missing.  Now getting to that is something different
                      I wish there was an effort to create a football equivalent to www.retrosheet.com, where they are trying to collect play by play boxscores for every Baseball game in MLB history.  I was impressed with the line scores at profootballhistory.net, as it is a step in the right direction.  John Troan has a site at www.jt-sw.com where he has boxscores for 1994 forward and in exchanging emails with him in the past he has indicated a desire to publish box scores for all NFL games, but it is impossible for one person to do it alone and he only has post 1994 on his site.
                       
                      You also have 1971 PBP.  Did you ever find a copy of the 1972 PBP book?
                    • Travis Stephens
                      jojorody wrote: DENVER BRONCOS 1998 PROJECT Time is running out on our Denver 1998 project. Deadline is Midnight on Sunday (the 7th). I
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment


                        jojorody <jojo349199@...> wrote:



                        DENVER BRONCOS 1998 PROJECT

                        Time is running out on our Denver 1998 project.  Deadline is Midnight
                        on Sunday (the 7th).

                        I have copies of Matt Floray's and Eddie Mays version of the
                        '98 Broncos.

                        I have NOT received the work of:

                        Travis Stephens
                        Steve Jackson
                        The Kicking Team (Rupert and Wayne)

                         

                        What?!?!?  It's the 7th already?.  Actually,  I've been out of town and won't be able to send my charts (not much use having the '98 Bronco's w/o the '98 Falcons as well).  I had hoped to track down the computer I created the charts on and get the Excel files from them and send them in rather than having to re-type them but that was unsuccessful.  So 'ill have to do that when I get back home. 

                         

                        Sorry for the delay and I realize that this is yet another stumbling block for the committee but things are moving in the right direction.

                         

                        Travis


                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
                      • Matt Floray
                        Didn t find it yet, but I wish I could. Box scores are good, but pbp is better. I am working on a couple of long shots. Let s see what pans out. Matt ...
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 7, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Didn’t find it yet, but I wish I could.  Box scores are good, but pbp is better.  I am working on a couple of long shots.  Let’s see what pans out.

                           

                          Matt

                           

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: rupertsellsitall@... [mailto:rupertsellsitall@...]
                          Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:12 PM
                          To: Paydirt@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [Paydirt] Re: COMMITTEE TWO MINUTE WARNING-FG's

                           

                          In a message dated 11/7/04 11:34:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, butchcassidy@... writes:

                          I have all the pbp’s back to ’97 so I have it that far back.  According to a post at PFRA the HOF has pbp’s back to ’62 with only a few games missing.  Now getting to that is something different

                          I wish there was an effort to create a football equivalent to www.retrosheet.com, where they are trying to collect play by play boxscores for every Baseball game in MLB history.  I was impressed with the line scores at profootballhistory.net, as it is a step in the right direction.  John Troan has a site at www.jt-sw.com where he has boxscores for 1994 forward and in exchanging emails with him in the past he has indicated a desire to publish box scores for all NFL games, but it is impossible for one person to do it alone and he only has post 1994 on his site.

                           

                          You also have 1971 PBP.  Did you ever find a copy of the 1972 PBP book?



                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.