The Wizard's sig line
and I looked it up to find in the about section:
"Whether my decision is good or bad depends on how I make it, not on the outcome."
Hey, pretty much the same thing.
That is all.
(well, it's on right now, that is -- but most people are probably sleeping)
What really rubs me the wrong way is when an NFL team does something unusual, like going for 4th and short or doing an onside kick early in the game, and the announcers say, "If you're successful, you're a genius, if you fail, you're an idiot." Maybe they are trying to express how they will get judged by the public, but that is absolutely the wrong way to think of it. The correct way to judge such decisions is which way is my probability of winning the game higher? If you take the course with the higher probability, but whatever you did isn't successful, you still did the right thing.
Quote: WizardWhat really rubs me the wrong way is when an NFL team does something unusual, like going for 4th and short or doing an onside kick early in the game, and the announcers say, "If you're successful, you're a genius, if you fail, you're an idiot."
There's a quotation attributed to JFK: "Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan." which boils down to the same thing. And it does mean that success or victory is an excuse or justification for a great many things. This is also a theme in psycho cop movies.
Quote:The correct way to judge such decisions is which way is my probability of winning the game higher? If you take the course with the higher probability, but whatever you did isn't successful, you still did the right thing.
I mistrust the predictions of probability outcomes of football plays. I prefer to know the coach's resoning. For instance, the NO onside kick to start the second half was a worthy risk, as it took the other team completely by surprise. Miami's use of the wildcat was a brilliant strategy, because they could run rings around the other teams until they figured it out; which eventually they all did.
Also there's the need to keep in mind the time presure a head coach and his staff are under. Sometiems they have less than a minute to make a desicion, and naturally they often make an ill-considered one.
Quote: WizardI agree with that philosophy, obviously.
What really rubs me the wrong way is when an NFL team does something unusual, like going for 4th and short or doing an onside kick early in the game, and the announcers say, "If you're successful, you're a genius, if you fail, you're an idiot." Maybe they are trying to express how they will get judged by the public, but that is absolutely the wrong way to think of it. The correct way to judge such decisions is which way is my probability of winning the game higher? If you take the course with the higher probability, but whatever you did isn't successful, you still did the right thing.
A little off topic, but what bothers me is when announcers will say that the higher percentage play is taking a risk. Going for it on 4th and inches at your opponents 35 yard line is not a risk.
Yesterday, Joe Theismann said that the 49ers coach was taking a risk when after the 49ers made a 45 yard field goal, he "took the points off the board" when there was a penalty on the Chargers that gave the 49ers 1st and 10 at the Chargers 12. "This shows that Singletary really wants to win the game" OF COURSE HE WANTS TO WIN THE GAME.
And of course the 49ers failed to score any points, which made me even more upset.
Quote: WizardI agree with that philosophy, obviously.
What really rubs me the wrong way is when an NFL team does something unusual, like going for 4th and short or doing an onside kick early in the game, and the announcers say, "If you're successful, you're a genius, if you fail, you're an idiot." Maybe they are trying to express how they will get judged by the public, but that is absolutely the wrong way to think of it. The correct way to judge such decisions is which way is my probability of winning the game higher? If you take the course with the higher probability, but whatever you did isn't successful, you still did the right thing.
I give the announcers a bit more credit here. I think that they are commenting on the fact that regardless of the wisdom of the (unusual) strategy employed, its advisibility will be judged by the public--after the fact--on whether or not it happened to work.
Quote: FinsRuleA little off topic, but what bothers me is when announcers will say that the higher percentage play is taking a risk. Going for it on 4th and inches at your opponents 35 yard line is not a risk.
Yesterday, Joe Theismann said that the 49ers coach was taking a risk when after the 49ers made a 45 yard field goal, he "took the points off the board" when there was a penalty on the Chargers that gave the 49ers 1st and 10 at the Chargers 12. "This shows that Singletary really wants to win the game" OF COURSE HE WANTS TO WIN THE GAME.
And of course the 49ers failed to score any points, which made me even more upset.
Singletary did absolutely the right thing--he was facing a team that was vastly superior in every aspect of the game (coaching definitely included). The only way to even have a distant prayer of winning was to gamble. The 49ers don't get into the red zone that often.
Of course, Singletary should also have demoted Alex Smith to waterboy several seasons ago. If only he had the imagination to construct a play where Smith's own team sacked him (all ten of them), and hopefully knocked him out of the game, then THAT would be a brilliant move, as he would "have no choice" but to bring in The Other Guy Named Smith, who seems to be at least marginally competent.
Quote: WizardIt's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
While we're at it, I believe the "or not" is superfluous in the second clause of the Wizard's sig. It should read "it's whether you had a good bet." "Whether or not" means "regardless of whether," the opposite of the intended meaning here. E.g. "I'm going whether it rains or not" or "you're in trouble whether or not you broke the window." Whether should be used alone if it's interchangeable with "if", as in a yes/no question (such as if/whether a bet was good).
</grammar police>
"It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you win!"
-- Donald Trump
Quote: MathExtremistWhile we're at it, I believe the "or not" is superfluous in the second clause of the Wizard's sig. It should read "it's whether you had a good bet." "Whether or not" means "regardless of whether," the opposite of the intended meaning here. E.g. "I'm going whether it rains or not" or "you're in trouble whether or not you broke the window." Whether should be used alone if it's interchangeable with "if", as in a yes/no question (such as if/whether a bet was good).
</grammar police>
"It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you win!"
-- Donald Trump
<Syntax police>
SYNTAX ERROR: Ending Tag </grammar polioe> found, but no matching Start tag
</Syntax police>
;-)
