4th and 1 on the New Orleans four, and the Bears decide to go for it. Naturally, I approve. Neither of the announcers on TV agree with me. Interestingly, both announcers seemed to assert that the fact that this was an NFC Championship game increased the case for kicking the field goal rather than playing for the touchdown. But why would that be? I'm genuinely asking . . . thinking about it the relevant considerations in going for it seem to be simply the score, the time remaining, the yardage to the end zone, and the yardage needed for the first down. Are the playoffs different?
« Good Weekend | Main | Around and Around It Goes »
Are The Playoffs Different?
21 Jan 2007 03:37 pm
Comments (31)
I guess they mean, you've got to win, therefore be cautious, grab the points you can.
But it might turn out that four more points were vital to a win.
Why didn't they try on 4th down the second chance they had?
It's especially odd because the most aggressive 4th down team in the league, over the last several years, has been the Patriots. (I think, don't feel like looking it up). You'd think it might catch on that that's a good idea.
The issue of when a team should go for it under a particular set of circumstances came up in a book I'm read currently, James Surowiecki's "Wisdom of Crowds". He cited a study done by I think a Berkeley economist. I'm pretty sure the study would have advocated going for it in that situation, if for no other reason that you would leave the other team with awful field position should they stop you.
One difference in a play-off game is that you're likely facing a better team. Knowing that the other team likely has an above-average defence would, I'd guess, make going for the field goal more reasonable than in other situations. I don't know that it means one should not hvae gone for the TD in _this particular_ case, but it might have some bearing in general.
Perhaps the recent success rate of going for it on 4th and 1 is built on the conventional wisdom that its a bad idea and therefore won't happen. If it then becomes a common tactic, its failure rate would increase. Thus, as in all things, the balance of nature re-asserts itself.
The relevant issue here is the extreme attention paid to playoff games. Everybody's watching, it's on international TV, and if things go wrong, there will be endless second-guessing. Regular season games just don't get the same level of attention. All of this makes NFL coaches more conservative (and they're very conservative anyway). I'm still amazed, all these years later, that Don Shula called for a fake punt early in the championship game against the Steelers. That was a very risky, unconventional call, and the fact that Shula was putting the Dolphins' perfect season on the line, as well as the championship, made it even more incredible. (It worked, btw.) Given how the media coverage has gotten only more excessive and intense (that was before ESPN and the Internet), I don't think we'll ever see anything like that again.
Rebecca Alenn just expressed it perfectly. If you kick and lose the game, it's the conventional thing and nobody calls you on it. If you go for it and lose, it's all you'll hear about for weeks.
David Romer, a Berkeley math prof, has an interesting paper in which he uses regression analysis to demonstrate that NFL teams don't go for it on fourth down nearly enough. Belichik has read it and it clearly influenced his thinking -- he goes for it more than any other coach.
I agree with Rebecca Allen that this is another example of JK Galbraith's dictum that people would rather be wrong as part of a large majority than right as part of a small minority. However it's worth noting that coaches in general are far more likely to go for it on fourth down than they were five years ago, in part because of criticisms of the obviously suboptimal aspects of the conventional wisdom. Hey, if NFL coaches are educable maybe there's hope for neocons.
In the big ad dollar games do TV dudes subconciously want the score close enough to nail viewers to their couches? Or, glued?
Glune to their couches? ?
Firstly, Aikman's a pretty crappy announcer, and I've never found his analysis to be particularly valuable.
In this particular case, he seemed to discard that fact that going for it on 4th and 1 and failing would have given the Saints the ball on the 3 yard line facing the defense with the most takeaways (by a wide margin) in the NFC. I don't think it's necessarily the right call to go for it on 4th and 1 under any circumstance, but it made sense in this situation. And while I grant that one could argue the call either way, it certainly wasn't the insane call that Aikman made it out to be, playoffs or no.
I'd say you should go for it MORE often in that situation. While a conservative strategy might make sense against an inferior opponent you can't afford to give up the better percentage play against a playoff caliber team. Against a bad team you may just want to avoid the worst case event of not scoring at all (not really that bad inside the five).
The big difference is that you are playing a real good team in the champoionship game, so your success rate on just about anything will be lower than in a regular game. The weather might have had something to do with it as well.
Probably he just thought they could make it.
4th and 1 on the New Orleans four, and the Bears decide to go for it. Naturally, I approve.
But here's the strange thing. The Bears get the first down, right? Then they get a couple of more yards on the next 3 plays, but end up with 4th and goal at the one yard line. And THEN they decide to kick a field goal. WHY??? If you went for the first down on fourth down at the four, why would you kick it at the one? Is there a material difference in the probablities of making the yard between the two situations? I don't think so. What does the study say?
Also, I agree with Rebecca Allen 100%.
I don't get it either. I mean, if you're at this point, you're a pretty good team, right? and wouldn't chance favor good teams? So why does conventional wisdom remain correlate with situation instead of circumstance?
seems going for it on 4th down is a good barrometer of where one's team is, talent-wise, strategy-wise, and luck-wise.
