You Can’t Be Serious

• Posted by Adam Warner
• on December 21st, 2009

So you remember all those studies pointing out both the benefits of aggressive play calling in football (going on 4th downs, et. al.) and the fact that NFL coaches for the most part did not follow the mantra. The hypothesized reason for the risk aversion? Job security. Go on 4th and miss and you may lose your job; punt on 4th like everyone else (wrongly) would and “trust your defense” and lose the game and no one will blame you.

But then a funny thing happened. Bill Belichek famously went on 4th and failed and got excoriated for it as expected and the net lesson was apparently…..that it’s now OK to play it that way.

Huh?

Yes, I had thought anecdotatlly that coaches were getting more aggressive, but it’s actually statisical as AdvancedNFLStats notes.

It really came to a head yesterday as the Steelers tried an onside kick with a 2 pt. lead with a shade under 4 minutes left. With their whole season on the line. And failed. Fortunately for the Football Pundit Universe that only criticizes decisions in hindsigh, the Steelers won the game anyway.

Could this call possibly make any sense? Surprisingly, even more so than Belichek, says (again) AdvancedNFLStats.

When onside kicks are expected, they are successful only about 20% of the time. But unexpected onside kicks are successful a surprising 60% of the time. I think we can say this particular kick was certainly unexpected. And surprise onside kicks can be the most beneficial when a team is ahead late in the game. Possession is critical.

In this case, had the Steelers recovered the kick, they’d have a 1st down at about their own 40, which is good for about a 0.76 win probability (WP). An unsuccessful onside kick gives the ball to the Packers at the Steelers’ 40, worth 0.58 WP for the Packers (which is 0.42 WP for the Steelers.) With a 60% success rate, the overall WP for the onside kick would be:

0.60 * 0.76 + (1-0.60) * 0.42 = 0.64 WP

A conventional kickoff gives the Packers a 1st and 10 at their own 30 or so (28 is the average, 33 is the median). This gives the Packers a 0.46 WP, which is 0.54 WP for the Steelers.

The onside kick is the better decision by 0.64 to 0.54 WP. These estimates are only league baselines, but they suggest it was probably a good call. What’s most interesting to me is that a failed onside kick is hardly certain death–a 0.42 WP. There was plenty of time for anything to happen–a stop, a turnover, or a score. And sure enough the Steelers gave up a touchdown but came back with one of their own.

Important as he notes these are league baseline numbers, and results may vary (consult a physician if you still care about this after 4 hours). But even if you adjusted, it probably tilts more towards the onsides kick. The Packers offense is better than league average, the Steelers defense minus Polamalu is awful this year. The perhaps hidden edge in the kick failure is it gave the Steelers a possession after the Packers score.

And hey good news, this is only Part 1. We have an interesting Game Theory set up here if in fact conventional wisdom has changed in front of our eyes. To be continued.

 

The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.

blog comments powered by Disqus