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

[ignatiusjreilly]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

You're conflating two totally separate issues. As a Lions fan, my feeling is that I still think Campbell is an excellent coach. I think the two decisions were essentially coin flips where you could make an argument either way. I think he definitely screwed up the sequence on Detroit's final drive. But I'm not willing to say that makes him a bad coach. If you think that means I'm in the tank for him, fine.

The reason I'm skeptical of all the claims being made in this thread regarding momentum has zero to do with the Lions. It's because momentum -- as a prospective factor that can be applied in decision making -- is one of those things that seems obvious at first glance, but when you think about it, completely falls apart.

For example, we were discussing earlier the fact that the Aiyuk catch came right after the first failed attempt. Obviously, no one thinks that the swing in momentum was a direct cause of Vigdor letting the ball bounce off his facemask. So imagine for a second that he had brought in the INT. Now Detroit has the ball back and they're still up by 14. If that had happened, what would have become of all the momentum the Niners gained on the 4th-down stop? Would it have completely dissipated? Would it have transferred back to Detroit? And if momentum can change on a single play, how can you claim it has any predictive power?

What is it about this so called momentum are you denying? Are you saying the 9ers players weren’t pumped they got a HUGE break there? What happens physiologically when people get pumped?

People who deny “momentum” or whatever you want to call it are essentially saying big situational swings in sports have no possible way to influence human performance. That’s a stretch to say the least. Humans are a complex machine and the thought situational play doesn’t affect performance is a little whack. You can call it momentum, you can call it hope, whatever, but decades of playing and watching sports tells me it’s a thing.

All that said, I’m not sure how much momentum had to do with Detroit losing. I’m sure it helped some, but the simple act of needlessly taking a gamble and passing up a good chance to go 3 scores up was the main culprit.

I'm saying that, to the extent momentum exists, you can't possibly understand it enough to make it worthwhile to factor into your decision making. Bill Barnwell did a two-part deep dive on momentum years ago at Grantland where he explored a lot of the common assumptions about momentum, including, yes, teams' offensive performance after their D gets a fourth-down stop compared to situations where the ball changed possessions via other methods, such as a punt. He found little to no correlation.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Barnwell is a nerd who's never played the game, and his fancy-pants numbers can't tell the real story. But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

Think BABIP in baseball. Pitchers who have allowed a high percentage of hits on balls in play will typically regress to the mean, and vice versa. In other words, over time, they'll see fewer (or more) balls in play fall for hits, and therefore experience better (or worse) results in terms of run prevention.

Yes, I understand what regression is. Do you understand that regression helps explain "unsticky" stats that are determined mostly by random luck, and not those that are determined by more repeatable factors such as skill? BABIP is a stat where you would expect regression. Mike Trout's batting average is not.*

Here's a perfect example: Across the NFL, teams' records in one-score games are largely determined by randomness. A team that goes 9-2 in one-score games one season is very likely to regress toward .500 the following year. However, when you look at elite QBs like Brady and Manning, over the course of their careers their record in one-score games was consistently above .500. I don't know that I can prove exactly why that was, but it's reasonable to attribute it to the fact that they were superior QBs. Also, when Tom Brady lost a one-score Super Bowl to the Eagles, that was not due to regression kicking in. He just lost.

@Hatch was assuming that the Lions' fourth-down success rate would regress toward a lower rate than it had been over the course of the season. My points were that, to the extent that the Lions' success all season was tied to non-random factors such as skilled offensive players and a creative play caller, there's no reason to think they were due to regress, and in any event, two additional examples is not nearly a big enough sample size to declare that regression is taking place

* Yes, I know that if Trout were batting .400 at the All-Star break, you would expect his BA to regress over the second half of the season toward his career average of .301. But you would not expect his career BA to regress down to the league average, nor would you say that if he went 0-4 in a game that was due to regression

 

[Football Jones]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

You're conflating two totally separate issues. As a Lions fan, my feeling is that I still think Campbell is an excellent coach. I think the two decisions were essentially coin flips where you could make an argument either way. I think he definitely screwed up the sequence on Detroit's final drive. But I'm not willing to say that makes him a bad coach. If you think that means I'm in the tank for him, fine.

The reason I'm skeptical of all the claims being made in this thread regarding momentum has zero to do with the Lions. It's because momentum -- as a prospective factor that can be applied in decision making -- is one of those things that seems obvious at first glance, but when you think about it, completely falls apart.

For example, we were discussing earlier the fact that the Aiyuk catch came right after the first failed attempt. Obviously, no one thinks that the swing in momentum was a direct cause of Vigdor letting the ball bounce off his facemask. So imagine for a second that he had brought in the INT. Now Detroit has the ball back and they're still up by 14. If that had happened, what would have become of all the momentum the Niners gained on the 4th-down stop? Would it have completely dissipated? Would it have transferred back to Detroit? And if momentum can change on a single play, how can you claim it has any predictive power?

What is it about this so called momentum are you denying? Are you saying the 9ers players weren’t pumped they got a HUGE break there? What happens physiologically when people get pumped?

People who deny “momentum” or whatever you want to call it are essentially saying big situational swings in sports have no possible way to influence human performance. That’s a stretch to say the least. Humans are a complex machine and the thought situational play doesn’t affect performance is a little whack. You can call it momentum, you can call it hope, whatever, but decades of playing and watching sports tells me it’s a thing.

All that said, I’m not sure how much momentum had to do with Detroit losing. I’m sure it helped some, but the simple act of needlessly taking a gamble and passing up a good chance to go 3 scores up was the main culprit.

I'm saying that, to the extent momentum exists, you can't possibly understand it enough to make it worthwhile to factor into your decision making. Bill Barnwell did a two-part deep dive on momentum years ago at Grantland where he explored a lot of the common assumptions about momentum, including, yes, teams' offensive performance after their D gets a fourth-down stop compared to situations where the ball changed possessions via other methods, such as a punt. He found little to no correlation.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Barnwell is a nerd who's never played the game, and his fancy-pants numbers can't tell the real story. But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

You can have more than one momentum swing. They could be endless in theory. That’ll answer your question.

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it. The theory humans can’t get a physical performance edge (even temporarily) by big swings in situation is pretty far out there. Ever heard of adrenalin? It’s not like a light switch…there needs to be a catalyst, but it’s not hard to see how the process would work. The biggest momentum shifts typically happen because of a catalyst brought on by your own team, but they can also result from an unforced error like Campbell’s decision.

