IPB
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Buy Eagles tickets or search for cheap sports tickets including all playoff games and super bowl tickets @ LetsGetTickets.com
Posts in this topic
> Check out Baldy breaking down the 4th and 8
Zero
post Sep 25 2017, 07:43 PM
Post #1


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13960
Joined: 24-April 04



Here ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Sep 29 2017, 11:33 PM
Post #2


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14561
Joined: 23-April 04



Upon further review, I stand corrected. Big time.

Based on the detailed recalculation based on actual historical drive stats, it is the mathematical best decision to not only go for it 4th and 8 from your opponents 42, but it is a better decision to go for it on 4th and 1 from your own 9 yard line and every other point on the field than it is to punt.

YEP

Using

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistic...ing-on-4th-down

And

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/i...d-epa-explained

Your expected points are 0.85 better going for it 4th and 1 at your 9 than punting (even ignoring the possibility of a PR TD allowed, in which case it is more)

AND

Your expected points are a slight 0.05 better going for it 4th and 8 from their 42 than punting it down to their 12 yd line. ( also ignoring the punt return for TD possibility)

I don't have time to show my work now, will do it later, but I was shocked how much the 4th and 1 stats were. I will try to post it tomorrow.

For those that know numbers, take a crack at the math and see what you come up with.

The one site is net points from the drive starting point, net of defensive points scored on those drives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zero
post Sep 30 2017, 04:03 AM
Post #3


Soldier #1654 of the Eagle Empire


Group: Members
Posts: 13960
Joined: 24-April 04



What factors are involved? Is the strength of the defense accounted for or either offense? Arbitrarily, if there's an 80% chance of failure do the numbers account for the other team's chances of scoring? If not, shouldn't it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nephillymike
post Sep 30 2017, 05:43 AM
Post #4


Token Axis Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14561
Joined: 23-April 04



QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 30 2017, 04:03 AM) *
What factors are involved? Is the strength of the defense accounted for or either offense? Arbitrarily, if there's an 80% chance of failure do the numbers account for the other team's chances of scoring? If not, shouldn't it?

There is no adjustment for the strength of the offense or defense. It is strictly based on the historical success rates of teams scoring points from a given starting point of a drive as well as the historical success rate of attaining a first down with X number of yards to go. Teams would need to put in adjustment factors for offense and defense, which is easy enough for teams to do.

Yes, it accounts for the other team's chance of scoring in almost all situations. For instance, for those drives starting at the 10 yard line, it uses net points expected from that drive which is those scored by the offense on those drives minus those scored by the defense from defensive TDs from fumble recoveries and INTs and safeties. That is why when you look at drives starting deep deep in your own territory, there is a negative points expectation.

The one thing it doesn't account for is punt return TD's. If you punt from your own nine and you get a net punt yardage of 36 yards, this analysis assumes the other team starts the drive from the 45 and assigns them expected points based on drives started there. It does not factor in the chance of scoring points via return TD.

This has the impact of UNDERSTATING the number of times you should go for it on 4th down. Punting from your own 9 would have a much greater % chance of a return TD then punting from their 42 as you will have a greater number of fair catches and coffin corner situations when punting from their 42.

Think of it like the 2point conversion chart. That tells you whether you should go for two based upon the historical success rates of teams scoring from the two point yard line. If your red zone offense sucks, off course you need to adjust for that. It is a starting point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Sep 30 2017, 07:28 AM
Post #5


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1565
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 29 2017, 09:10 PM) *
Every single pitch has the exact same goal. I honestly can't believe I still have to argue the differences between the two sports. This isn't apples and oranges, it's peanuts and komodo dragons.

I can't believe I have to keep explaining that I agree there are differences. Just because there are differences doesn't mean you should throw out numbers. That's just stupid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rick
post Sep 30 2017, 07:31 AM
Post #6


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1565
Joined: 15-September 10



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 30 2017, 06:43 AM) *
There is no adjustment for the strength of the offense or defense. It is strictly based on the historical success rates of teams scoring points from a given starting point of a drive as well as the historical success rate of attaining a first down with X number of yards to go. Teams would need to put in adjustment factors for offense and defense, which is easy enough for teams to do.

