Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

4th down? GO FOR IT!


tazinib1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting piece but I'm not sure that I buy it transferring in the NFL. They say that this game against Arizona was their first real test, and they blew them out 49-0. In the NFL you're not doing that, not against a team considered to be your first real test, half way or more through the season.

 

When you're going to spank the other guy, doesn't matter if you go for it on 4th down and don't convert, because you'll still spank them. Do that in the NFL against even a mediocre team and you're likely going to be the one losing.

 

And if/when he gets an NFL team, they probably won't be as talented compared to the rest of the league as Oregon is (compared to their opponents, not all teams in NCAA), from what little I know of the college teams.

 

ETA: I only read less than half the article but think I got the general idea.

Edited by stevegrab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I stopped right before Zeus explanation. I suppose if that takes into account the other team and their ability to capitalize on your not getting the 4th down (and better ability to stop those plays), then it might work in the NFL.

 

My basic point was the competition level you face in college is so much lower, that its easier to succeed even if you don't convert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a great way for a coach to get fired.

 

Exactly, this reminds me of the conversation that the Jets should go for 2 every time with Tebow, assuming that if they make it even 51% of the time it's worth it, but completely neglects game situations where not making it can directly result in as many or more losses than wins.

 

Similarly, even if going for it on 4th works more often than it doesn't, it does not mean that it will result in more wins than losses. It could work 4 times in a game where it didn't matter, but if it costs you even one win, you could easily see yourself on the unemployment line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This year there have been 213 occasions where teams have gone for it on 4th down. They have succeeded 117 times. That's a 55% success ratio. Figure that teams may be going for it in long down/distance situations at the end of games when they are in utter desperation, and the success ratio of going for it in a "normal" situation (ie - unforced due to game circumstances) is most probably higher, say for the sake of argument that it is 60% (successful three of the five times when going for it in "normal" conditions).

 

NFL teams punt roughly 5 times a game on average. So given the averages, a team would gain 3 first downs a game, but would turn the ball over on downs 2 times. NFL teams score roughly as many points per game on average as they average first downs per game. So going for it on 4th down and succeeding at a 60% rate would mean a team could expect to score 3 more points per game. Conversely, when a team goes out on downs, they surrender their net punt yardage for that play. So failing to get a first down would be essentially surrendering 2 net punts per game. That's roughly 90 yards per game when you consider the punting average and factor in punt return yards and the number of punts (that takes into account fair catches and punts OB). The difference in yardage essentially turns the 4th best D in the NFL in ypg (SEA at 309 ypg) into the 4th worst D in the NFL (TB at 398 ypg).

 

So, as a NFL HC where your livelihood depends on your winning games, and knowing full well that you will be successful on 60% of the 4th down attempts you try, would you be willing to take a gain of an additonal 3 points per game in exchange for trading the 4th best D in the NFL for the 4th worst D in the NFL? The difference between the average scoring of the top 8 Ds vs the bottom 8 Ds is over 8 points per game, BTW.

 

You are essentially trading off scoring an additonal 3 points per game for giving up an additional 8.5 points per game by going for it on 4th down instead of punting. There's you answer when you look at the numbers realistically in terms of risk/reward. And the answer is pretty obvious, IMO.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This year there have been 213 occasions where teams have gone for it on 4th down. They have succeeded 117 times. That's a 55% success ratio. Figure that teams may be going for it in long down/distance situations at the end of games when they are in utter desperation, and the success ratio of going for it in a "normal" situation (ie - unforced due to game circumstances) is most probably higher, say for the sake of argument that it is 60% (successful three of the five times when going for it in "normal" conditions).

 

NFL teams punt roughly 5 times a game on average. So given the averages, a team would gain 3 first downs a game, but would turn the ball over on downs 2 times. NFL teams score roughly as many points per game on average as they average first downs per game. So going for it on 4th down and succeeding at a 60% rate would mean a team could expect to score 3 more points per game. Conversely, when a team goes out on downs, they surrender their net punt yardage for that play. So failing to get a first down would be essentially surrendering 2 net punts per game. That's roughly 90 yards per game when you consider the punting average and factor in punt return yards and the number of punts (that takes into account fair catches and punts OB). The difference in yardage essentially turns the 4th best D in the NFL in ypg (SEA at 309 ypg) into the 4th worst D in the NFL (TB at 398 ypg).