If you polled all the players and coaches in the NFL and asked them if momentum is real, what do you think the result would be? For the few people who believe “mo” isn’t a thing, this forum probably isn’t going to give you the answers you’re looking for. Go ask the people who play and coach the game.

As far as the decision, itself, if Campbell had run out the FG team and you took a poll at that point, the overwhelming majority of Lions fans in this thread would’ve said it was the right decision. Perspective is a funny thing.

 

[Gally]

But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

 

[Stoneworker]

But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

And it is a 100% certainty that keeping positive momentum gained over 30 minutes of play was part of Campbell's decision tree when he decided to kick the FG at the end of the first half (excuse me, "make the FG attempt").

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not saying people don't get inspired or get an energy boost or whatever. I'm saying it's pointless to make decisions based on those expected energy boosts, because their predictive value is basically nil.

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

OK, but if all it takes to change momentum is a play in the other direction, then how much long-term significance can we really attach to it? That's not momentum, it's just inertia.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

What you're talking about here is risk-reward, which I already said I think is totally reasonable. When your win percentage is already above 90%, there's certainly a case that you should play it conservatively. (The counter would be that Detroit had come in as a road underdog and there was still almost an entire half of football to play, and as we saw SF was fully capable of overcoming the deficit, so the Lions should have stayed aggressive. There is no way to prove which mindset is better in the long term.)

But again, that is entirely different from claiming you should make decisions based on whether their success or failure will change how the other team plays.

Try this experiment in the Super Bowl, or any other sporting event you're watching. Anytime a potential "momentum swinging" play occurs, note it and make a prediction in the moment as to what you think will happen subsequently. I will be you any amount of money that your accuracy will be no better than a dart throw

 

[jon_mx]

It’s interesting that Shanny mentioned the possibility of being 3 scores down when he talked about Campbell’s decision. The more I look at this, the crazier it is. The 9ers come out in the 2nd half and get held to a FG, still down 14. Detroit drives down to what, the 31? Everything in the world points FG. Just match them, lol. You’ll be back up 17 with time a big factor if Badgley hits a makeable FG and nothing that day suggested he didn’t have a good shot to hit it (good weather to boot, no pun intended).

It was just bizarre.

Is it that hard to comprehend that Campbell believed converting a 4th and short was a higher probability than Badgley kicking a 48-yard field goal outdoors in the grass?

The arguement seems to be the FG was a sure thing and a 4th down conversion is a long shot. The fact is they are pretty close to the same likelihood. The Lions lost the game because there was about 8 plays they completely failed on in the second half.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

And it is a 100% certainty that keeping positive momentum gained over 30 minutes of play was part of Campbell's decision tree when he decided to kick the FG at the end of the first half (excuse me, "make the FG attempt").

It's not 100% certainty, since there were plenty of factors arguing for the FG there (such as the fact that at the end of the half, you sacrifice the field-position advantage that you would normally get from a failed conversion on the other team's goal line).

In any event, if Campbell did make the decision based on how he thought it would affect the psychological state of his players or the 49ers, he was as wrong as everyone else who's making that claim

 

[Gally]

In any event, if Campbell did make the decision based on how he thought it would affect the psychological state of his players or the 49ers, he was as wrong as everyone else who's making that claim

Why is that wrong? It's a piece to the puzzle that goes into the decision. This is not black jack that goes by strict numbers with no other factors. Humans play the game. Psychology has an effect on performance. It should be factored into decision making. Even if it's not predictive it still has an effect and good coaches will use it as part of their decision making. If robots played then you could eliminate it from the equation.

 

[Stoneworker]

But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

And it is a 100% certainty that keeping positive momentum gained over 30 minutes of play was part of Campbell's decision tree when he decided to kick the FG at the end of the first half (excuse me, "make the FG attempt").

It's not 100% certainty, since there were plenty of factors arguing for the FG there (such as the fact that at the end of the half, you sacrifice the field-position advantage that you would normally get from a failed conversion on the other team's goal line).

In any event, if Campbell did make the decision based on how he thought it would affect the psychological state of his players or the 49ers, he was as wrong as everyone else who's making that claim

It is a certainty because Campbell was literally quoted as saying that momentum was a significant part of the later 4th down decisions.

And I said it was part of the decision tree. Neither I nor anyone else is saying sole factor.

 

[Hatch]

Now, making 18 of 21 fourth downs just tells me a regression was bound to happen and it did.

That is ... not how regression works.

If the Lions had recovered 18 of their previous 21 fumbles, they would be very likely to regress. Because fumble recoveries are random.

But if Tom Brady had kept playing football for another 20 years, his winning percentage would not regress to .500. Because Tom Brady's win percentage was not random. It was a result of his superior skill. (OK, I suppose if Brady kept playing for 20 years, his win percentage would go down because the dude would be 65 years old. But that's still not regression.)

A team's fourth-down conversion rate is due to a bunch of non-random factors. For one thing, a team with a good offense is more likely to go for it on fourth down, so they're going to have more attempts and a higher rate. Or maybe, in addition to the offense's overall skill level, they have a creative play caller who can scheme up good fourth-and-short plays to get the necessary yardage.

Furthermore, even if conversion success was random, two attempts are way too small of a sample size to label anything regression. They were just two attempts that didn't go Detroit's way. There's no reason to think Detroit couldn't hit 18 of their next 21 attempts (indeed, on their final drive, they converted a 4th and short for a TD.)

Think BABIP in baseball. Pitchers who have allowed a high percentage of hits on balls in play will typically regress to the mean, and vice versa. In other words, over time, they'll see fewer (or more) balls in play fall for hits, and therefore experience better (or worse) results in terms of run prevention.

Yes, I understand what regression is. Do you understand that regression helps explain "unsticky" stats that are determined mostly by random luck, and not those that are determined by more repeatable factors such as skill? BABIP is a stat where you would expect regression. Mike Trout's batting average is not.*

Here's a perfect example: Across the NFL, teams' records in one-score games are largely determined by randomness. A team that goes 9-2 in one-score games one season is very likely to regress toward .500 the following year. However, when you look at elite QBs like Brady and Manning, over the course of their careers their record in one-score games was consistently above .500. I don't know that I can prove exactly why that was, but it's reasonable to attribute it to the fact that they were superior QBs. Also, when Tom Brady lost a one-score Super Bowl to the Eagles, that was not due to regression kicking in. He just lost.

