Should Dan Campbell have kicked a FG in the 2nd Half of the NFCC? (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

This team won't win **** with the talent they have unless this coach takes this long off-season to learn from these mistakes. If he does learn from these mistakes, this team is a Super Bowl contender the way it is constructed. Game management is such a lost art. The Playoffs...there is absolutely no room for error. Everyone is locked in.

Playoffs? Playoffs? !!!!!
-Jim Mora

 

[IHEARTFF]

Anyone ever wonder why they call it football when feet so seldom touch the football during a game?

Yes, every single non-American soccer fan

I believe they call it hand egg

The hidden joke was less field goals and more going for it on 4th down.

Yeah I liked it

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Based on results they achieved against weaker teams and in games that mattered less.

People do conviently leave out those points...being a good coach you know your situation. You don't just blindly do it because it worked week 2 against the bears

Bears are an interesting choice for your example considering the Bears defense actually played the Lions much tougher than the 49ers. The Bears held the Lions to 13 points last time they played, while the Lions at the time of that 4th down call were cutting through the 9ers defense like swiss cheese most of the game.

But I guess everyone knows that Josh Reynolds only drops wide open passes against the 49ers, and not the Bears.

And it's not like the field goal kicker wouldn't have also had to face higher stakes than week 2 either.

When they calculated how it affected the Lions' win percentage they did it while giving the Lions only a 53% chance of converting the 4th and 3, which is far lower than what the Lions were converting in the regular season this year.

 

[Spartans Rule]

People keep saying "the aggressive play-calling is what got the Lions this far" as support for the decisions. I'm not claiming to know any better, but does anyone have specific data on cases where opting to go for a TD/first down versus a FG attempt created wins out of losses or losses out of wins for the Lions this year? Otherwise you can't really say it's "what got them here", only "they've been aggressive and they made it here, whether because of, in spite of, or unaffected by it".

The most obvious example would be the playoff game with the Rams, where they scored a TD on 4th-and-1 from the 2 and went on to win by one point.

In the regular season, they had a 41-38 win over the Chargers where they were 4-for-5 on 4th down. In their 30-24 win over the Vikings to clinch the NFC North, they converted two 4th-and-1s from within field goal range on the same TD drive (Badgley's XP was blocked). The Vikings ended the game in FG range but had to go for the end zone because they were down 6.

You can't 100% say those games would play out the same way if they don't go for the 4th downs, just like you can't say with 100% certainty that kicking field goals would've won the Lions the game yesterday. But it's 3 games where being aggressive on 4th down made a significant difference.

 

[Gally]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

One other point to make that I really haven't seen:

Converting the first down there doesn't even mean points, it simply means retaining possession for another 4 downs.

I'd like to thank the MVP of the 49ers season, Dan Campbell!

This is basically what I asked a few posts up and used the example of why kick a FG on 4th and 2 when the conversion equals a TD but not attempt a FG when the conversion just gets you a first down and the down and distance are similar.

Like I said in my post I do understand having more space to operate makes it easier to convert and the odds of the a successful FG attempt are higher from the goal line area, this just never made sense to me and it's a no DC issue, I see teams do this all the time.

Well to be fair a lot more coaches are starting to go for it on 4th and goal from the 2 rather than kicking a FG in that scenario.

But for the other part you answered a big part of it. It's much more difficult to convert around the goalline when the field is compressed, and the FG is also no longer guaranteed when your further away.

But I agree in general. In a normal game flow (IE we're not talking about a scenario where 3 points is just as good as 7) you should pretty much never kick a FG on 4th and goal from the 2, unless you are just way worse than the rest of the league at converting from the 2 yard line.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

I take your point and I think it's fair. Though I would say a few things.

Firstly, if we're to apply things like how the game was being played and the teams themselves, that would seem to point even MORE to going for it rather than not. At that time in the game the Lions were dominating the 49ers defense. Especially at the line of scrimmage, which is important on a play like that. Further, the Lions have been struggling in the kicking game all year. So if anything most of those factors would point to going for it even more than in a vacuum. At that time in this game I would have said that they were probably more likely to convert a 4th down and 3 than the league average, and simultaneously have said the Lions were less likely to make that field goal than the league average.

