Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick

Have you ever in your entire life heard a football player say that a turnover caused them to have another? I'm sure you've had enough exposure to sports that you've heard guys say that they tried to avoid subsequent turnovers after having one, however. That's the way players are. When you throw an interception or fumble the ball, you become more aware of the possibility and try not to have more..

Having played sports, having watched plenty of them, having heard endless analysis, I'll say this.

When you fumble or throw a pic, a few things could happen.

1. You get down on yourself, beat yourself up over it, and that affects your performance. Poor performance and not "having your head in the game" CAN lead to more turnovers. Fumbles, ints.

2. You shrug it off and go right back to what you were doing

3. You try to "make up for it" by being extra cautious. Less likely to make risky throws, you "cover up" more.


I'm NOT saying "Throwing a pick makes you throw more". I'm saying "Committing a turnover CAN cause a player to start second guessing himself. Second guessing yourself takes you out of your game. BEING out of your game causes you to screw things up, INCLUDING turnovers"


High confidence players (Probably what you'll see a lot of in the NFL) respond to a mistake differently than a player with LOW confidence.

I'll leave it at that.

At this point, I'm just happy to have a discussion about something other than whether Mike Fox is the worst coach or the best coach in NCAA Baseball. InsideCarolina is having a bit of a civil war over last night's game.

Interception numbers haven't changed from the last couple of seasons. The only difference you are seeing in regular season games are the morale enhancing promos and chemistry at play. Guys that build INT builds get INT's. I know it is a crazy thought.

Originally posted by bhall43
Interception numbers haven't changed from the last couple of seasons. The only difference you are seeing in regular season games are the morale enhancing promos and chemistry at play. Guys that build INT builds get INT's. I know it is a crazy thought.

And I think you see more and more people (thanks to LHF) investing SPs in attributes that are known to produce INT's...

I don't buy this massive morale collapse as the reason for "more" INT's anyway... As I typically don't buy anecdotes as evidence for large scale empirical questions.

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
#1) No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more.
Originally posted by Novus
You didn't say "most players" or "some players." You made a blanket declaration that is meant to apply to all players.
Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Have you ever in your entire life heard a football player say that a turnover caused them to have another?
Originally posted by Novus
No, I haven't, because that would an admission that they were rattled by a mistake... an admission that would be very damaging to a player's chances of continuing their career. But just because someone doesn't admit to something doesn't mean it's not true.
Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
And yet players do sometimes admit to being rattled.

Nice try.

Again, just because someone refuses to admit to something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Sometime after you've practiced your understanding of the English language, go back and reflect on the difference between "more conscious about not having more" and simply "not having more."

You're the one acting as if they're the same thing. You're the one who said "In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more," a blanket statement meant to apply to all players.

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Quinn throwing an interception returned for a touchdown on the third play of the game didn't cause him to have more turnovers. He threw two touchdown passes after that before throwing his second interception midway through the third quarter. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=262590087&period=0 The second and third interceptions didn't come because he was rattled. The second came because he was under pressure and got hit while throwing, causing the ball to flutter for an easy pick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DyxdEv_XDjs#t=108s Then the third was a great play by Leon Hall where he jumped in front of the receiver when Quinn tried to throw back across the middle. Clearly none of those had anything whatsoever to do with being rattled, so you're making shit up in an attempt to pretend like you have a point. Unfortunately you don't.

For what it's worth, Quinn also had a fumble in the 4th quarter. And I contend that the first interception clearly had Quinn rattled... the decision to try to throw while being hit was a poor decision, as was the decision to throw back across the field where Hall could get to the throw. After the first interception, 8 of his next 11 passes were incompletions. That sort of poor decision-making and shaky performance was far from typical for Quinn during his time at Notre Dame. And all during that game, the close-up camera shots on his face showed he did not have his usual confident mood, even early on when the game was still within reach.

He was rattled by that first pick, and that fed into his poor decisions and his interceptions and fumble later in the game. And I'm not going to concede the point to you just because you declare I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Novus
So, it is still your position that every single QB in the NFL responds exactly the same way to throwing an interception. And I find that assertion laughable, the idea that such a large and diverse group of people would all respond to an interception in the same way. Yet you continue to base your arguments on this.
Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Except that I never said any such thing.

Again, here's exactly what you said several pages ago: "No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more." That is a blanket statement about all players. You didn't list any caveats or exceptions. You didn't say "some players" or "more players." You didn't say they "could become."

Do you not agree that it is foolish to believe that all players react the exact same way to committing a turnover?

As for the rest of your post, you challenged my understanding of the English language, said I'm making up shit, and called me a liar and a troll. Since you insist on continuing to insult me, I will insist on continuing to call you Comic Book Guy. Deal with it.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by tautology

Random results have a normal distribution over a very large data set. They definitely (and by definition) do not present normal distribution curves on a data set as small as a per game basis.