@Hatch was assuming that the Lions' fourth-down success rate would regress toward a lower rate than it had been over the course of the season. My points were that, to the extent that the Lions' success all season was tied to non-random factors such as skilled offensive players and a creative play caller, there's no reason to think they were due to regress, and in any event, two additional examples is not nearly a big enough sample size to declare that regression is taking place

* Yes, I know that if Trout were batting .400 at the All-Star break, you would expect his BA to regress over the second half of the season toward his career average of .301. But you would not expect his career BA to regress down to the league average, nor would you say that if he went 0-4 in a game that was due to regression

Jared Goff is not Brady or Manning... or Mike Trout... The Lions are , well, the Lions... Same Ol Lions... always there to make a mistake at just the right times... but you are right, I am naive when it comes to statistics, and understanding how they are applied... I guess I just don't think the Lions are an elite offense (time may very well prove me wrong because they do have an elite TE, WR and RB though, so good start to an elite offense)... I think they had a soft schedule and caught a good team like the Chiefs at a fortunate time (no Kelce, no Chris Jones)...and NO I don't think they are a team that could maintain an 18 for 21 pace on 4th downs, I believe it was bound to fall closer to league average...and those are personal feelings not analytics... I was adamant all season long that going for it on 4th down was the thing that would sink the team in the playoffs (either I must be Nostradamus or it was unsustainable to continue at the pace they were at)... Either way, I wish I could have that FEELING and be right about better things than the Lions...

 

[Instinctive]

Sometimes losses are hard to come to grips with, but you're in the tank deep when you start coming up with the crazy notion that everything in sports is played straight and there's no such thing as momentum or the like. That said, momentum isn't why Detroit lost. They lost because they went for it on 4th down. The dropped pass by Reynolds doesn't forgive the decision to pass up the FG attempt.

And Campbell didn't pass up the 24-10 FG because he didn't have Justin Tucker. Make no mistake, he was going for it, regardless. His actual explanation mentioned something akin to momentum, but his main goal was trying to kneecap the 9ers right then and there. Problem is, he got so sidetracked with trying to put the nail in the coffin, he forgot to realize a makeable FG would give his team a huge advantage midway through the 3rd quarter.

It's one thing to be down 14...it's another to be up 14. Campbell plays like he's always down. It's the right strategy for comebacks, not so much for holding a lead, especially against good teams.

You're conflating two totally separate issues. As a Lions fan, my feeling is that I still think Campbell is an excellent coach. I think the two decisions were essentially coin flips where you could make an argument either way. I think he definitely screwed up the sequence on Detroit's final drive. But I'm not willing to say that makes him a bad coach. If you think that means I'm in the tank for him, fine.

The reason I'm skeptical of all the claims being made in this thread regarding momentum has zero to do with the Lions. It's because momentum -- as a prospective factor that can be applied in decision making -- is one of those things that seems obvious at first glance, but when you think about it, completely falls apart.

For example, we were discussing earlier the fact that the Aiyuk catch came right after the first failed attempt. Obviously, no one thinks that the swing in momentum was a direct cause of Vigdor letting the ball bounce off his facemask. So imagine for a second that he had brought in the INT. Now Detroit has the ball back and they're still up by 14. If that had happened, what would have become of all the momentum the Niners gained on the 4th-down stop? Would it have completely dissipated? Would it have transferred back to Detroit? And if momentum can change on a single play, how can you claim it has any predictive power?

What is it about this so called momentum are you denying? Are you saying the 9ers players weren’t pumped they got a HUGE break there? What happens physiologically when people get pumped?

People who deny “momentum” or whatever you want to call it are essentially saying big situational swings in sports have no possible way to influence human performance. That’s a stretch to say the least. Humans are a complex machine and the thought situational play doesn’t affect performance is a little whack. You can call it momentum, you can call it hope, whatever, but decades of playing and watching sports tells me it’s a thing.

All that said, I’m not sure how much momentum had to do with Detroit losing. I’m sure it helped some, but the simple act of needlessly taking a gamble and passing up a good chance to go 3 scores up was the main culprit.

I'm saying that, to the extent momentum exists, you can't possibly understand it enough to make it worthwhile to factor into your decision making. Bill Barnwell did a two-part deep dive on momentum years ago at Grantland where he explored a lot of the common assumptions about momentum, including, yes, teams' offensive performance after their D gets a fourth-down stop compared to situations where the ball changed possessions via other methods, such as a punt. He found little to no correlation.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Barnwell is a nerd who's never played the game, and his fancy-pants numbers can't tell the real story. But again, consider the two questions I posed in my post last night: Do you believe momentum caused the potential INT to bounce off of Vildor's facemask? And if not, what would have happened to the supposed momentum the 49ers gained from the fourth-down stop if he had held on to the ball?

You can have more than one momentum swing. They could be endless in theory. That’ll answer your question.

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it. The theory humans can’t get a physical performance edge (even temporarily) by big swings in situation is pretty far out there. Ever heard of adrenalin? It’s not like a light switch…there needs to be a catalyst, but it’s not hard to see how the process would work. The biggest momentum shifts typically happen because of a catalyst brought on by your own team, but they can also result from an unforced error like Campbell’s decision.

If you polled all the players and coaches in the NFL and asked them if momentum is real, what do you think the result would be? For the few people who believe “mo” isn’t a thing, this forum probably isn’t going to give you the answers you’re looking for. Go ask the people who play and coach the game.

As far as the decision, itself, if Campbell had run out the FG team and you took a poll at that point, the overwhelming majority of Lions fans in this thread would’ve said it was the right decision. Perspective is a funny thing.

FWIW, I did coach the game (basketball, not football to be fair), for ~ 5 years, at the professional and at the Power 5 NCAA level. But keep going with the myth that everyone involved would totally believe that nothing could be more important than momentum.

Even Bosa is just saying it in hindsight. It is, and always has been, a purely backwards looking explainer.

Try it this year. After a "momentum swinging event", track whether that team is playing worse than leading into the event or the other team is playing better. It's crazy eye opening when you realize "momentum" looks completely and totally random as to when it has any sort of follow on effect. Just because a bunch of other people also don't understand something doesn't make it correct. See, e.g., the galaxy orbiting the earth or the sun.

Nobody is going to change their minds here, so I'll stop the windmill tilting I suppose. Which is fine. But as someone who actually worked with and studied and implemented this stuff because millions of dollars are on the line and every single little edge matters, this is not one of them. Like...if they tried the FG and it was missed (which if I'm assessing Detroit's chances of anything seem about equally as likely as not converting which btw is how it played out...the play worked, the receiver was open, and he dropped it, which is unusual for the receiver but indicates they had success), I have to think we'd be in here with the same people on the momentum side of things being like wow how can you rely on this unreliable kicker when you've been great in short yardage all year?1 Even though you're winning, there's a reason you're the underdog...you HAVE to maximize the expected points and increase variance ALL GAME, before the talent disparity catches up to you, if you're gonna win.

Now, as to what fans of the Lions would say specifically, I have no idea. Fans tend not to be the most objective or rational perspectives. I know my Cowboys takes are fraught with more emotion than other takes.

 

[Football Jones]

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not saying people don't get inspired or get an energy boost or whatever. I'm saying it's pointless to make decisions based on those expected energy boosts, because their predictive value is basically nil.

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

OK, but if all it takes to change momentum is a play in the other direction, then how much long-term significance can we really attach to it? That's not momentum, it's just inertia.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

What you're talking about here is risk-reward, which I already said I think is totally reasonable. When your win percentage is already above 90%, there's certainly a case that you should play it conservatively. (The counter would be that Detroit had come in as a road underdog and there was still almost an entire half of football to play, and as we saw SF was fully capable of overcoming the deficit, so the Lions should have stayed aggressive. There is no way to prove which mindset is better in the long term.)

But again, that is entirely different from claiming you should make decisions based on whether their success or failure will change how the other team plays.

Try this experiment in the Super Bowl, or any other sporting event you're watching. Anytime a potential "momentum swinging" play occurs, note it and make a prediction in the moment as to what you think will happen subsequently. I will be you any amount of money that your accuracy will be no better than a dart throw

I disagree. You can’t predict when a decision could swing momentum? That very thing is what Campbell should’ve been thinking of.

It’s fair to question how much of a boost it provided the 9ers, but in the end, Campbell gave them the impetus they needed to make a comeback. It’s one thing if the 9ers forced an error…it’s another to hand it to them.

 

[Football Jones]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

 

[Instinctive]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

I actually, though not having every looked deeply into it, think this effect may exist, or even be far more pronounced, at HS and youth levels.

For the most part, when you talk about professional athletes, guys aren't winning or losing by feeling inspired and trying harder on the court. They're all trying pretty darn hard to win. The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments. (You could totally convince me that some guys are trying harder or less hard in NBA regular seasons, maybe a little variation in NFL regular seasons, but not when the games matter and the competition is the best).

 

[Gally]

The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments.

I don't think "momentum" is a thing that makes you try harder. I think it is an increase in confidence which will lead to better performance. I am sure you can agree as a basketball guy that as a shooter knocks down a couple shots their confidence grows and they can get "hot" as their performance gets better. As well as the inverse (see Nick Anderson).

To me that is what momentum is doing....its a boost of confidence that helps them perform better. It can be short lived and have lots of turns but it is a tangible thing even if it's not truly predictive.

 

[Football Jones]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

I actually, though not having every looked deeply into it, think this effect may exist, or even be far more pronounced, at HS and youth levels.

For the most part, when you talk about professional athletes, guys aren't winning or losing by feeling inspired and trying harder on the court. They're all trying pretty darn hard to win. The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments. (You could totally convince me that some guys are trying harder or less hard in NBA regular seasons, maybe a little variation in NFL regular seasons, but not when the games matter and the competition is the best).

Trying harder is one parameter.

There are other things to consider with big swings. There’s certainly a physiological component that could come into play with your sympathetic nervous system like adrenaline.

There are many things in life that aren’t tangible and can’t be quantified, but we acknowledge their existence.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not saying people don't get inspired or get an energy boost or whatever. I'm saying it's pointless to make decisions based on those expected energy boosts, because their predictive value is basically nil.

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

OK, but if all it takes to change momentum is a play in the other direction, then how much long-term significance can we really attach to it? That's not momentum, it's just inertia.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

What you're talking about here is risk-reward, which I already said I think is totally reasonable. When your win percentage is already above 90%, there's certainly a case that you should play it conservatively. (The counter would be that Detroit had come in as a road underdog and there was still almost an entire half of football to play, and as we saw SF was fully capable of overcoming the deficit, so the Lions should have stayed aggressive. There is no way to prove which mindset is better in the long term.)

But again, that is entirely different from claiming you should make decisions based on whether their success or failure will change how the other team plays.

Try this experiment in the Super Bowl, or any other sporting event you're watching. Anytime a potential "momentum swinging" play occurs, note it and make a prediction in the moment as to what you think will happen subsequently. I will be you any amount of money that your accuracy will be no better than a dart throw

I disagree. You can’t predict when a decision could swing momentum? That very thing is what Campbell should’ve been thinking of.

It’s fair to question how much of a boost it provided the 9ers, but in the end, Campbell gave them the impetus they needed to make a comeback. It’s one thing if the 9ers forced an error…it’s another to hand it to them.

Pretty well said, I concur, still love DC and think he has a very bright future in this league
The city of Detroit is not going to shed many tears this year
I mentioned it many times and especially vs Dallas that Dan Campbell "don't kick FGs" and there's a reason it was usually in my score predictions in the threads
If Detroit can continue to draft well and keep filling up holes, they are just going to morph more and more into what the 49'ers have been able to do in the NFC

That 2-Back attack plus a stud TE, super hands-ARSB, they really don't have many holes on Offense

 

[Football Jones]

I find it fascinating somebody could be a huge sports fan and deny teams can get an energy boost or new life or a million other ways you want to describe it.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not saying people don't get inspired or get an energy boost or whatever. I'm saying it's pointless to make decisions based on those expected energy boosts, because their predictive value is basically nil.

Momentum didn't cause the bad bounce but the success of the play increased SF momentum. On the flip side, if he did pick off the pass then momentum does drastically swing back to Detroit. Turnovers swing momentum almost more than anything else.

OK, but if all it takes to change momentum is a play in the other direction, then how much long-term significance can we really attach to it? That's not momentum, it's just inertia.

The basis of my argument is that when managing a game part of the decision tree is what impact does a negative outcome have to the game situation. For this instance of Det up 14 half way through the 3rd quarter doing something that could give a boost to a team that is chasing is about the only thing to start the comeback. Because of that I want to keep status quo going because that favors me. So while I cannot put a number to the momentum swing I believe a failure will hurt me more than a conversion would help at that juncture under those conditions. So to me, the risk was more than the reward. That is why I would attempt the FG.

What you're talking about here is risk-reward, which I already said I think is totally reasonable. When your win percentage is already above 90%, there's certainly a case that you should play it conservatively. (The counter would be that Detroit had come in as a road underdog and there was still almost an entire half of football to play, and as we saw SF was fully capable of overcoming the deficit, so the Lions should have stayed aggressive. There is no way to prove which mindset is better in the long term.)

But again, that is entirely different from claiming you should make decisions based on whether their success or failure will change how the other team plays.

Try this experiment in the Super Bowl, or any other sporting event you're watching. Anytime a potential "momentum swinging" play occurs, note it and make a prediction in the moment as to what you think will happen subsequently. I will be you any amount of money that your accuracy will be no better than a dart throw

I disagree. You can’t predict when a decision could swing momentum? That very thing is what Campbell should’ve been thinking of.

It’s fair to question how much of a boost it provided the 9ers, but in the end, Campbell gave them the impetus they needed to make a comeback. It’s one thing if the 9ers forced an error…it’s another to hand it to them.

Pretty well said, I concur, still love DC and think he has a very bright future in this league
The city of Detroit is not going to shed many tears this year
I mentioned it many times and especially vs Dallas that Dan Campbell "don't kick FGs" and there's a reason it was usually in my score predictions in the threads
If Detroit can continue to draft well and keep filling up holes, they are just going to morph more and more into what the 49'ers have been able to do in the NFC

That 2-Back attack plus a stud TE, super hands-ARSB, they really don't have many holes on Offense

Yeah, Detroit really does have a lot of potential. Need some pieces on D, but they may already have their long-term QB in Hooker.

It’s going to be interesting to see just exactly when that takes place. They could try another avenue, but Hooker is a good enough prospect that I believe he’ll get first crack at it.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

I actually, though not having every looked deeply into it, think this effect may exist, or even be far more pronounced, at HS and youth levels.

For the most part, when you talk about professional athletes, guys aren't winning or losing by feeling inspired and trying harder on the court. They're all trying pretty darn hard to win. The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments. (You could totally convince me that some guys are trying harder or less hard in NBA regular seasons, maybe a little variation in NFL regular seasons, but not when the games matter and the competition is the best).

Trying harder is one parameter.

There are other things to consider with big swings. There’s certainly a physiological component that could come into play with your sympathetic nervous system like adrenaline.

There are many things in life that aren’t tangible and can’t be quantified, but we acknowledge their existence.

I think maybe it's so small that it's hard to acknowledge, but so important that it can't be dismissed. Momentum might make somebody find a new gear running a pattern, or jog off an injury that might have affected them (Philp Rivers was motivated enough to play on a torn ACL). It might get a defender to stretch just a little more to break up a pass, or the OL to find a second wind when they're tired. John Elway's helicopter moment wouldn't have occurred in week 3.

That's mostly incentive, but I believe in-game motivation exists as well. The Chargers were trying hand tackles when being embarrassed by the Raiders. Maybe the motivation helped Aiyuk concentrate and not give up on a ball that looked likely to be intercepted. David Tyree wasn't known for his circus catches throughout his career, but everybody remembers the play I don't even need to describe.

Momentum might just be something that makes the greats a tiny bit better for a short period of time, but in the age of parity, that's enough to determine the outcome of a game, or a season.

 

[Instinctive]

The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments.

I don't think "momentum" is a thing that makes you try harder. I think it is an increase in confidence which will lead to better performance. I am sure you can agree as a basketball guy that as a shooter knocks down a couple shots their confidence grows and they can get "hot" as their performance gets better. As well as the inverse (see Nick Anderson).

To me that is what momentum is doing....its a boost of confidence that helps them perform better. It can be short lived and have lots of turns but it is a tangible thing even if it's not truly predictive.

I actually can't agree on that. It's been studied at length and there's no such thing as a hot hand.

Well, it's debated. It's way more in depth than a FF message board. I'll say my take is, it may exist, but that confidence tends to actually lead to poorer choices, so it's very hard to tell.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Maybe the motivation helped Aiyuk concentrate and not give up on a ball that looked likely to be intercepted.

Nonsense. It was clearly the ladybug

 

[Instinctive]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

I actually, though not having every looked deeply into it, think this effect may exist, or even be far more pronounced, at HS and youth levels.

For the most part, when you talk about professional athletes, guys aren't winning or losing by feeling inspired and trying harder on the court. They're all trying pretty darn hard to win. The differences in motivation and inspiration and drive show up in the offseason and off weeks and practices and eating habits...not in trying harder on the field for big moments. (You could totally convince me that some guys are trying harder or less hard in NBA regular seasons, maybe a little variation in NFL regular seasons, but not when the games matter and the competition is the best).

Trying harder is one parameter.

There are other things to consider with big swings. There’s certainly a physiological component that could come into play with your sympathetic nervous system like adrenaline.

There are many things in life that aren’t tangible and can’t be quantified, but we acknowledge their existence.

I think maybe it's so small that it's hard to acknowledge, but so important that it can't be dismissed. Momentum might make somebody find a new gear running a pattern, or jog off an injury that might have affected them (Philp Rivers was motivated enough to play on a torn ACL). It might get a defender to stretch just a little more to break up a pass, or the OL to find a second wind when they're tired. John Elway's helicopter moment wouldn't have occurred in week 3.

That's mostly incentive, but I believe in-game motivation exists as well. The Chargers were trying hand tackles when being embarrassed by the Raiders. Maybe the motivation helped Aiyuk concentrate and not give up on a ball that looked likely to be intercepted. David Tyree wasn't known for his circus catches throughout his career, but everybody remembers the play I don't even need to describe.