 

So, as a NFL HC where your livelihood depends on your winning games, and knowing full well that you will be successful on 60% of the 4th down attempts you try, would you be willing to take an exchange of an additonal 3 points per game in exchange for trading the 4th best D in the NFL for the 4th worst D in the NFL? The difference between the average scoring of the top 8 Ds vs the bottom 8 Ds is over 8 points per game, BTW.

 

You are essentially trading off scoring an additonal 3 points per game for giving up an additonal 8.5 points per game by going for it on 4th down instead of punting. There's you answer when you look at the numbers realistically in terms of risk/reward. And the answer is pretty obvious, IMO.

 

Good stuff!! Since the tailgate has gone to the crapper, finding stuff to talk about is getting harder. Figured this might at LEAST spark some good debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You are essentially trading off scoring an additonal 3 points per game for giving up an additional 8.5 points per game by going for it on 4th down instead of punting. There's you answer when you look at the numbers realistically in terms of risk/reward. And the answer is pretty obvious, IMO.

 

I think you're over-simplifying things and using flawed numbers

 

1) only 3 teams average at least 45 yards net on punts. Some average as little as 35. So, your 90 is a bit on the long side. The 16th ranked team in punting nets 42 but, since the lowest net is further from that than the highest net, I would imagine if one bothered to average all of them out, you'd find that the number is closer to 40. So, now you're closer to 80 total yards.

2) You're failing to account the fact that you're denying the opponent time of possession by converting the 3 that you do which cuts into how many yards they gain.

3) You're also failing to add in the additional yards that the non-punting team gains on the drives when they convert.

 

All of those could cut into, entirely negate, or even exceed the field position advantage you're talking about.

 

4) Not sure that it is entirely fair to draw the line between the 90 yards of field position and 8.5 pts. Honestly, for far too many reasons. I know there have been studies done on offensive efficiency. In fact, I recall the Niners were at some crazy pace for pts per yards gained last year. None the less, I would guess that it's more complicated than saying, "90 yards separates the 4th from 4th worst D, so that must mean it's worth the difference in points allowed between the teams ranked around those spots in pts allowed".

 

If I had to guess, I would say that it would make sense to go for it more often on 4th than teams do. Not always, mind you, but more often. Like other "risky" moves, it is likely more sound based on the odds.

 

You are right about one thing, it would get a coach fired. Not because it's not strategically sound, but because fans think they know what's right, even when they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are essentially trading off scoring an additonal 3 points per game for giving up an additional 8.5 points per game by going for it on 4th down instead of punting. There's you answer when you look at the numbers realistically in terms of risk/reward. And the answer is pretty obvious, IMO.

 

Not true. This has been simulated thousands of times and, overall, not punting adds about 5 percentage points to a team's winning chances for any game. This corresponds to a 1pt increase in the non-punting team's score with no increase in the opponents score. The link for this is http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrookpreview/070904. Gregg Easterbrook has been harping on this for years.

 

The first champion of this was Dave Romer from UC Berkeley (Go Bears!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. This has been simulated thousands of times and, overall, not punting adds about 5 percentage points to a team's winning chances for any game. This corresponds to a 1pt increase in the non-punting team's score with no increase in the opponents score. The link for this is http://sports.espn.g...preview/070904. Gregg Easterbrook has been harping on this for years.

 

The first champion of this was Dave Romer from UC Berkeley (Go Bears!).

 

 

:lol:

 

So if simulations say it is true, that's better than actual numbers?