Sure they would in the context of individual games across a full player's career, although opponent quality and scheme would obviously affect turnover chance and therefore not be entirely random. I'm not surprised that you pop up out of nowhere to make snide comments and vague allusions, but the reality is that we have a wealth of data showing that turnovers do happen in clumps, and that mass-turnover games are not as uncommon as they should be if they were genuinely independent events.





At the risk of trying to have a serious discussion with you....


Why not post some actual examples?

I'll start.

Darius Protege http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2162313

5 year career in WL.

Including playoff games:

92 games
4515 attempts
2771 comps
62 picks (rate of 0.0137%)
Games with >3 picks: zero
Games with 3 picks: 2
Games with 2 picks: 14
Games with 1 pick: 28
Games with 0 picks: 48

It would be helpful to post #attempts for each of these games, but that gets a little wearisome.

At a glance however, the statlines above seem like a reasonable distribution (low pick rate overall, but it was a relatively low-pick era and a gameplan that didn't throw many picks).

Let's see a few more WL career samples and actually look at the numbers rather than engaging in nonsense.

Originally posted by slashxtreme
And I think you see more and more people (thanks to LHF) investing SPs in attributes that are known to produce INT's...

I don't buy this massive morale collapse as the reason for "more" INT's anyway... As I typically don't buy anecdotes as evidence for large scale empirical questions.

People are investing more and more into those attributes because Bort changed it to where catching gained more importance and increased the ability to intercept all around. Was plenty of guys before LHF's project. Though his project is funny.

The morale collapse does cause more turnovers. Though it isn't independently based on morale. Their needs to be builds surrounding that premise. You don't throw 7 interceptions against a bunch of low catching builds.

Who is this comic book guy? He must be a genius. He seems to be the only one who realizes that committing a turn over, by most players even by those who have low confidence, makes them mistake prone but not prone to the same mistake necessarily. Make the QB hold the ball a tick longer or something, but not necessarily blind to the fact that someone is quadruple covered / tackled before the throw.

Actually I have no idea what this comic book guy has said. I really haven't read anything.

Originally posted by jdbolick
a wealth of data showing that turnovers do happen in clumps

That doesn't help your argument, as random events happen in clumps.

Originally posted by bhall43

The morale collapse does cause more turnovers.

One would certainly assume so...but is the effect of morale collapse completely swamped by the effect of (for instance) having an offensive gameplan that switches into "chuck it deep yo" mode while the defense switches to a deep c3/c4 prevent?

Because that's gonna up the pick rate by a shit-ton or two. And you know it happens.

Originally posted by bhall43
People are investing more and more into those attributes because Bort changed it to where catching gained more importance and increased the ability to intercept all around. Was plenty of guys before LHF's project. Though his project is funny.

The morale collapse does cause more turnovers. Though it isn't independently based on morale. Their needs to be builds surrounding that premise. You don't throw 7 interceptions against a bunch of low catching builds.

LHF's is both an extreme case AND an open build where everyone could see what he had done. That's why I cited LHF's. I'm sure there's more and earlier examples but LHF's was a). familiar to me and b). one that everyone knew of because well LHF likes to brag and the build was open.

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by bhall43


The morale collapse does cause more turnovers.

One would certainly assume so...but is the effect of morale collapse completely swamped by the effect of (for instance) having an offensive gameplan that switches into "chuck it deep yo" mode while the defense switches to a deep c3/c4 prevent?

Because that's gonna up the pick rate by a shit-ton or two. And you know it happens.



I would expect bhall has looked at the morale of the O vs. what's going on with something like turnovers. I've only looked at one, and what I saw did not look morale caused at all.

I do think when bonn when ffum nuts for a bit, that was morale + marcus' build, but I mostly based that on our inability to ffum on your high Conf squad. I don't think we had morale bars back then.

Originally posted by tautology
One would certainly assume so...but is the effect of morale collapse completely swamped by the effect of (for instance) having an offensive gameplan that switches into "chuck it deep yo" mode while the defense switches to a deep c3/c4 prevent?

Because that's gonna up the pick rate by a shit-ton or two. And you know it happens.



Taut brings up another good point, what's the state of the game that brings about a morale collapse? I would assume with QB's it'd take a lot of bad things happening (con is high) to have a QB have a true morale collapse.. although the WR's may be the ones responsible for the picks because of a collapse and not doing what they need to do. (IIRC, WR Catch Roll = 1st, DB Int Roll 2nd?)

There was a whole project? Was there homework involved; I hate homework.

Originally posted by tautology
One would certainly assume so...but is the effect of morale collapse completely swamped by the effect of (for instance) having an offensive gameplan that switches into "chuck it deep yo" mode while the defense switches to a deep c3/c4 prevent?

Because that's gonna up the pick rate by a shit-ton or two. And you know it happens.



There are games that just start out with multiple bad plays that you can't recover from. It is why they toned down morale in general. Those games used to end with teams getting blown out by 100 because of a bad event to start the game. Sure there is some sense to ya I am down 20 time to chuck and pray, but you can see these events far before it gets to that.