Basic Football Math: 4th and 1
Comments
-
That's the thing though- there is a chart for that situation. Because it's played out tens of thousands of times in thousands of games. You can set a higher threshold if you want to be conservative but you can't set it high enough for that decision to make any logical sense (let alone taking into account emotional intangibles.)CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:There is no chart for that situation. It was just not a smart move by peterman, and I said when that happened during the game that if we don't think we can get a yard against Oregon's defense the game is over.
Really bad decision.
The math changes depending on the score and game dynamics but in the 1st quarter at 0-6 its really very fucking simple math. -
Conclusion : Pete sucks.
-
Shouldn't the negative part of that formula only be the incremental expected points allowed by starting a drive at the 39 vs starting the drive at the 10 (or whatever your assumption is on the punt)?
I think it should...which makes the decision all the more easier. I agree that anytime you penetrate (rofl) the opponents 40 you should almost never punt. Especially if you got a good defense, like UW has. -
While on topic...last years UW@UCLA basketball game had a segment on the full-time statistician the UW AD hired for all sports. Some Indian looking guy(red dot, not feather). He sat on the bench with the bball team during games.FremontTroll said:
sofuckingaggravating.gifAZDuck said:@TheChart, TRUE?!?!?!!!?!
Why can't UW just bring in an intern to handle this shit? Doesn't UW have a statistics program? Hold a one-day seminar where the intern teaches the coaches basic fucking probabilities and then provides charts for their future consultation.
I have never understood how coaches can get such basic shit wrong routinely. Stubbornness and sticking to ways things were always done is deeply ingrained in the profession. I thought Petersen was different but he is not.
It was kind of funny because UW was injured and getting mercilessly stomped but they had a statistician looking at the game and scribbling notes furiously while Bill Walton waxed about big data blah blah blah. So from that I assume you do have someone to do this stuff, but he's probably ignored by Pete and Romar probably has no idea what he's talking about.
-
By the way, there was nothing basic about the math and my brain now hurts.
-
At some point we as fans need to accept that we have been a bad football program for a long time now and that it's going to take a lot of patience and work to get back to where we once were.
-
Here is the thing though- you can't separate the perception and the emotions from the mathematical logic.greenblood said:
This. The perception of not going for it, meant more than what any chart said. I think subconsciously it affected the team.RoadDawg55 said:I already knew that the real "chart" says not going for it on 4th and one in opponent territory is FS. That still doesn't bother me as much as it showed Oregon that we are their little bitch.
The reason it is perceived as cowardly is because it is so obviously the wrong decision that any football player, coach, or fan knows intuitively that it was a bitch move without even thinking about the math. Everyone knows that you are very likely to convert a 3rd or 4th and 1 to go because they've personally witnessed hundreds or thousands of similar situations. Everyone knows that the 30 or so yards of field position aren't so valuable as to just give up possession.
If football were played in a universe where converting a 4th and 1 was equivalent to the rolling a 6 on one roll of a die then there would be no emotional detriment to punting. -
Thank you, now would @Tequilla put a sock in his pie hole.
-
I don't need the math to tell me that going for it is the statistically right decision ...
To me, the situation is like game theory in poker ... if I'm playing a hand and I'm a 55/45 favorite in the hand, then if I'm playing thousand of hours/hands and continually get put in that spot, then I'm an idiot for not leveraging that advantage. If I'm looking at a single instance, then perhaps I can find a better spot.
And really, that's the point that I was trying to make. Given the game/score situation, I was ok with the idea of punting knowing that the odds of Oregon scoring were far reduced with the extra 30 yards to go. I liked the chances that we could force a 3 and out (which we did before Wooching fucked it up on the punt) ... and who knows whether or not we could have forced a turnover there.
This team has shown throughout the year that they generally play better in the 2nd half than the 1st ... so given that situation and what I've seen all year, the decision to punt to me worked in parallels with the idea of shortening the game.
Now, if you give me an offense like TCU, Stanford, Baylor, etc., then I'm going to say that going for it is just fine. -
Tequilla said:
I don't need the math to tell me that going for it is the statistically right decision ...
To me, the situation is like game theory in poker ... if I'm playing a hand and I'm a 55/45 favorite in the hand, then if I'm playing thousand of hours/hands and continually get put in that spot, then I'm an idiot for not leveraging that advantage. If I'm looking at a single instance, then perhaps I can find a better spot.
And really, that's the point that I was trying to make. Given the game/score situation, I was ok with the idea of punting knowing that the odds of Oregon scoring were far reduced with the extra 30 yards to go. I liked the chances that we could force a 3 and out (which we did before Wooching fucked it up on the punt) ... and who knows whether or not we could have forced a turnover there.
This team has shown throughout the year that they generally play better in the 2nd half than the 1st ... so given that situation and what I've seen all year, the decision to punt to me worked in parallels with the idea of shortening the game.
Now, if you give me an offense like TCU, Stanford, Baylor, etc., then I'm going to say that going for it is just fine.
