Basic Football Math: 4th and 1

It looks like I missed out on a riveting argument over whether punting on 4th and 1 from your opponents' 39 yard line is EVER a good decision in the game of football.

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

PellumPride

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.

RaceBannon

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.

TierbsHsotBoobs

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.

A bad offense needs to score there more than a good offense does.

You still suck at this.

Tequilla

You are only thinking about one side of the equation ... not the other.

TierbsHsotBoobs

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.

DawgofThunder

We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.

Dardanus

We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.

Might as well not even play the game

DawgofThunder

I thought we would win. I was wrong.

FremontTroll

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.

As someone who paid his way through undergrad and graduate school with poker winnings...your analogy is awful.

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."

Doogles

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.

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.

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.

dflea

Sometimes when I go fishing I have to shit in the woods.

I always bring paper towels, because this is no event to fuck around with.

On occasion, I don;t get the job done right, even with paper towels, and I wind up having monkey butt. When fishing - or hunting - or doing virtually any fucking thing, having monkey butt is a bad outcome.

I'd rather have the itchiest, reddest ass in the world than watch a game like that piece of shit again. Annnnnnnd I'd take 4 shits without wiping my ass at all if we could figure out how to play fucking football again.,

doogsinparadise

Sometimes when I go fishing I have to shit in the woods.

I always bring paper towels, because this is no event to fuck around with.

On occasion, I don;t get the job done right, even with paper towels, and I wind up having monkey butt. When fishing - or hunting - or doing virtually any fucking thing, having monkey butt is a bad outcome.

I'd rather have the itchiest, reddest ass in the world than watch a game like that piece of shit again. Annnnnnnd I'd take 4 shits without wiping my ass at all if we could figure out how to play fucking football again.,

This is why I love this board.

RaccoonHarry

Sometimes when I go fishing I have to shit in the woods.

I always bring paper towels, because this is no event to fuck around with.

On occasion, I don;t get the job done right, even with paper towels, and I wind up having monkey butt. When fishing - or hunting - or doing virtually any fucking thing, having monkey butt is a bad outcome.

I'd rather have the itchiest, reddest ass in the world than watch a game like that piece of shit again. Annnnnnnd I'd take 4 shits without wiping my ass at all if we could figure out how to play fucking football again.,

If you wiped your ass with paper towels instead of toilet paper you're still going to have a red ass.