WaterlooBills

I agree that MRM is infering things he shouldn't be, but I do believe that this sort of analysis can be used to create an excellent model for 4th down decisions, and that almost no matter what, it will show that NFL coaches punt/kick FGs way too much. The problem is that all of the current stuff relies on past history, which while usefull, is not perfectly accurate. By averaging across all games, that data starts with the assumption that both teams are equal with historically average offenses, defenses, ST play, etc., which is never actually correct. I have yet to see anyone try to correct this sort of analysis for these factors (and I believe that once someone does that some NFL will start using it). I have also yet to see anyone really translate pts to win%, especially in super late game situations as MRM is doing. For example, the 4th down article he has linked uses data from the 1st and 3rd quarters only (and hence, tries to ignore the effect of the end of the game). Correcting for time left, timeouts remaining and score for late game situations is extremely difficult. Finally, MRM, expected points to win% is non-linear not because it is discrete, but because some pt leads are virtually equivalent, especially when one of the teams is unlike to score for the other team to win (as was the case on this play). For example, there was no difference to us being up by 1 pt or 2 pts, 5 pts or 6 pts, yet our win% would shoot through the roof if we were up by 9. This is even more difficult to correct for as the average pts idea breaks down. Early in the game, maximizing expected points will translate almost perfectly to winning%, but not near the end.

So then why are you using expected points numbers that don't account for the end of the game in your original posts? And why aren't you accounting for the non-linear behaviour of points in terms of wins (and relying on average points)? Your analysis would suggest that we were better off going for it if we were down by 2 pts as well, which is ABSURD! These are two fundamental flaws to your math, and you havn't addressed (or attempted to address) them at all. The guy you talked too who is converting things to win% has it right, that is all we are concerned about with that decision, but I don't trust his numbers saying that a team up by 13 with 2 minutes left only wins 96% of the time.

I'm not saying that I think Jauron doesn't make mistakes on 4th and short (he clearly does all the god damn time), I just don't think this was one of them due to the time on the clock and the score. While we lose ~20 yards of field position by going for 3 vs going for it and not making it, we gain an extra 35 yards of field at the other end when they have to score that 2nd TD.

MRM33064: I agree with you on the call made by Jauron from our own half, definitely a + expected points call. I also agree that going for it at the end maximized our expected points over kicking the field goal. HOWEVER, there are TWO problems with that simple analysis at this point of the game (and why I feel that kicking was the correct call). First, the idea of the game is to WIN, not to maximize the point differential. This means that the value of each point is not a linear function (and hence, simply looking at the average points will not give us an accurate picture of how often we win). Of the two options, going for it has a greater expected point value than kicking the field goal, but it also has a wider range of possible outcomes, and more highly negative outcomes than kicking the field goal. The second problem is that all those expected point numbers are valid for when their are no future time constraints. All of the expected points numbers assume that someone is going to score before the half/game ends. At this point in the game, that is not a reasonable assumption, so the expected point values are not the same as you are claiming. The end result is that I believe that between the greater chance of a highly negative outcome from going for it outweighs the benefits of going for it with that score and time left on the clock. I also believe that the FG has a higher expected points than you claim as well since the game was close to ending. All in all, when figured in WINS and not PTS, the decision had little impact. We were in a position where our winning % was probably over 99% no matter what play was called.