Give the man a chance....as painful as that might currently be.
The Five Monkeys Experiment
An experimenter puts 5 monkeys in a large cage. High up at the top of the cage, well beyond the reach of the monkeys, is a bunch of bananas. Underneath the bananas is a ladder.
The monkeys immediately spot the bananas and one begins to climb the ladder. As he does, however, the experimenter sprays him with a stream of cold water. Then, he proceeds to spray each of the other monkeys.
The monkey on the ladder scrambles off. And all 5 sit for a time on the floor, wet, cold, and bewildered. Soon, though, the temptation of the bananas is too great, and another monkey begins to climb the ladder. Again, the experimenter sprays the ambitious monkey with cold water and all the other monkeys as well. When a third monkey tries to climb the ladder, the other monkeys, wanting to avoid the cold spray, pull him off the ladder and beat him.
Now one monkey is removed and a new monkey is introduced to the cage. Spotting the bananas, he naively begins to climb the ladder. The other monkeys pull him off and beat him.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The experimenter removes a second one of the original monkeys from the cage and replaces him with a new monkey. Again, the new monkey begins to climb the ladder and, again, the other monkeys pull him off and beat him – including the monkey who had never been sprayed.
By the end of the experiment, none of the original monkeys were left and yet, despite none of them ever experiencing the cold, wet, spray, they had all learned never to try and go for the bananas.
The metaphor and the lessons that apply are clear.
Despite the exhortations from [fans] to be innovative, cold water is poured on people and their ideas whenever someone tries something new.
Proof that coaches should go for it more on fourth down. Really, no kidding.
Ei Di(gt) Vi = Pgt + Bgt Ei Di(gt+1) Vi - egt
This, in the unimpeachable terms of the Bellman Equation, is the definitive proof that … head coaches should go for it more on fourth down. Really, no kidding.
"Teams should be a lot more aggressive on fourth down," David Romer, a Cal-Berkeley professor of economics says with the precise air of a scientist. "On average, you'd be better off going for it….
The findings of Romer's analysis:
• A team facing fourth-and-goal within five yards of the end zone is better off, on average, trying for a touchdown.
• At midfield, on average, there is an argument to go for any fourth down within five yards of a first down.
• Even on its own 10-yard-line -- 90 yards from the end zone -- a team within three yards of a first down is marginally better off, on average, going for it.
Two-point conversion
Various sources estimate the success rate of a two-point conversion to be between 40% and 55%, significantly lower than that of the extra point, though if the higher value is to be believed, a higher expected value is achieved through the two-point conversion than the extra point.
In some cases, a 38% chance of successfully converting 1 of 2 two point attempts makes the attempt the wiser choice.
Should coaches go for 2 more often than not? Perhaps. The score and time remaining would ultimately dictate the strategy in each situation, but as long as the game is a point-maximization contest, which is usually until the end of the 3rd quarter, I'd say it's good idea. And in the end-game, when an extra point ties, but a 2-point conversion takes the lead, it would almost certainly be a good idea, all other things being equal.
Conventional wisdom: a generally accepted theory or belief.
Innovation: a new method
Conventional wisdom yields “Bobby ball”. I must admit, I liked the Hauck years insofar as the Griz dominated in the regular season. I liked reading other fan boards and seeing “They flat-out kicked our ass, did you see the size of that offensive line, no way we were going to win that game”
I hated ending the season second best.
Some folks think Baldwin is the best coach in the BSC, is he? He at least seems willing to scuttle conventional wisdom and give up trying to “establish the run” when the situation calls for it. If I remember correctly, EWU won their National championship by giving up on the run and almost exclusively passing to overcome a substantial deficit and win the game vs Delaware.
To me innovation is more than a new twist on an old play, it’s a different way of thinking about the game. A different, unconventional, strategy. Stitt’s strategy appears to be unconventional, and risky, but there is statistical evidence that the strategy is not without merit. It’s supported by the law of averages.
If the proof is in the pudding, you gotta let it cook…..’cause it ain’t pudding til it’s cooked.
I’m optimistically (if impatiently) waiting to judge.
http://johnstepper.com/2013/10/26/the-five-monkeys-experiment-with-a-new-lesson/
http://static.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/garber_greg/1453717.html
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html
