| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Side Forums :: Round Table |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Economist: teams should go for it on fourth down more often? | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| Wu-banga |
|
||
Registered Member #49
Joined: Tue Dec 06 2005, 01:37AMPosts: 1561 |
I thought this was interesting: Go for It on Fourth Down, Coach? Maybe You Should Ask an Egghead. By Shankar Vedantam Monday, November 5, 2007; Page A03 "With just over five minutes to play in yesterday's game against the New York Jets, the Washington Redskins found themselves on their own 23-yard line facing a fourth and one. The team, which was ahead by just three points, elected to do what teams normally do in such situations: They played it safe and punted rather than try to keep the drive alive. The Jets promptly came back to kick a field goal, tying the game and sending it into overtime. While this particular story had a happy ending for Washington, which won, 23-20, it illustrated the value of an analysis by David Romer, an economist at the University of California, who has concluded that football teams are far too conservative in play calling in fourth-down situations. You don't have to be particularly interested in sports to find Romer's conclusion intriguing: His hunch about human behavior in general was that although people say they have a certain goal and are willing to do everything they can to achieve it, their actual behavior regularly departs from the optimal path to reach that goal. In his analysis of football teams, Romer specifically looked at a single question -- whether teams should punt or kick the football on fourth down, or take a chance and run or throw the ball. Romer's calculations don't necessarily tell teams what to do in specific situations such as yesterday's game. But on average, teams that take the risk seem to win more often than lose. Data from a large number of NFL games show that coaches rarely follow what Romer's calculations predict would give them the best chance of victory. While fans often suggest more aggressive play calling, even fans usually don't go as far as the economist does -- his calculations show that teams should regularly be going for it on fourth down, even if it is early in the game, even if the score is tied, and even if the ball is on their own side of the field. Romer's calculations have been backed up by independent analyses. Coaches have not raised a serious challenge to Romer's analysis, but they have simply ignored his finding. New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick is among those who has said he agrees with Romer, and Belichick happens to be one of the more successful coaches in the league. Two Sundays ago, as the Patriots were piling up an astronomical score against Washington, Belichick took a chance on a fourth-down play and got his team seven points instead of the three he might have gotten had the team tried a field goal. When asked by reporters why he took the chance, Belichick's response was the response of someone who really means what he says about maximizing points: "What do you want us to do, kick a field goal?" Owners and fans have been receptive to Romer's ideas. However, in informal conversations Romer has had with the coaching staffs of various teams, the economist said he has been told to mind his own business in the ivory tower. Indeed, since Romer wrote his paper a couple of years ago, NFL coaches seem to have gotten even more conservative in their play calling, which the economist attributes to their unwillingness to follow the advice of an academic, however useful it might be. "It used to be that going for it on fourth down was the macho thing to do," Romer said. But after his findings were widely publicized in sports circles, he said: "Now going for it on fourth down is the egghead thing to do. Would you rather be macho or an egghead?" The interesting question raised by Romer's research applies to a range of settings that have nothing to do with sports. Why do coaches persist in doing something that is less than optimal, when they say their only goal is to win? One theory that Romer has heard is that coaches -- like generals, stock fund directors and managers in general -- actually have different goals than the people they lead and the people they must answer to. Everyone wants to win, but managers are held to different standards than followers when they lose, especially when they lose after trying something that few others are doing. Wayne Stewart, an associate professor of management at Clemson University, said his own research backs up the idea that owners and managers in general have different approaches to risk. While owners tend to be entrepreneurial and focused on outcomes, he said, managers are often principally focused on not screwing up. Stewart said this might explain why coaches' approach to risk diverges from that of owners and fans, who are principally interested in outcomes. Stewart said successful managers understand that the fear of failure is itself often the principal cause of failure." Now I'm not buying what this guy is selling at all. With the example he is using, he assumes that that Skins could just convert on 4th down and end up winning the game. He fails to mention a lot of important things. And since he is using it in his example, he should mention that the Skins had a 10 yard penalty on the said play. On top of that you have to account for normal human reactions. Even the coolest of players have to by some degree tighten up on pressure situations. And what happens if you don't get the 1st down? You are very likely lose the game. Also, its 4th and 1. Whats the most likely call? Run, right? Washington had just called 6 straight rushing plays, Portis getting 5 of them. You need to factor in fatigue. I'm assuming you want to give the ball to your best player at such a critical time, right? If my options are punt it, making the other team go a large distance to give them a chance to kick a Field Goal, Or trying a run, and if I don't make it give it to them already in FG range... I think I know what move I'm going to make. Edited Tue Nov 06 2007, 02:51AM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Madvillain |
|
||
Registered Member #445
Joined: Sun Oct 01 2006, 11:42PMPosts: 2233 |
honestly, i always did wonder why teams didn't go for it more often, not because of extensive research this guy did , but because it works for me in madden  |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Zero |
|
||
I want to fuck your hand.
Registered Member #571
Joined: Thu Feb 15 2007, 09:59PMPosts: 2809 |
I was actually thinking about this... on that specific play in the Jets game like not even more then 2 years ago, or in ANY college football league, your team would be full of pussies for not trying to go for the first no matter what. in most cases, you run it because having an attitude any other way would should that you are playing too defensive and dont want the offensive strike. Psychologically that sets your mind into "idle" mode telling yourself you dont need to push your self that much since all you need to do is prevent them from scoring, which in most cases seems easy, but is different from accomplishing it I also think that all these new added rules since 2002 add to the effect of people not getting enough Offensive strikes also though... idk, other things come into effect. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| nostie |
|
||
Registered Member #185
Joined: Thu Mar 30 2006, 10:42PMPosts: 3167 |
to answer your question, wu, Yes. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Wu-banga |
|
||
|
Registered Member #49
Joined: Tue Dec 06 2005, 01:37AM Posts: 1561 |
nostie wrote ... to answer your question, wu, Yes.  |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kamikaze |
|
||
Registered Member #764
Joined: Sat Jun 30 2007, 01:17AMPosts: 542 |
I vote yes. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| aborted fetus |
|
||
The All-Cum Diet
Registered Member #47
Joined: Mon Dec 05 2005, 04:55PMPosts: 1888 |
kamikaze wrote ... I vote yes. What the hell, so do I. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| nostie |
|
||
|
Registered Member #185
Joined: Thu Mar 30 2006, 10:42PM Posts: 3167 |
are we talkin' fourth and ten, even? fourth and seven? maybe i didn't read the whole reportizzle... |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|