As to game situation, people keep talking about making it a 3-score game with the amount of time left. But how much of that is us growing up watching a different NFL? It's not like it used to be where a 3-score lead was as good as a 100-score lead. We see comebacks like that all the time now. Everyone keeps talking about making it a 3-score game as if that would have sealed it, but the 49ers scored 4 more times anyway.

I'm not trying to say it was some slam dunk or even the right decision. But it's a toss-up to me, and close enough that it's not something I'm going to blame the coach for making a bad call on. I think it was reasonable to kick or go for it.

Now the run followed by a timeout on 3rd down at the end of the game, on the other hand, absolutely deserves criticism.

 

[TwinTurbo]

In hindsight, maybe he should have went for 1 of the field goals. But in general, I like the aggressive approach. It puts constant pressure on your opponent. And all they had to do was convert. It is arguably easier for Reynolds to make that catch than to kick a 45+ yd FG. I would rather have a guy like Dan Campbell than a guy like Marty Schottenheimer.

For me, the scrambles from Purdy were the dagger despite the other mistakes. He went 5/48 rushing include a long of 21 which was the backbreaker on a couple drives. That I did not expect. Sure maybe from a guy like Mahomes or Allen or LJ. But not that guy. And now they are in the Superbowl.

 

[kutta]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

So how do you explain DC kicking the FG at the end of the first half when analytics was a STRONG GO? He looked at the game situation and decided against it.

Can you explain that?

 

[Gally]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

So how do you explain DC kicking the FG at the end of the first half when analytics was a STRONG GO? He looked at the game situation and decided against it.

Can you explain that?

I can't explain anything Dan Campbell does. I don't think he is a very good game coach. Just point to the dumb timeout and situation on that last drive to show that.

 

[jrt103]

yes

 

[kutta]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

So how do you explain DC kicking the FG at the end of the first half when analytics was a STRONG GO? He looked at the game situation and decided against it.

Can you explain that?

I can't explain anything Dan Campbell does. I don't think he is a very good game coach. Just point to the dumb timeout and situation on that last drive to show that.

My point is that he’s not blindly following analytics as you suggested. He is doing his own in game analysis and using analytics as part of the equation.

 

[Gally]

As to game situation, people keep talking about making it a 3-score game with the amount of time left. But how much of that is us growing up watching a different NFL? It's not like it used to be where a 3-score lead was as good as a 100-score lead. We see comebacks like that all the time now. Everyone keeps talking about making it a 3-score game as if that would have sealed it, but the 49ers scored 4 more times anyway.

I'm not trying to say it was some slam dunk or even the right decision. But it's a toss-up to me, and close enough that it's not something I'm going to blame the coach for making a bad call on. I think it was reasonable to kick or go for it.

Now the run followed by a timeout on 3rd down at the end of the game, on the other hand, absolutely deserves criticism.

Yes, the Lions had been moving offensively all game. However, in order for SF to get back into the game (IMO) it would take a big play/spark to get them going. Just as the Lions had moved most of the game, they were able to come back after giving up an opening drive FG to get into FG position of their own to bring it back to a 3 score game. Time was on their side. If they just matched SF they would win the game. They were on the verge of attempting to do just that by using up half a quarter and matching the opening drive with a possible FG of their own. That was in the Lions favor.

Was it definitely the wrong decision to go for it in lieu of the FG? No, but it wasn't the decision I would have made. Because time was on their side and they were able to match SF why risk giving them a jolt by not picking up the 4th down? Again, time was on their side. Keep it status quo - at least that is what I would have done based on what I had seen.

As far as kicking struggles, why that may have happened throughout the year, Badgely had been better as of late so that would have also factored into my thoughts. A little more confidence than I would have had in week 6 or something like that.

Everyone can agree the decisions at the end of the game were inexcusable and should be addressed.

 

[Gally]

What I'd challenge someone - anyone - to do, then, is do some kind of analysis that shows it was a bad decision to go for it there. Find a reasonable model of that situation that shows it was clearly a mistake to go for it. No one has and I suspect no one will. They'll just keep saying "oh you can't just rely on the analytics, you have to also blah blah blah" but then they won't do any of those things anyway.

