Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 From http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis...eeks16and17.htm With 2:04 remaining in the 3rd quarter, Buffalo led 17-16, and faced 4th and 1 at the Pittsburgh 11-yard line. Buffalo decided to attempt a field goal. According to the Model , Buffalo's probability of winning the game is 0.68 if the field goal is good, but 0.56 if it misses and Pittsburgh takes over at their own 20-yard line. NFL place-kickers make about 92% of their kicks from 28 yards, and if we use that value, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they attempt the field goal is 0.92 × 0.68 + (1 − 0.92) × 0.56 = 0.67. If instead the Bills go for the first down, their probability of winning the game is either 0.775 or 0.585, depending on whether or not they make it. Using 0.6 for the probability of success, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they go for it is 0.6 × 0.775 + (1 − 0.6) × 0.585 = 0.699. So going for it would have been the better choice. One can check that going for it is preferred as long as the probability of making the first down exceeds 0.45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Won't argue with your cipherin' there Coach, but... Half of you wants to finish that drive with 6, and the other wants to extend the lead to 4 in a game where your opponent's settling for FGs. You gotta figure the 4 point lead's a sure thing , so take it, and put pressure on them to score 6. That's where your D's been turning it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate math. 194926[/snapback] me too.....especially that fuzzy math! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 Won't argue with your cipherin' there Coach, but... Half of you wants to finish that drive with 6, and the other wants to extend the lead to 4 in a game where your opponent's settling for FGs. You gotta figure the 4 point lead's a sure thing , so take it, and put pressure on them to score 6. That's where your D's been turning it over. 194932[/snapback] Yeah - I actually agreed with the move at the time - but looking at those numbers, it's hard to argue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Hmm... 0.67 vs. 0.699 Not a big difference, espectially since every number you quoted except the score is an estimate. I would hardly say this is difinitive proof we should have gone for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 Hmm... 0.67 vs. 0.699 Not a big difference, espectially since every number you quoted except the score is an estimate. I would hardly say this is difinitive proof we should have gone for it. 194953[/snapback] Ya maybe you're right - I'd say it IS definitive proof that going for it would NOT have been the WRONG decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Ya maybe you're right - I'd say it IS definitive proof that going for it would NOT have been the WRONG decision. 194958[/snapback] Unless you lose by 2 points or less... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 From http://www.footballcommentary.com/analysis...eeks16and17.htm With 2:04 remaining in the 3rd quarter, Buffalo led 17-16, and faced 4th and 1 at the Pittsburgh 11-yard line. Buffalo decided to attempt a field goal. According to the Model , Buffalo's probability of winning the game is 0.68 if the field goal is good, but 0.56 if it misses and Pittsburgh takes over at their own 20-yard line. NFL place-kickers make about 92% of their kicks from 28 yards, and if we use that value, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they attempt the field goal is 0.92 × 0.68 + (1 − 0.92) × 0.56 = 0.67. If instead the Bills go for the first down, their probability of winning the game is either 0.775 or 0.585, depending on whether or not they make it. Using 0.6 for the probability of success, we find that Buffalo's probability of winning the game if they go for it is 0.6 × 0.775 + (1 − 0.6) × 0.585 = 0.699. So going for it would have been the better choice. One can check that going for it is preferred as long as the probability of making the first down exceeds 0.45. 194924[/snapback] I won't question your math, but this was about momentum and a gut instinct, NOT percentages. If I know that my QB has that deer in the headlights look that he WILL NOT come out of, and has tried his damndest to throw the ball to the other team all day. And I know that my RB is providing the only spark I've had all day, I've got to make this thing more than a one score game so my QB doesn't kill me with an inevitable bad play. And I'm giving the ball and the outcome of the game to my friggin' RB that's been winning games for me NOT my Mr. unreliable kicker! Why Mike Mularkey choked at this moment I don't know. For a coach that has shown that he'll take chances all year, he picked a bad time to play it safe, when his whole season was on the line. Willis was going to get that first down the way he was running. I sure felt like the way Drew was playing, that was going to be the closest we'd get to the endzone again while the game was still in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I really don't like "coaching by spreadsheet" type stuff. There certainly are advantages where technology is concerned but I don't think this is one of those instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 you hafta kick in that situation...its a matter of not having a retarded kicker...hell i have kicked a 28 yd field goal before, its not that tough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Leading by 6 going for FG is a no-brainer; leading by 1, it's ballsless bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 I really don't like "coaching by spreadsheet" type stuff. There certainly are advantages where technology is concerned but I don't think this is one of those instances. 