RaiseCane
Freshman
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 357
Here's the thing - there is nothing wrong with using probabilities to dictate how he coaches, and in fact, I think many more coaches are (and should be) using some of the advanced metrics to determine how to handle certain game situations. For example, Andy Staples, the writer for SI, analyzed the decision Tennessee's coach made when he didn't go for 2 when up 12, and the decision Bilema at Arkansas made when he didn't go for it on 4th and 2 from A&M's 48.
But, here's the problem with Al Golden's use of probabilities - he doesn't know what he's talking about, and in fact, likely goes against probabilities all the time, especially by not being aggressive enough. I'd bet that in many of the situations where we become passive, like kicking field goals when it's 4th and short, or punting when it's 4th and short, he goes against the odds because he'd rather play not to lose, no matter what the probabilities say. As usual, it's an example of Golden trying to spin the narrative with a bunch of BS.
But, here's the problem with Al Golden's use of probabilities - he doesn't know what he's talking about, and in fact, likely goes against probabilities all the time, especially by not being aggressive enough. I'd bet that in many of the situations where we become passive, like kicking field goals when it's 4th and short, or punting when it's 4th and short, he goes against the odds because he'd rather play not to lose, no matter what the probabilities say. As usual, it's an example of Golden trying to spin the narrative with a bunch of BS.