I would say that the analytics side can't say it was clearly correct to go for it either. This decision can be argued both ways with reasonable reasons as to why you are on one side or the other. The biggest hit against the analytics to go for it is that it resulted in a loss.

By that rationale I shouldn't have taken the +120 bet someone offered me on the coinflip because I guessed wrong

This is not apples to apples. If the game was played by robots where emotions, weather, injuries, matchups, game flow, humans, etc weren't a factor then I would agree. But that is not the case. Humans are involved with the outcomes and those things matter and skew the analytics in a way that can't be factored. It's why there is a margin of error associated with the analytics.

No, it's not, but it's a demonstration of the point I made in the post above. Thinking that way would be nothing but results oriented thinking. Which is bad.

Results are part of the equation. They have to be otherwise how do you know if any decision is the correct decision?

Ok, let's go with the hypothetical that they chose to kick the field goal, it is blocked, Niners recover at the line of scrimmage, and the game plays out the exact same way. Is it then the "correct" decision to have gone for it, in the same way that people are saying that the "correct" decision is to take the points as the game actually played out? You cannot predict the future, you can only make what you believe to be the best decision at any given point in time. What happens afterwards is just details, and this works exactly the same way in football as knowing to split 99 against a dealer's 8 in blackjack is the correct call, regardless of whether we then get nothing but sevens or a couple of aces

I am not basing my decision on the outcome after the fact. I am basing my decision based on the analytic aspect of the probabilities in normal situations that the analytics are based on and then my knowledge of how that particular game is going and the different factors (human) that are at the time of the decision. Again, this is totally different than blackjack because there are no human factors in blackjack. How you quantify the human factors in football are near impossible and is why coaches get paid. I believe the good ones have a feel for the game and can factor those human factors into the equation while also taking into account the pure mathematical analytics (and margin for error associated with those sheer numbers).

In this particular case I don't think DC has a feel for those factors. I think he is a go for it no matter what kind of guy and I don't think that is necessarily a good thing in one and done games. Factors leading up to those decisions in game should be considered and based on his track record (Dallas game as an example of going for two even after the penalty) I don't think he does this well.

Based on what I saw of the game and the situation (score and time left) my decision would have been to go for the FG.

So how do you explain DC kicking the FG at the end of the first half when analytics was a STRONG GO? He looked at the game situation and decided against it.

Can you explain that?

I can't explain anything Dan Campbell does. I don't think he is a very good game coach. Just point to the dumb timeout and situation on that last drive to show that.

My point is that he’s not blindly following analytics as you suggested. He is doing his own in game analysis and using analytics as part of the equation.

And I would counter by saying he is using analytics/gut incorrectly then and is another reason why I think he is a terrible in game coach.

 

[Instinctive]

He shouldn't have, 100%.

Was the goal to lose? That is the concrete outcome, so yes, we can say 100% he should have. Would they have lost anyways, that is unknown, but we do know the decisions he made and we do know the outcome. So yes, we can say 100% he should have.

This is such an antiquated way of thinking that I don't know if we can have a productive discussion.

We know that in the one-time outcome, it didn't work out. That doesn't mean it was the wrong choice. HUGE distinction.

 

[zed2283]

Of course

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I do wonder if all the people saying take the points on the Reynolds play would still be saying take the points if Purdy threw a pick six the next play. Or if Goff threw a pass on the second fourth down that was actually catchable and is converted. Or if Detroit recovers the onside kick and they take it to overtime anyway. Or if they'd actually gone for it in the first half, scored a TD, and it's already a three score game. Or if it's all results oriented thinking rather than looking at what decision gives you the best chance to win the game on that individual play

edit - or, for that matter, if Reynolds had have just ****ing caught the ball

Of course they wouldn't.

Some of us said these things in the moment. The 3rd down TO is the most obvious example. My son and I were screaming at the TV “what the heck are you doing, you just lost the game you moron?”

The kick/don’t kick decisions really come down to preference, because the analytics were basically such a small difference as to be immaterial. I personally lean towards “take the points” especially the less time is left in the game. It’s a risk-reward issue. Sometimes it makes sense to mitigate downside risk.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Firstly, if we're to apply things like how the game was being played and the teams themselves, that would seem to point even MORE to going for it rather than not. At that time in the game the Lions were dominating the 49ers defense. Especially at the line of scrimmage, which is important on a play like that. Further, the Lions have been struggling in the kicking game all year. So if anything most of those factors would point to going for it even more than in a vacuum. At that time in this game I would have said that they were probably more likely to convert a 4th down and 3 than the league average, and simultaneously have said the Lions were less likely to make that field goal than the league average.

