Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Should Mangini have gone for it on 4th and goal from the 2? The chance of getting a TD on 4th-and-goal from the 2 is about 43%. The likelihood of getting a FG from there is about 94%. Let's break it down.
Kicking the FG gives the Jets two likely scenarios: a miss or a hit. A field goal is worth three real points, but then the Colts would get the ball at around the 30 yard line following the kickoff (the Colts next kick return gave them the ball at the 32, IIRC). A first and 10 from the 30 is worth roughly 0.7 points, so the value of the made FG is 2.3 points. A miss is worth zero points, and would give Indianapolis the ball at the 9 yard line -- which is worth about -0.3 points for the Colts, or +0.3 points for the Jets. So kicking a FG gives the Jets an expected value of 2.27 points (.94 * 2.4 <plus> .06 * 0.3).
If the Jets score a TD, that's worth 6.24 points (6.00 <plus> .94 * 1 <plus> -0.7). If the Jets don't score a TD, the Colts take over at the 2 yard line, a value of about -1.4 to Indianapolis, or +1.4 to the Jets. For the choice of kicking a FG to be equivalent to going for the score, the odds of converting the fourth down would have to be just 18%. Considering the chance of converting is about 40-45%, there's a pretty safe margin of error that Mangini made the correct choice.
There are a couple of other issues to address. Going for the highest expected value play isn't always the best move; if the Jets were down by 2 with 0:01 to go, then kicking the FG is the obvious choice. But in the third quarter in a tie game, the +EV play is almost always going to be the correct decision. Further, considering the Colts have the highest scoring offense in the NFL, an argument could be made that a riskier decision with a higher reward -- expected value be damned -- should be the correct decision. That's not the case here since the +EV dictated going for it, but it would provide some support for going for it from the five yard line instead of the two. The Colts ended up scoring 2 TDs in 5 minutes late in the game, which makes me give a bit more credibility to the idea that you've got to put 7 on the board against Indianapolis when you can. The Jets have also had a fourth quarter defensive breakdown in every game this year, something that certainly was (and should have been) on Mangini's mind.
I did ignore one possibility when you go for it -- the one that happenned. But the odds of an interception in the end zone probably isn't much higher than the odds of a blocked kick returned for a TD, which would be much worse. If you added both possibilities in, the EV would probably tilt even more towards going for it. It was a good decision that had a poor result. In retrospect it hurt the Jets, but only because it failed. Vermeil's decision to go for the TD last year with just a few seconds on the clock when down by 3 was also the right decision; but if it had failed, it would have hurt the Chiefs. I view this on the same level.
(P.S. Before jwvdcw comes in and mentions the Cedric Houston injury, Kevan Barlow is the Jets goal-line RB (4 TDs this year), so that shouldn't factor into the analysis.)
Kicking the FG gives the Jets two likely scenarios: a miss or a hit. A field goal is worth three real points, but then the Colts would get the ball at around the 30 yard line following the kickoff (the Colts next kick return gave them the ball at the 32, IIRC). A first and 10 from the 30 is worth roughly 0.7 points, so the value of the made FG is 2.3 points. A miss is worth zero points, and would give Indianapolis the ball at the 9 yard line -- which is worth about -0.3 points for the Colts, or +0.3 points for the Jets. So kicking a FG gives the Jets an expected value of 2.27 points (.94 * 2.4 <plus> .06 * 0.3).
If the Jets score a TD, that's worth 6.24 points (6.00 <plus> .94 * 1 <plus> -0.7). If the Jets don't score a TD, the Colts take over at the 2 yard line, a value of about -1.4 to Indianapolis, or +1.4 to the Jets. For the choice of kicking a FG to be equivalent to going for the score, the odds of converting the fourth down would have to be just 18%. Considering the chance of converting is about 40-45%, there's a pretty safe margin of error that Mangini made the correct choice.
There are a couple of other issues to address. Going for the highest expected value play isn't always the best move; if the Jets were down by 2 with 0:01 to go, then kicking the FG is the obvious choice. But in the third quarter in a tie game, the +EV play is almost always going to be the correct decision. Further, considering the Colts have the highest scoring offense in the NFL, an argument could be made that a riskier decision with a higher reward -- expected value be damned -- should be the correct decision. That's not the case here since the +EV dictated going for it, but it would provide some support for going for it from the five yard line instead of the two. The Colts ended up scoring 2 TDs in 5 minutes late in the game, which makes me give a bit more credibility to the idea that you've got to put 7 on the board against Indianapolis when you can. The Jets have also had a fourth quarter defensive breakdown in every game this year, something that certainly was (and should have been) on Mangini's mind.
I did ignore one possibility when you go for it -- the one that happenned. But the odds of an interception in the end zone probably isn't much higher than the odds of a blocked kick returned for a TD, which would be much worse. If you added both possibilities in, the EV would probably tilt even more towards going for it. It was a good decision that had a poor result. In retrospect it hurt the Jets, but only because it failed. Vermeil's decision to go for the TD last year with just a few seconds on the clock when down by 3 was also the right decision; but if it had failed, it would have hurt the Chiefs. I view this on the same level.
(P.S. Before jwvdcw comes in and mentions the Cedric Houston injury, Kevan Barlow is the Jets goal-line RB (4 TDs this year), so that shouldn't factor into the analysis.)