194967[/snapback] Rumor has it Belichek devours these types of stats - and it seems to have worked out for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Rumor has it Belichek devours these types of stats - and it seems to have worked out for him. 194976[/snapback] He may devour stats but he has balls. He would have gone for it, no question. But then he has Corey Dillon and an offensive line. Mularkey did what rookie coaches do. He played it conservative so that no one could ever question the percentages. But............ It's a f'n opportunity to get in the god damn playoffs! After being the ball sweat of the league earlier in the season!! Somebody, anybody, tell me why this team wasn't ready to play a game that gets them INTO THE PLAYOFFS.. where ANYTHING can happen? 11 penalties??? WTF? Moulds dropping everything? Neufeld not fighting for that god damn reception? An 11 minute drive by Pittsburgh with the scrubs in? Jesus!! Bledsoe not protecting the ball? This team did not come to play!! Where did they get psychologically il prepared for this? What happened? Pitt tried to give us the victory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninMinn. Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate math. 194926[/snapback] OMG avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out), or SISO for the more crude. Fascinating background if you follow the link, though. I've added it to my bookmarks for further perusal, thanks. I only gave a cursory read to how they came up w/ their #s. I can only assume that their math behind their generic assumptions is correct but the main problem is that the basis for their model is actual 2003 play results. Further, I can only assume that said basis is situation independent. (i.e. the results on say 3rd & 5 are probably different if you're down by 14 as opposed to ahead, due to play selection.) Their sampling I can only assume fails to take this into consideration yet clearly your (future) play calling (& ergo the results) will be dependent upon the situation. Also, I'd like to point out that their model makes the probability of subsequent events (each play) that determine the winning or losing considered the same if you have Indy's offense against SF defense or the opposite of the spectrum, say Buffalo's Offense vs. Pitt's Dee. As someone mentions above (or below as I look at it now ), the #s that you come up w/ as to which action yields a more likely chance to win are well w/in the same area and only a minor skew in your simulation/sample base will alter the results. Hardly definitive but it sure is nice from an academic perspective to see someone analyze things in such a scientific manner. p.s. My opinion was that the FG was the prudent call, as I assumed that we had no more than a 50% chance of converting & even if we did the odds of reaching the EZ obviously weren't much more than 50%. Of course, unlike if the LOS was say the 30, getting closer than the 10 doesn't improve a subsequent FG try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 He may devour stats but he has balls. He would have gone for it, no question.But then he has Corey Dillon and an offensive line. 194995[/snapback] Another ridiculous post by you. Belichek would've kicked because he would've been POSITIVE that Vinatieri would make it, and that his defense would hold 9 times out of 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneida Lake Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Another ridiculous post by you. Belichek would've kicked because he would've been POSITIVE that Vinatieri would make it, and that his defense would hold 9 times out of 10. 195017[/snapback] Because the word "coach" is in your name I'm supposed to revere your knowledge? Not based on what I've seen here. Neither you nor I can say what Belichick would have done. But we both know this. With an upstart team he decided to try to go for a win from his own 17 in Super Bowl 36 with 1:17 left in a tie game. And EVERYBODY was shocked. When you have a team that has a RARE opportunity to do something you play BOLD not timid. To go for it would not have been "ridiculous". The brass ring only comes around so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 He would have gone for it, no question. Neither you nor I can say what Belichick would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffal0 Bill5 Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I I'm giving the ball and the outcome of the game to my friggin' RB that's been winning games for me NOT my Mr. unreliable kicker! Willis was going to get that first down the way he was running. 194964[/snapback] Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts