Talk about the NFL

[ti-amie]

I remember an old school coach saying in a situation where you can get points always take the points. I didn't see the game in question but that would've been the best thing for the team that gambled and lost.

[ptmcmahon]

My point being: it is NOT working. I can give three examples of 4th and game not working. It is too much of a risk.
Yes, we do not know if Green Bay would have marched down the field in 40 seconds and kick a FG to win the game, because they did not need to do so. They took a knee and won, because the Ravens did not force them to do anything else.
I can't recall which game this week was lost by the team that went for it three times within field go range, and did not convert any time. Had they kicked the FG's, that's 9 points there. And they lost by 7, meaning it also was not worth it.
I find it too risky, specially in a league with 17 games. Every game counts for way too much.
Serious here: have there been any games this season in which a team went for it on 4th and game, and the team made it? I can't think of one.

My point is - when it does work, the win isn't credited to analytics. As you can say you can't remember a single case of where it worked. Whether or not we agree how often it works, surely you can agree than it must be higher than say... 0% right?

The problem is ... off top of my head I can't think of any other good examples of where it did work either I'm going to have to go find some.

Although the funny thing, starting my research the first thing I'm reading is.. Harbaugh's big analytical mistake ... was NOT going for two after the first TD made it 31-23. Apparently that was a "no-brainer." "That way if they’re successful, they know they can eventually win it with a TD + PAT, but if they fail, they can still tie the game with a TD + 2PAT at the end." Sounds like neither side of the coin is happy with him! For the record his statement was that his decision to go for 2 at end of game... was a gut feeling decision - whether or not we believe it.

I'll have to find some examples where it wins a game. Maybe tonight!

[ponchi101]

I read that same analysis, and that makes a bit more sense to me.
Sure, as I said above, I may be guilty of confirmation bias; easy to remember the examples I mentioned because they literally sealed the outcome of the game.
And sure, we agree that the chances that it will work are more than 0% Maybe as high as 40%. But we also worked the math before. You have to see: YOUR success percentage, then THEIR success percentage (how many times they stop a 4th down). Assume 40%, together. But a FG is usually 95%, and then you get 50% of winning the coin toss and some percentage of how many times you score in any given drive. If you are facing Nick Mullen, you should feel good that they will not get a TD, and have a reasonable but not incredible chance to score a TD. If you are going against Brady, Mahones, Rogers or some other top offense, the numbers change.
It has got to be figured before the game starts. That we assume we can also agree. But right now, I say the risk out weights the rewards.

[ptmcmahon]

Figure out before the game? Well no way you could figure out every choice before the game... with near infinite possible scores, time left, injury situations (especially kicker injuries) etc. At best you can have a generic idea of what you would want to do in what situation.

The other game you mentioned was the LA-KC game, where three times LA could've kicked field goal but didn't. In that case way too hard to decide how that affected the game - yes they lost by 6, but that was in overtime. The first non field goal attempt was in quarter one...hard to say what would've happened differently the rest of the game if they kick that. Kansas City may not have had to go for two when they did...and end of game they may have played better or worse considering they would have been down by more than one score. Can't just say LA win for sure by adding 9 points from field goals they didn't take.

I'll see if I can find any good examples this weekend coming up where analytics turns out to work out. Risks may outweigh rewards...hard to say since all we can both think of is when it doesn't work

[ponchi101]

Figure out before the game? Well no way you could figure out every choice before the game... with near infinite possible scores, time left, injury situations (especially kicker injuries) etc. At best you can have a generic idea of what you would want to do in what situation.

...

You would need at least some heuristics for what to do. "If we can tie the game with less than one minute, or go for the win, what to do". Every choice is indeed impossible, but:
Down by seven within the two minutes warning, and you score. Tie or go for two.
Down by 15 with 5 minutes. When do we go for the two point conversion (the analysis you read): first score, or second.
Scenarios like these can be talked before. I guess coaches do, in the same sense that I gather that when you have your two minutes warning you choose which players go on the field, but depending on being down or up.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

I know this sounds callous but:
The problem is that all these players are young and in very good shape. They are, one has to admit, a low risk population. Maybe one of those 320 Lbs linesmen, if they catch C19, will end up in dire conditions, but Beasley has a good chance of not suffering serious symptoms. So, it will only fuel their position. "See? I got it, and nothing happened to me!".
It is the same problem I have with my friend N. His son, 28, non-smoker and a regular athlete, caught it (they all did) and N gave him ivermectin and "you see? He is doing fine!". The statistics escape them.

