The book that might end every discussion on Volnation.

[SamRebel35]

I really think you should read the book. You are arguing against everything that is addressed there. I can't scribe whole chapters of the book to present the argument with all of the data and intertwined views.

I will quote this. In that paper that I cited above, the author states that:
"..play calling of NFL teams shows "systematic and clear cut" departures from the decisions that would maximize their changes of winning. Based on data from more than 700 NFL games, [the author] identified 1,068 fourth-down situations in which, statistically speaking, the right call would have been to go for it. The NFL teams punted 959 times. In other words, nearly 90% of the time, NFL coaches made the sub-optimal choice."

Now, I am sure you are asking if this stuff is so clear cut, why doesn't anyone use it. The answer is because most people think about football, including coaches and managers/owners, just like you do. There is a prevailing wisdom, no matter how incorrect, that is totally risk-averse. Seriously, this whole book is dedicated to debunking some of the same things you are saying.

4th and 8 from the opponent's 35 yard line. Your QB hasn't completed a pass in 5 attempts. Your O line has given up 6 sacks so far in the game. You have a field goal kicker that has made 88% from inside the 40. What do you do?

 

[daj2576]

4th and 8 from the opponent's 35 yard line. Your QB hasn't completed a pass in 5 attempts. Your O line has given up 6 sacks so far in the game. You have a field goal kicker that has made 88% from inside the 40. What do you do?

read the book?

 

[SamRebel35]

To the point that is in bold: you agree with the authors, then?

Are you then suggesting that coaches shouldn't do what gives them the statistical advantage because at some point in the future that would be minimized when other people figure it out?

The beautiful thing is that at that point, somewhere in the future, there would be other ways to statistically maximize success.

I'm agreeing that there is a default position among coaches that is risk averse to an illogical point. However, I also think that to ignore the differences between one's respective team as compared to the "average" which these stats are composed from is folly. Put it this way. If your teacher tells you going into a multiple choice test that 70% of the answers are going to be "C". What do you do when you come to an answer that you know for certain isn't "C"? Do you go with the odds, or do you go with what you know is right?

 

[orangeblooded2]

Look at it in this way


Say if every team read, understood, utilized and manipulated cause and effect averages to control\score or utilize these books insistances you would have 1 of 2 out comes.

1) The game would remain the same not because of averages but because of compartmentalized thinking.

2) The players would walk to the line of scrimage, the offensive and defenceive Captains would call over the referee. He in turn would run their respective palys on his official NFL Play Dianostic Field Computer. The Jubotrons would show the results as the players shook hands waching the score change on a touchdowd by the offense or defense in one of many previously approved average plays.

 

[SamRebel35]

read the book?

I'm not going to read the book. Tell me. What does the book say to do in this case?

 

[daj2576]

Look at it in this way


Say if every team read, understood, utilized and manipulated cause and effect averages to control\score or utilize these books insistances you would have 1 of 2 out comes.

1) The game would remain the same not because of averages but because of compartmentalized thinking.

2) The players would walk to the line of scrimage, the offensive and defenceive Captains would call over the referee. He in turn would run their respective palys on his official NFL Play Dianostic Field Computer. The Jubotrons would show the results as the players shook hands waching the score change on a touchdowd by the offense or defense in one of many previously approved average plays.

As to 1, what you are saying is that what you would have is basically exactly what we have now (compartmentalized thinking that ignores probability in favor of popular theory)? So, to the fan, nothing would change, except at the moment of change when everything goes crazy until every other team catches up. Wouldn't football then be more interesting in that brief interval between what we have now, and what we have then (which is essentially what we have now with all thinking being compartmentalized)?

2) There is actually a field computer dedicated to this very thing, and it does get some use.

Some of the most interesting parts of the book are the discussions of why people are so against these sorts of ideas. By "people", I mean those who are in the position to use these ideas to their benefit.

 

[daj2576]

I'm not going to read the book. Tell me. What does the book say to do in this case?

So you wont read the book, and want to argue with me about the same book you wont read, even though not reading it precludes you from understanding anything you are arguing?

I give up.

 

[SamRebel35]

So you wont read the book, and want to argue with me about the same book you wont read, even though not reading it precludes you from understanding anything you are arguing?

I give up.

I'm asking a question. What does the book say to do in the scenario I laid out?

 

[daj2576]

I'm asking a question. What does the book say to do in the scenario I laid out?

This book is a total a$$hole. I've asked it twice to answer your question, and it just sits there and says nothing.

I don't know what to tell you, man.

 

[daj2576]

I'm agreeing that there is a default position among coaches that is risk averse to an illogical point. However, I also think that to ignore the differences between one's respective team as compared to the "average" which these stats are composed from is folly. Put it this way. If your teacher tells you going into a multiple choice test that 70% of the answers are going to be "C". What do you do when you come to an answer that you know for certain isn't "C"? Do you go with the odds, or do you go with what you know is right?

All other logical fallacies with this argument aside, if 70% of the answers are C, and 70% is an acceptable outcome, (meaning if on your own you are more likely to score a 69 or lower than you are a 71 or higher) why do anything more than fill out "C" and turn the test in? Why even read the test?

