CSNbbs

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

I recall reading several years ago that a high school coach had figured that out on his own, and never punted. Of course, in high school, few teams have a punter who can consistently change the field position as much as college kickers can.

While statistically (which is to say, on average) it might be best to go for it on fourth down, I doubt you would find many coaches who would do that inside their own red zone.

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

Note that this is a study on the NFL. The offenses are a lot more efficient at short yardage.

Malcolm Gladwell talks about that in his "Big Man Can't Shoot" episode of his podcast. As PSU fans, we were intrigued by Bill O'Brien's frequent risks in 2012 (when he had a veteran QB and OL and Allen Robinson, by the way). It seemed to work more than not, and it never cost us a game. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/0...cant-shoot

http://cdn.app.compendium.com/uploads/us..._chart.jpg

4th and 2 or 1? Go for it...almost always.

If I were a coach, I think I'd buy into it if my team were out past our 40 yard line. But I'd have a hard time putting my defense AUTOMATICALLY in field goal range...and for what? A first down that still doesn't put US in field goal range or better?

Wilder at ODU subscribes to this. When it works you're a genius.

(09-09-2016 07:32 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote: [ -> ]Malcolm Gladwell talks about that in his "Big Man Can't Shoot" episode of his podcast. As PSU fans, we were intrigued by Bill O'Brien's frequent risks in 2012 (when he had a veteran QB and OL and Allen Robinson, by the way). It seemed to work more than not, and it never cost us a game. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/0...cant-shoot

http://cdn.app.compendium.com/uploads/us..._chart.jpg

4th and 2 or 1? Go for it...almost always.

If I were a coach, I think I'd buy into it if my team were out past our 40 yard line. But I'd have a hard time putting my defense AUTOMATICALLY in field goal range...and for what? A first down that still doesn't put US in field goal range or better?

Definitely agree with the bolded. Anyone who is going for it on 4th and 2 on their own 20 yard line is just giving the opposition points, regardless of how good your defense is. OTOH if I have a stout D I would not be reluctant to go for it on 4th and 2 from my own 45 or greater.

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

I would agree in other teams side of field, But the closer you get to your own endzone, the worse the choice is.

(09-09-2016 07:07 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

I recall reading several years ago that a high school coach had figured that out on his own, and never punted. Of course, in high school, few teams have a punter who can consistently change the field position as much as college kickers can.

While statistically (which is to say, on average) it might be best to go for it on fourth down, I doubt you would find many coaches who would do that inside their own red zone.

The "never punts" legend is a bit overblown. In the rare years he hasn't had a good offense he punts. One article claimed he hadn't punted in X years and a friend who is a sportswriter sent the author of that article his game story and the box showing five punts in a game after that date, the article was never corrected (it was still several years before the article date when it happened).

Does go onside on virtually every kickoff. Couple years ago had a 20 something point lead before the other team had an offensive possession and nearly ended up losing.

In the statistical world, this is a fairly well held belief. I attended a talk last year with a guy that does statistical consulting with multiple NFL teams and it seems almost impossible to convince coaching staffs on these types of phenomenons.

(09-09-2016 07:07 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

I recall reading several years ago that a high school coach had figured that out on his own, and never punted. Of course, in high school, few teams have a punter who can consistently change the field position as much as college kickers can.

While statistically (which is to say, on average) it might be best to go for it on fourth down, I doubt you would find many coaches who would do that inside their own red zone.

Think you're referring to "Moneyball" not "Billy ball." Billy Ball was the nickname of the 1980-82 Oakland A's under Billy Martin. They were an overachieving bunch of oddballs who stole a lot of bases and were accused of throwing a lot of spitballs. Won the 1981 AL West. http://www.hardballtimes.com/cooperstown...illy-ball/

(09-09-2016 09:16 AM)Tech Savy Wrote: [ -> ]In the statistical world, this is a fairly well held belief. I attended a talk last year with a guy that does statistical consulting with multiple NFL teams and it seems almost impossible to convince coaching staffs on these types of phenomenons.

Coaches are intelligent enough to know fans and media will demand their head on a platter if they play the odds going for it and don't make it. If you make it you are a "gambler" don't make it, you are a complete idiot who doesn't understand that you just gave your opponent 60 yards to make a TD vs 80 yards you probably get from a touchback on the punt.

Stats nerds don't make hiring/firing decisions. Team owners and athletic directors who depend on a happy fan base to make maximum income make hiring/firing decisions.

Another scenario fans get wrong.

Down 15 late in the game and score a TD. Fans want to kick the PAT so if you hold and score again a 2pt conversion sends you to OT.

But you are better off going for 2 on the first TD.

Compare:
1pt on first TD: If you do score again and fail to convert the 2pt play you need another score.
2pt on the first TD: If you are successful and score again, you can kick and go to OT, but if you fail you need another score.

The only difference in the two scenarios is when you know with certainty that you will need another score. The sooner you know you need two scores, the better your awareness of the need to conserve clock.

Convert the first 2pt conversion if you are rolling you can let the clock run more to reduce the chance that the opponent can kick a winning FG after the second score. If you know you need to score twice, then you can be more careful about getting out-of-bounds and use of timeouts to have a chance.

(09-09-2016 09:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Another scenario fans get wrong.

Down 15 late in the game and score a TD. Fans want to kick the PAT so if you hold and score again a 2pt conversion sends you to OT.

But you are better off going for 2 on the first TD.

Compare:
1pt on first TD: If you do score again and fail to convert the 2pt play you need another score.
2pt on the first TD: If you are successful and score again, you can kick and go to OT, but if you fail you need another score.

The only difference in the two scenarios is when you know with certainty that you will need another score. The sooner you know you need two scores, the better your awareness of the need to conserve clock.

Convert the first 2pt conversion if you are rolling you can let the clock run more to reduce the chance that the opponent can kick a winning FG after the second score. If you know you need to score twice, then you can be more careful about getting out-of-bounds and use of timeouts to have a chance.

On the other hand, you can't ignore the psychology. When you are only 1 TD down, your team may try a little harder than being 2 scores down.

I disagree here. If you're down 9 after scoring the touchdown, and miss the 2pt try, you're screwed (assuming time is scarce). If you're down 8 after the PAT, you still have a chance.

Similar to when a team is down 10 and gets in FG range but it's 4th and 2. I hear fans screaming to "go for it," when a FG is the right play. Obviously taking the FG means you're playing for the tie, but when you're down 10 late, that's the right play. You may look foolish if you then stop them and run the punt back for a TD, but that's a lot less foolish than you'll look if you turn it over on downs deep in their territory while down 10 points.

If nothing else, the article explains why Romer is an economist at Cal-Berkeley rather than a football coach.

I don't think you can use the statistics. The probability of success is more than mere chance, and I'm sure is very different if a team is playing, say Hawaii, rather than Alabama. And even outside of that, if a team has had success limiting your offense for the game up to that point, I wouldn't throw that out and go by statistics from other games and suddenly think you're going to gain 5 yards on the play.

(09-09-2016 09:23 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016 07:07 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-09-2016 03:26 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/201...ys_do.html

Have been a big fan of Billyball in baseball, which uses statistical analysis to uncover good all around players that in subtle ways perform best. The Oakland A's, who have been forced for financial reasons to trade away star players, are now stocked with young players again that fit their system.

It's interesting that punting is often not the best tactic, but coaches do it anyway because that's how they learned the game. Fourth down and three or four has been shown to statistically favor not punting for best result , but few coachestake that tactic.

I recall reading several years ago that a high school coach had figured that out on his own, and never punted. Of course, in high school, few teams have a punter who can consistently change the field position as much as college kickers can.

While statistically (which is to say, on average) it might be best to go for it on fourth down, I doubt you would find many coaches who would do that inside their own red zone.

Think you're referring to "Moneyball" not "Billy ball." Billy Ball was the nickname of the 1980-82 Oakland A's under Billy Martin. They were an overachieving bunch of oddballs who stole a lot of bases and were accused of throwing a lot of spitballs. Won the 1981 AL West. http://www.hardballtimes.com/cooperstown...illy-ball/

Good catch. I was a fan of Billyball too as a teen. Have the book Moneyball, so should have known better.

Billyball burned out a number of outstanding pitchers prematurely through injury. Took a long time for the A's to recover from that until the Bash Brothers appeared.

(09-09-2016 10:06 AM)random Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree here. If you're down 9 after scoring the touchdown, and miss the 2pt try, you're screwed (assuming time is scarce). If you're down 8 after the PAT, you still have a chance.

Similar to when a team is down 10 and gets in FG range but it's 4th and 2. I hear fans screaming to "go for it," when a FG is the right play. Obviously taking the FG means you're playing for the tie, but when you're down 10 late, that's the right play. You may look foolish if you then stop them and run the punt back for a TD, but that's a lot less foolish than you'll look if you turn it over on downs deep in their territory while down 10 points.

If there is not time for two more possessions you are screwed in either case and we are talking about actions that have no impact except other than maybe changing who wins a wager on the game.

But if you know what is going on your decision chain can change.

Rather than kicking off and looking to hold and get a possession you go onside or do a pooch kickoff hoping to either yield a short return or recover the kick.

Knowing what you have to do to win is vital.

This may sound weird coming from a VT fan, but FG are much worse than punts because of the field position surrendered. NEVER kick a field goal if there's enough time to get the ball back!
[/oversimplification]


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Baseball plays more games in a decade than football does in a century. With that large of a sample, variables and anomalies will be minimized.