Most Depressing Losses of All Time

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Why is probability meaningless? Yes, probability changes with every action. That's how it works. If my chances of flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times is 25%, after the first flip my chances are either 0% or 50%. So, however they determine it, whatever factors they take into account, it absolutely is perfectly valid to say that in x situation the probability that one team will prevail over another is y%.

And even if you throw out the "cherry-picked" stats, subconsciously in your gut you know that in this specific situation at the goal line with 21 seconds and 2 timeouts down by 3, it would take something pretty damned significant for the Chargers to lose -- intuition confirms that statistical probability is probably close to accurate.

It's useless as a determining factor precisely because the next play can alter the outcome. If Rivers had fumbled on first down and lost the ball, the percentages would have swung in the exact opposite direction. If you had taken the percentage at the moment Rivers threw his last interception, it would have read quite differently. When you start to apply it across multiple games and your read is at different points in the game it becomes even more useless. While I will give you that the percentage with 21 seconds left is a pretty sound number, those taken in the other games are at various points. They've self-selected the high-points but that's no more useful or meaningful than selecting the low points. Totally arbitrary.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

I am not sure you get it. It's not like cherry picking a completion percentage. Anytime a team reaches that high of a percentage chance they should win. The raider game for example you start out at 50-50 and then turn over Td, we were probably well below 50% the entire game.

I'm pretty sure I get it. I'm pretty sure it's arbitrary.

[BlazingBolt]

I'm pretty sure I get it. I'm pretty sure it's arbitrary.

It is not arbitrary so sorry, you don't get it.

Yes, a huge negative play will decrease the percentage but that is irrelevant. The unknown of future plays is part of the percentage. In the Washington game for example you needed a questionable replay overturn of a TD (I don't think that is taken in to account though), than you have multiple plays where the odds favor the Bolts scoring from inside the 1 yard line and the cumulative effect of Washington stopping us on those plays consecutively. Now just because they stop us on first and second down and decrease our percentage that doesn't mean the higher percentage from first down was arbitrary or irrelevant. Just because we went to overtime and they won the toss does not make the percentage we had at first and goal irrelevant. Just because they won the damn game does not make the percentage from first and goal irrelevant. It is basically a good way to measure how big of a choke job was pulled. All 3 of the losses mentioned were massive choke jobs.

The probablility of bad things happening is a factor. When multiple bad things have to happen it is less likely. Heck Novak could have missed the FG to tie, or it could have been blocked, but that is very unlikely. If it happened it doesn't change the probablity we are going to overtime was very high when he lined up for the kick. It is silly to say that because the unlikely happened that the probability of it happening was irrelevant.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

And I still will tell you marlin was not a fool to try and return that int, it was not a fall down and you win scenario, there was time left and a return would have helped. Should have protected the ball better sure but their is plenty of revisionism that falling down or batting the ball down meant the game was over. It wasn't, if our offense didn't get a first down Pats still had time to get a tying Fg.

With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. We were up 21-13. The McCree pick was at 6:25 at our 31. It was on 4th down from the SD 41. If he simply knocked it to the ground, we would have taken over possession at our 41. If he picked it and just fell to the ground, at the 31. In either case, that would have prevented them from scoring a TD and subsequent two pointer. Even a short possession on our part and Scifres punt would have forced them to drive the length of the field with only like 3-4 mins left. Go research the percentages on that.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

It is not arbitrary so sorry, you don't get it.

Yes, a huge negative play will decrease the percentage but that is irrelevant. The unknown of future plays is part of the percentage. In the Washington game for example you needed a questionable replay overturn of a TD (I don't think that is taken in to account though), than you have multiple plays where the odds favor the Bolts scoring from inside the 1 yard line and the cumulative effect of Washington stopping us on those plays consecutively. Now just because they stop us on first and second down and decrease our percentage that doesn't mean the higher percentage from first down was arbitrary or irrelevant. Just because we went to overtime and they won the toss does not make the percentage we had at first and goal irrelevant. Just because they won the damn game does not make the percentage from first and goal irrelevant. It is basically a good way to measure how big of a choke job was pulled. All 3 of the losses mentioned were massive choke jobs.

It is totally arbitrary. The percentage analysis applies only to the snapshot in time in which it is taken. Just like my chances in the lottery are whatever they are when I buy a ticket. In the case of this last game, I will agree that the 99% figure might actually be useful because there was not much time left in the game. But you have chosen to compare it to two totally different circumstances (and points in time) in other games. I know you're bummed about the outcomes, but a comparison across these games and drawing some kind of conclusion about them is not a valid usage of statistics.

[BlazingBolt]

With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. We were up 21-13. The McCree pick was at 6:25 at our 31. It was on 4th down from the SD 41. If he simply knocked it to the ground, we would have taken over possession at our 41. If he picked it and just fell to the ground, at the 31. In either case, that would have prevented them from scoring a TD and subsequent two pointer. Even a short possession on our part and Scifres punt would have forced them to drive the length of the field with only like 3-4 mins left. Go research the percentages on that.

You proved I was right so I do not know what you are talking about. I am not talking about percentages of probability here but if McCree gets a nice return or scores it vastly improves our probability of winning that game compared to knocking the pass down or falling on the ground. The probability of him fumbling is pretty low....yeah it happened and that sucks.

My point is the game was not over if we stopped them on the 4th down. It would have given the offense a chance to put the game away yes, but so many people remeber the play as if that was the last chance the pats had and if he falls down the game was over. It would not have been over because there was still too much time and all scenarios except fumbling create at minimum the same oppurtunities as batting it down or falling on the ground.