This is kind of the way I look at - start with the league averages, and then deviate from that based on the specifics of your team, the opponent, the game situation, etc. And I agree with you about the Lions. They've got an elite offensive line and a below-average kicker, so they should be going for 4th-and-short even more often than analytics based on league averages would suggest.

We all grew up with the idea that kicking on 4th down is the de facto decision, and going away from that is inherently a gamble. Mathematically, that's very wrong. The math in any specific situation is fuzzy enough that you can make an argument why you should kick this time, but if you're rarely/never in favor of going for 4th downs you're inherently getting it wrong a lot.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I threw this up on a whim this morning as I was running to enjoy this 58 degree weather in South Florida, outdoor tennis was divine today
And I say this with a huge smile but I can work for hours and hours on a weekly projection/exploit, hell let's use @travdogg as he does tireless work off season and in season
But I watch him write a lengthy rankings thread full of good info that doesn't go past a single page or two
We ask a simple question about the NFCC/Head Coach...4 pages in an afternoon

It's incredible to me what gets folks talking in here and it's always been that way.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)

Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).

I work heavily with data at a large tech company and externally deal with Senior Execs at F100 companies who do nothing but look at data.

A lot of people who collect data don't fully understand how to analyze it and a lot of those who analyze it don't know how to collect it. There are numerous ways to collect and analyze data depending on what you're end goal is. If you work with data, I'm sure I don't need to go down this rabbit hole. My point is, it can be misleading or misunderstood very easily, and often is.

When looking to respond to the questions you have posed to Bankerguy, I went on a quick hunt for data. Interestingly enough, ESPN published an article on this just 4 days ago, it was the first result I found.

No, NFL analytics models don't always recommend going for it on fourth down: Here's the method

Do NFL analytics models always recommend going for it on fourth down? No. Here's how the decisions actually are made.

www.espn.com

That's the article. You can actually dive deeper on it into this particular game here: https://espnanalytics.com/decision

A few assumptions have to be made here, and I won't just grant these assumptions bc it's ESPN so it has to be right.

Anyways, if you were to simply analyze the data as a whole in the graph from the article, it says GO on any 4th & 4 or shorter from your 30 and out. That graph or something likewise is prob used by NFL coaches and their analytics guys across the board. And to my earlier point, I guarantee there are some using the data improperly. You need very specific data for specific situations (and it can be compiled, it's just challenging) to always make the right call based on data. There are plenty of situations where going for it on 4th and 4 on your 31 yard line would be wildly incorrect, even if the data says GO, according to ESPN.

And FTR, I can manipulate the data sets I'm collecting (based on collection methods and chosen inputs) to justify most decisions I make.

How many teams did X when Y was Z? Okay, that doesn't get me my desired outcome.

What about How many teams did Y when Z was X, okay this data looks good. Just a simple example.

Super interesting, thanks for posting the link.

Recognizing that this is just one model……the output is fascinating. Lions up 14 and have 4th and 2 from the San Fran 28 yard line. Analytics say…..90.5% win rate if they “go for it” and a 90.3% win rate if they kick the FG.

That is a ridiculously small difference in win rate. So small that I would say (as a trained statistician) that the model error is multiples larger than the differential probabilistic outcomes from the 2 scenarios.

It’s basically irrelevant output. Ditto for the later decision (down 3, 4th and 3 from the SF 30 yd line). Win rate was 39.1% going for it, 38.8% kicking the FG.

(The math was even tighter just before half when the Lions kicked the FG……just a 0.1% win rate differential)


Is it possible that Campbell is blindly using analytics to make decisions? Maybe. I guess. If he IS doing that, well, these differences are so small that it would mean he misunderstands or misinterprets how to use the models. I would love to know how he and the team really make these choices in the moment…..

 

[Ministry of Pain]

70% Yes
30% No

-That's about what I expected, there are a lot of people that feel he did the right thing and stayed true to who he is and what the 2023 Lions were all about.
I do applaud people for standing behind him and not bailing when it would be easy to do so.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

I could not agree more, there was a team effort here all the way around, yeah the FG attempts that never happened, easy to point there but the truth is they had several players that had chances to make big plays and could not execute.

I do wish DC had kicked the FGs but I also understand why folks are standing up for him

 

[Alex P Keaton]

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

I could not agree more, there was a team effort here all the way around, yeah the FG attempts that never happened, easy to point there but the truth is they had several players that had chances to make big plays and could not execute.

I do wish DC had kicked the FGs but I also understand why folks are standing up for him

Yeah, if Reynolds catches that one pass, maybe 5-6 people in Detroit even waste time debating this topic today…..

 

[Grahamburn]

That loss is more on a couple flukey bounces, the fumble by Gibbs, and a pair of very untimely drops by Reynolds.

I could not agree more, there was a team effort here all the way around, yeah the FG attempts that never happened, easy to point there but the truth is they had several players that had chances to make big plays and could not execute.

I do wish DC had kicked the FGs but I also understand why folks are standing up for him

Yeah, if Reynolds catches that one pass, maybe 5-6 people in Detroit even waste time debating this topic today…..

Perfect deep ball going right through Williams’ hands too.

 

[Stoneworker]

70% Yes
30% No

-That's about what i expected, there are a lot of people, 3 out of 10 we'll say that feel he did the right thing and stayed true to who he is and what the '2023 Lions were all about.
I do applaud people for standing behind him and not bailing when it would be easy to do so.

Believe it or not there is also a middle ground...people can genuinely say they would have done it differently but still stand behind him

 

[Sam Quentin]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

 

[JohnnyU]

You keep saying that, but like I said, there are entire industries that make boatloads of money doing exactly what you say is impossible. (I would know, I work in one.)

Again, do any kind of analysis to show it was a bad decision. We're still waiting for that, since you and others are the ones making the claim that it was such a bad decision. Prove it (or don't and just keep arguing for no reason).

I work heavily with data at a large tech company and externally deal with Senior Execs at F100 companies who do nothing but look at data.

A lot of people who collect data don't fully understand how to analyze it and a lot of those who analyze it don't know how to collect it. There are numerous ways to collect and analyze data depending on what you're end goal is. If you work with data, I'm sure I don't need to go down this rabbit hole. My point is, it can be misleading or misunderstood very easily, and often is.

When looking to respond to the questions you have posed to Bankerguy, I went on a quick hunt for data. Interestingly enough, ESPN published an article on this just 4 days ago, it was the first result I found.

No, NFL analytics models don't always recommend going for it on fourth down: Here's the method

Do NFL analytics models always recommend going for it on fourth down? No. Here's how the decisions actually are made.

www.espn.com

That's the article. You can actually dive deeper on it into this particular game here: https://espnanalytics.com/decision

A few assumptions have to be made here, and I won't just grant these assumptions bc it's ESPN so it has to be right.

Anyways, if you were to simply analyze the data as a whole in the graph from the article, it says GO on any 4th & 4 or shorter from your 30 and out. That graph or something likewise is prob used by NFL coaches and their analytics guys across the board. And to my earlier point, I guarantee there are some using the data improperly. You need very specific data for specific situations (and it can be compiled, it's just challenging) to always make the right call based on data. There are plenty of situations where going for it on 4th and 4 on your 31 yard line would be wildly incorrect, even if the data says GO, according to ESPN.

And FTR, I can manipulate the data sets I'm collecting (based on collection methods and chosen inputs) to justify most decisions I make.

How many teams did X when Y was Z? Okay, that doesn't get me my desired outcome.

What about How many teams did Y when Z was X, okay this data looks good. Just a simple example.

Super interesting, thanks for posting the link.

Recognizing that this is just one model……the output is fascinating. Lions up 14 and have 4th and 2 from the San Fran 28 yard line. Analytics say…..90.5% win rate if they “go for it” and a 90.3% win rate if they kick the FG.

That is a ridiculously small difference in win rate. So small that I would say (as a trained statistician) that the model error is multiples larger than the differential probabilistic outcomes from the 2 scenarios.

It’s basically irrelevant output. Ditto for the later decision (down 3, 4th and 3 from the SF 30 yd line). Win rate was 39.1% going for it, 38.8% kicking the FG.

(The math was even tighter just before half when the Lions kicked the FG……just a 0.1% win rate differential)


Is it possible that Campbell is blindly using analytics to make decisions? Maybe. I guess. If he IS doing that, well, these differences are so small that it would mean he misunderstands or misinterprets how to use the models. I would love to know how he and the team really make these choices in the moment…..

They will tell you it’s a gut decision. I doubt they would ever admit that a computer model is doing it. I don’t think they use it on the fly that way, but I don’t know.

 

[kutta]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

Why?

 

[fruity pebbles]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

He’s not stupid for going for it and he wouldn’t have been stupid for kicking the field goal. It didn’t work out, not because of the call but because Reynolds dropped the ball. He catches that ball and it’s a great call. The “correct” call is always the one that works or may have worked. People act like a 46 yard field goal in a pressure situation in an outdoor stadium is some kind of gimme.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Since I’m kind of a literal-minded person, the topic title bothers me a little.

Everyone should have voted “no, Dan Campbell should not have kicked the FG. Because Dan Campbell is a coach, and that would have been super weird.”

 

[JohnnyU]

It seems as if it kills some of these coaches to kick a field goal. Campbell isn’t alone for sure.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

He’s not stupid for going for it and he wouldn’t have been stupid for kicking the field goal. It didn’t work out, not because of the call but because Reynolds dropped the ball. He catches that ball and it’s a great call. The “correct” call is always the one that works or may have worked. People act like a 46 yard field goal in a pressure situation in an outdoor stadium is some kind of gimme.

Not picking on you specifically, but this is more of a societal problem in large when it comes to accountability, imo. This statement, at least how I read it is saying he’s not wrong no matter what.

At the end of the day, in order for there to be accountability, there is a correct decision and an incorrect decision.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

He’s not stupid for going for it and he wouldn’t have been stupid for kicking the field goal. It didn’t work out, not because of the call but because Reynolds dropped the ball. He catches that ball and it’s a great call. The “correct” call is always the one that works or may have worked. People act like a 46 yard field goal in a pressure situation in an outdoor stadium is some kind of gimme.

Not picking on you specifically, but this is more of a societal problem in large when it comes to accountability, imo. This statement, at least how I read it is saying he’s not wrong no matter what.

At the end of the day, in order for there to be accountability, there is a correct decision and an incorrect decision.

Only if there’s a clear cut right and wrong answer imo. Sometimes there isn’t and this is one of those cases. Stats say it was nearly a 50/50 call. He chose door A. Could door B have been a better option……maybe, who knows. Badgley isn’t a very good kicker. He shanks it, 49ers march down the field just like they did and all we would hear today is how DC should have went for it. he didn’t play true to himself, he played tight etc.

 

[ChiefD]

The psychology of points is real in my opinion.

 

[JohnnyU]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

He’s not stupid for going for it and he wouldn’t have been stupid for kicking the field goal. It didn’t work out, not because of the call but because Reynolds dropped the ball. He catches that ball and it’s a great call. The “correct” call is always the one that works or may have worked. People act like a 46 yard field goal in a pressure situation in an outdoor stadium is some kind of gimme.

Not picking on you specifically, but this is more of a societal problem in large when it comes to accountability, imo. This statement, at least how I read it is saying he’s not wrong no matter what.

At the end of the day, in order for there to be accountability, there is a correct decision and an incorrect decision.

Only if there’s a clear cut right and wrong answer imo. Sometimes there isn’t and this is one of those cases. Stats say it was nearly a 50/50 call. He chose door A. Could door B have been a better option……maybe, who knows. Badgley isn’t a very good kicker. He shanks it, 49ers march down the field just like they did and all we would hear today is how DC should have went for it. he didn’t play true to himself, he played tight etc.

Sometimes a FG is OK

 

[FarFromHome]

I really liked his response to media about his decisions. It's why his players love him.

