Cardinals kick field goal instead of going for TD, WTF!!!!

[ArcticKnight]

Part of the premise here is that sometimes coaches don't know what the +EV decision is, but another point that was raised is that sometimes they DO know, but don't make the correct call because they don't think the fans, public, etc will understand.

I recall reading or hearing recently that one NFL coach said that even if he thought that using a last second time-out to freeze a kicker would give him a slight advantage, he would not do it. He reasoned that nobody is going to say "he should have freezed the kicker." And he's right, whoever says that stupid coach should have froze the kicker?

However, the coach did say that he would be open to lots of scrutiny if he did freeze the kicker with a last second time-out (and the kick was missed anyway) and then the next kick was good.

Just proves that coaches will give up what they know (or think) to be small edges, to avoid being percieved to have made a mistake.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FO's o-line stats have the Cards with a 71% Power Success (7th in the NFL). Power Success is defined as "Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks."

[/ QUOTE ]
it should also be taken into account that the niner's d-line blows

[/ QUOTE ]

Power Success isn't directly applicable for this situation. In a 4th and goal from the 1, the defense has a much smaller area to defend. The Cardinals also have great receivers who are downfield threats, in a normal third or fourth down situation teams have to respect that, and can't bring their safeties up as hard. One the 1 yard line, the SF D line is also less important given they will have eight in the box.

Area to defend is why 2pt conversion ratios are basically 50%. The Cards from the 1 yard line would have been higher than 50%, but probably not as high as 71%. If someone can find NFL stats from the 1 yard line it would be much more predictive than Power Success.

So let's say the Cards were 65% to score from the 1. The way they were rolling offensively, why wouldn't they be close to 65% in over-time? The one thing Whiz has shown is an understanding of the percentages and a willingness to take risks to win games (such as going for it on 4th and 1 to take the lead in the 4th, and throwing with 6 seconds left).

He might have made a slightly -EV decision to minimize potential criticism, but I doubt he gave up significant EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much smaller of an area do they have to defend? On what planet is there a 4th and 1 from the 50 and there are NOT 8 guys in the box? I really dont get this. Yeah for some teams they have to respect some TINY chance of them throwing a deep bomb. But that doesnt mean they are lining guys up 20 yards down field or putting 6-7 guys in the box. There are always 8 in the box, safeties are always up, and no one is more than 11 or so yards from the LOS.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

How much smaller of an area do they have to defend? On what planet is there a 4th and 1 from the 50 and there are NOT 8 guys in the box? I really dont get this. Yeah for some teams they have to respect some TINY chance of them throwing a deep bomb. But that doesnt mean they are lining guys up 20 yards down field or putting 6-7 guys in the box. There are always 8 in the box, safeties are always up, and no one is more than 11 or so yards from the LOS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find some 4th down from the 1 yard line stats and show me I'm wrong. But I maintain there is no way the safeties and cornerbacks can commit to the line of scrimmage on a 4th and 1 in the middle of the field, like they can when just defending the end zone. It's far from a tiny risk, there is no CB in the league who can let Bolden or Fitz get behind them without giving up a free touchdown from anywhere on the field.

I'll say this one more time to make myself clear. I will bet Wiz knows the odds better than anyone on this thread. He adjusted for some in game data, like the effectiveness of his line and the Forty Niner's goal line defense, and his estimate of the Card's likelihood of winning in OT. He'd already gone for it once on 4th down at the one, so he had some insight into the likely SF defense. And he'd already call a pass play with 6 seconds left that could have ended the game on an incompletion, interception or a fumbled snap, so he wasn't that afraid of looking stupid.

Anyone who has actual stats likely can't make the case that there was anywhere near a 25% better chance of winning in regulation by going for it. My guess is it is no more than a 5% difference at best.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned, there's a lot of stuff going on then just the numbers. "Player A hits .320 and Player B hits .210...but if you reversed their order in the lineup and assume they continue hitting at those clips then the team's run-production will stay the same!!"

Ummmm, who says they will continue hitting at those clips if you switched them in the line-up? Pitchers will be approaching them differently now and they will be seeing different looks and situations. So making the assumption that their average, etc will remain the same is just plain wrong I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, your writing style is an attempt to make the other side of the debate look ridiculous. Not only have you made up a ridiculous quote, you've attempted to make it sound even more ridiculous by adding exclamation points, etc. In effect you are arguing against something by creating someone who doesn't exist and creating a stupid version of their argument.

Then you respond with the equivalent of "Ummm, hello?"

Furthermore, you aren't even saying anything. I guess you're arguing against the idea that batting order doesn't matter much, and furthermore that players will hit differently in different spots in the lineup. But you haven't said anything that supports that, other then "pitchers will approach them differently."

So try not to be such a douche next time.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's say the Cards were 65% to score from the 1. The way they were rolling offensively, why wouldn't they be close to 65% in over-time? The one thing Whiz has shown is an understanding of the percentages and a willingness to take risks to win games (such as going for it on 4th and 1 to take the lead in the 4th, and throwing with 6 seconds left).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think the Cardinals are 65 in overtime? How long does the average OT last? 7 minutes? How often does the best team score first in the NFL, especially when we don't know who gets the ball first?

As the game gets shorter, edges get smaller. The average OT game is nearly a coinflip coming it.

[Jack of Arcades]

By the way,

If Les Miles was coaching the Cardinals and he makes the decision to go for it, how does the public react?

Even if he makes it people would crucify him for being stupid/luckboxing/etc. Even on 2p2.

[Billy Bibbit]

[ QUOTE ]
Find some 4th down from the 1 yard line stats and show me I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.footballcommentary.com/goallinegambles.htm

[ QUOTE ]
When teams elect to go for it on 4th-and-goal, with the ball officially at the 1-yard line, the observed success rate is around 65%. Since that figure is important for our analysis, we will begin with some issues that affect its interpretation.

In the official NFL play-by-play records (PBP), the spot of the ball is always recorded as an integer number of yards from a goal line. According to the NFL's Guide For Statisticians1, if the ball lies entirely between two yard stripes, the rounding is in the direction of the defender's goal. This implies that whenever the nose of the ball is less than about 5 feet from the defender's goal, the PBP will say that the ball was at the 1-yard line. (The only exceptions derive from the requirement that the spot of the ball and the necessary line for a first down be distinct positive integers. So, if the ball is two inches from the defender's goal with one inch to go for a first down, the PBP will say that the ball was at the 2-yard line with 1 yard to go for a first down.)

Because of the rule for rounding, balls that are officially at the defender's 1-yard line will, on average, be slightly less than a yard from the goal. Offenses do not always go for the touchdown when the ball is officially at the 1-yard line, but even if they did, the observed success rate would be an upward-biased estimate of the probability of success when the ball is really one yard from the goal. However, this bias due to rounding is small.

The more important bias is the "selection bias." The likelihood that a team will go for the touchdown depends systematically on the actual position of the ball. For example, teams are more likely to go for it when the ball is an inch from the goal than when the ball is nearly five feet from the goal. Consequently, among cases in which the ball was officially at the 1-yard line and the offense chose to go for it, we expect that the average distance from the goal was significantly less than a yard.

A similar bias presumably affects the comparison between running and passing when it is 4th-and-goal and the ball is officially at the 1-yard line. In that situation, as Aaron Schatz of Football Outsidershas noted, the success rate is higher for running than for passing. However, one would assume that teams are more likely to run when the actual spot of the ball is closer to the goal. This would explain at least part of the disparity in the success rates. Notice, though, that there is no way to verify this or the previous hypothesis without knowing the true position of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any stats that say that the better team or the home team or the team with "momentum" wins in OT anywhere near 65% of the time? I find that hard to believe.

[DCJ311]

Asking why GMs and owners hire retard coaches is like asking why moron CEOs and govt. officials get appointed. However, hiring stupid coaches is worse, IMO.

[Jack of Arcades]

3rd and goal from the 1 early in the game should also be a good indicator.

[JaredL]

Isn't the selection bias that comes from teams that suck on offense/are playing a great defense being less likely to go for it than teams with good offenses/against bad defenses much more important than concerns about whether the ball is 4 feet or 1 foot from the goal line?

I would think that against a given defense, the Patriots are more likely to make it from 5 feet out than the Bills from 2 feet. Because of this we should see the Patriots going for it sometimes when the Bills wouldn't, making the 65% an overestimate.