I was waiting for an open thread because this is not really enough for a diary, but it never came...
[It probably has since I started typing this, but :-p]
As a disclaimer, I am an unabashed Seattle Seahawks fan, and have been since 1988. I moved to the Puget Sound back in 1988 from Austin Texas and decided I should root for the home team. I remember Ground Chuck, David Krieg, Steve Largent, and the land crab Kurt Warner. I sat in the concrete barn they called the King Dome.
With that out of the way....
It is the year of the Horse! Yeah Baby! The last time the Broncos played in a Super Bowl during the year of the Horse ... they barely lost 55 to 10. If that is not an omen I doubt know what is.
This is a promotional picture from the 1992 movie Honeymoon In Vegas.
Who played the mini-Elvis on the right in the picture?
But now to what I really wanted to post about....
The Seahawks should hold on third and long when Denver has the ball.
Yes, you read that right.
There have been these complaints that the Seattle Seahawks' secondary routinely holds the receivers. If the truth were to be told, Seattle IS rank second on defensive holds, but Denver is sixth and leads the Seahawks for defensive holds on the road. But that does not stop some people from claiming that Seattle holds on every play (mostly sorry losers if you ask me).
It is against the rules, but professional applied mathematician Gary Montry thinks they should do it ever third a long.
Thomas Bayes Would Approve of Seattle's Defensive Tactics By Brian Burke
He approaches penalties form the prospective of expected utility, or as he says
If you think about committing a penalty in the same way as committing a crime, the expected utility is essentially the same. The expected utility (EU) for defensive holding is (opponent loss of down due to incomplete pass - probability of being penalized x cost of penalty). In other words, EU is the benefit of an incomplete pass minus the cost of the penalty times the probability of getting caught.
When put in these terms, Seattle would be fools NOT to hold on third and long. The benefits far out weight the risk. But don't take my word.
Bayes theorem:
p(F|P) = p(P|F) x p(F) / p(P) = 0.9 x 0.02 / 0.6 = 0.03
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3%. That's the probability that a defensive back will actually get flagged for holding the receiver when they foul the receiver 60% of the time.
To estimate the Seahawks expected utility of holding, we subtract the EC of the penalty from Denver's EU of a pass play.
Seattle's EC = 0.03 x -5 yds for an average loss of 0.15 yards.if DBs hold
Denver's EU = 8.3 (Manning yards/attempt) if the DB's don't hold
Seattle's EU = -(8.3 - 0.15) = -8.15 yards (negative value to distinguish offensive yards gained from defensive yards prevented)
Denver's EC = 0 yards (incomplete pass) + 0.15 (Seattle's EC) = +0.15 yards
In summary:
Denver Passes, DB's don't hold: Denver gains 8.3 expected yards
Denver Passes, DB's do hold: Denver gain 0.15 expected yards
Seattle may get a boost in the EU of defensive Holding during the super bowl. The article also states that there was a 40% drop in penalties during the wildcard playoff games with respect to the regular season games, which if true would lower Seattle 's expected costs for defensive holding even further. But because that sample size is so small, I would elect not to adjust for any post-season penalty calling trends and keep the numbers from the regular season.
What if Kevin Gilbride's estimate that Seattle's DBs do it on nearly every play?
If Seattle's holding rate were 95%:
p(F|P) = 0.9 x 0.2 / 0.95 = 0.2
Seattle's EC = (-5 yard) x 0.2 = - 1 yard
Seattle's EU = -(8.3 -1) = -7.3 yards
Denver's EC = 0 yards + 1 yard = + 1 yards
It's still a pretty sweet deal for Seattle.
P.S. I wrote this mostly because I can't find a high level of trash talk on the Internets. I know that sounds like a oxymoron, but I encourage trash talk in this diary. :)
Seattle wins 20-17!