 

[pecorino]

I'm not going to read four pages of this. The analytics are a real thing. And I'm a math guy. But there are human elements here, there is the momentum of the game. The Niners were trailing by 17 and they got a field goal in the 3rd quarter. If Detroit kicks their FG then it is a wash. Like half of the third quarter ticked away and no ground was gained. When they chose to forgo that FG and failed, the crowd got into it, etc. They should have tried to maintain the 17-point lead. In the second instance, they are reeling, down 3. Of course you kick it to try to tie.

The thing about analytics is that your level of risk-aversion varies. Up 14 (after being up 17), you do not need to roll the dice. When you're down three and reeling, OK fine. But the shorter FG earlier in the 3rd quarter should definitely have been tried instead of the fourth down. No reason to gamble when you're still potentially up 17.

 

[Hatch]

I really liked his response to media about his decisions. It's why his players love him.

Didn't he just blame the players for not executing??

 

[Hatch]

I'm not going to read four pages of this. The analytics are a real thing. And I'm a math guy. But there are human elements here, there is the momentum of the game. The Niners were trailing by 17 and they got a field goal in the 3rd quarter. If Detroit kicks their FG then it is a wash. Like half of the third quarter ticked away and no ground was gained. When they chose to forgo that FG and failed, the crowd got into it, etc. They should have tried to maintain the 17-point lead. In the second instance, they are reeling, down 3. Of course you kick it to try to tie.

The thing about analytics is that your level of risk-aversion varies. Up 14 (after being up 17), you do not need to roll the dice. When you're down three and reeling, OK fine. But the shorter FG earlier in the 3rd quarter should definitely have been tried instead of the fourth down. No reason to gamble when you're still potentially up 17.

I agree with the human element that analytics can't factor in. I also wonder if the analytics take into account the prior success or failure of going for it/FG. The Lions were flying at a pretty high rate of success. .I have been telling Lions fans for weeks that there will be a regression to the mean and for their sake, that it all didn't happen in the same game at crucial times.

 

[Stoneworker]

The Niners were trailing by 17 and they got a field goal in the 3rd quarter. If Detroit kicks their FG then it is a wash. Like half of the third quarter ticked away and no ground was gained.

Agreed. It's doubtful any of the analytics take this into account. Shortening the game generally favors the underdog (Lions). There was an immediate oppty to do that with the FG attempt.

 

[Hatch]

I also question whether these analytic models are taking into account the millions of variables available to input... Garbage in/Garbage out... I feel that most of the analytic models used to determine these decisions are fairly generic and only use the most basic of variables for input. maybe I'm wrong... I probably am... the wife tells me I am all the time

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm not going to read four pages of this. The analytics are a real thing. And I'm a math guy. But there are human elements here, there is the momentum of the game. The Niners were trailing by 17 and they got a field goal in the 3rd quarter. If Detroit kicks their FG then it is a wash. Like half of the third quarter ticked away and no ground was gained. When they chose to forgo that FG and failed, the crowd got into it, etc. They should have tried to maintain the 17-point lead. In the second instance, they are reeling, down 3. Of course you kick it to try to tie.

The thing about analytics is that your level of risk-aversion varies. Up 14 (after being up 17), you do not need to roll the dice. When you're down three and reeling, OK fine. But the shorter FG earlier in the 3rd quarter should definitely have been tried instead of the fourth down. No reason to gamble when you're still potentially up 17.

Exactly. Risk-reward. Strategic embrace of variance. Extreme example: if I ever had to play LeBron in a game of HORSE, we would only be playing to “H” (single shot) and I get to decide where the shot is from. I want to maximize variance, because it’s the only chance I have to win.

Another beef others have mentioned is the shortcomings of these models. Do they take into account home vs road? 4th qtr vs 1st qtr? Down 3 vs up 17? All of the above cumulative?

 

[pecorino]

The analytics are exactly what they are. A long-term expected value based on doing x instead of y. That is incredibly valuable and, indeed, the game has changed ever since Tom Landry started using computers in the 70s (which, coincidentally, folks snickered at him for doing so). But as mentioned, analytics do not take into account many other factors. I want a coach who bases his decisions on analytics but is not beholden to them. I've always felt that Bill Belicheck is a master of this, but that's just a guess. Anyway, seems like Campbell is a slave to the analytics which, OK, hang your hat on that. I just don't think it's great coaching.