Momentum might just be something that makes the greats a tiny bit better for a short period of time, but in the age of parity, that's enough to determine the outcome of a game, or a season.

Or maybe David Tyree got lucky, and we use momentum to explain what happened the same way native peoples used various elemental gods to explain natural phenomena we now understand.

 

[Stoneworker]

Great stuff from Hall of Fame coach Jimmy Johnson...

"I love the job that Dan Campbell did this year," Johnson said. "But if you kick the field goal on that second fourth-down try, now San Francisco's mentality is going to be different if it's a tied game, rather than being ahead. There's a lot of factors going in."

"[Analytics] doesn't tell you the strength of your offense, the strength of the opponent," Johnson said. "It doesn't give you the weather. It doesn't give you a lot of factors. It doesn't give you momentum. It doesn't give you the risk and the reward. And that's what I always said. Yeah, it's a 70% positive to go for it on fourth down. But the risk is that you lose the game if you don't make it."

"Why do analytics people say that momentum isn't a real thing?" George Kittle pondered during his postgame news conference. "I had that conversation with Pat McAfee. That's just the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard in my entire life."

"You're going for it on fourth down, and if you don't make it, that opponent now has a tremendous psychological lift," Johnson said. "And the percentage of a team scoring after a turnover (on downs) is higher than getting the ball at the same spot through a kick. Because of the psychological lift."

NFL Coaches Who Rely Too Much on Analytics Play Risky Game

 

[Gally]

Well, it's debated. It's way more in depth than a FF message board. I'll say my take is, it may exist, but that confidence tends to actually lead to poorer choices, so it's very hard to tell.

I can say it works for me. If I hit a couple shots early I gain confidence and typically shoot better for that game. However, I will say it also could lead to me taking shots I normally wouldn't because I am "feeling it". So I do see the negative aspect as well

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

"You're going for it on fourth down, and if you don't make it, that opponent now has a tremendous psychological lift," Johnson said. "And the percentage of a team scoring after a turnover (on downs) is higher than getting the ball at the same spot through a kick. Because of the psychological lift."

It's interesting, because in that Bill Barnwell article I linked to above he crunched the numbers and found the exact opposite in terms of performance after a turnover on downs. I'm curious where Johnson is getting that from

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Great stuff from Hall of Fame coach Jimmy Johnson...

"I love the job that Dan Campbell did this year," Johnson said. "But if you kick the field goal on that second fourth-down try, now San Francisco's mentality is going to be different if it's a tied game, rather than being ahead. There's a lot of factors going in."

"[Analytics] doesn't tell you the strength of your offense, the strength of the opponent," Johnson said. "It doesn't give you the weather. It doesn't give you a lot of factors. It doesn't give you momentum. It doesn't give you the risk and the reward. And that's what I always said. Yeah, it's a 70% positive to go for it on fourth down. But the risk is that you lose the game if you don't make it."

"Why do analytics people say that momentum isn't a real thing?" George Kittle pondered during his postgame news conference. "I had that conversation with Pat McAfee. That's just the biggest load of horse crap I've ever heard in my entire life."

"You're going for it on fourth down, and if you don't make it, that opponent now has a tremendous psychological lift," Johnson said. "And the percentage of a team scoring after a turnover (on downs) is higher than getting the ball at the same spot through a kick. Because of the psychological lift."

NFL Coaches Who Rely Too Much on Analytics Play Risky Game

I thought this was a weird quote from Jimmy:

During his heyday on the sidelines, Johnson probably gambled as much or more than any coach, especially when it came to fake punts, fake field goals and onside kicks. Yet he tried to account for failing to convert as part of the preparation.

"The one thing I would do is tell our team that we were going to do it, like on a Wednesday or Thursday," he recalled. "If you tell them, 'Hey, we're going to run this,' they're going to be ready for it. The other thing is, that prepared your defense. If it didn't work, they didn't have a psychological letdown. That's the thing analytics don't take into play."

Isn't he describing exactly what Campbell has been doing all season? He establishes an expectation that they will go for it more often than not.

I once saw an interview with that famous HS coach in Arkansas who never punted and always kicked onside. He said because they did it so often, his players knew it was coming and would occasionally fail, so they were more likely to take it in stride.

My pet theory about the Dallas game is that Campbell went for it after the penalty because he had told his team they were going to, and he was willing to take a calculated risk, even if it lowered their win expectancy for that one game, because he felt like the long-term value of the message he was sending to his team was more important. Maybe that was dumb of him, but the way his players talk about him, it does seem like the message is getting through. They don't just say they like him, they say things like "I just didn't even realize how good of a coach there is out there until I met him"

 

[Stoneworker]

I thought this was a weird quote from Jimmy:

During his heyday on the sidelines, Johnson probably gambled as much or more than any coach, especially when it came to fake punts, fake field goals and onside kicks. Yet he tried to account for failing to convert as part of the preparation.

"The one thing I would do is tell our team that we were going to do it, like on a Wednesday or Thursday," he recalled. "If you tell them, 'Hey, we're going to run this,' they're going to be ready for it. The other thing is, that prepared your defense. If it didn't work, they didn't have a psychological letdown. That's the thing analytics don't take into play."

Isn't he describing exactly what Campbell has been doing all season? He establishes an expectation that they will go for it more often than not.

Yes. I could see how advanced preparation, setting expectations or even just culture could marginally help mitigate potential psychological letdowns due to failed attempts. It wouldn't, however, have an effect on the corresponding lift gained by the other team from achieving the stop. Just the net might be smaller.

One thing is clear. Johnson made anticipated psychological impacts (e.g. momentum) part of his decision-making processes.

 

[titusbramble]

Is anyone saying "but momentum" also denying that SF would gain "momentum" by the very fact they would have held Detroit to a three point gain rather than continuing the drive and scoring seven? Or even more "momentum" if he missed the FG? Heck, they'd get even greater "momentum" than failing to convert on fourth, as they have better field position, right "momentum" guys? Or is it the case that as SF would have 7-8 yards less to drive, they accumulate 7-8 yards less "momentum" on the subsequent possession so it's all a wash?

