I largely agree with TMQ's crusade against conservative coaching decisions in the NFL, and his general questioning of accepted football "wisdom". However, I really don't get how a guy who devotes swathes of a column ostensibly about football to discussions of budgets, bailouts and stimuli seems to think that a bunch of anecdotes (Stop Me Before I Blitz Again!) are an acceptable substitute for statistical evidence. He also shows a tendency to overstate his case a bit. Example:
Trailing 31-7, Carolina faced fourth-and-goal on the Philadelphia 4 with 1:45 remaining before intermission. That can't be the field goal unit! You can't be serious! A touchdown here is the only hope of getting back into the game! If you're going to kick you might as well quit and go have blueberry-almond martinis. Carolina kicked, and went on to a 38-10 defeat.
A touchdown is the only hope of getting back in the game? A touchdown with extra point puts you down 17 points (three scores), with a little over a half to go. A field goal puts you down 21 points (also three scores). So the deficit-closable-in-a-half cutoff is somewhere between 17 and 21 points? Not too obvious to me. And how did Philly manage to build a 24-point lead in under a half of play?
I'm not saying that TMQ is necessarily wrong here. This article indicates that going for a touchdown on fourth-and-goal is the better decision if the chance of converting is at least 18%. It also states that a fourth-and-goal from the 2-yard line is coverted about 43% of time. I don't have data on the odds for fourth-and-goal from the 4, but let's suppose it's about a 30% chance of conversion (I think I'm being generous here). That would seem to indicate that going for it is the right decision. However, a big part of the advantage of going for a TD is sticking the opponent with bad field position if you fail. With 1:45 left in the half, that's not such a benefit, especially if the Panthers happened to have two or fewer timeouts left. If I were coaching the Panthers, I would probably also have taken the three points if I had one or no timeouts. Either way, winning this game is a long shot, and it's odd that TMQ seems to think his choice is vindicated by the 38-10 final score.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yeah, if they go for it and make it, does he say, "Carolina coverted, and went on to 38-14 defeat."
ReplyDeleteHe also mentions the Brandon Stokley clock-burn as a Sweet Play of the Week: "By jogging along the end zone line, Stokley burned an extra five seconds of clock on his 87-yard TD. Great presence of mind..." I heard somebody else rave about this heady play on his phone at the bar for a solid five minutes also. I guess it was creative, but c'mon, what's the win probability increase for the Broncos from 16 seconds left to 11 seconds left, when they are kicking off up by 5? 99.98% to 99.99%? If you factor in the chance of dropping the ball, being tackled by an unseen defender, the Broncos committing a stupid penalty in the extra five seconds, etc., I'm not convinced his play was any smarter than just taking it straight into the end zone. Either way you are talking about something that essentially had no impact on the game.