Can someone explain the analytics that say going for it on 4th at 0-0 is the right call?

[john van brocklin]

There are some smart fans on this site who can maybe explain this better. I've seen the articles and the websites that show you the percentage. The analytics guys seem to say it's almost always a good call to be aggressive and go for it on 4th early in the game?

When McCarthy decided to go for it on 4th in the Pats game at 0-0, I thought we may have lost the game with that decision. Having watched the Parcells Tree in Dallas, I know how those teams play against high-powered offenses. They're looking for mistakes like that so they can grind it out. It was a good win though, and everyone forgot about it, especially when the analytics guys said it was a good call.

But what about momentum? And just psychological 'getting points on the board.' Having watched the Boys since the early 80's, it always feels like there is this sense of relief in the stadium, on the TV, etc when you score first blood. FG or TD, and sometimes just going through your first series, doesn't matter. AND it seems to settle the players down. Playing in front of 100k people every game - no matter how many years of experience - I would guess much of our roster comes in with some butterflies and needs to settle down. From my own personal sports experience, I know once you get the sweat and the intensity going, you're in the zone, but that START of the game is always weird.

I'm all for being aggressive later in the game with a high-powered offense that has momentum (which oddly enough seem to be the decisions the analytics guys seem to frown on the most) but at 0-0? I would always go conservative.

My biggest gripe with Mac has been clock management and 4th down calls

 

[TequilaCowboy]

I would also add this relative to VTD's original post:
The score of a game shouldn't really impact play calling that much until late 4th quarter, unless the lead is massive and the opponent out-classed.

You want to maximize points per drive. Stack up a lead. Don't let up. Thoughtfully going for it on 4th down is not desperation. It is simply Vulcan logic.

Spock would be so proud, but he did say this: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them." ...

 

[pansophy]

They 100% dont factor it those team details. They just tell you what has happened in the past based on a similar situation. There is no analytic that can measure the odds of getting a first down on 4th and 1 with Aaron Donald and the Rams on defense.

Yeah -- if I was in that analytics department that is what I would be trying to work through. So you know it doesn't have to be team specific, but if you are playing the best scoring defense in the league those percentages have to change a lot compared to playing the worst. You can't just make decisions based on league averages and say 'that's what the analytics say to do'. That's not smart.

 

[streetcredit]

MM analytics manual states that, the more fist downs you have, the greater the chance to win, therefore you must always go on 4th down

 

[T-RO]

Spock would be so proud, but he did say this: "Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them." ...

Analytics folks aren't computers.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

9 times out of 10 we get it. Today was just a bad day. Getting fourth down conversions deflate the opposing team and give you more momentum

We haven't been too good on going for it on 4th down.

 

[Darthkuriboh]

We haven't been too good on going for it on 4th down.

every time we have, it’s created more momentum and dominance

 

[JD_KaPow]

There are some smart fans on this site who can maybe explain this better. I've seen the articles and the websites that show you the percentage. The analytics guys seem to say it's almost always a good call to be aggressive and go for it on 4th early in the game?

When McCarthy decided to go for it on 4th in the Pats game at 0-0, I thought we may have lost the game with that decision. Having watched the Parcells Tree in Dallas, I know how those teams play against high-powered offenses. They're looking for mistakes like that so they can grind it out. It was a good win though, and everyone forgot about it, especially when the analytics guys said it was a good call.

But what about momentum? And just psychological 'getting points on the board.' Having watched the Boys since the early 80's, it always feels like there is this sense of relief in the stadium, on the TV, etc when you score first blood. FG or TD, and sometimes just going through your first series, doesn't matter. AND it seems to settle the players down. Playing in front of 100k people every game - no matter how many years of experience - I would guess much of our roster comes in with some butterflies and needs to settle down. From my own personal sports experience, I know once you get the sweat and the intensity going, you're in the zone, but that START of the game is always weird.

I'm all for being aggressive later in the game with a high-powered offense that has momentum (which oddly enough seem to be the decisions the analytics guys seem to frown on the most) but at 0-0? I would always go conservative.

As soon as you start talking about "momentum" or "psychological" effects or "intangibles," you should just stop.

We just had weeks of people here saying, "this team is different," and claiming they could interpret the "mental toughness" and "intangibles" and other psychological mumbo jumbo about this team vs. previous Cowboys teams. Well, guess, what, we have absolutely no idea about stuff like that, and it almost certainly has far less to do with anything than people imagine that it does.

