Most Depressing Losses of All Time

[Lightnin']

...done it before, will likely do it again-here's my Chargers "Games from Hell" in chronoloigal order.

'61-Loss to Houston in AFL title game.
'64-Loss to Buffalo and former QB Jack Kemp in AFL title game.
'65-Loss to Buffalo and former QB Jack Kemp in AFL title game.
'79-Loss to Houston in Playoffs.
'80-Loss to Oakland in AFC Title game.
'04-Loss to New York in Playoffs.
'06-Loss to New England in Playoffs.

I can get over regular season games, games we're not gonna win anyway, etc.,
but the losses that stay with me are ones we coulda/shoulda and didn't when it
really counted...

[Panama]

Point 2: Statistical probability is not arbitrary.

Both are facts, not sure where the communication break down is.

No one is disputing that point. But just because probability is not arbitrary does not mean the means to attempt to determine it aren't. That's where the communication breakdown is.

[BlazingBolt]

If that is what he is saying it is wrong. There is a certain probability that a team with a 21 point lead in the third quarter with so much time left will win. It is based on statistics of how many teams have overcome such a deficit. It doesn't matter that there is infinite possibilities of things that could happen will change that.

If this is what he is claiming he needs to technically dispute the way these probabilities are determined. This isn't what is being done. He is arbitrarily dismissing the statistic in a broad general sense. That is an entirely different discussion that involves analyzing the method used to determine this probability. Considering we are not discussing this technically simply dismissing it completely based in the examples he gives makes no sense. Just making a blanket assumption that these probabilities can not be generated is based on what exactly? Infinite possibilities? That's an argument against all statistical probabilities.

[Den60]

I thought Buck was asking for the most depressing non-playoff game loss? That, for me (and I was there), would have been the "Holy Roller" game. It even has its own Wikipedia page. That was the final straw for Tommy Prothro.

[Panama]

If that is what he is saying it is wrong. There is a certain probability that a team with a 21 point lead in the third quarter with so much time left will win. It is based on statistics of how many teams have overcome such a deficit. It doesn't matter that there is infinite possibilities of things that could happen will change that.

Are you unable to read what is written???

Here, let me break it down for you like I might for a 6-year-old (assuming my best Yuba condescending voice):

Q: Is there a certain probability that a team with a 21 point lead in the third quarter with so much time left will win?
A: Yes, of course there is. Nobody has claimed otherwise. To claim otherwise would be the height of ignorance and stupidity.

Q: Can that probability be known with any degree of accuracy or statistical validity?
A: Unless you are an omniscient god or a Banksian Culture Mind, not bloody likely. There are just too many variables to consider. One can attempt to create a model that predicts this probability, but that would require an arbitrary choice of statistics to be used and manipulated in ways that are a bit specious.

Q: Do I really expect my 6-year-old to understand what I've just written?
A: Hell yes! But do you?

[Bolt-O]

All playoff losses are depressing. But in the regular season, the worst will be those that were won, but snatched away by a stupid play late, like my previous post... Holloween (really one play from the playoffs), and 4th and 29... and the later in the season the worse.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

McCree intercepted the ball, that was a change of a possession. Offense could of fumbled on the next offensive play.

I stopped reading here because you just unwound your own probability argument LOL.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

If that is what he is saying it is wrong. There is a certain probability that a team with a 21 point lead in the third quarter with so much time left will win. It is based on statistics of how many teams have overcome such a deficit. It doesn't matter that there is infinite possibilities of things that could happen will change that.

If this is what he is claiming he needs to technically dispute the way these probabilities are determined. This isn't what is being done. He is arbitrarily dismissing the statistic in a broad general sense. That is an entirely different discussion that involves analyzing the method used to determine this probability. Considering we are not discussing this technically simply dismissing it completely based in the examples he gives makes no sense. Just making a blanket assumption that these probabilities can not be generated is based on what exactly? Infinite possibilities? That's an argument against all statistical probabilities.

