4th Down No Problem: Go for it!

[gjkoeppen]

There's a big difference in analytics used in MLB and the NBA versus the NFL. The difference is in the number of attempts to gain the data, a 2 pt shot vs a 3 pt shot, the trade off works because of the sheer number of shots taken and higher total points scored. Miss a single 3pt shot and it doesn't change the complexion of the game or how the coach strategize after that miss, unless it's the last 2 minutes of game. Because of the relatively low number of real scoring opportunities in the NFL versus NBA/MLB, if you fail the consequences are much harsher. The NFL also has so many fewer games, much less margin for error if you lose a game. If this team truly embraced analytics, it would be built around defense first and on offense it would be built around the passing game, the rule changes over the last several years benefit passing game vs rushing game.

Tomlin got his team into trouble at times he didn't have to in the past using/misusing analytics. He was aggressive in going for 2 pt conversions, because the data showed it should produce better results. It works until it doesn't and changes the way he had to coach to make up for those failed attempts. Analytics is useful in building rosters, but using them during a game requires a feel for the game and moment. It also requires the ability to prepare and adapt for if/when it fails.

I agree with most of what you said except making another blanket statement that teams should be passing teams. If a team has the O-line the Cowboys have and a back like Elliott and can use up a lot of clock with that running game and keep the other team's offense off the field and still win games, that is a smart approach. That also helps keep the Cowboys defense better rested which is better at the end of the game.
.

 

[DHCBF66]

The Eagles are a high IQ, progressive, and innovative organization. The Cowboys are a low IQ and archaic organization.

The Eagles have won 1 SB. We have seen this before. A team comes from nowhere to win it all then they are done for the next 10 years. People are making off like Peterson is the next Belechick but he is far from it. MOST of the players on that roster was drafted by Chip Kelly (including the SB winning QB). One year wonders...Thats it!

 

[T-RO]

If the move cost you game then it damn sure will cost you your job, those stats are based on a league avg, as mentioned SF could not stop anyone on 4th down giving up 83% that is a far cry from Philly who only gave up 22% meaning the opponent failed more times than not. Now why would I run the risk when punting the ball with a chance of putting them in a hole would benefit the team? I think there are times you should go for it but not based on some meaningless stat sheet. Who you are playing and the situation you are in plays a big part of a coach’s decision

Again, this is a straw man argument.

No team using analytics is going to look only at league-wide stats and ignore the data on their own team and opponent. If an opposing team has a really tough 330 pound DT...a QB sneak might not be statistically, sound.

Failing to be aggressive creates more losses than fearful risk-avoidance.

 

[gjkoeppen]

The Eagles have won 1 SB. We have seen this before. A team comes from nowhere to win it all then they are done for the next 10 years. People are making off like Peterson is the next Belechick but he is far from it. MOST of the players on that roster was drafted by Chip Kelly (including the SB winning QB). One year wonders...Thats it!

As much as I hate the eagles, unlike most SB winning teams who lose a number of good players to other teams in free agency, the eagles didn't lose much and will have the same basic team for this season. Whether Kelly put together a lot of that rooster, they did learn to play together last season so they will be a team to have to take seriously this season. Now I hope I'm wrong and they fall flat on their faces but I doubt that will happen. We can hope for the dreaded SB hangover.
.

 

[Doomsday101]

Again, this is a straw man argument.

No team using analytics is going to look only at league-wide stats and ignore the data on their own team and opponent. If an opposing team has a really tough 330 pound DT...a QB sneak might not be statistically, sound.

Failing to be aggressive creates more losses than fearful risk-avoidance.

I have no issue of going for it on 4th depending on the situation, I would not do it just to go for it. Field position also factors in, if Chris Jones can put the opposing team inside their own 10 yard line it becomes an advantage for the Cowboys as opposed to going for it and giving up great field position. Again situations tend to dictate, I think there are many factors that play into a coach choosing to go for it or not.

 

[T-RO]

Exactly, there are so many variables and not enough of a sample size to determine from a pure analytic standpoint when you should always go for it. What stat are you using to base these numbers on? You can't use a current season, there is no or very few samples until the season is played out, but by the end of a season those numbers are useless for the next season. You can't use the NFL average, last season teams ranged from 11%-80% success rate on converting 4th downs. Last year only one team went for it more on 4th downs than Philly, Green Bay. GB had a respectable 53% success rate, 1% higher than the Cowboys. GB converted 76% on away games, but only 18% at home. 18%! That's a huge variance, what stat should they use?