Going for it on 4th down in those situations gives your team a better chance of winning the game. It might not work: there's risk associated with it. But I defy you to explain how punting the ball away to Denver would have made any difference in the outcome of this game. And I will say that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how decisions like that affect the team's mental states. And I would argue that it doesn't really affect them at all. They go out and do their jobs the best they can on the next possession.

 

[Haimerej]

MM had to know this would motivate them, especially this early in game.

It was definitely a sign of disrespect.

Grabbed this post from the Twitter thread^^^^

Thought it might be relevant to this discussion as regards the cost/benefit of the decision.

 

[T-RO]

I didn't like the second 4th down try, where it was 4th and two, and team was in FG range.

I think, particularly early in the game that you want to get points on the board. Besides that, the math didn't strongly advocate.

 

[JJHLH1]

McCarthy’s decision to bypass a chip-shot field goal and go for it on 4th down early in the 4th quarter was a bad one.

That decision gave Denver momentum which they kept until the score was 30-0.

We’ve been bad at short-yardage situations this year. Think about the 3 failed goal line attempts we’ve had already this season.

Hopefully Big Mike learned a lesson.

 

[JJHLH1]

Surprisingly given our relatively good offense, the Cowboys are one of the worst teams in the NFL this season going for it on 4th down, ranking 26th in the league and only converting 35.71% of the time.

If McCarthy studies analytics he should almost never go for it again on 4th down, and certainly not in the first quarter when it’s 0-0.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fourth-down-conversion-pct

 

[DandyDon52]

There are some smart fans on this site who can maybe explain this better. I've seen the articles and the websites that show you the percentage. The analytics guys seem to say it's almost always a good call to be aggressive and go for it on 4th early in the game?

When McCarthy decided to go for it on 4th in the Pats game at 0-0, I thought we may have lost the game with that decision. Having watched the Parcells Tree in Dallas, I know how those teams play against high-powered offenses. They're looking for mistakes like that so they can grind it out. It was a good win though, and everyone forgot about it, especially when the analytics guys said it was a good call.

But what about momentum? And just psychological 'getting points on the board.' Having watched the Boys since the early 80's, it always feels like there is this sense of relief in the stadium, on the TV, etc when you score first blood. FG or TD, and sometimes just going through your first series, doesn't matter. AND it seems to settle the players down. Playing in front of 100k people every game - no matter how many years of experience - I would guess much of our roster comes in with some butterflies and needs to settle down. From my own personal sports experience, I know once you get the sweat and the intensity going, you're in the zone, but that START of the game is always weird.

I'm all for being aggressive later in the game with a high-powered offense that has momentum (which oddly enough seem to be the decisions the analytics guys seem to frown on the most) but at 0-0? I would always go conservative.

Analytic's are flawed because they cannot take into account all the possible situations, scenarios, playcall, how the defense or offense is playing at that point in time.
So I believe it is a that moment decision, depending on all the variables at that time.
As MM found out in this game, you can fail repeatedly if the situation is not favorable, and the defense happens to guess right and be motivated.

I think he should outline certain situations he will go for it, and ones he wont.
It is stupid to do it in your own territory with game tied or your behind a few points.
Play field position game and let the other team make a mistake, and earn all scores.

 

[VaqueroTD]

As soon as you start talking about "momentum" or "psychological" effects or "intangibles," you should just stop.

We just had weeks of people here saying, "this team is different," and claiming they could interpret the "mental toughness" and "intangibles" and other psychological mumbo jumbo about this team vs. previous Cowboys teams. Well, guess, what, we have absolutely no idea about stuff like that, and it almost certainly has far less to do with anything than people imagine that it does.

Going for it on 4th down in those situations gives your team a better chance of winning the game. It might not work: there's risk associated with it. But I defy you to explain how punting the ball away to Denver would have made any difference in the outcome of this game. And I will say that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how decisions like that affect the team's mental states. And I would argue that it doesn't really affect them at all. They go out and do their jobs the best they can on the next possession.

I hear you, but I also think I did a poor job explaining my logic. I feel like a series complete is sometimes a better option than gambling for more at 0-0. You never know what type of game you're walking in, but it's especially better to go for the FG than the TD. Sometimes you go into games not realizing how tight that defense is going to be. They have your number and will make you pay all game. Maybe I'm too old school, but FG over TD is a no brainer unless we're talking inches and a beast of an oline.