 

Here's the real proof of the pudding: If going for it made a NFL team more successful, some out-of-the-box HC would have been doing it long ago, and then we woulod have seen all the teams trend to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're over-simplifying things and using flawed numbers

 

1) only 3 teams average at least 45 yards net on punts. Some average as little as 35. So, your 90 is a bit on the long side. The 16th ranked team in punting nets 42 but, since the lowest net is further from that than the highest net, I would imagine if one bothered to average all of them out, you'd find that the number is closer to 40. So, now you're closer to 80 total yards.

2) You're failing to account the fact that you're denying the opponent time of possession by converting the 3 that you do which cuts into how many yards they gain.

3) You're also failing to add in the additional yards that the non-punting team gains on the drives when they convert.

 

All of those could cut into, entirely negate, or even exceed the field position advantage you're talking about.

 

4) Not sure that it is entirely fair to draw the line between the 90 yards of field position and 8.5 pts. Honestly, for far too many reasons. I know there have been studies done on offensive efficiency. In fact, I recall the Niners were at some crazy pace for pts per yards gained last year. None the less, I would guess that it's more complicated than saying, "90 yards separates the 4th from 4th worst D, so that must mean it's worth the difference in points allowed between the teams ranked around those spots in pts allowed".

 

 

I look forward to you analysis based upon the modifications that you are suggesting and then your conclusions based upon them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So if simulations say it is true, that's better than actual numbers?

 

 

All of your suppositions are conjecture, not actual numbers, and they don't follow from each other.

 

As we learned in the election, I'll go with the math geeks and their simulations. The experts tend to know what they're doing. Not always, but usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can argue about simulations, converting hard data into projectable numbers, and extrapolation, but what it comes down to is the principle that football is still a game of field position. The reward of gaining another set of downs is simply not worth the risk of surrendering 40 yds of field position.

 

If you are coaching a stronger team than your opponent, your path to victory is minimizing mistakes and letting talent take over. The last thing you want to do is provide opportunity to your opponent by going for it, not getting it, and then giving your opponent a short field. It gives your opponent a chance of evening the game.

 

If you are coaching a team roughly equivalent to your opponent or you are overmatched, you again don't want to allow the other team the shorter field by missing the first down. It's simply smarter to punt the ball downfield, let your D do their job, and then try to gain field position in the exchange. There's no guarantee that if you go for it and make it that you'll get any significantly further down the field with a fresh set of downs. And if you decide that you're just going to keep using 4 downs every series to reestablish a new set of downs, eventually your luck is going to run out and you'll turn the ball over to the other team giving them better field position than if you punted.

 

It's just easier to score on a shortened field - there is no denying that fact. In college when you are coaching a team like Oregon that can seemingly score at will, it's a whole lot easier to take chances. You miss on a couple of 4ths downs? So what? You beat Arizona 45-21 instead of 60-10. There isn't that wide a differential between teams in the pros. And if you go for it on 4th down and miss regularly - and by regularly, we're talking 40% of the time - you're going to take some losses you shouldn't. Those kinds of losses are well remembered and will affect your evaluation and coaching future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to you analysis based upon the modifications that you are suggesting and then your conclusions based upon them.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I can provide an analysis as thorough as the one linked to by the OP and I'm not sure why either of us running some half-baked version using flawed assumptions and numbers would either confirm or discredit their simulations.

 

I was simply pointing out the folly in saying, "What a load of crap, these numbers disprove it", when "these numbers" are based on rounding things up or down, in both cases in your favor (I already pointed out the punting yardage, but you also undersell the pts per first down bit because teams average 22 pts a game and 20 first downs, which, while not a huge difference does happen to be the 2nd of two data points that you rounded towards making your point sound better), but also failing to take into account the other effects going for it on 4th would have on both how many more yards the team going for it could gain but also how many less the opponent would by being deprived the ball.

 

Obviously I can't pretend to know what either of those 2nd factors would have on the equation, but I do know that you have to count them in somehow, because they certainly exist. But, in your quick dismissal of these guys findings, you didn't bother to.

All of your suppositions are conjecture, not actual numbers, and they don't follow from each other.

 

 

Exactly. Bronco. Both yours and theirs are basically simulations. Yours is just based on flawed or very limited data. So I don't see where you can come off saying "you'll take a simulation over actual data?"