You can't really use past stats as a reliable indicator, because teams change from year to year. In 2016, the Cowboys converted 89%, pretty dang good, but it was only 9 attempts. In 2017, they converted 53%, still respectable, but a huge variance. We went for it almost twice as much last year versus the previous season. Maybe we went for it based off the previous years great percentage, but more likely out of need than want. In 2017, we only converted 45% in away games, half the rate from the year before.

What stat could we reliably use to predict success this coming season? Teams change every year, we should be more stable than last year, but there is no way to reliably predict with certainty. Williams should help, but he's a rookie and unproven, we've also lost Hanna and Witten, both were very good blockers and there's no way to predict with any kind of mathematical accuracy how their replacements will fare.

Those stats are a historical representation, but in this case, are dangerous to use to predict our future outcome. Stats and analytics can be useful, but you have to be able to interpret them, what they actually represent, when to use them and more importantly when not to use them. Fans see these analytical breakdowns and holler for their teams to be more aggressive because the generalized numbers say so, without actually knowing what the stats represent. Dolphins fans should scream to never go for it on 4th down unless they absolutely have to, over the last 3 seasons they only average 30%

The data isn’t limited to the current season and it isn’t limited to 4th down data. 3rd down conversions and historical data is informative and can factor in.

 

[T-RO]

Let’s frame a specific situation and think about this more deeply.

Suppose it’s 4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Think about it before you answer!

Situation: tie score, early second half.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Again, this is a straw man argument.

No team using analytics is going to look only at league-wide stats and ignore the data on their own team and opponent. If an opposing team has a really tough 330 pound DT...a QB sneak might not be statistically, sound.

Failing to be aggressive creates more losses than fearful risk-avoidance.

Just where are the stats that say teams that play more conservative lose more games than those that try more riskier plays like going for it on 4th down and not making it? Again there are just to many variables that have to be considered before a team tries for it on 4th down. What's the score? how many yards to go? What yard line are they on? Will a sure field goal give them the lead or add to the lead? How much time is left? How many timeouts does each team have? How well has you defense done stopping the other team? How much film is there on previous attempts to help their defense on what to expect? Just way to much stuff to make any kind of blanket statement that teams are better off trying and a percentage of times not making it and then the real possibility that they lose the game on a failed 4th down attempt. I believe teams are smart if they limit their 4th down attempts to when the times come that it is needed or they will lose the game. Until a team can be successful on say a 90% of the time they are taking unneeded chances that can backfire.
.

 

[T-RO]

Just where are the stats that say teams that play more conservative lose more games than those that try more riskier plays like going for it on 4th down and not making it? Again there are just to many variables that have to be considered before a team tries for it on 4th down. What's the score? how many yards to go? What yard line are they on? Will a sure field goal give them the lead or add to the lead? How much time is left? How many timeouts does each team have? How well has you defense done stopping the other team? How much film is there on previous attempts to help their defense on what to expect? Just way to much stuff to make any kind of blanket statement that teams are better off trying and a percentage of times not making it and then the real possibility that they lose the game on a failed 4th down attempt. I believe teams are smart if they limit their 4th down attempts to when the times come that it is needed or they will lose the game. Until a team can be successful on say a 90% of the time they are taking unneeded chances that can backfire.
.

We’ll take your “I won’t try it unless it can be successful 90% of the time” notion and put it in the laboratory. And then we’ll come back to other items in your post.

We can proceed once you answer the scenario above...4th and goal on the 3.

 

[gjkoeppen]

The data isn’t limited to the current season and it isn’t limited to 4th down data. 3rd down conversions and historical data is informative and can factor in.

What you're saying is all past history on pick your down has some kind of relevance to going for it on 4th down. Teams study other teams tendencies on downs and yard locations and situations. A coach would have to have a computer on the sidelines to analyze everything you're talking about and do it in just a couple of seconds. Coaches have their style and they will do what they feel comfortable that their team can do. If they are a conservative coach the team will play conservatively.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

We’ll take your “I won’t try it unless it can be successful 90% of the time” notion and put it in the laboratory. And then we’ll come back to:
Losing due to risk-taking versus Losing due to risk-aversion.

We can proceed by answering the scenario above...4th and goal on the 3.

All you're saying is because you're into taking risks that it's written in stone somewhere that taking risks produces wins and playing conservative doesn't. So there are no coaches that run a more conservative game has never won the Super Bowl? We both no the answer is conservative coaches have won it all. BWT, NFL games aren't played in laboratories So again show me actual stats that support your notion that if coaches don't take risks they lose more than coaches that do..

Smart coaches think about ALL relative information as I mentioned above on where the ball is, how much time is left, how his defense has held the other team, what injuries his players had prior to that 4th down attempt, is that injured player still available, how well the other team has stopped 4th down attempts and another 10 things before deciding to go for it.
.