If I'm reading Jake's bot post right, the 4th and 2 one was definitely a bad call. Wasn't that the one too that had the 3 TE formation with Brown the eligible receiver that Dak went for? Or was the 3rd down? I would like to see that play run again too. I thought I saw both Coop and CeeDee on the bench. Too me, that's another 'too cute' play from KM. Who are you trying to fool?

 

[VaqueroTD]

Surprisingly given our relatively good offense, the Cowboys are one of the worst teams in the NFL this season going for it on 4th down, ranking 26th in the league and only converting 35.71% of the time.

If McCarthy studies analytics he should almost never go for it again on 4th down, and certainly not in the first quarter when it’s 0-0.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fourth-down-conversion-pct

Wow. Didn't realize we had dropped so much on that. At one point, I thought we were near the top.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Analytic's are flawed because they cannot take into account all the possible situations, scenarios, playcall, how the defense or offense is playing at that point in time.
So I believe it is a that moment decision, depending on all the variables at that time.
As MM found out in this game, you can fail repeatedly if the situation is not favorable, and the defense happens to guess right and be motivated.

I think he should outline certain situations he will go for it, and ones he wont.
It is stupid to do it in your own territory with game tied or your behind a few points.
Play field position game and let the other team make a mistake, and earn all scores.

To me, it's just gambling. What are the odds? Is the risk worth the reward? Some coaches have a sixth sense on that like Jimmy Johnson. Bill Parcells wasn't all that bad either. Both Garrett and McCarthy have thrown some bullseyes, but seem to have more duds. Or maybe I'm just glorifying the past more than I should.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I hear you, but I also think I did a poor job explaining my logic. I feel like a series complete is sometimes a better option than gambling for more at 0-0. You never know what type of game you're walking in, but it's especially better to go for the FG than the TD. Sometimes you go into games not realizing how tight that defense is going to be. They have your number and will make you pay all game. Maybe I'm too old school, but FG over TD is a no brainer unless we're talking inches and a beast of an oline.

If I'm reading Jake's bot post right, the 4th and 2 one was definitely a bad call. Wasn't that the one too that had the 3 TE formation with Brown the eligible receiver that Dak went for? Or was the 3rd down? I would like to see that play run again too. I thought I saw both Coop and CeeDee on the bench. Too me, that's another 'too cute' play from KM. Who are you trying to fool?

A couple things. First, the bot in Jake's post recommends going for it, so I don't think you're reading it correctly.

Secondly, you're now making a win-probability argument, whereas before you were making (in part) psychology/"momentum"-based arguments. I have no problem with the arguments you're making now, except that the numbers suggest the opposite of what you're claiming.

 

[TheCoolFan]

The decision to go for it on the first possession was fine. They were in that in-between range where punting doesn't give you much field position and it would have been a 55+ yard FG. However, the second time, they should have just taken the points. Keep in mind, this was after the Broncos went 3 and out on their first drive too. Momentum is a real thing...your defense gets deflated after seeing two straight 4th down failures by the offense and the Broncos get energized after seeing their defense stop the #1 offense in the league twice. After that, Denver took over and never looked back.

 

[VaqueroTD]

A couple things. First, the bot in Jake's post recommends going for it, so I don't think you're reading it correctly.

Secondly, you're now making a win-probability argument, whereas before you were making (in part) psychology/"momentum"-based arguments. I have no problem with the arguments you're making now, except that the numbers suggest the opposite of what you're claiming.

No, same argument, just didn't explain myself well. You called me out for it. Right on. But that's not to say sports psychology is not a real element that should be considered. Sometimes you just need to get the jitters out, instead of trying to seize the win early on when your team may not be ready. Last week is a great example with Cooper Rush and all the early Hulk Packages.

Like Cool Fan says above, momentum is a real thing too. Like you said, we don't know what they're feeling and talking about in that locker room. But you can still feel it as a fan.

 

[tyke1doe]

Overconfidence.
I agreed with the calls because I thought the Cowboys could outscore the Broncos.
I didn't think the Broncos could keep up with us.
If you're under this believe, you are more willing to gamble.
I think the Cowboys thought this also.
In hindsight, it was a terrible strategy. We should have taken the three, get our first points, and it changes the tone of the game.
But, honestly, after hearing several players (Dak, LVE, Parsons, etc.) say they were going through the motions in practice this week, I don't think even had we gone for it, we would have won.
We simply were not prepared to beat the Broncos.