[ti-amie]

I know this sounds callous but:
The problem is that all these players are young and in very good shape. They are, one has to admit, a low risk population. Maybe one of those 320 Lbs linesmen, if they catch C19, will end up in dire conditions, but Beasley has a good chance of not suffering serious symptoms. So, it will only fuel their position. "See? I got it, and nothing happened to me!".
It is the same problem I have with my friend N. His son, 28, non-smoker and a regular athlete, caught it (they all did) and N gave him ivermectin and "you see? He is doing fine!". The statistics escape them.

I wrote a long rant about how much damage Tiny did with his initial non response to the pandemic. I'm putting it in the Covid thread so I won't hijack this thread.

[ponchi101]

Either a great plan from the Titans last night, or a really dumb one from the 49'ers.
Your star TE, on a tear for the last three games, goes for two catches in the first drive I(which ends in a TD) and then is your target for a second TD, which was intercepted.
And then he disappears from the plan. I don't know if Voegl took him out or Shanahan took him out, but the end result was a 49'ers loss. In a game that they needed.

[Togtdyalttai]

Either a great plan from the Titans last night, or a really dumb one from the 49'ers.
Your star TE, on a tear for the last three games, goes for two catches in the first drive I(which ends in a TD) and then is your target for a second TD, which was intercepted.
And then he disappears from the plan. I don't know if Voegl took him out or Shanahan took him out, but the end result was a 49'ers loss. In a game that they needed.

You're right, but Jimmy G also really helped to get the Titans into the game with the interceptions he threw, which both seemed like plain bad decisions to me.

[ti-amie]

[ptmcmahon]

There… I have my example. Down 24-23 after scoring a td with one minute left, the Bears went for two and got it … win 25-24.

Now of course if they just kick and tie it … who knows what happens. This is why it’s harder to remember examples where going for it wins it… but very easy to see when it costs ya.

As a stats/numbers guy, one of my favourite books of all time was a sports stats analysis book - for example what effect does icing the kicker have (turned out to make only a 0.01% difference and it was in favour of kicker.) I would love if they did an updated version an analyzed these going for two scenarios. I think they did have a chapter on going for it in fourth down actually and how often it is the right choice.

And the funny tie it all together thing? It was co-written by Jon Werthiem.

[ponchi101]

I was thinking about the same yesterday, when I saw the Bears beat the Seahawks.
But that is also one thing that we were talking about. Both the Bears and Seahawks are playing for nothing by now. Going for two meant... win or lose one game. Their seasons are over already, while my point was that for the Ravens it helped make their season much harder.
Notice the Bills yesterday. They went for it on 4th and short repeatedly, and made it. But is was early in the game, not late in a close match. Maybe I did not make myself clear. I agree that you will, at times, be forced to go for it (you are down, 20 secs on the clock, and need a score). There will be times when you can afford the luxury (early in the game, score is tied, sole loss may be giving your opponent good field position). For the two times the Ravens went for it, the gamble was too much. And now a promising season is almost over, and if they had won just one of those games, it would not be.

[ptmcmahon]

And if they had completed the two two yard plays (one of which was a surprisingly bad throw with receiver open) they’d be in contention for number one seed still - where as if they just kick and go to overtime… who knows what happens…. They may lose those games anyway.

Your stance is clear I’m just more leaning on the other side of the argument. Like usual the real correct answer is somewhere in the middle.

Don’t say my example doesn’t count because it was two bad teams I watched all weekend for a good example like that.

[ponchi101]

You example counts. Whatever I or somebody might say, the Bears went for two AND the game, and made it. Total data point.