 

[T-RO]

All you're saying is because you're into taking risks that it's written in stone somewhere that taking risks produces wins and playing conservative doesn't. So there are no coaches that run a more conservative game has never won the Super Bowl? We both no the answer is conservative coaches have won it all. BWT, NFL games aren't played in laboratories So again show me actual stats that support your notion that if coaches don't take risks they lose more than coaches that do..

Smart coaches think about ALL relative information as I mentioned above on where the ball is, how much time is left, how his defense has held the other team, what injuries his players had prior to that 4th down attempt, is that injured player still available, how well the other team has stopped 4th down attempts and another 10 things before deciding to go for it.
.

Again...I’m asking a simple question...take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

 

[Doomsday101]

Again...I’m asking a simple question...take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

I would not disagree with taking the 3 or going for it. Given the fact that a lot of time is left in the game if I go and fail at the very least the opponent is backup by their own goal line. By the same token taking 3 points in my view is not a bad call.

 

[T-RO]

I would not disagree with taking the 3 or going for it. Given the fact that a lot of time is left in the game if I go and fail at the very least the opponent is backup by their own goal line. By the same token taking 3 points in my view is not a bad call.

OK...I’ll wait for others to answer before I give my opinion.

 

[Doomsday101]

OK...I’ll wait for others that want to answer before I give my opinion.

I think sometimes coaches are looking at the ebb and flow of the game and at time will go for it to make a statement. Given that you are down by the goal like if you fail to pick up the TD you have the opponent pinned down by their own goal line. But taking the 3 in a game where points are hard to come by that 3 could be the difference in the game. So clearly an argument could be made in either case

 

[Cowpolk]

I would not disagree with taking the 3 or going for it. Given the fact that a lot of time is left in the game if I go and fail at the very least the opponent is backup by their own goal line. By the same token taking 3 points in my view is not a bad call.

Takibg 3 is the right call

 

[Doomsday101]

Takibg 3 is the right call

I don't think going for 3 is a bad call but would not object with going for it. We know based on the scenario it is early 2nd half and a tie game, a factor that would play into it is the score, while it is tied are we talking a game that is 10-10 then yes I more than likely I take the 3 since it would appear scoring is low, on the other hand if the game is 21-21 and teams are moving the ball with relative ease then maybe I go for it knowing 3's in this game may not be enough.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Again...I’m asking a simple question...take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

Tied game early 2nd half, 1st and goal at the 3?.............Go for it...play to win instead of playing not to lose at that point in the game which shows weakness

 

[gjkoeppen]

Again...I’m asking a simple question...take two average teams...Team A and Team B

What do you decide here:

4th and goal and the ball is on the three yard line. If you know there is a 45% chance of a TD...would you go for it or kick a field goal? Situation: tie score, early second half.

There are other factors to consider that you just don't get. Has both or either team moved the ball well? Is the other team a pass first offense or a run first offense? If they're a run first offense that means there will be fewer opportunities to get the ball. Did either team get a score on a turnover or because of the turnover have a very short field? There are still so many other things that could and should factor into that decision But based on just what you said the smart choice is take the 3 points and the lead with that much time left. No need to chance coming away with no points which would fire up the other team and have a negative impact on your own team. Every situation is different and there are so many variables that haven't even been listed here and there is no handy dandy graph or spreadsheet to look at to get the right answer. Again it comes down to coaches and what their philosophy is. The NFL has had many conservative coaches that have won championships so to say risk takers win more is just your opinion and don't try to pass off your opinion as some kind of fact.
.

 

[T-RO]

There are other factors to consider that you just don't get. Has both or either team moved the ball well? Is the other team a pass first offense or a run first offense? If they're a run first offense that means there will be fewer opportunities to get the ball. Did either team get a score on a turnover or because of the turnover have a very short field? There are still some many other things that could and should factor into that decision But based on just what you said the smart choice is take the 3 points and the lead with that much time left. No need to chance coming away with no points which would fire up the other team and have a negative impact on your own team. Every situation is different and there are so many variables that haven't even been listed here and there is no handy dandy graph or spreadsheet to look at to get the right answer. Again it comes down to coaches and what their philosophy is. The NFL has had many conservative coaches that have won championships so to say risk takers win more is just your opinion and don't try to pass off your opinion as some kind of fact.
.

There are always lots of factors to consider. That's why I simplified: You have a 45% chance of scoring a TD.

I assume you don't want to give up so early in the game and you are in danger of losing 5 yards for delay of game. WHAT DO YOU DECIDE TO DO?