User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5400 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Contradiction in terms.
Yeah, Portugal have done half a great job but they don't have much going forward. It's been a really drab half.
I disagree. The goal is to end five rounds with the most goals. It seems to me the order in which you take them is irrelevant.
It really doesn't work that way. They would have lost had Ronaldo taken the first one and scored anyway, assuming the other takers pan out the same. The pressure and the leverage is highest on the fifth kick, you want your best man taking it.
edit: coke to sean
EDIT: cokes to Misters Forman and Pants.
I suspect the leverage is actually the same for all of the kicks since as we saw there is a chance the fifth kick won't be taken.
For example, Doug Drinen looked at 7 game series to see which game was the most exciting game to get a ticket for balancing its need to be played and the decisiveness of the game. Based on his analysis all seven games had the same expected leverage (prior to the series starting).
But you don't always get five rounds.
Don't know of any quantitative studies on that, though.
That's coming at it from a wild ass guess non-soccer perspective with some basic knowledge of probability. 3rd also makes a lot of sense, too, but I'd imagine if you're down 0-2 or 0-3 your chances of winning are already significantly diminished.
Yeah, but the reason they don't get taken is because the team won/lost by enough to make it irrelevant. In order to justify moving your best player forward, you have to think that the players that missed would have taken better penalties on later kicks at higher leverage.
If you can get eliminated after the third, it's because you are down 3-0. The fourth and fifth are guaranteed score or go home shots as well. You need the fifth just as much as the third.
It's no different than the question of bringing your ace back on short rest because game four is an elimination game for you.
The goal is to win the series not make the series 2-2. What you add in probability for winning game 4 you then give right back in game 5.
If Ronaldo was in fourth slot and made his kick, I don't see how that affects the probability of Alves making his kick in the fifth slot. It simply doesn't matter. You have to end five kicks with the most makes. Period.
Let's say that instead of Alves you replaced him with a junior high schooler. Would it really matter if the JHer was kicking fourth or fifth in the end result?
It seems to me that everyone's roughly around 75-80%; would a Ronaldo be at 90? 95?
Why, you lose on the fourth or lose on the fifth you still lost.
Yeah, but you have to get to the fifth, meaning that you should be playing your best at 3rd. Having them 5th minimizes the chance your best player takes a shot in a do or die situation.
Take a coin and try this. Imagine Ronaldo is a 100% scorer and every one else is a 50% scorer. You will win the same number of shootouts regardless of where you place Ronaldo.
The only possible reason it would matter is if you believe the probabilities of the other kickers is dependent on the score and what happened before them, which is pure speculation.
Edit: Also, yes you have to make it to the fourth kick but you still need someone to make the fifth kick as well.
Here is a question: Let's assume Ronaldo is a 90% converter and Alves a 70% converter regardless of the slot they are in. Would it then matter who kicked fifth and who kicked fourth?
It doesn't matter when Ronaldo shoots. If he went first, they still lose. If he went second, they still lose. Etc. This is a stupid talking point in search of a controversy. It's just because it's Ronaldo and people want to treat everything as if it's all about him.
Basic understanding of probability theory?
You could substitute novice, if you like. And it's been over a decade since I took college stats. But explaining how I'm wrong would be appreciated.
So, just pretend that they play it out, since by definition it doesn't affect the result anyway. If Ronaldo had been guaranteed a chance to kick fifth today they still would have lost.
(I'm very firmly on the 'order doesn't matter' camp.)
It is the difference between dependent and independent events. If the probability of player A and player B making their kicks is independent then the order is unimportant. If Ronaldo making it makes Alves more or less likely to make his, then it is dependent and order may matter.
I think that since there is so little data to study that we should just assume order is unimportant and move on from there.
Sure, if they all took 5 whacks. But that isn't the situation. In a number of those cases, that guy going last won't get to shoot because his team will have already lost. I might have confused this earlier when I talked about making it to the 5th round, and I get what you're saying about how taking that final shot does not (in this case) change the outcome, and how it would not change the overall chance of winning if they went through all 5 rounds..
Except even if they're independent events, order can still matter because the team that frontloads it's best shooters will win more often before the second team's best shooters have a chance to go, thus changing the probability that those PK takers play a role in the outcome, and thus changing the number of times that they'll play a role. If everyone got to take 5 shots, regardless of outcome, yeah, I'm clearly wrong.
And yeah, we don't have enough evidence to really tell.
This is the issue. You're basing your premise on something that, *by definition*, doesn't affect the results. Just tell yourself that everyone always gets to take five shots. Because they may as well.
And the keeper. Who knows if those would balance out.