Yes, it accounts for the other team's chance of scoring in almost all situations. For instance, for those drives starting at the 10 yard line, it uses net points expected from that drive which is those scored by the offense on those drives minus those scored by the defense from defensive TDs from fumble recoveries and INTs and safeties. That is why when you look at drives starting deep deep in your own territory, there is a negative points expectation.

The one thing it doesn't account for is punt return TD's. If you punt from your own nine and you get a net punt yardage of 36 yards, this analysis assumes the other team starts the drive from the 45 and assigns them expected points based on drives started there. It does not factor in the chance of scoring points via return TD.

This has the impact of UNDERSTATING the number of times you should go for it on 4th down. Punting from your own 9 would have a much greater % chance of a return TD then punting from their 42 as you will have a greater number of fair catches and coffin corner situations when punting from their 42.

Think of it like the 2point conversion chart. That tells you whether you should go for two based upon the historical success rates of teams scoring from the two point yard line. If your red zone offense sucks, off course you need to adjust for that. It is a starting point.


As I've said, the numbers are what the numbers are.

I remember reading a study a couple of years back on this. Can't remember who did it but it was one of the big-name college research teams--well-respected--and they came to a similar conclusion.

As you've said, a coach would adjust for certain factors during the game but, at the end of the day, the numbers can and should be used to help make decisions. Kinda like baseball....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Sep 30 2017, 12:07 PM
Post #7


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 10007
Joined: 14-January 07



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 29 2017, 08:10 PM) *
Every single pitch has the exact same goal.

Well this simply isn’t true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Sep 30 2017, 12:08 PM
Post #8


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 10007
Joined: 14-January 07



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 29 2017, 08:10 PM) *
Every single pitch has the exact same goal.

Well this simply isn’t true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Sep 30 2017, 12:14 PM
Post #9


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1425
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 30 2017, 05:43 AM) *
There is no adjustment for the strength of the offense or defense. It is strictly based on the historical success rates of teams scoring points from a given starting point of a drive as well as the historical success rate of attaining a first down with X number of yards to go.


Which is precisely why this whole useless exercise is just that, useless. I would expect more out of you. I hope even Pederson would blush at this - if he ever goes for it on 4th and 1 from his own 9 and fails, he's going to lose the locker room.

Historical success rates from 31 other teams have absolutely nothing to do with you, your current situation, and the team you're facing. Kinda not like baseball.....


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Sep 30 2017, 12:15 PM
Post #10


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1425
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 30 2017, 12:07 PM) *
Well this simply isn’t true.


Apart from an intentional walk or a beanball, yes it is.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Sep 30 2017, 02:37 PM
Post #11


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 10007
Joined: 14-January 07



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 30 2017, 12:15 PM) *
Apart from an intentional walk or a beanball, yes it is.

Good to get the confirmation that your knowledge on the topic of baseball rivals your fundamental obliviousness regarding all things football.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Sep 30 2017, 02:46 PM
Post #12


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1425
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 30 2017, 02:37 PM) *
Good to get the confirmation that your knowledge on the topic of baseball rivals your fundamental obliviousness regarding all things football.


Coming from you, I'll consider that a great compliment.

I'm the one supporting common football knowledge on this thread. You're on the side of going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 9. Have at it.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Sep 30 2017, 05:03 PM
Post #13


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 10007
Joined: 14-January 07



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 30 2017, 02:46 PM) *
You're on the side of going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 9. Have at it.

No, I've said nothing about 4th and 1 from my own 9.

I'm on the side of being aggressive and trusting your players to make plays. We brought in an "innovating" coach whom I was told was going to push the boundaries as it related to 4th downs and 2 point conversions.

I saw none of that.