 

[Instinctive]

Is anyone saying "but momentum" also denying that SF would gain "momentum" by the very fact they would have held Detroit to a three point gain rather than continuing the drive and scoring seven? Or even more "momentum" if he missed the FG? Heck, they'd get even greater "momentum" than failing to convert on fourth, as they have better field position, right "momentum" guys? Or is it the case that as SF would have 7-8 yards less to drive, they accumulate 7-8 yards less "momentum" on the subsequent possession so it's all a wash?

Or how much momentum Detroit gains if they convert. The game is basically over if they do.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, lol. That said, the thought teams can’t ever rally to a higher level than they normally would due to a catalyst like a big situational swing is really wild.

It’s like saying, “I know 99% of people think Big Mo is real, including players and coaches, but trust me, it really doesn’t exist.”

I'm reminded of that quote often attributed (falsely) to Mark Twain: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."

I agree it makes all the sense in the world that momentum exists and we can have at least some understanding of how it works. I used to believe that as well. But the more I read and thought about it, the more I realized that none of the actual explanations really held up.

I'll once again recommend Bill Barnwell's two-part series on the subject:
Nomentum Part 1 (searches for quantitative evidence of momentum)
Nomentum Part 2 (shows how most assumptions about momentum are built on logical fallacies)

At the same time, I also agree with you that at this point in the thread, we're probably not going to change each other's minds. But I do plan on posting a new thread here next weekend to do a crowdsourced experiment like the one I mentioned in an earlier post: During the Super Bowl, people can put up a post in real-time any time they see a play they think could be a momentum swing and make a prediction as to how it will play out from that point forward. I certainly have a hypothesis as to how it will turn out, but maybe I'll be wrong

 

[JohnnyU]

Anything new discovered yet? Anyone change their mind yet?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Anything new discovered yet? Anyone change their mind yet?

I'm so sorry that Joe is forcing you to continue clicking through to this thread. That must be awful

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Anything new discovered yet? Anyone change their mind yet?

I'm so sorry that Joe is forcing you to continue clicking through to this thread. That must be awful

Rinse and repeat, enjoy. Don’t you find it somewhat amusing? It’s almost as if last post wins.

I dunno, I think this has morphed into an interesting discussion of momentum, and yes, it has mostly run its course (which is what I said in my last post). I wasn't trying to win, and I don't think anyone else was either.

I just find it weird that you keep posting in here to complain. There are literally hundreds of threads in this forum that have gone on too long and are no longer interesting. You know when I do when that happens? Stop posting there and ignore them.

I don't understand why you are so bothered by people having a discussion that you don't find interesting

 

[JohnnyU]

Anything new discovered yet? Anyone change their mind yet?

I'm so sorry that Joe is forcing you to continue clicking through to this thread. That must be awful

Rinse and repeat, enjoy. Don’t you find it somewhat amusing? It’s almost as if last post wins.

I dunno, I think this has morphed into an interesting discussion of momentum, and yes, it has mostly run its course (which is what I said in my last post). I wasn't trying to win, and I don't think anyone else was either.

I just find it weird that you keep posting in here to complain. There are literally hundreds of threads in this forum that have gone on too long and are no longer interesting. You know when I do when that happens? Stop posting there and ignore them.

I don't understand why you are so bothered by people having a discussion that you don't find interesting

Ok cool. I’ll ignore this thread going forward, because it is no longer interesting. Sorry for the interruption, carry on.

 

[massraider]

:Shakes fist at clouds:

 

[massraider]

"[Analytics] doesn't tell you the strength of your offense, the strength of the opponent," Johnson said. "It doesn't give you the weather. It doesn't give you a lot of factors. It doesn't give you momentum. It doesn't give you the risk and the reward. And that's what I always said. Yeah, it's a 70% positive to go for it on fourth down. But the risk is that you lose the game if you don't make it."

So it appears the real problem is that the Lions didn't have access to SF's mentality if they had kicked the field goal.

Which Jimmy Johnson clearly did.

 

[Stoneworker]

"[Analytics] doesn't tell you the strength of your offense, the strength of the opponent," Johnson said. "It doesn't give you the weather. It doesn't give you a lot of factors. It doesn't give you momentum. It doesn't give you the risk and the reward. And that's what I always said. Yeah, it's a 70% positive to go for it on fourth down. But the risk is that you lose the game if you don't make it."

So it appears the real problem is that the Lions didn't have access to SF's mentality if they had kicked the field goal.

Which Jimmy Johnson clearly did.

Huh?

 

[Stoneworker]

"[Analytics] doesn't tell you the strength of your offense, the strength of the opponent," Johnson said. "It doesn't give you the weather. It doesn't give you a lot of factors. It doesn't give you momentum. It doesn't give you the risk and the reward. And that's what I always said. Yeah, it's a 70% positive to go for it on fourth down. But the risk is that you lose the game if you don't make it."

So it appears the real problem is that the Lions didn't have access to SF's mentality if they had kicked the field goal.

Which Jimmy Johnson clearly did.

Here is a neuroscience-based research paper on psychological momentum and sports to get you up to speed if you are interested in actually have a conversation

Psychological Momentum—A Key to Continued Success

One of the most fundamental characteristics about humans is their desire for success, especially in highly competitive societies. What does it take to be successful? Is success simply a matter of better performance, and if so, what specifically is it ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[massraider]

Here is a neuroscience-based research paper on psychological momentum and sports to get you up to speed if you are interested in actually have a conversation

I'm not.

Jimmy has no idea what the mentality of SF would be after a FG.

 

[Stoneworker]

Here is a neuroscience-based research paper on psychological momentum and sports to get you up to speed if you are interested in actually have a conversation

I'm not.

Why does that not surprise me. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Gally]

During the Super Bowl, people can put up a post in real-time any time they see a play they think could be a momentum swing and make a prediction as to how it will play out from that point forward. I certainly have a hypothesis as to how it will turn out, but maybe I'll be wrong

I believe momentum is a thing and should be considered in decision making to some degree. I think how much it should be considered varies based on game situation as a risk vs reward concept.

I do not think it is quantifiable and I also think that you must string positive momentum plays for it to be meaningful. Every play is a chance for momentum movement. Most plays are marginal with how it moves the scale (in my previous example I described a sliding scale from 100% for one team to 100% the other team).

I don't think it is mathematically predictive because it is unquantifiable and can be affected by flukiness (the bounce off the DB's head for a 50 yd completion).