Scenario 1:
Team A 1-.5-.5-.5-.5
Team B .5-.5-.5-.5-1
Outcome of PKs as they're taken under the rules:
1-1-0-0-1
1-0-0-0-x
Moving the automatic taker up from 5th doesn't change the missed shot from whoever he displaces. So it only changes things if that fifth shot might turn out differently than the shot that the 100% guy replaces. That's counterintuitive. At the same time, I still wish I had a spreadsheet to run it for me because it comes off as weird. (hurrah for learning something)
Team A's star and Team B's star aren't meaningfully participating whether they kick or not. They just cancel each other out. If team A's 50/50 guys outperform team B's 50/50 guys, team A will always win, 100% of the time. And of course if team B's 50/50 guys outperform team A's 50/50 guys, team B will always win.
In fact, let's say the refs have a plane to catch. They tell the teams they don't have time to bother with the formalities of the 100% kicks, so send your stars to the locker room. Each team gets four kicks, plus to make the scores look normal each team can add 1 to their score at any time - before the first round, after the fourth round or anywhere in between. Obviously, strategically it makes no difference whether your team adds that number sooner or later...UNLESS you care about the margin of victory (which may be what's throwing you off). Team A is more likely to win 4-2 or 3-1 or whatever, but letting team B's star get a kick when we wouldn't otherwise will never change who wins - it will only change 4-2 games to 4-3, and so on.
I would hate this idea. Shootouts are great when your team doesn't lose.
As mentioned, a similar situation comes up from time to time in the baseball playoffs, when a team is down 3-2 and, facing elimination, pitches their ace on short rest in Game 6. It's generally foolish. You have to win both games. The only way the order matters at all is if pitching your ace in one game or the other will somehow increase your chance of winning the game he doesn't pitch.
And, thanks to BBTF for once again being an oasis of rational discussion.
Beware the Thistle, Ranger wankers!
I tried following this Rangers story but I admit that I'm completely lost. The whole thing has been very confusing. All I can make out is that it's a bad idea to be a creditor of Rangers FC. I haven't heard what will happen to the 3 Nats employed by the Gers. I assume they will jump ship but Bedoya and Bocanegra may have trouble finding good clubs. Edu, I suspect, will do fine.
The first half was compelling, I thought, but the 2nd and extra time were the dullest of the tournament. The last 2 games have been crap, which is a shame because now is when the most people are beginning to watch. I'll have to deal with all the "See, there's no scoring in soccer. BORING!" crap again. I don't even care who wins today as long as someone scores a damn goal.
All probabilities in % obviously.
A 1.0-0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5
B 0.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-1.0
After penalty
# A B
6 3.125 0
7 7.8125 1.5625
8 11.71875 4.6875
9 13.671875 8.263125
10 0 28.065
Total 36.328125 36.328125
Tied after 5: 27.34375
I thought the last two games were basically identical. Awesome first half, punctuated by huge missed chances (more so in Eng/Ita), followed by 75 minutes of tedium.
Really? I was very busy during the second half so didn't get to watch that much. I'll accept that it was incredibly dull.
But the extra time was fantastic, I thought. Spain was really going for it, Portugal was somewhat desperate but had enough about them to still pose a threat on the break. And Spain came very close on a couple occasions.
I was astounded at the fitness of the Spanish (though the three subs certainly helped), being able to attack like they did even after the 100th minute.
The second half was dull, but extra time was way, way better in Spain-Portugal than in England-Italy.
A slice of good news at last for Spurs fans. Gareth Bale has signed a contract until 2016
Robbie Savage ?@RobbieSavage8
@GaryLineker errr what do you and bale have in common ... Let me think ????
Gary Lineker ?@GaryLineker
@RobbieSavage8 We're both significantly better players than you?
Ha!
How plausible a solution is allowing extra subs for each period of extra time?
It would be quite sadistic against the unsubbed players who has to keep up with them.
If we believe this then apparently Bento made the right choice after all.
I saw this done once in a youth tournament. Of course, there were free substitutions and other differences between that and a professional game so it's feasible there. I liked it much better than a shootout.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. The tired player won't be able to keep up so it would create a more open game and increase the chance of a goal. Sadistic is a pretty strong word. I'm not advocating waterboarding or Adam Sandler movies for anyone.
The maximum bench for non-friendly games is 7. They don't want to expand either the bench or the number of subs, for fear that it will shift the balance further towards the teams with big money and deep squads.
Conclusion does not necessarily follow. If people are adhering to the fallacy, it will change the outcome. Lots of teams putting their best man first is going to up the conversion rate for that kick. 2, 3 and 5 are close enough that I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it, unless you can show that many teams are already putting above average takers fifth. 4 is kinda weird.
Sudden death is obviously where the worst penalty takers end up. And it also must contain at least 1 round with 50%, which will drag the average down.
I mean, I said I would put the best penalty taker last, because there is at least potential upside to doing so, and absolutely no downside. But I don't think you can read much from the numbers, unless you can deduce a baseline for the strength of each set.
Sounds to me like selective sampling. Maybe the managers are putting their best kickers in first? Same thing for ages (defenders generally are older, and do worse, thus the variable are not independent)
Surely teams wouldn't save their worst kickers for sudden death, would they? That's when there is the most pressure! (hahahaha).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main