Belichick went for it on 4th and 6 from the Colt's 34 to set up a touchdown. Now there's a man who knows playoff strategy.
Belichick went for it on 4th and 6 from the Colt's 34 to set up a touchdown. Now there's a man who knows playoff strategy.
Well yeah, that's a lot easier to decide than being close in. The punishment for missing the long field goal is big, and the FG's no gimme.
The argument against is simply that, in playoff games, you play more conservatively than you would in regular season. But in this case, esp. considering where the ball was, going for it was practically a no-risk call.
That they wound up with just a FG anyway is because the defense held, not because it was a mistake to go for it on 4th and 1.
I'd like to see more go-for-its on 4th down. My football memory goes way back, though, to the 70s, when there was a lot more trickery and surprise than now. It was so cool: some teams, you never knew if they'd actually punt or fake it and throw; there were a lot more razzle-dazzle multiple laterals and throws by non-quarterbacks; it was just a lot of fun to see so much anarchy unleashed on the field :)
Re: Kicking it on the second try -- I think the idea is that it was fairly clear that the offense wasn't clicking, so the odds felt different.
At any rate, it worked out.
Just think of Aikman as the MoDo of NFL announcers and all becomes clear. All the kool kidz kick field goals...
However, I'm still smarting from Marty Schottenheimer going for it on 4th and 11 early in the game and in field goal range last week. 4th and 1--yes; 4th and 11--no.
The announcers are right. You are (incorrectly) assuming that the goal is to maximize the likelihood of winning. The goal is for the coach to maximize his respect among peers (and thus keep his job).
By this metric the playoffs are indeed different, because your risks are magnified by increased public scrutiny. Better to leave points on the field than make mistakes that are quantifiable such as sure FGs.
There is a point at about a yard to go where the initial surge of the offensive line makes it overwhelmingly likely that you'll pick it up--the defense will have to make an uncommon play to stop you. After that point, you're going to have to open up a hole or complete a pass. Suddenly, the onus is on the offense to make a play, and the odds of success drop dramatically.
As a point of comparison, look at the odds of success on 4 and 1 vs. the odds of success on two point conversions. My guess is the former is in excess of 90%, and the latter is barely 50%.
I doubt that 4th and 1 is a 90% likelihood. Anyway, you measure the "real" percentage because of the cherry-picking factor. Teams currently try to choose the most opportune times to go for it in terms of how the game is going, whether you're home or away, whether your team his healthy, etc. If you decide to go for it more often, the conversion percentage necessarily drops.
At that time in the NO-CHI game, it was not yet clear that the Bears o-line was going to be so dominant.
Sorry, I meant to say "you CAN"T measure..."
I think actually the difference is that a loss equals the end of the season. Even if the expected value of both choices is the same, the standard deviation of the expected outcomes is not. It is like the standard theory of investing where you invest in riskier things earlier in life and then safer things later. You cannot afford to risk losing money later in life, just like you maybe should not risk getting zero points in this situation in a championship game. You do not have any time left to have the averages balance out.
My football memory goes way back, though, to the 70s, when there was a lot more trickery and surprise than now.
The same applies in soccer and free kicks outside the box. Everyone wants to be David Beckham these days, meaning that creativity gives way to dead-ball skills.
One has to wonder if defences (or defenses) are better prepared for trickery, or at least that coaches believe they are. Still, college football makes up for it in terms of trick/unconventional plays. Boise State, we salute you.
The lifetime of the decision is over the course of the game, not the season, and at the time it was the right call. The Bears defensive line was (and I think, as of this writing monday morning, still is) whupping the Saints O-line. The call shows confidence in both the offense (I know you'll get it) and defense (if they don't make it, I know you'll give them the ball right back).
Still, college football makes up for it in terms of trick/unconventional plays. Boise State, we salute you
And don't sell Ohio State short either, willing to go for it 4th down from their end of the field. ;)
Also recall that in the NFL of the '70s, teams typically ran twice as often as they passed. It wasn't as thrilling as you think. Teams probably went for it more on 4th down because the placekickers stunk. College has the same problem.
Just last year we had a wide receiver throw a TD pass in the Super Bowl. Heck, just yesterday we had an O-lineman catch a TD pass (and two others scored, plus two DBs found the end zone too, although that's something else entirely). I don't think it's fair to say the modern NFL is conservative compared to the 70s.
Ever since MY's earlier post on never punting I have noticed that the more widely recoginized "better coaches" in the NFL and the NCAA go for it on 4th down more frequently than the less recognized colleagues.
This may be part of the reason they are better coaches. It is also likely that those like Belichick, Parcells, and Urban Meyer are much more secure in their jobs, and thus much more likely to absorb the job ramifications of a 4th down failure.
As for why the Bears didn't go for it the second time, maybe the fact that Grossman was playing stupidly and badly at that point made them decide to take the safe 3 points.
Comments closed February 04, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think one of the corollaries to the idea that Defense Wins Championships is that in the playoffs, games have lower overall scoring.
Posted by dj moonbat | January 21, 2007 3:44 PM