With all due respect, this is turning into a Yubaking type discussion, so I'm gonna bow out by simply saying that the main thrust of my argument has been that comparing the probabilities from different time points in three different games to yield some sort of trend analysis is statistically invalid. I'm not arguing win% probabilities generally. If we wanted to discuss that, we would have to crack open what goes into those formulas and dissect them and I don't think either of us wants to do that. Certainly there are (or can be) some problems with that kind of analysis, but that has not been my argument here. So I think that has been the misunderstanding.

Enjoyed the discussion

[Panama]

With all due respect, this is turning into a Yubaking type discussion, so I'm gonna bow out by simply saying that the main thrust of my argument has been that comparing the probabilities from different time points in three different games to yield some sort of trend analysis is statistically invalid. I'm not arguing win% probabilities generally. If we wanted to discuss that, we would have to crack open what goes into those formulas and dissect them and I don't think either of us wants to do that. Certainly there are (or can be) some problems with that kind of analysis, but that has not been my argument here. So I think that has been the misunderstanding.

Enjoyed the discussion

Sorry, I guess we were saying three different things. I misinterpreted your objection to be to what goes into determining a win probability, "cracking open those formulas."

But the argument you were actually making is equally valid. For BlazingBolt's benefit, that is: you can compare win probability for each game at the same moment in time (say, with 21 seconds left, or at the same point in the 3rd quarter, or whatever), but it's not valid to compare the win percentage at some random point in the 3rd quarter of one game with the win percentage with 21 seconds left in another. Gotcha.

[BlazingBolt]

Are you unable to read what is written???

Here, let me break it down for you like I might for a 6-year-old (assuming my best Yuba condescending voice):

Q: Is there a certain probability that a team with a 21 point lead in the third quarter with so much time left will win?
A: Yes, of course there is. Nobody has claimed otherwise. To claim otherwise would be the height of ignorance and stupidity.

Q: Can that probability be known with any degree of accuracy or statistical validity?
A: Unless you are an omniscient god or a Banksian Culture Mind, not bloody likely. There are just too many variables to consider. One can attempt to create a model that predicts this probability, but that would require an arbitrary choice of statistics to be used and manipulated in ways that are a bit specious.

Q: Do I really expect my 6-year-old to understand what I've just written?
A: Hell yes! But do you?

If that is what he is saying it is ridiculous. Why in the world would you need be an omniscient god? Too many variables to consider? If you were omniscient than probability is sort of meaningless, you know what is going to happen. This in not like betting odds or something.

If this is the line of argument than the method used to determine the probability needs to be what is criticized. That is a separate technical discussion that would need to happen with those who generated the probability statistics. That is a reasonable thing to do.

Arbitrarily dismissing probability statistics because you don't understand them and think only an omniscient god could determine them is ridiculous as well. That is not a reasonable thing to do.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Arbitrarily dismissing probability statistics because you don't understand them and think only an omniscient god could determine them is ridiculous as well. That is not a reasonable thing to do.

As someone who builds statistical models and algorithms for a living, to suggest that I was at any point dismissing probability as a valid statistical tool is laughable. I never said any such thing.

[BlazingBolt]

I stopped reading here because you just unwound your own probability argument LOL.

Oh man, it is a separate discussion, we are not talking about probability statistics. We agreed the game was not over basically regradless of what happened so now the point is whether or not McCree trying to return the ball was an incorrect decision. I destroyed your argument if continued reading. All your criticism of McCree is based on the reality that he fumbled the ball, that is the mistake in your argument. Hindsight is 20-20. If you look at the decision properly you can not use the fumble because anyone can fumble at any time, the possibility of fumbling is not an argument that applies to all interception returns is it? So why would it apply to this situation? Do you always not intercept the ball on 4th down? No, there are situations where it makes sense and others that it does not. If it is a deep pass it makes sense to knock it down if you consider field position. This was not a deep pass and if there is a chance at a return taking the chance of a return can make sense. I do not think you consider the possibility of fumbling when making this decision unless the interception seals the game and possession is the only thing required. That was not the case here. That 4th down stop or Interception did not seal the game.