 

[Spartans Rule]

The thing about analytics is that your level of risk-aversion varies.

It's interesting (to me, at least) that analytics in every sport suggest that teams should be much more aggressive. Basketball teams should shoot way more 3s. Baseball teams should stop with the small ball and swing for the fences. Football teams should try to convert more 4th downs.

I think it's human nature to be risk-averse because that's what works in most life situations. It's a bad idea to bet everything you own even if you're getting good odds. And we take that logic into sports. Let's just get one run, a 2-point shot, or a 3-point kick. No need to be greedy, even when the numbers say otherwise.

So what people call the "human factor" is just our risk aversion getting in the way of making the decision with the best EV. Personally I think players and coaches should just get over that and play by the numbers. But maybe I just think that because I'm way better at math than psychology, and the human factor has to matter more than I want it to.

 

[pecorino]

It's not just human nature. It is the fact that a team which is trailing needs to take more chances. And a team which is ahead does not need to take the same chances. There is the expected value aspect of game theory but there is more to that, kind of a forest-for-the-trees argument.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

70% Yes
30% No

-That's about what i expected, there are a lot of people, 3 out of 10 we'll say that feel he did the right thing and stayed true to who he is and what the '2023 Lions were all about.
I do applaud people for standing behind him and not bailing when it would be easy to do so.

Believe it or not there is also a middle ground...people can genuinely say they would have done it differently but still stand behind him

Good point

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Based on results they achieved against weaker teams and in games that mattered less.

I had not thought about this angle but it's absolutely a good point.
If you achieve a high% rate of conversion vs inferior teams, it skews the decision a bit.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

Does it? Because I would say if it's a coin flip, playing a D that you've been absolutely dominating (especially at the line of scrimmage) with a QB that has been on fire this postseason while your kicker hasn't kicked an NFL field goal outdoors in over a year (and only one field goal over 41 yards) tips the scale the other way.

If anything I would say that if you'd asked everyone in this thread at the time (before we knew the outcome of the play) whether the Lions were more or less likely to convert on 4th and 3 there than the average NFL team in an average NFL 4th and 3 scenario most people would have said more likely. And if you'd asked if they were more or less likely to make a 48 yard field goal than the NFL average on 48 yard field goals, most people (probably everyone, honestly) in this thread would have said less likely.

As someone rooting for the 49ers, I was absolutely rooting for the Lions to kick the FG there because I thought the Lions were going to convert on 4th and 3 and basically crush the 9ers soul, but I felt okay about their chances of missing a long field goal.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

At the end of the day, in order for there to be accountability, there is a correct decision and an incorrect decision.

While this is undoubtedly true, I do believe there’s some gray area here.

It’s certainly debatable as a question.

“Blame” implies that he definitively did something wrong.

I’m not sure that’s the case. There’s plenty of quality litigation in this topic. Not everything is black and white.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Advanced stats say the Lions had a very slightly better chance of winning by going for it in both situations. Nearly a coin flip.

Advanced stats don’t take into account the quality of the opponent and the risk of sacrificing momentum. If it’s a coin flip, then playing a tough D in their backyard tips the scales to the FG side.

Does it? Because I would say if it's a coin flip, playing a D that you've been absolutely dominating (especially at the line of scrimmage) with a QB that has been on fire this postseason while your kicker hasn't kicked an NFL field goal outdoors in over a year (and only one field goal over 41 yards) tips the scale the other way.

If anything I would say that if you'd asked everyone in this thread at the time (before we knew the outcome of the play) whether the Lions were more or less likely to convert on 4th and 3 there than the average NFL team in an average NFL scenario most people would have said more likely. And if you'd asked if they were more or less likely to make a 48 yard field goal than the NFL average on 48 yard field goals, most people (probably everyone, honestly) in this thread would have said less likely.

As someone rooting for the 49ers, I was absolutely rooting for the Lions to kick the FG there because I thought the Lions were going to convert and basically crush the 9ers soul, but I felt okay about their chances of missing a long field goal.

Like you, I was hoping they’d kick the FG both times, and for the exact same reasons.

This is a team that was steamrolling our defense, and I was positive they were going to easily convert.

And they absolutely should have. Both times.

But hey, glad they didn’t. Go Niners.