If we have a coach who is willing to be that guy now, I'm happy. I hate the archaic, old guard of NFL football. All of the innovation takes place at the lower levels these days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Sep 30 2017, 05:34 PM
Post #14


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1425
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 30 2017, 05:03 PM) *
No, I've said nothing about 4th and 1 from my own 9.

I'm on the side of being aggressive and trusting your players to make plays. We brought in an "innovating" coach whom I was told was going to push the boundaries as it related to 4th downs and 2 point conversions.

I saw none of that.

If we have a coach who is willing to be that guy now, I'm happy. I hate the archaic, old guard of NFL football. All of the innovation takes place at the lower levels these days.


I'm on the side of common sense and winning. The 'old guard' keep winning rings. Our last 'innovator' destroyed our roster, got rid of our best weapons, and is now unemployed after 3 years (a quick search of this site shows that you had similar praise for Chip Kelly). That's what happens when you ignore established, common sense football decisions and try to show everyone how smart you are.

Last year he made several decisions that reminded me of a 12 year old playing Madden. Not only has he not appeared to learn from his mistakes, but he seems to be getting worse. It bothers me, and it should bother everyone here. 'Aggressive' and 'stupid' can be the same thing.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcnabbulous
post Sep 30 2017, 05:58 PM
Post #15


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 10007
Joined: 14-January 07



QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 30 2017, 05:34 PM) *
I'm on the side of common sense and winning. The 'old guard' keep winning rings.

There is no new guard. Belichick is one of the few that is consistently reinventing himself and adopting concepts from the lower ranks. Andy is another.

QUOTE
Our last 'innovator' destroyed our roster, got rid of our best weapons, and is now unemployed after 3 years (a quick search of this site shows that you had similar praise for Chip Kelly). That's what happens when you ignore established, common sense football decisions and try to show everyone how smart you are.

He literally did nothing innovative and was actually in the bottom tier as it related to conservatism.

QUOTE
Last year he made several decisions that reminded me of a 12 year old playing Madden. Not only has he not appeared to learn from his mistakes, but he seems to be getting worse. It bothers me, and it should bother everyone here. 'Aggressive' and 'stupid' can be the same thing.

We get it. You think you're smarter than every coach in the NFL. You're not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Franchise
post Sep 30 2017, 06:19 PM
Post #16


Hall of Famer


Group: Members
Posts: 1425
Joined: 23-November 15



QUOTE
There is no new guard. Belichick is one of the few that is consistently reinventing himself and adopting concepts from the lower ranks. Andy is another.


Belichick is constantly innovating, while never abandoning basic foootball 101. Andy is innovative as well, while almost serially flubbing basic football 101. One is heading towards a likely 6th championship. The other is headed towards a guaranteed 13th January exit.

QUOTE
He literally did nothing innovative and was actually in the bottom tier as it related to conservatism.


This was a post you made over two years ago:

This read is probably the best I've seen with regards to Chip's master plan. I don't know how one could read it and not understand what he is trying to create, regardless of your affinity for some of the guys that didn't fit in.

Chip Kelly and his Relentless Assault on the Status Quo

I know what it's like to introduce new policies and tools in the workplace. In some situations, if just one person doesn't buy in to using a new tool, the entire thing is worthless. That seems to be what is going on here and so Chip is weeding out the outliers. It's fine by me.


I understand how you like to forget history, especially since you were horribly wrong (as always). You hailed him as the new guard. He currently shares our level of NFL employment.

QUOTE
We get it. You think you're smarter than every coach in the NFL. You're not.


Agreed. But I am smarter than a coach who decides to go for it on 4th and 8 in that situation, using flawed data.


--------------------
"If it came down to both teams were even, talent-wise, I think the opponent's team would win if it came down to coaching. Andy Reid got out-coached in a lot of games, man, a lot of big games."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
5 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 
NFL Football Tickets    football flash games   
RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th December 2017 - 09:08 AM