 

Because there is no "actual data". There is no reliable sample size of NFL teams actually going for it on 4th down far more often than they currently do and whether or not that's a winning strategy. So, that also does away with the "don't you think that if it worked, they'd be doing it?" argument, because we simply don't know. All we have are computer simulations run by geeks because we don't actually have any real-life data that says one way or the other.

 

I'm just prepared to think these guys are onto something because of other ways we have a flawed perception of what is risky and what is not. Few actually understand odds. That, they're less about the likelihood of something happening and more about the pay-off vs the likelihood. Take the Tebow 2 pt thing. Now, I agree that, even if he's 51%, that doesn't automatically mean you should always go for 2 (not saying that's not the case either, mind you, I just don't know). However, if you're down by 7 at the very end of the game and score a TD, that's a great effing time. Because you're trading less than 50/50 chance of winning the game (PATs convert at just below 99%, and you multiply that times the 50% chance you have of winning in OT) for a 51% chance of going home right then and there as the winner.

 

Of course, if a coach goes for it there, he's "a gunslinger, living by the seat of his pants". Why? Because he took the more statistically sound road? Seems like the more conservative approach, no?

 

So, this is just another example. We have a built-in notion of what makes sense and what doesn't. What's risky and what's not. But it's based entirely on what we're used to seeing. So, when someone suggests otherwise, we rush to come up with the first half-baked, poorly supported argument we can find to show how wrong they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we can argue about simulations, converting hard data into projectable numbers, and extrapolation, but what it comes down to is the principle that football is still a game of field position. The reward of gaining another set of downs is simply not worth the risk of surrendering 40 yds of field position.

 

If you are coaching a stronger team than your opponent, your path to victory is minimizing mistakes and letting talent take over. The last thing you want to do is provide opportunity to your opponent by going for it, not getting it, and then giving your opponent a short field. It gives your opponent a chance of evening the game.

 

If you are coaching a team roughly equivalent to your opponent or you are overmatched, you again don't want to allow the other team the shorter field by missing the first down. It's simply smarter to punt the ball downfield, let your D do their job, and then try to gain field position in the exchange. There's no guarantee that if you go for it and make it that you'll get any significantly further down the field with a fresh set of downs. And if you decide that you're just going to keep using 4 downs every series to reestablish a new set of downs, eventually your luck is going to run out and you'll turn the ball over to the other team giving them better field position than if you punted.

 

It's just easier to score on a shortened field - there is no denying that fact. In college when you are coaching a team like Oregon that can seemingly score at will, it's a whole lot easier to take chances. You miss on a couple of 4ths downs? So what? You beat Arizona 45-21 instead of 60-10. There isn't that wide a differential between teams in the pros. And if you go for it on 4th down and miss regularly - and by regularly, we're talking 40% of the time - you're going to take some losses you shouldn't. Those kinds of losses are well remembered and will affect your evaluation and coaching future.

 

You keep overselling the risk and underselling the reward. You focus entirely on the 2 times you give the opponent the ball at mid-field and ignore the 3x that the offense converts and essentially gives itself a free position at midfield by virtue of not having forfeited possession when they didn't have to.

 

In short, you're takeaway is that giving your opponent the ball 2x at mid-field is worth 8.5 to them but "giving" it to yourself 3x in the same spot by not punting the ball away is worth only 2. In what world does that make sense?

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep overselling the risk and underselling the reward. You focus entirely on the 2 times you give the opponent the ball at mid-field and ignore the 3x that the offense converts and essentially gives itself a free position at midfield by virtue of not having forfeited possession when they didn't have to.

 

In short, you're takeaway is that giving your opponent the ball 2x at mid-field is worth 8.5 to them but "giving" it to yourself 3x in the same spot by not punting the ball away is worth only 2. In what world does that make sense?

 

 

This explanation does not involve any attempt to quantify the risk/reward. It's based upon football theory. Pretty sure I made that clear in the initial sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information