 

[orangeblooded2]

So, to 1, what you are saying is that what you would have is basically exactly what we have now? So, to the fan, nothing would change, except at the moment of change when everything goes crazy until every other team catches up.

2) There is actually a field computer dedicated to this very thing, and it actually does get some use.

1) No. Basically the game remains the same until the averages change because of the utilization of the averages. Which would not allow for change if used.

2) No. I have yet to see my senero play out as I have yet to see my dicription of a score without an actual play. Which is what may as well happen if every pro team used these "Bibles".

 

[SamRebel35]

Here are a brief summary of the conclusions from a 2005 study, included in the book, done by an economist from Cal-Berkeley. This is using NFL data.

-Inside the opponent's 45-yard line, facing anything less than fourth and eight, teams are better off going for it than punting.
-inside the opponent's 33-yard line, they are better off going for it on anything less than fourth and 11.*
-regardless of field position, on anything less than fourth and five, teams are ALWAYS better off going for it.

*the exception: if little time remains and a field goal would decide the game.

To understand the methodology behind those numbers takes several pages of the book. All I can do is just point you to the chapter titled "Go For It" and let you read it yourself. Whether you ultimately agree or disagree, I think you will find it interesting, if not compelling.

4th and 8 from the opponent's 33 yard line. Your QB hasn't completed a pass in 5 attempts. Your O line has given up 6 sacks so far in the game. You have a field goal kicker that has made 88% from inside the 40. What do you do?

This book is a total a$$hole. I've asked it twice to answer your question, and it just sits there and says nothing.

I don't know what to tell you, man.

According to the previous post, you would go for it. Doesn't matter that your QB can't throw it in the ocean. Doesn't matter that your offensive line is going to get mauled and your QB will throw an incompletion if not a pick under the pressure. The statistics say that you are costing yourself a chance to win by putting up 3 points rather than taking a chance with an incapable offense. You can't coach based on statistics that were composed from teams that aren't your own.

 

[daj2576]

1) No. Basically the game remains the same until the averages change because of the utilization of the averages. Which would not allow for change if used.

2) No. I have yet to see my senero play out as I have yet to see my dicription of a score without an actual play. Which is what may as well happen if every pro team used these "Bibles".

So let me ask you this. In the current paradigm, are coaches calling plays at random, or going with plays that they believe offer the best chances of success?

I would like to see coaches calling plays randomly, actually. It might result in some fun games. 2nd and 1...kickoff team. Whatever.

IF coaches aren't calling plays at random, what decision matrix are they using to make those calls? It is, in fact, a mental process that they believe pits play X against situation Y in order to affect an outcome in their favor. This is in effect, using their own calculations of probability and statistics to play call based on their knowledge and experience. This book is simply showing that the common knowledge of what should be done in a given situation (call "common knowledge" the field computer of the modern coach, and fan) is actually wrong.

The problem that I see with your argument is that you seem to think that if coaches all played the numbers correctly (that is going with the most likely outcome) that means there is only 1 outcome; success. But that is wrong.

If you give me two choices, and one is that I would succeed 49% of the time, and the other is to succeed 70% of the time, neither of them guarantees success. Right now coaches are choosing the former, and the authors are proving that the latter is the best choice. Even if all coaches adopted this same matrix, there would still be a great deal of instability in the outcome so it isn't like this would all just be a computer game played on the jumbotron.

 

[daj2576]

According to the previous post, you would go for it. Doesn't matter that your QB can't throw it in the ocean. Doesn't matter that your offensive line is going to get mauled and your QB will throw an incompletion if not a pick under the pressure. The statistics say that you are costing yourself a chance to win by putting up 3 points rather than taking a chance with an incapable offense. You can't coach based on statistics that were composed from teams that aren't your own.

Only two options in this situation: 1) Read the book, 2) go for it.

You decide.

 

[SamRebel35]

So statistics don't matter. In other words, cars shouldn't be designed for the likelihood that you will be in a wreck because you have never been in a wreck and are a really good driver?

I never said they don't matter.

Second, you created some crazy situation where there is a totally inept offense, with a QB who "can't hit the ocean" and an offensive line that will get "mauled." IS this hypothetically awful team still in the game, or are they behind by 30 points in the first quarter?

It isn't a crazy situation. There have been teams win games with ridiculously bad offenses. Maybe their D gets a pick 6, then the offense hits a big play from a blown coverage and gets a lucky TD. Then the Defense gets a fumble recovery in field goal range. This is when the 4th and 8 comes in to play.

If they are still in the game, yes, play the odds...go for it. The numbers bear that out.

The numbers for who? What teams are these numbers bearing out for? Are 4th down conversion rates evenly distributed throughout the entire NFL?

If they aren't in the game, and are just supremely outmatched, then if the action that gives you the most likely success is diminished to zero, any other action will be even less likely. So why not go for it?

If this were the case, I agree

And, you don't have to throw with this awful QB right? He, or someone can run the ball, right?

