[CompSci87]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17302.msg199071#msg199071 date=1504552156]
Of course the result of that throw was fortunate, but although there were three defenders there were two receivers in front of them (I actually think Rosen was throwing to the other receiver and that Theo Howard alertly moved in and caught it instead.)

One of the points of the fivethirtyeight crew (and many other advanced analytics folks) is that quarterbacks should be throwing more interceptions when behind late in the game, at least compared to what they normally throw.  If they aren't, then it is a sign that they aren't taking big enough risks in throwing the ball downfield, and while it might lead to more interceptions, it also leads to more touchdowns and a greater chance of a comeback.

I don't know if they still do it, but at one point they awarded a "gunslinger of the week" award:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The Gunslinger award goes to the quarterback who takes the kinds of risks necessary to maximize his team’s chances to win, even if they’re unpopular with the commentariat and regardless of whether they pay off or not. Generally this means a quarterback who is willing to throw interceptions (or otherwise be very aggressive) when his team is down to improve its chances from dire to just not so great.

So, yeah, normally, a bad throw.  But down two touchdowns with about 4 minutes left, it was brilliant.  It gave his team a chance to win, which they actually did (whereas an interception doesn't change the outcome as at that point, ATM still had a 99+% chance of winning, per ESPN).

BC
[/quote]

Yep, it's certainly a good point that when you're behind and time is short you need to take more risks to have a better chance of winning. The downside is that you might lose by a wider margin, but so what?

I make the same point to friends when playing cards. Sometimes you have to make a risky play because the more cautious play gives you much less chance to win. The game is nonlinear; it matters only (or mostly only) whether you win or lose, not by how much.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17302.msg199071#msg199071 date=1504552156]
Of course the result of that throw was fortunate, but although there were three defenders there were two receivers in front of them (I actually think Rosen was throwing to the other receiver and that Theo Howard alertly moved in and caught it instead.)

One of the points of the fivethirtyeight crew (and many other advanced analytics folks) is that quarterbacks should be throwing more interceptions when behind late in the game, at least compared to what they normally throw.  If they aren't, then it is a sign that they aren't taking big enough risks in throwing the ball downfield, and while it might lead to more interceptions, it also leads to more touchdowns and a greater chance of a comeback.

I don't know if they still do it, but at one point they awarded a "gunslinger of the week" award:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ton...-the-year/

The Gunslinger award goes to the quarterback who takes the kinds of risks necessary to maximize his team’s chances to win, even if they’re unpopular with the commentariat and regardless of whether they pay off or not. Generally this means a quarterback who is willing to throw interceptions (or otherwise be very aggressive) when his team is down to improve its chances from dire to just not so great.

So, yeah, normally, a bad throw.  But down two touchdowns with about 4 minutes left, it was brilliant.  It gave his team a chance to win, which they actually did (whereas an interception doesn't change the outcome as at that point, ATM still had a 99+% chance of winning, per ESPN).

BC
[/quote]

Yep, it's certainly a good point that when you're behind and time is short you need to take more risks to have a better chance of winning. The downside is that you might lose by a wider margin, but so what?

I make the same point to friends when playing cards. Sometimes you have to make a risky play because the more cautious play gives you much less chance to win. The game is nonlinear; it matters only (or mostly only) whether you win or lose, not by how much.