Basic Football Math: 4th and 1
Rumor has it that there are two sides to this argument. I am hear to dispel those rumors.
Announcers like to talk about field position without any understanding of how much any given portion of field is worth. But every yard does have a value- a value that is not exactly linear. Here is the thing- we don't even have to do the difficult math. Its already been done: http://outsidethehashes.com/?p=199; http://outsidethehashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/NCAA-Exp-Pts-1st-and-102.png
Now this data is based on 2010 and encompasses all levels of offenses or defenses. So it should approximate what an average offense can do against an average defense.
Luckily for us the two teams playing at midnight Eastern time on Saturday night were almost perfectly matched with the Oregon offense/UW defense being the stronger of the two matchups and UW having a small advantage on both sides of the ball with the caveat being that with Adams and Carrington back UO's offense is likely significantly better than its results to date.
Oregon's offense is 24th in the nation in opponent-adjusted yards per play. UW's defense is 15th.
Oregon's defense is 81st in the nation in opponent-adjusted yards per play. UW's offense is 64th.
Not surprisingly the over/under was 58 points which is almost exactly average for an NCAA football game.
Now onto the 3rd grade math. If we wanted to be fancy we could construct a formula to find the break-even point that would be something like ((Probability of converting) * (expected points of 1st and 10 field position)- ( 1-(probability of converting) * (expected points of opponent's 1st and 10 field position) = Expected points of opponent's 1st and 10 after punt.
(now is the time to consult the chart linked above. I will give Tequilla and Petersen the benefit of the doubt and assume that nothing could go wrong with the punt like a botched snap or block and Cobra will punt inside the 10 100% of the time with no touchbacks.)
Expected value of 1st and 10 inside your opponent's 40 yard line: 3 points.
Expected value of 1st and 10 for your opponent on their own 40: 1.5 points.
Expected value of 1st and 10 for your opponent on their own 10: 0 points.
x*3-(1-x)*1.5=0
x*3=(1-x)*1.5
x*2=1-x
x*2+x=1
x*3=1
x=.33
Therefore if you can make the 1st down more than 1/3 tries then going for it on 4th has positive expected value.
The average NCAA team converts 4th and 1 over 70% of the time: http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/calculating-the-probability-of-converting-on-4th-down
IF UW could convert that 4th and 1 70% of the time then the value of going for it would be:
.7*3- (1-.7)*1.5
=1.65 points.
Meaning UW gave up 1.65 points of expected value by punting.
Now it is possible that UW's chances of converting were somewhat below average even against a weak Oregon defense. But there IS NO POSSIBLE WAY to massage the numbers to make punting become a good decision. There is no "other side to the argument."
UW gave up value by punting. It wasn't close. And the fact that they were already down 6-0 after one Oregon possession makes a bad decision even worse.
Tequilla Long; Didn't Read summary: Chris Petersen left his balls in Boise. He is not the savior.
Comments
-
@TheChart, TRUE?!?!?!!!?!
-
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. -
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.
-
How about the emotional boost your team gets, when your coach says "We're better than them, and if we don't get it, our defense will stop them" response?
Say what you want about Chip, but he would have gone for it on his OWN 39 in that situation. I miss having a REAL coach. -
You guys, it's just sooo hard you know? To get a win against anybody it's just so hard in this era of college football.
-
*maff
-
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.
-
You guys don't understand the emotion of the game.
-
"I don't disagree with you, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm going to write 53,000 equivocal words disagreeing with you."
*Paraphrasing -
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. -
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.
-
all that math sheet when way over my head and Pete's head. But, I've watched way more football games than Pete and I know you should NEVER punt from inside your opponent's 40. For teams with terrible offenses like UW, a possession that goes inside the 40 is as precious as Gold. You don't squander it. And, if you pay attention I guarantee this is what you'll see the next time, in any game, when some jackass coach punts from the 38:
The punt will sail into the endzone and will yield an 18 yard Net. Two plays later, the other team will have gained back the 18 yards and will be headed in the other direction with a first and 10. watch for it. -
Let's not forget that against Stanford last year in a similar spot late in the game he faked a punt rather than letting his offense try for it.
-
A bad offense needs to score there more than a good offense does.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.
You still suck at this. -
You are only thinking about one side of the equation ... not the other.
-
You win football games by scoring more points than the other team does. If you don't score any points, you don't win.Tequilla said:You are only thinking about one side of the equation ... not the other.
-
We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.
-
Might as well not even play the gameDawgofThunder said:We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.
-
I thought we would win. I was wrong.
-
As someone who paid his way through undergrad and graduate school with poker winnings...your analogy is awful.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.
It would only apply in a tournament where if you lose the gamble you are out.
That is not the situation here. If he doesn't make 4th and 1 he isn't out of the game.
And he doesn't have your option of passing on this 4th and 1 opportunity and seeing if 4th and inches comes up on the next hand. Once he punts those 1-2 points of expected value are gone and there is no way to get them back.
Also- you don't "shorten the game" by giving up possession. You "shorten the game" by keeping possession and running the ball. Not that we would want to "shorten the game" anyways- we were the goddamn FAVORITE playing at home not a 24 point underdog. Oh- and we were already losing. Again- not the time you want to "shorten the game." -
If you ever have a 55% chance to win and don't bet you are a loser, plain and simple. Save for the tourney example above, it never makes any sense not to go for it. If Pete were to be terminated if they didn't make it, then maybe you think twice about picking a better spot than a coin flip.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.
But Pete is the opposite of tourney mode. He is house money guaranteed 5 years and beyond regardless of outcome. It was a very poor loser play that will cost UW games over the long haul, thus why we are losers.