So you're going to run the ball on 4th and 8 when the defense knows you are one dimensional on offense? Seems very likely to work. Lol.

 

[SamRebel35]

Only two options in this situation: 1) Read the book, 2) go for it.

You decide.

I'm not reading this book. I only have so many days on this planet, and reading this stack of meaningless idiocy is not in my itinerary. Why don't these economists get coaching gigs? Nice edit, btw.

 

[MedicT]

Bean counters......jeeesh Thankfully football, much like life, cannot be reduced to a simple formula. As mentioned in an earlier post, if your gameplan is centered around nothing but field position and situation, negating the human factor, then you are predictable and your opponent will capitalize. Your theory assumes no prior knowledge by the opponent but your method requires adherence to a strict pattern of play calling. In other words, real life "ain't" so simple.

 

[NashVOL93]

When in doubt on the 4th down call, I like to use something I call the Law of Spurrier. As one might suspect, it is indeed derived from the thought processes of a certain ole ball coach. To use it, simply ask yourself: would Steve go for it here or not? If so, dial up a play. If not, punt it. Easy as pie.

 

[FLVOL_79]

You bring up some very good points. There is a HS coach in Ark (Pulaski Academy) that never punts. He's done the math and statistically, he's correct. He also:

On-side kicks every chance he gets. One game his team was up 29-0 before their opponent ran an offensive play.

Rarely, if ever, allows his punt returners to return a punt. They fair-catch or let it go. Statistically, it isn't worth a fumble.

This coach said college coaches speak with him all the time and most say that they would be fired if they coached that way in college. On 4th down you're supposed to punt.

That brand of football sounds like it would be entertaining to watch.

 

[StoVol]

the key to the whole argument is "on average". the book seems to state what many football fans know intuitively, and runs counter to other things common sense would tell you. teams should go for it on fourth more, but not 90% of the time. just because a book says so does not make it so. kelley's reasoning for going for it on fourth, ( the hs coach from ark) is that it is a way of limiting the opposing offense's possessions, a form a defense. the onside kick is one of his specialties and his teams have multiple types that are called.

the fact that the cubs can fill a 41,072 stadium in a city with a population of 2.715 million (0.0151) would be more logically attributed to population density rather than an extreme outlier, which would question the point about adverse effects of fans. it is safe to deduce that it has provided a disincentive for owners to improve the team tho, seeing as how its so easy to fill with a subpar team. it would also tell you they are throwing money away by not building a bigger stadium

fans know that home field advantage is not a huge deal. "on average" tho, it is worth about 3 points, as vegas continually tells us. some of it is due to crowd enthusiasm and support, while some is the pressure on referees affected by their own psyche.

coaches know that icing the kicker doesnt work.... most of the time, but youre calling a timeout for that one instance where the moment may get to a young man, youre in a situation where thats all you can do... so you should try it

as for the point about defense, that is where averaging all teams together would get you in trouble. it seems logical to deduce that a good d would limit an offenses posessions. if that offense scores 70% of the time "on average" that would include the stats generated against crappy defenses. i think why you see great defenses matched up with good running games is a way of eating the clock and limiting the opposing offenses chances to score. so the point about great offenses being as important as d's seems counterintuitive to common sense... on average. combining a great offense with a propensity to go for it on fourth is a nice combination tho, as we saw last year with auburn, and yet they lost to a team with a very good defense. and no you cant use a one game result to extrapolate a conclusion anymore than you can average all teams together to tell a coach what he should do in every instance. A good d is superior to a good o.. "on average" because General Neyland said so.

Ive read dubner and leavitts works and am interested in reading the book tho, because there are certain instances where knowledge of the laws of averages and a certain team's proclivities can work to your advantage.

 

[utvolkyle06]

Simple summary, do you play to win or not to lose.

 

[fade route]

You bring up some very good points. There is a HS coach in Ark (Pulaski Academy) that never punts. He's done the math and statistically, he's correct. He also:

On-side kicks every chance he gets. One game his team was up 29-0 before their opponent ran an offensive play.

Rarely, if ever, allows his punt returners to return a punt. They fair-catch or let it go. Statistically, it isn't worth a fumble.

This coach said college coaches speak with him all the time and most say that they would be fired if they coached that way in college. On 4th down you're supposed to punt.

Boca, Pulaski Academy is exactly one mile from my house and we almost sent our kids there (we chose their rival ). Kelly is a great coach who runs roughshod over most of his opponents. The stats on 4th down are in Kelly's side - if nothing else PA games are fun to watch.

 

[Fijivol72]

Appreciate the effort Op but a lot of it is bs. But you know what having this type of discussion is what it is all about. I would banter but heading to the golf course.

 

[TruUT24]

Good read. We have the best fan base in any sport college and pro

 

[Burger]

So you're going to run the ball on 4th and 8 when the defense knows you are one dimensional on offense? Seems very likely to work. Lol.

Auburn thinks so, but I've seen the actual study. Punting on the opponents side of the field is stupid.

I'm going to buy this book DAJ. I love economics, and math makes it all work.