Fumbling sucked, McCree should have protected the ball better yes. The decision to intercept and try to return the ball instead of knocking it down was not the foolish selfish decision it has been made out to be. It wasn't padding of his stats at the expense of the team. Intercepting that ball and trying to score was the correct decision.

[BlazingBolt]

It is totally arbitrary. The percentage analysis applies only to the snapshot in time in which it is taken. Just like my chances in the lottery are whatever they are when I buy a ticket. In the case of this last game, I will agree that the 99% figure might actually be useful because there was not much time left in the game. But you have chosen to compare it to two totally different circumstances (and points in time) in other games. I know you're bummed about the outcomes, but a comparison across these games and drawing some kind of conclusion about them is not a valid usage of statistics.

Wow dude.

Ok you buy a lottery ticket. Your odds of winning are whatever. They draw the first number and you have it....your odds of winning just improved etc. etc. The more numbers you get right the better your odds of winning are.

Your last number you have a 1 in 40 chance or whatever. You don't get that number and you win nothing. Just because you end up winning the lottery does not mean your terrible odds were not an accurate or relevant number. But if you got 5 of 6 numbers it is completely accurate to say you came close, or that you had a 1 in 40 shot at winning. That is the essence of it and I am not sure why you don't get that.

All those percentages take in to account the time left in the game. Not sure why you say the 21 second one has relevance and the others do not.

[QSmokey]

Doesn't matter that Reche's knee was down because he hadn't been touched. It was a boneheaded rookie mistake because he thought he was down by virtue of his knee being down, but the NFL plays by different rules than the NCAA.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification; no mention of the "not being touched" part in the good captain's post.

[QSmokey]

Wow dude.

Ok you buy a lottery ticket. Your odds of winning are whatever. They draw the first number and you have it....your odds of winning just improved etc. etc. The more numbers you get right the better your odds of winning are.

Your last number you have a 1 in 40 chance or whatever. You don't get that number and you win nothing. Just because you end up winning the lottery does not mean your terrible odds were not an accurate or relevant number. But if you got 5 of 6 numbers it is completely accurate to say you came close, or that you had a 1 in 40 shot at winning. That is the essence of it and I am not sure why you don't get that.

All those percentages take in to account the time left in the game. Not sure why you say the 21 second one has relevance and the others do not.

I'm the one who doesn't get it, or so it would seem. I have no idea what point you two are arguing.

Like I said...this thread...like opening up a painful, old wound that just won't heal.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

You proved I was right so I do not know what you are talking about. I am not talking about percentages of probability here but if McCree gets a nice return or scores it vastly improves our probability of winning that game compared to knocking the pass down or falling on the ground. The probability of him fumbling is pretty low....yeah it happened and that sucks.

My point is the game was not over if we stopped them on the 4th down. It would have given the offense a chance to put the game away yes, but so many people remeber the play as if that was the last chance the pats had and if he falls down the game was over. It would not have been over because there was still too much time and all scenarios except fumbling create at minimum the same oppurtunities as batting it down or falling on the ground.

Fumbling sucked, McCree should have protected the ball better yes. The decision to intercept and try to return the ball instead of knocking it down was not the foolish selfish decision it has been made out to be. It wasn't padding of his stats at the expense of the team. Intercepting that ball and trying to score was the correct decision.

This is very poorly argued. We would have prevented the tying score on that drive with a simple knock down. That vastly improved the probability of winning that game. There was no need to intercept the ball to gain possession. The more risky play was in intercepting.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Wow dude.

Ok you buy a lottery ticket. Your odds of winning are whatever. They draw the first number and you have it....your odds of winning just improved etc. etc. The more numbers you get right the better your odds of winning are.

Your last number you have a 1 in 40 chance or whatever. You don't get that number and you win nothing. Just because you end up winning the lottery does not mean your terrible odds were not an accurate or relevant number. But if you got 5 of 6 numbers it is completely accurate to say you came close, or that you had a 1 in 40 shot at winning. That is the essence of it and I am not sure why you don't get that.

All those percentages take in to account the time left in the game. Not sure why you say the 21 second one has relevance and the others do not.

Because it's not statistically valid.

[Panama]

It is not arbitrary so sorry, you don't get it.

Yes, a huge negative play will decrease the percentage but that is irrelevant. The unknown of future plays is part of the percentage. In the Washington game for example you needed a questionable replay overturn of a TD (I don't think that is taken in to account though), than you have multiple plays where the odds favor the Bolts scoring from inside the 1 yard line and the cumulative effect of Washington stopping us on those plays consecutively. Now just because they stop us on first and second down and decrease our percentage that doesn't mean the higher percentage from first down was arbitrary or irrelevant. Just because we went to overtime and they won the toss does not make the percentage we had at first and goal irrelevant. Just because they won the damn game does not make the percentage from first and goal irrelevant. It is basically a good way to measure how big of a choke job was pulled. All 3 of the losses mentioned were massive choke jobs.

The probablility of bad things happening is a factor. When multiple bad things have to happen it is less likely. Heck Novak could have missed the FG to tie, or it could have been blocked, but that is very unlikely. If it happened it doesn't change the probablity we are going to overtime was very high when he lined up for the kick. It is silly to say that because the unlikely happened that the probability of it happening was irrelevant.

Oh, get over yourself! You're starting to sound like Yuba! It's very clear by what he writes that BKR gets it and that you simply disagree.

And take your blue-and-gold tinted glasses off. It was very clear from the replay that the TD would be overturned. Woodhead got close, but he did not get in. Nothing questionable about the reversal. There was clear and incontrovertible video evidence that he did not break the plane of the goal line. I'd have been thrilled if they'd upheld the call, but it would have been another blown call in a poorly officiated game.