SCHOPP: Data processing

Percent signs have been flying in and out of my email box since late Sunday. Seems to me more and more fans are curious about strategy in football and whether or not coaches make more bad decisions than we ever knew. I am both glad about this and, as a loudmouth on the subject, somewhat proud.

Now that so many more of you are keen to the movement, it's time to break some bad news: While statistics are useful and important, the meaning of life does not lie within. While we have both the data and the ability to process it more easily than ever, it still doesn't provide clear, definitive proof that at a given moment one option (a field goal attempt, for example) is decidedly better than another (say, a punt).

I know, it's a letdown. You traverse through mountains and fields and fend off black knights and French taunters for 90 minutes on a phony horse in search of the holy grail, banging all those coconuts together, just to get near it and have the police arrive and break it all up. (One of the best endings in movie history, by the way.) While there are to well-informed fans numerous obvious coaching mistakes that happen every week in the NFL, many of the situations that I want to have statistics deconstruct and then resolve entail too many variables for quick and easy solutions.

Sometimes it's enough to ask, Why did I bother?

Chan Gailey's decision to punt on 4th-and-10 in overtime at Arizona's 35-yard line Sunday is a pretty good example of how statistics can only take you so far -- and how arguing about it is mostly just a dead-end street of headache-inducing hot air.

Let's take a look. According to the useful and excellent Win Probability Calculator at advancednflstats.com, once Ryan Fitzpatrick's pass on 3rd-and-10 fell incomplete the Bills still had a 68% chance of winning the game. That's not because they had "momentum" or any ethereal concept in their favor, it's largely because they had the football. Once they punted it into the end zone though, that number fell to 53%.

These numbers come from the results of games played by lots of teams over many seasons, and they are a worthy and respectable tool. But one can't deny that there are also extenuating circumstances unique to teams and games that can and should hold influence.

Was 53 yards outside Rian Lindell's range? He hasn't attempted a 50-yard field goal in a game since 2010. Was the dropoff at Arizona quarterback from Kevin Kolb to John Skelton so severe that it boosted Gailey's confidence in punting the ball away? (It probably shouldn't have been.) And don't forget, 10 yards isn't so much to make going for the first down on that play worth mocking. Turns out that all the Bills gained by punting was 15 yards; hypothetically, even an interception could have been preferable to that.

Considerations in these moments don't have to end there. Did you have reason to think a certain play was coming? Or, did you have a play of your own you'd been saving for this moment? Was a player back from injury? Is your opponent as desperate to win as you or will a tie suffice, in which case they might become more conservative? Is it about to rain?

Even when statistics are manageable enough so that you can clearly determine whether one move is better than another, the question then can be whether the difference between the two moves is significant enough to matter.

Often it is. But if one option gives you a 60% chance of winning and the alternative 59%, do you always take the better odds? I think in sports and in life there is some call for hunches.

I think for a sports fan interested in truth and annoyed by dumb commentary that dismisses hard-core facts, this is a great time to be alive. There's a growing number of fans interested in debunking some of sports' long-trusted beliefs, and they are having success.

We know a lot more than we used to. We should act like it.

If there were a hockey game tonight I'd be having to decide today, for about the 500th time, how best to drive from my workplace in Amherst to the Sabres' arena. To use the New York State Thruway takes 23 minutes and covers 16 miles. Meanwhile, the Kensington Expressway takes more time but covers less distance. And then there's the 190 South.

Sometimes searching for the one right way to go, as if there is one, is futile.