I think good in game coaches can have a feel for this phenominim to allow them to use it in their decion making. I think this is a key to being a great coach otherwise just put a robot out there (which would be a good experiment).

I agree with the analytics side that being aggressive in most cases gives you the best chance to win but it's not an "always" situation.

I think stats never lie but statisticians do. Meaning you can skew stats to your side for almost anything with the way you utilize them.

I think the analytics has limitations for single game decisions because they don't take into account that exact situation so the margin for error for any given decisions is quite high and rarely provided in the "this team should go for it" stats we get on TV.

I think regular season coaching and playoff coaching are two different things and need to be handled differently. It's why I think Dave Roberts (Dodgers manager) is a decent regular season coach and horrible playoff manager and his record seems to prove that.

All that to say the best coach is going to be a hybrid if analytics guy and old school guy that has a feel for each individual game and doesn't always rely on one or the other to make his decision.

 

[jon_mx]

It was pretty obvious the first missed 4th down directly caused the football to go through the hands of Vidor and off his facemack and into the arms of Aiyuk. And also caused Gibbs to fumble the football.

 

[rockaction]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

 

[Ilov80s]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

You also have to consider the context of the situation. Had Campbell successfully converted the FG in the 3rd quarter, the Lions would have gone back up by 17 points with less than 22 min left in the game. At that point, it would have been reasonable to assume the 9ers had 3 more possessions in the game. It very likely would have forced the 9ers into a pass-heavy approach for the remainder of the game, making them much more predictable. I would love my chances under that scenario.

 

[rockaction]

the Lions would have gone back up by 17 points with less than 22 min left in the game. At that point, it would have been reasonable to assume the 9ers had 3 more possessions in the game. It very likely would have forced the 9ers into a pass-heavy approach for the remainder of the game, making them much more predictable.

That's the game theory element I'm talking about. You have to weigh a potential three-score lead against what you think your probability of winning is if you make the fourth down. It all factors in. Did Campbell make the right call? I think he did. Reasonable minds can differ.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

You also have to consider the context of the situation. Had Campbell successfully converted the FG in the 3rd quarter, the Lions would have gone back up by 17 points with less than 22 min left in the game. At that point, it would have been reasonable to assume the 9ers had 3 more possessions in the game. It very likely would have forced the 9ers into a pass-heavy approach for the remainder of the game, making them much more predictable. I would love my chances under that scenario.

From the moment of that 4th down conversion attempt, SF had five possessions. They scored on four of them (including two rushing TDs) and ran out the clock on the fifth.

I’m not saying that to nitpick. I think too many people here are treating a three-score lead halfway through the third quarter as insurmountable. Obviously, being up 17 is better than being up 14, but, like @rockaction says, there's a reasonable counter-case to be made: Detroit came into the game as underdogs, and were playing one of the league's top offenses that was (as we saw) capable of pouring it on, so it made sense to keep their foot on the gas.

For those who listen to the Wharton Moneyball podcast, they're constantly debating the question of when you base decisions on priors and when you switch to emphasizing recent history. Is it more relevant that Detroit was six-point underdogs or that they were up 14? Is it more relevant that a college basketball team was ranked No. 1 heading into the season or that they enter the NCAA Tournament on a losing streak? Obviously, there's no one answer to these types of questions. In the case of the Lions, you could make a strong case for either decision, and we'll never know for sure which was the right one, only that the decision he did make didn't work out

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think good in game coaches can have a feel for this phenominim to allow them to use it in their decion making. I think this is a key to being a great coach otherwise just put a robot out there (which would be a good experiment).

I think we're probably not that far apart on this stuff. If, instead of 4th and 3 from the 30, it had been 4th and goal from the 1, I suspect most here would have recognized that the numbers (and logic) suggest going for it regardless of what we think of momentum. But the actual situations Detroit faced were much closer calls, so yes, a coach has to bring lots of other factors into account. (Reminder too that, due to NFL rules, there's no way a coach can know the exact analytical recommendations for those situations, so they're always going at least somewhat by feel.)

I don't believe coaches can accurately predict momentum, but is it reasonable based on "feel" for them to decide that on a close call, they're going to be bit more conservative side in a game where they're leading by two TDs? Sure. Was it also reasonable for Campbell to decide based on feel that his offense had been moving well all game, and by converting the fourth down they could go for the kill shot? IMO, also yes. Was his decision in the Dallas game to go for two from the 7 after the penalty, which the numbers clearly recommended against, reasonable? I think I understand his logic in telling his team they were going to do something and then following through, but IMO that was too aggressive.

But in the end, he gets paid to make those decisions and I don't. If he keeps getting bad results and loses games as a result, it won't matter how "reasonable" his process was. And if he wins, he'll be a legend in Detroit.

 

[Gally]

Momentum doesn't need to be quantifiable nor predictable to be real. It's an emotion that determines performance. How on earth would you expect to quantify it? I thought we ended this with the great baseball SABR arguments of the late nineties/early aughts. I think even the leading proponents of baseball sabermetrics agreed that saying things like clutch hitting and momentum didn't exist were counterproductive and likely not fruitful arguments.

What if I think momentum is real and that Dan Campbell should have gone for it anyway? Is that going to make heads explode? Because I do. In both cases, his win probability went up, so you do that. Yes, you take momentum and game theory into account, but I still think he did the right thing by his team.

Right, if momentum is real and he goes for it and gets it. Doesn't that shift the momentum back in your direction? Aren't big plays like that the way change momentum?

Of course it keeps momentum in Det's favor. However, IMO a conversion would not be as big of a swing as a 4th down stop at that point of the game. Not every play is created equal and not every outcome is an equal momentum swing.

I believe a 4th down conversion is a good thing there but it ultimately doesn't change much in an of itself. Det doesn't automatically get points because of it, etc. Because of that the momentum increase is not that big. It gives them further opportunity to get a much bigger momentum increase but that one conversion by itself doesn't do that.

On the other hand a 4th down stop is a big influx of momentum to SF. It is an immediate jolt. That difference in outcome momentum of the single play is why I kick the FG. It's not predictive or quantifiable but it is the first domino that needs to take place for SF to start a comeback. I wouldn't give them that chance with a 14 pt lead at that point in the game.