Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

A deep(er) dive into the 4th and 8 decision by GB in the NFC title game


Recommended Posts

I've done a detailed analysis as best I can and will attempt to be concise here. Much had been said in the "Post Here When Coaches Do Something Stupid" thread, but I don't want to pollute that too much as there has been plenty of this there already. There are obviously some assumptions baked into my parameters here. For example, I didn't try to include the likelihood of a pick6 or fumble return6, or of onside kick scenarios. A few basic premises here:

* I am giving the Packers a 40% chance to force a punt and get the ball back with ~1 min left - furthermore I have them going down and scoring a winning FG 40% of *that* slice of the pie, and an additional 3% that they score a winning TD instead of a winning FG.
* I've got Rodgers as a 40% chance to convert the 4th and 8 for a TD and as a 67% to convert any 2 pointer
* I've got Crosby as 90% to make the FG
* There are other parameters that can be argued (for sure), but I want to try and be as inclusive as possible of every possible outcome
* In the Stupid Coaches thread there was a major mistake being made, which was to assume that OT is the only possible outcome for GB to win. Some called it a negligible factor. I've got them winning in regulation 17.2% of the time if they score the TD, regardless of whether they convert the 2. That isn't negligible.

Ok, to show my work. The name of the math game here is proportional weighted probabilities. If you read any further I'm going to assume this will make sense to you.

Probabilities A, B, C will be defined as the scenarios if the Packers decide to go for it on 4th and 8 and X, Y will be the probs if they kick the FG.

A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 where A is converting the 4th down TD and the 2 pointer, and 1 is probability of GB winning in regulation, 2 is GB winning in OT, 3 is losing in regulation, 4 is losing in OT
B = B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 where B is converting the 4th down TD but not the 2 pointer, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4, but OT isn't really possible here so B2 and B4 are gone
C = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 where C is failing to score the TD on 4th down, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4

X = X1 + X2 + X3 + X4   &  Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 are the same idea as A, B, C but X is making the FG and Y is missing it

With me so far?

Since I have Rodgers at 40% to score the TD and another 67% to convert the 2 pointer, then it follows that:

A = 26.7% B = 13.3% C = 60% these are the proportional pies within the ABC decision

A1 = 40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x (40% GET FG TO WIN IN REGULATION + 3% TD TO WIN IN REG) = 17.2%
A2 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) + (60% NO FORCE PUNT x 10% CLOCK TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) ----note that I am saying if they don't force a punt, and the game is tied, that Brady will go down and win the game in regulation 90% of the time in this scenario, but 10% it goes to OT = 14.4%
A3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x (70% GIVE UP FG + 20% GIVE UP TD) = 54%
A4 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT)+(60% NO FORCED PUNT x 10% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT) = 14.4%

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 17.2 + 14.4 + 54 + 14.4 = 100% (of the 26.7% slice of ABC pie)
A1+A2 = 17.2 + 14.4 = 31.6% to win (of the 26.7%)

B1 = THIS CALCULATION HASN'T CHANGED = STILL 40% x 43% TO WIN IN REG = 17.2%
B3 = WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF OT, THIS IS JUST 100% - B1 = 82.8% note that there are non-zero paths to OT still, but come on now

B1 = 17.2% to win (of the 13.3% slice of ABC pie)

C1 = NEVER SAY NEVER BUT THE ODDS OF WINNING IN REGULATION IF THEY DON'T GET THE TD ARE PRETTY CRAPPY, GONNA SAY (2% CHANCE OF PICK 6 OR FUMBLE 6 x 10% CHANCE GETTING BALL BACK x 10% SCORING AGAIN) ALSO KNOWN AS 1:5000 = 0.02%
C2 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 4.0%
C3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% NO TD) + (40% FORCED PUNT x 30% TD x 33% 2PT NO GOOD) = 92.0%
C4 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% LOSE IN OT = 4.0%

C1+C2+C3+C4 = 0.02 + 4 + 92 + 4 = 100% (I am leaving out the 0.02, there are other small factors missing in all of this as well)
C1+C2 = 4.0% to win (of the 60% slice of ABC pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under A is 31.6% x 26.7% = 8.4%
Chances of winning under B is 17.2% x 13.3% = 2.3%
Chances of winning under C is 4.0%   x 60.0% = 2.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if going for the TD on 4th is 8.4 + 2.3 + 2.4 = 13.1%
*****************************************************************************************************

Now for the FG decision tree and XY pie:

X = 90% Y = 10% - based on Crosby making the FG 90% of the time

X1 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE TO WIN IN REG = 12.0%
X2 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x 20% BUCS SCORE FG TO GO UP 8 x 10% ENOUGH TIME FOR GB TD x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 0.4%
X3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% GB FAILS TO SCORE TD DRIVE) - (X2+X4) = 87.2%
X4 = X2 = I'm tired and I am pretty sure that the odds of winning in OT vs losing in OT need to be the same now matter how this is mapped out = 0.4%

X1+X2+X3+X4 = 12.0 + 0.4 + 87.2 + 0.4 = 100% (of the 90% slice of XY pie)
X1+X2 = 12.4% to win (of the 90% slice of XY pie)

Y1 = without diving fully, I'm going to say these odds are the same as C1, since they are down 8 still = 0.02%
Y2 = C2 due to same logic as Y1 = 4.0%
Y3 = 100 - (Y1 + Y2 + Y4) = 92%
Y4 = Y2 If it goes to OT the odds should be the same to win/lose = 4.0%

Y1+Y2+Y3+Y4 = 0.02 + 4.0 + 92.0 + 4.0 = 100%
(of the 10% slice of XY pie)
Y1+Y2 = 4.0% to win (of the 10% slice of XY pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under X is 12.4% x 90.0% = 11.2%
Chances of winning under Y is 4.0% x 10.0% = 0.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if attempting the FG on 4th is  = 11.6%
*****************************************************************************************************

Final numbers are that going for the TD gets you a 13.1% chance to win vs 11.6% going for the FG

I'll tell you right now, though, that those numbers are pliable and you can find plenty of wiggle room based on many of the assumptions I made. But perhaps more fundamentally than any of this, the difference is very marginal. That is the ultimate conclusion. 

Another spin on this. If we did a little exercise where we said "what if the NFL changed the rules and said if you elect to go for a FG, that it is just an automatic 3 points and run like 4 seconds off the clock?" So Crosby's factor jumps to 100%. That changes the 11.6% number to 12.4%, still less than the TD side, according to my parameters. But here is the thing. Why would you willingly sign up to be a 12.4% underdog? 

If you get the FG, you're 12.4% to win. If you get the TD and 2 pointer, you jump to 31.6% to win.
This is actually the right way to think of it. Even if the NFL would *give* you the 3 points, why would you take it? 

Interesting and dorky thing about numbers here. 31.6% to win is a factor of 2.56 times greater than 12.4%. Getting 8 points on the NFL scoreboard is worth 2.67 times more than getting 3. That shouldn't be too surprising that those numbers are so close.

Ok well I'm going into hibernation now. @Joe Bryant let me know if you're hiring. JK but seriously. 

 

 

Edited by barackdhouse
  • Like 2
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don’t want to party with you!    

TLDR version only losers go for the FG there. Of course you go for the TD. 

That's a lot of work to say it's stupid to give the ball back to Brady with a chance to run out the clock while trailing.

24 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

I've done a detailed analysis as best I can and will attempt to be concise here. Much had been said in the "Post Here When Coaches Do Something Stupid" thread, but I don't want to pollute that too much as there has been plenty of this there already. There are obviously some assumptions baked into my parameters here. For example, I didn't try to include the likelihood of a pick6 or fumble return6, or of onside kick scenarios. A few basic premises here:

* I am giving the Packers a 40% chance to force a punt and get the ball back with ~1 min left - furthermore I have them going down and scoring a winning FG 40% of *that* slice of the pie, and an additional 3% that they score a winning TD instead of a winning FG.
* I've got Rodgers as a 40% chance to convert the 4th and 8 for a TD and as a 67% to convert any 2 pointer
* I've got Crosby as 90% to make the FG
* There are other parameters that can be argued (for sure), but I want to try and be as inclusive as possible of every possible outcome
* In the Stupid Coaches thread there was a major mistake being made, which was to assume that OT is the only possible outcome for GB to win. Some called it a negligible factor. I've got them winning in regulation 17.2% of the time if they score the TD, regardless of whether they convert the 2. That isn't negligible.

Ok, to show my work. The name of the math game here is proportional weighted probabilities. If you read any further I'm going to assume this will make sense to you.

Probabilities A, B, C will be defined as the scenarios if the Packers decide to go for it on 4th and 8 and X, Y will be the probs if they kick the FG.

A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 where A is converting the 4th down TD and the 2 pointer, and 1 is probability of GB winning in regulation, 2 is GB winning in OT, 3 is losing in regulation, 4 is losing in OT
B = B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 where B is converting the 4th down TD but not the 2 pointer, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4, but OT isn't really possible here so B2 and B4 are gone
C = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 where C is failing to score the TD on 4th down, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4

X = X1 + X2 + X3 + X4   &  Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 are the same idea as A, B, C but X is making the FG and Y is missing it

With me so far?

Since I have Rodgers at 40% to score the TD and another 67% to convert the 2 pointer, then it follows that:

A = 26.7% B = 13.3% C = 60% these are the proportional pies within the ABC decision

A1 = 40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x (40% GET FG TO WIN IN REGULATION + 3% TD TO WIN IN REG) = 17.2%
A2 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) + (60% NO FORCE PUNT x 10% CLOCK TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) ----note that I am saying if they don't force a punt, and the game is tied, that Brady will go down and win the game in regulation 90% of the time in this scenario, but 10% it goes to OT = 14.4%
A3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x (70% GIVE UP FG + 20% GIVE UP TD) = 54%
A4 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT)+(60% NO FORCED PUNT x 10% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT) = 14.4%

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 17.2 + 14.4 + 54 + 14.4 = 100% (of the 26.7% slice of ABC pie)
A1+A2 = 17.2 + 14.4 = 31.6% to win (of the 26.7%)

B1 = THIS CALCULATION HASN'T CHANGED = STILL 40% x 43% TO WIN IN REG = 17.2%
B3 = WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF OT, THIS IS JUST 100% - B1 = 82.8% note that there are non-zero paths to OT still, but come on now

B1 = 17.2% to win (of the 13.3% slice of ABC pie)

C1 = NEVER SAY NEVER BUT THE ODDS OF WINNING IN REGULATION IF THEY DON'T GET THE TD ARE PRETTY CRAPPY, GONNA SAY (2% CHANCE OF PICK 6 OR FUMBLE 6 x 10% CHANCE GETTING BALL BACK x 10% SCORING AGAIN) ALSO KNOWN AS 1:5000 = 0.02%
C2 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 4.0%
C3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% NO TD) + (40% FORCED PUNT x 30% TD x 33% 2PT NO GOOD) = 92.0%
C4 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% LOSE IN OT = 4.0%

C1+C2+C3+C4 = 0.02 + 4 + 92 + 4 = 100% (I am leaving out the 0.02, there are other small factors missing in all of this as well)
C1+C2 = 4.0% to win (of the 60% slice of ABC pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under A is 31.6% x 26.7% = 8.4%
Chances of winning under B is 17.2% x 13.3% = 2.3%
Chances of winning under C is 4.0%   x 60.0% = 2.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if going for the TD on 4th is 8.4 + 2.3 + 2.4 = 13.1%
*****************************************************************************************************

Now for the FG decision tree and XY pie:

X = 90% Y = 10% - based on Crosby making the FG 90% of the time

X1 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE TO WIN IN REG = 12.0%
X2 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x 20% BUCS SCORE FG TO GO UP 8 x 10% ENOUGH TIME FOR GB TD x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 0.4%
X3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% GB FAILS TO SCORE TD DRIVE) - (X2+X4) = 87.2%
X4 = X2 = I'm tired and I am pretty sure that the odds of winning in OT vs losing in OT need to be the same now matter how this is mapped out = 0.4%

X1+X2+X3+X4 = 12.0 + 0.4 + 87.2 + 0.4 = 100% (of the 90% slice of XY pie)
X1+X2 = 12.4% to win (of the 90% slice of XY pie)

Y1 = without diving fully, I'm going to say these odds are the same as C1, since they are down 8 still = 0.02%
Y2 = C2 due to same logic as Y1 = 4.0%
Y3 = 100 - (Y1 + Y2 + Y4) = 92%
Y4 = Y2 If it goes to OT the odds should be the same to win/lose = 4.0%

Y1+Y2+Y3+Y4 = 0.02 + 4.0 + 92.0 + 4.0 = 100%
(of the 10% slice of XY pie)
Y1+Y2 = 4.0% to win (of the 10% slice of XY pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under X is 12.4% x 90.0% = 11.2%
Chances of winning under Y is 4.0% x 10.0% = 0.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if attempting the FG on 4th is  = 11.6%
*****************************************************************************************************

Final numbers are that going for the TD gets you a 13.1% chance to win vs 11.6% going for the FG

I'll tell you right now, though, that those numbers are pliable and you can find plenty of wiggle room based on many of the assumptions I made. But perhaps more fundamentally than any of this, the difference is very marginal. That is the ultimate conclusion. 

Another spin on this. If we did a little exercise where we said "what if the NFL changed the rules and said if you elect to go for a FG, that it is just an automatic 3 points and run like 4 seconds off the clock?" So Crosby's factor jumps to 100%. That changes the 11.6% number to 12.4%, still less than the TD side, according to my parameters. But here is the thing. Why would you willingly sign up to be a 12.4% underdog? 

If you get the FG, you're 12.4% to win. If you get the TD and 2 pointer, you jump to 31.6% to win.
This is actually the right way to think of it. Even if the NFL would *give* you the 3 points, why would you take it? 

Interesting and dorky thing about numbers here. 31.6% to win is a factor of 2.56 times greater than 12.4%. Getting 8 points on the NFL scoreboard is worth 2.67 times more than getting 3. That shouldn't be too surprising that those numbers are so close.

Ok well I'm going into hibernation now. @Joe Bryant let me know if you're hiring. JK but seriously. 

 

 

😲

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

I've done a detailed analysis as best I can and will attempt to be concise here. Much had been said in the "Post Here When Coaches Do Something Stupid" thread, but I don't want to pollute that too much as there has been plenty of this there already. There are obviously some assumptions baked into my parameters here. For example, I didn't try to include the likelihood of a pick6 or fumble return6, or of onside kick scenarios. A few basic premises here:

* I am giving the Packers a 40% chance to force a punt and get the ball back with ~1 min left - furthermore I have them going down and scoring a winning FG 40% of *that* slice of the pie, and an additional 3% that they score a winning TD instead of a winning FG.
* I've got Rodgers as a 40% chance to convert the 4th and 8 for a TD and as a 67% to convert any 2 pointer
* I've got Crosby as 90% to make the FG
* There are other parameters that can be argued (for sure), but I want to try and be as inclusive as possible of every possible outcome
* In the Stupid Coaches thread there was a major mistake being made, which was to assume that OT is the only possible outcome for GB to win. Some called it a negligible factor. I've got them winning in regulation 17.2% of the time if they score the TD, regardless of whether they convert the 2. That isn't negligible.

Ok, to show my work. The name of the math game here is proportional weighted probabilities. If you read any further I'm going to assume this will make sense to you.

Probabilities A, B, C will be defined as the scenarios if the Packers decide to go for it on 4th and 8 and X, Y will be the probs if they kick the FG.

A = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 where A is converting the 4th down TD and the 2 pointer, and 1 is probability of GB winning in regulation, 2 is GB winning in OT, 3 is losing in regulation, 4 is losing in OT
B = B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 where B is converting the 4th down TD but not the 2 pointer, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4, but OT isn't really possible here so B2 and B4 are gone
C = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 where C is failing to score the TD on 4th down, and 1-4 are the same arrangement as in A1-A4

X = X1 + X2 + X3 + X4   &  Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 are the same idea as A, B, C but X is making the FG and Y is missing it

With me so far?

Since I have Rodgers at 40% to score the TD and another 67% to convert the 2 pointer, then it follows that:

A = 26.7% B = 13.3% C = 60% these are the proportional pies within the ABC decision

A1 = 40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x (40% GET FG TO WIN IN REGULATION + 3% TD TO WIN IN REG) = 17.2%
A2 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) + (60% NO FORCE PUNT x 10% CLOCK TO OT x 50% WIN IN OT) ----note that I am saying if they don't force a punt, and the game is tied, that Brady will go down and win the game in regulation 90% of the time in this scenario, but 10% it goes to OT = 14.4%
A3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x (70% GIVE UP FG + 20% GIVE UP TD) = 54%
A4 = (40% FORCE PUNT WITH ~1 MIN x 57% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT)+(60% NO FORCED PUNT x 10% GOES TO OT x 50% LOSE IN OT) = 14.4%

A1+A2+A3+A4 = 17.2 + 14.4 + 54 + 14.4 = 100% (of the 26.7% slice of ABC pie)
A1+A2 = 17.2 + 14.4 = 31.6% to win (of the 26.7%)

B1 = THIS CALCULATION HASN'T CHANGED = STILL 40% x 43% TO WIN IN REG = 17.2%
B3 = WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF OT, THIS IS JUST 100% - B1 = 82.8% note that there are non-zero paths to OT still, but come on now

B1 = 17.2% to win (of the 13.3% slice of ABC pie)

C1 = NEVER SAY NEVER BUT THE ODDS OF WINNING IN REGULATION IF THEY DON'T GET THE TD ARE PRETTY CRAPPY, GONNA SAY (2% CHANCE OF PICK 6 OR FUMBLE 6 x 10% CHANCE GETTING BALL BACK x 10% SCORING AGAIN) ALSO KNOWN AS 1:5000 = 0.02%
C2 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 4.0%
C3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% NO TD) + (40% FORCED PUNT x 30% TD x 33% 2PT NO GOOD) = 92.0%
C4 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE x 67% 2PT x 50% LOSE IN OT = 4.0%

C1+C2+C3+C4 = 0.02 + 4 + 92 + 4 = 100% (I am leaving out the 0.02, there are other small factors missing in all of this as well)
C1+C2 = 4.0% to win (of the 60% slice of ABC pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under A is 31.6% x 26.7% = 8.4%
Chances of winning under B is 17.2% x 13.3% = 2.3%
Chances of winning under C is 4.0%   x 60.0% = 2.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if going for the TD on 4th is 8.4 + 2.3 + 2.4 = 13.1%
*****************************************************************************************************

Now for the FG decision tree and XY pie:

X = 90% Y = 10% - based on Crosby making the FG 90% of the time

X1 = 40% FORCE PUNT ~1 MIN x 30% RODGERS LEADS TD DRIVE TO WIN IN REG = 12.0%
X2 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT x 20% BUCS SCORE FG TO GO UP 8 x 10% ENOUGH TIME FOR GB TD x 67% 2PT x 50% WIN IN OT = 0.4%
X3 = 60% NO FORCE PUNT + (40% FORCED PUNT x 70% GB FAILS TO SCORE TD DRIVE) - (X2+X4) = 87.2%
X4 = X2 = I'm tired and I am pretty sure that the odds of winning in OT vs losing in OT need to be the same now matter how this is mapped out = 0.4%

X1+X2+X3+X4 = 12.0 + 0.4 + 87.2 + 0.4 = 100% (of the 90% slice of XY pie)
X1+X2 = 12.4% to win (of the 90% slice of XY pie)

Y1 = without diving fully, I'm going to say these odds are the same as C1, since they are down 8 still = 0.02%
Y2 = C2 due to same logic as Y1 = 4.0%
Y3 = 100 - (Y1 + Y2 + Y4) = 92%
Y4 = Y2 If it goes to OT the odds should be the same to win/lose = 4.0%

Y1+Y2+Y3+Y4 = 0.02 + 4.0 + 92.0 + 4.0 = 100%
(of the 10% slice of XY pie)
Y1+Y2 = 4.0% to win (of the 10% slice of XY pie)

Ok now let's add up the winning probabilities by weighted pie sections:

Chances of winning under X is 12.4% x 90.0% = 11.2%
Chances of winning under Y is 4.0% x 10.0% = 0.4%
*****************************************************************************************************
Chances of winning if attempting the FG on 4th is  = 11.6%
*****************************************************************************************************

Final numbers are that going for the TD gets you a 13.1% chance to win vs 11.6% going for the FG

I'll tell you right now, though, that those numbers are pliable and you can find plenty of wiggle room based on many of the assumptions I made. But perhaps more fundamentally than any of this, the difference is very marginal. That is the ultimate conclusion. 

Another spin on this. If we did a little exercise where we said "what if the NFL changed the rules and said if you elect to go for a FG, that it is just an automatic 3 points and run like 4 seconds off the clock?" So Crosby's factor jumps to 100%. That changes the 11.6% number to 12.4%, still less than the TD side, according to my parameters. But here is the thing. Why would you willingly sign up to be a 12.4% underdog? 

If you get the FG, you're 12.4% to win. If you get the TD and 2 pointer, you jump to 31.6% to win.
This is actually the right way to think of it. Even if the NFL would *give* you the 3 points, why would you take it? 

Interesting and dorky thing about numbers here. 31.6% to win is a factor of 2.56 times greater than 12.4%. Getting 8 points on the NFL scoreboard is worth 2.67 times more than getting 3. That shouldn't be too surprising that those numbers are so close.

Ok well I'm going into hibernation now. @Joe Bryant let me know if you're hiring. JK but seriously. 

 

 

I don’t want to party with you!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 8
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I saw it at the time was...

You get the TD great. 
 

You don’t score and TB gets the ball with their backs to the end zone and you need a stop but have more time. 
 

The TB returner who gave himself up (for some odd reason) should have never happened so they wouldn’t have had the 2 minute warning or the 4th timeout as the GB kid coach said.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I don’t want to party with you!

 

 

Yeah I had an employee many years ago that bought me a coffee cup for Christmas that says I {heart} spreadsheets. I don't drink coffee. I am a sailor (and the son of a sailor) and prefer bourbon or tequila. I also live in Oregon and weed, spreadsheets and my vinyl collection go well with such things. We don't have to talk about probabilities.

  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Yeah I had an employee many years ago that bought me a coffee cup for Christmas that says I {heart} spreadsheets. I don't drink coffee. I am a sailor (and the son of a sailor) and prefer bourbon or tequila. I also live in Oregon and weed, spreadsheets and my vinyl collection go well with such things. We don't have to talk about probabilities.

All of these things are awesome.  As long as you're not a Ducks fan.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

TLDR version only losers go for the FG there. Of course you go for the TD. 

Thanks. Do you have thoughts on how you reconcile the ESPN analytics that had go for it and FG as .5% chance of same? Aside from "they're just wrong". 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Do you have thoughts on how you reconcile the ESPN analytics that had go for it and FG as .5% chance of same? Aside from "they're just wrong". 

 

The simplest and most likely explanation is that they are working from the historical DB of all QBs in such situations, whereas I would strongly argue that either Rodgers or Brady should be expected to outperform those numbers.

However, the factor by which they might outperform is a guessing game. I calibrated this thing so that Rodgers has a 40% chance of converting the 4th and 8. If I bump that down to 30% that changes the comparison to Go For TD = 10.9% which is less than the 11.6% chance under Go For FG. So like I said there is a lot of pliability. 

There are other small factors that I haven't included, which ESPN surely has. For example, the possibilities of Pick6,Fumble6, onside kicks, or another scenario which is much greater than 0, which is to say if they go for it on 4th but come up just short on say the 1 or 2 yard line, then the likelihood of a safety and subsequent shortish field becomes another (probably small) bump to the Go For TD side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Do you have thoughts on how you reconcile the ESPN analytics that had go for it and FG as .5% chance of same? Aside from "they're just wrong". 

 

 

2 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

However, the factor by which they might outperform is a guessing game. I calibrated this thing so that Rodgers has a 40% chance of converting the 4th and 8. If I bump that down to 30% that changes the comparison to Go For TD = 10.9% which is less than the 11.6% chance under Go For FG. So like I said there is a lot of pliability. 

I simply pulled this number out of thin air, arbitrarily, whereas ESPN is using actual real data, and smoothed out over several years. I don't think they're wrong, I think they are not giving enough credit to selecting for Rodgers/Brady being at the helm.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several other %s built into my model that are also arbitrary in this same sense, and all of them can change the outcomes. I think the fact that my numbers came as close as they did to ESPN actually supports much of my assumptions. Within a range anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate the hard work and thought that went into this.

How much is factored in to the math that Aaron Rodgers apparently lost his mind somewhere in the 4thQ and decided to try to kill Devante Adams by throwing bullets into triple coverage? Or that Brady's judgement (and arm) appeared to disappear at halftime? I'm not trying to be snarky here. It's like both of those guys fell off of a cliff.

Given the time and score, I think GB should have gone for it. But I (not a GB or TB fan) had lost a bunch of confidence in Rodgers by that point in the game and I don't think they would have made both plays. If there had been more time left, I'd have definitely kicked the FG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. Do you have thoughts on how you reconcile the ESPN analytics that had go for it and FG as .5% chance of same? Aside from "they're just wrong". 

 

I would also say that my breakdown is really not too far off from what they came up with, in a mathematical sense in terms of confidence intervals and orders of magnitude. I'm looking at %s between 10-13% and so are they. None of the noise that constitutes the difference between theirs and mine should be enough to swing the pendulum one way or the other in terms of this debate.

For me this really is more analysis than is necessary. Going for the FG is signing up to lose. Going for the TD is playing to win. FG gets you to an 8:1 underdog. TD+2 gets you to 3:1 dog. 31.6% to win vs 12.4% to win. 8 v 3.

The biggest argument for my 40% conversion factor for Rodgers being too high is that the TB defense was getting to him all game and his pocket presence seemed off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uruk-Hai said:

Appreciate the hard work and thought that went into this.

How much is factored in to the math that Aaron Rodgers apparently lost his mind somewhere in the 4thQ and decided to try to kill Devante Adams by throwing bullets into triple coverage? Or that Brady's judgement (and arm) appeared to disappear at halftime? I'm not trying to be snarky here. It's like both of those guys fell off of a cliff.

Given the time and score, I think GB should have gone for it. But I (not a GB or TB fan) had lost a bunch of confidence in Rodgers by that point in the game and I don't think they would have made both plays. If there had been more time left, I'd have definitely kicked the FG.

 

Just now, barackdhouse said:



The biggest argument for my 40% conversion factor for Rodgers being too high is that the TB defense was getting to him all game and his pocket presence seemed off. 

Yep. I just think he is a baller and at the end of the day 40% sounds right to me. And then to convert the 2 at 67% means that in my model I have the Packers tying the game there only 27% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 11:08 AM, barackdhouse said:

 

Yep. I just think he is a baller and at the end of the day 40% sounds right to me. And then to convert the 2 at 67% means that in my model I have the Packers tying the game there only 27% of the time.

I don’t see how 40% is the right number. They tried three times in a row and got zero yards. Should the conversion rate be higher than the average team? Probably. But 40% on 4th and 8 in the red zone seems too high. 

As I posted in the other coaches decision thread, GB can’t win without scoring a TD. And they can’t score a TD without the football. That’s why I suggested they needed to go for it. All outcomes are dependent on them stopping TB on their next possession (except for recovering an onside kick).  But IMO the additional chance of GB “making it” on 4th down would be negated by TB having Brady. I would guess the chances of GB winning the game were higher by going for it but even so I would not have given them a great chance to win the game. 

Edited by Anarchy99
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

I don’t see how 40% is the right number. They tried three times in a row and got zero yards. Should the conversion rate be higher than the average team? Probably. But 40% on 4th and 8 in the red zone seems too high. 

As I posted in the other coaches decision thread, GB can’t win without scoring a TD. And they can’t score a TD without the football. That’s why I suggested they needed to go for it. All outcomes are dependent on them stopping TB OB their next possession (except for winning an on side kick).  But IMO the additional chance of GB “making it” on 4th down would be negated by TB having Brady. I would guess the chances of GB winning the game were higher by going for it but even so I would not have given them a great chance to win the game. 

Yeah 40 may indeed be too high, but it has very little to do with having been unsuccessful on the first 3 attempts. 100% of successful 4th and 8 attempts in history were preceded by 3 failed attempts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

I would also say that my breakdown is really not too far off from what they came up with, in a mathematical sense in terms of confidence intervals and orders of magnitude. I'm looking at %s between 10-13% and so are they. None of the noise that constitutes the difference between theirs and mine should be enough to swing the pendulum one way or the other in terms of this debate.

For me this really is more analysis than is necessary. Going for the FG is signing up to lose. Going for the TD is playing to win. FG gets you to an 8:1 underdog. TD+2 gets you to 3:1 dog. 31.6% to win vs 12.4% to win. 8 v 3.

The biggest argument for my 40% conversion factor for Rodgers being too high is that the TB defense was getting to him all game and his pocket presence seemed off. 

However, you must factor in the chances of scoring that TD to make a proper judgement.  You cannot just jump to the "they scored a TD on 4th and goal" and then say see that is how to play to win.  As your numbers proved out they are virtually the same chance to win by either going for it or kicking at that point.  It would be the same as comparing the chance to win without scoring the TD vs kicking the FG and saying kicking the FG is obviously the better choice because if they don't score the TD their chance of winning is X% vs Y% kicking the FG. 

 

The whole point of your exercise was to see if either choice was significantly better than the other and they were virtually the same.  

 

ETA:  I would have gone for the TD but kicking the FG was as outlandish a decision as I thought originally once looking into it a bit.  

Edited by Gally
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Yeah 40 may indeed be too high, but it has very little to do with having been unsuccessful on the first 3 attempts. 100% of successful 4th and 8 attempts in history were preceded by 3 failed attempts.

It is unfortunate that Play Index is now paywalled.

Yes, all fourth and 8 attempts have been preceded by three failures. But 40% is probably at least double the historical success rate. And 67% is clearly not right for the probability of the 2-pointer, too; I mean, Rodgers' career pass completion rate is only 65% and that's a pretty strong upper bound on a 2-point conversion. Change those numbers to 30% and 60% and the analysis comes out the other way.

You're also talking about how Rodgers and Brady being involved changes the dynamic, and then you're giving Brady the same probability of making a first down on three plays as you're giving to Rodgers for making a TD on fourth and 8. That can't be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CalBear said:

It is unfortunate that Play Index is now paywalled.

Yes, all fourth and 8 attempts have been preceded by three failures. But 40% is probably at least double the historical success rate. And 67% is clearly not right for the probability of the 2-pointer, too; I mean, Rodgers' career pass completion rate is only 65% and that's a pretty strong upper bound on a 2-point conversion. Change those numbers to 30% and 60% and the analysis comes out the other way.

You're also talking about how Rodgers and Brady being involved changes the dynamic, and then you're giving Brady the same probability of making a first down on three plays as you're giving to Rodgers for making a TD on fourth and 8. That can't be right.

I did mention already that knocking the 40% TD rate for Rodgers down to 30% changes the outcome.

But for the bolded I think I had Brady at 60% to get a 1st down. 40% that GB would force a punt. If I'm wrong can you point to that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CalBear said:

It is unfortunate that Play Index is now paywalled.

But 40% is probably at least double the historical success rate. And 67% is clearly not right for the probability of the 2-pointer, too; 

Yeah it would be nice to see some real data on Rodgers for example. Career 2point conversion rate. GB conversion rate that includes running plays seems an easy fruit to pick. 

I honestly think Rodgers might be something close to double the historical success rate in the 4th down situation and I think it is inappropriate to assign a value at the historical rate without giving Rodgers at least some measure of a  "better than the average" bump. Is 40% too high? Possibly. I don't see compelling evidence (yet) to decide it should be closer to 20%.30% doesn't change my conclusion that the difference is marginal. The upside is tremendously more with going for the TD, though. 

3 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

The simplest and most likely explanation is that they are working from the historical DB of all QBs in such situations, whereas I would strongly argue that either Rodgers or Brady should be expected to outperform those numbers.

However, the factor by which they might outperform is a guessing game. I calibrated this thing so that Rodgers has a 40% chance of converting the 4th and 8. If I bump that down to 30% that changes the comparison to Go For TD = 10.9% which is less than the 11.6% chance under Go For FG. So like I said there is a lot of pliability. 
.

 

2 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

 

I simply pulled this number out of thin air, arbitrarily, whereas ESPN is using actual real data, and smoothed out over several years. I don't think they're wrong, I think they are not giving enough credit to selecting for Rodgers/Brady being at the helm.

 I am not really trying to defend my assumptions on 40% vs 30% and other built in %s here, I am acknowledging that they are subject to error and could use tweaking. My main point is:

1) - The model needs to include more potential outcomes than the ones that were being discussed in the coaches decision thread, where football things happening in regulation after the Decision at 2:05, were being neglected. That doesn't mean that my assumptions on the 40% and so forth are correct. They were just a starting place for me. I more or less stand by them but I know they are imperfect, whereas like I mentioned, ESPN was using actual real historic data. My preference would be to reload my model with percentages that are based off real GB data. And Brady.

2) - That the difference between the two decisions is ultimately marginal. But choosing to kick the FG is signing up to lose. Going for the TD means you get to keep your soul.

I think it is nuts to assume Rodgers wouldn't have a better chance than the historic average, and by a significant margin. Significant enough? I don't think it matters. You go for the TD even if Trubisky is your QB. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gally said:

However, you must factor in the chances of scoring that TD to make a proper judgement.  

I did. I mapped that all out in the OP.

I understand it is hard to follow. I think your comment was in regards to comparing getting yourself to 8:1 odds vs 3:1 odds (in successful FG vs successful TD) but in the failing scenarios, missing the TD drops you to 25:1 vs missing the FG *also* gets you to 25:1. Missing the TD vs making the FG is 25:1 compared to 8:1. So yes it is obviously better to get 3 points than to get 0. All of this was factored into the OP, though, and the strong likelihood of not getting the TD is baked into the final result, where the chances of winning if you go for it vs attempting a FG are in the neighborhood of 13% vs 12% and could swing in either direction based on the odds Rodgers converts, the odds they stop Tampa and get the ball back, etc....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, barackdhouse said:

I did. I mapped that all out in the OP.

I understand it is hard to follow. I think your comment was in regards to comparing getting yourself to 8:1 odds vs 3:1 odds (in successful FG vs successful TD) but in the failing scenarios, missing the TD drops you to 25:1 vs missing the FG *also* gets you to 25:1. Missing the TD vs making the FG is 25:1 compared to 8:1. So yes it is obviously better to get 3 points than to get 0. All of this was factored into the OP, though, and the strong likelihood of not getting the TD is baked into the final result, where the chances of winning if you go for it vs attempting a FG are in the neighborhood of 13% vs 12% and could swing in either direction based on the odds Rodgers converts, the odds they stop Tampa and get the ball back, etc....

I agree with all that.  I was mostly commenting on your "if you play to win you go for the TD" comment because you based that on getting the TD when comparing your 8:1 vs 3:1 scenario.   However, that is strictly based on getting the TD.  You don't know that so either way had virtually the same chance of winning and not 8:1 vs 3:1.  Regardless, I agree and would have gone for the TD but I am now not hating the idea for going for the FG as I see where that had some merit.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gally said:

I agree with all that.  I was mostly commenting on your "if you play to win you go for the TD" comment because you based that on getting the TD when comparing your 8:1 vs 3:1 scenario.   However, that is strictly based on getting the TD.  You don't know that so either way had virtually the same chance of winning and not 8:1 vs 3:1.  Regardless, I agree and would have gone for the TD but I am now not hating the idea for going for the FG as I see where that had some merit.  

 

 

Yeah right on. So yes that was based on the upside of "if you are successful", which is another interesting way to conceive of all this. Because as has been mentioned by many people many times, no matter what happens GB will have to make a stop. No matter what, for them to find a path to victory, they will have to find a way to get the ball back. And so even though my number says there is a 40% chance they force a punt, and even though the historic data will say it should be X%, there is an argument that GB should just think of it as 100%.

If you operate from that assumption, I am guessing it makes the Go for FG side much, much, much more favorable. However, similarly, If you're going to assume that you get the stop, why not go for the TD on 4th and goal anyway? Because even if you fail you're still assuming you're getting the ball back, just like you already were, and would still have the same odds of bringing it back for a TD (better field position though). So the Go For TD would also get a bump if you assume you're getting the ball back. Although in a tie game scenario I bumped the odds in the OP considerably that Brady would be able to run the clock out and it goes to OT. Plus a tiegame the GB defense wouldn't be bent on stopping them as much as containing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

there is an argument that GB should just think of it as 100%.

 

It is kind of the Dr Strange scenario in Infinity Wars where he uses the Timestone and sees the 1/1,000,000,000 permutation where they win. No matter how ridiculous it is, you have to go with that one. 

Iron Man committing suicide Dr. Strange voluntarily giving Timestone to Thanos ~=~ kicking the FG with the assumption they get the ball back

Instead of calculating probabilities moving forward from a decision in time, this is more like reverse engineering backwards from a final outcome that can only include making a stop and other football things. In that backwards path, the odds are 100% of making a stop. IDK. I think it is best explained by:

12 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

 I am a sailor (and the son of a sailor) and prefer bourbon or tequila. I also live in Oregon and weed, spreadsheets and my vinyl collection go well with such things. 

ETA I had to fix the Avengers analogy there

Edited by barackdhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, barackdhouse said:

Yeah right on. So yes that was based on the upside of "if you are successful", which is another interesting way to conceive of all this. Because as has been mentioned by many people many times, no matter what happens GB will have to make a stop. No matter what, for them to find a path to victory, they will have to find a way to get the ball back. And so even though my number says there is a 40% chance they force a punt, and even though the historic data will say it should be X%, there is an argument that GB should just think of it as 100%.

If you operate from that assumption, I am guessing it makes the Go for FG side much, much, much more favorable. However, similarly, If you're going to assume that you get the stop, why not go for the TD on 4th and goal anyway? Because even if you fail you're still assuming you're getting the ball back, just like you already were, and would still have the same odds of bringing it back for a TD (better field position though). So the Go For TD would also get a bump if you assume you're getting the ball back. Although in a tie game scenario I bumped the odds in the OP considerably that Brady would be able to run the clock out and it goes to OT. Plus a tiegame the GB defense wouldn't be bent on stopping them as much as containing. 

One of the things that I haven't seen factored in is that getting a stop isn't created equal.  By that I mean if TB is up 8 their goal is to use up as much clock as possible so their play calling can be narrowed down some making it a bit easier to possibly stop them.  On the other end of the spectrum if GB had tied it then TB is now trying to score so their play book is open more making it more difficult to stop them.  Kicking the FG is somewhat in the middle where now giving up the ball to GB puts GB in a position to win in regulation so you theoretically wouldn't be as conservative again making it more difficult to defend.  I don't think each of those percentage of stopping is the same and kicking the FG may have been the most difficult to stop as it wouldn't be totally conservative or totally risky.  

Edited by Gally
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gally said:

One of the things that I haven't seen factored in is that getting a stop isn't created equal.  By that I mean if TB is up 8 their goal is to use up as much clock as possible so their play calling can be narrowed down some making it a bit easier to possibly stop them.  On the other end of the spectrum if GB had tied it then TB is not trying to score so their play book is open more making it more difficult to stop them.  Kicking the FG is somewhat in the middle where not giving up the ball to GB puts GB in a position to win in regulation so you theoretically wouldn't be as conservative again making it more difficult to defend.  I don't think each of those percentage of stopping is the same and kicking the FG may have been the most difficult to stop as it wouldn't be totally conservative or totally risky.  

Yes to all of that. I did factor that into a couple of the %s. It could probably be refined more, though. My head is spinning from this a little and I need to move on for a bit but IIRC even though I said they would still be forcing a punt 40% of the time regardless of score (yes that probably needs tweaked), within the 60% pie where GB *doesn't* stop them, I did factor a lot of variation based on whether it was tied (A), down by 1(B), or down 8(C). And within that 60% pie I've got Tampa scoring a FG to win 70%, TD 20%, and the clock running out 10%. All arbitrary back of my napkin estimates.

However, I'm not sure the odds of forcing a 3 and out are all that dissimilar despite obvious differences in Tampa's approach if is tied vs protecting a lead and that of GB's defense as well. I think Brady and Tampa would be more aggressive than the average bear when protecting a lead, and I think that although they would likely be more aggressive in a tied scenario, I'm not sure it moves the needle a ton on that 40% number (or the historic rate). Teams like to be aggressive but not too aggressive in those tied spots. Problem is it just doesn't take much to get into FG range. Especially for Brady. Successfully getting the TD on 4th and converting the 2pointer to tie the game still leads to losing 68.4% of the time.

Edited by barackdhouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

The way I saw it at the time was...

You get the TD great. 
 

You don’t score and TB gets the ball with their backs to the end zone and you need a stop but have more time. 
 

The TB returner who gave himself up (for some odd reason) should have never happened so they wouldn’t have had the 2 minute warning or the 4th timeout as the GB kid coach said.

 

 

this is really all it comes down too.....if you don't get it....they get the ball at the 8 yard line and you try to get "the stop" you were going to need to get anyway.....

even if you get the TD....and then don't get the 2 pointer.....then you are still needing "that stop" you were talking about....

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

this isn't even one where I think there is a smidge of debate.....especially if your mentality heading in is "we need a stop".....if that's your mentality.....the 4th down decision is actually gravy and playing with house money and basically a free play to help your chances of winning even more....

Edited by Stinkin Ref
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

this is really all it comes down too.....if you don't get it....they get the ball at the 8 yard line and you try to get "the stop" you were going to need to get anyway.....

even if you get the TD....and then don't get the 2 pointer.....then you are still needing "that stop" you were talking about....

 

If you go for it and fail, you need not only the stop and the TD, you need the 2 point conversion just to tie. So, relative to kicking the FG and then getting the stop, your win probability is lowered by [chance of 2PC] * 50% (OT).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

That's a lot of work to say it's stupid to give the ball back to Brady with a chance to run out the clock while trailing.

I keep reading this deep analysis, and keep coming up with the same response.  Brady is getting the ball back with 2 minutes to go no matter what.  The best case scenario is he's getting it back in a tie game.  That's assuming the Packers have scored on 4th and 8 and scored the 2 point conversion.  The OP's estimates of 40% and 67% for those two events seem ridiculously high to me.  If you have to stop Brady either way, it seems far preferable to take the easy 3 points now, then make your stop and let Rodgers take his shots.  As it turned out, the Packers got the stop they needed, but for a highly questionable DPI on 3rd down.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

If you go for it and fail, you need not only the stop and the TD, you need the 2 point conversion just to tie. So, relative to kicking the FG and then getting the stop, your win probability is lowered by [chance of 2PC] * 50% (OT).

It’s pretty surprising to me how quickly some people are dismissing the difficulty of getting a 2 point conversion and then winning in OT. The difference between being down 5 and down 8 is massive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I keep reading this deep analysis, and keep coming up with the same response.  Brady is getting the ball back with 2 minutes to go no matter what.  The best case scenario is he's getting it back in a tie game.  That's assuming the Packers have scored on 4th and 8 and scored the 2 point conversion.  The OP's estimates of 40% and 67% for those two events seem ridiculously high to me.  If you have to stop Brady either way, it seems far preferable to take the easy 3 points now, then make your stop and let Rodgers take his shots.  As it turned out, the Packers got the stop they needed, but for a highly questionable DPI on 3rd down.

 

 

 

Wasn't that the play that King pulled the undershirt of Goodwin for half the field?  It wasn't really questionable as a penalty but I guess it probably should have been holding instead of DPI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalBear said:

If you go for it and fail, you need not only the stop and the TD, you need the 2 point conversion just to tie. So, relative to kicking the FG and then getting the stop, your win probability is lowered by [chance of 2PC] * 50% (OT).

Can't say I agree with this. If GB scored and made the 2 point conversion attempt, with a 3-and-out defensive stop, they could have forced a punt and may have only needed potentially 20-30 yards for a FG attempt. (Of course, we would head into a different scenario then as TB could have started using their timeouts in the hopes of getting the ball back, which isn't really accounted for in the end game analysis.)

In ALL of the potential outcomes based on the 4th down play, getting a defensive stop was mandatory to win the game (with the only exception being recovering an onside kick). People seem to be lumping in only a 50% chance of winning in OT . . . but they could have gotten a stop and won in regulation if the game were tied. But at least they would have had OT as a fall back if they couldn't get a FG. If the 2 point attempt failed, they would have only needed a FG to win the game (as opposed to having to go the length of the field for a TD down by 5 points).

By kicking the FG, GB absolutely HAD to get the ball back (and there was a decent chance they would not be able to run another offensive play). At least going for it on 4th down gave them a chance of the game continuing beyond the final two minutes if they never got the ball back. By kicking the FG, they were betting that BOTH TEAMS could have a possession in the final two minutes (and having enough time to still score a TD).

Getting a 3-and-out would have helped in ALL of the potential outcomes (tied, down 2, down 5, down 8), as that would have offered GB a chance to kick a FG (to win) or score a TD (to win or tie).

GB caught a break by the TB return man taking a dive before the two minute warning. If that hadn't happened, the Packers would have had to burn all their timeouts earlier than they did. The Packers also caught a second break when the Bucs accepted the offsides penalty. They were much better off at 2nd and 1.

People can gripe about the DPI penalty. I disagree with the folks saying it wasn't a penalty . . . the issue is the refs were letting defenders get away with more all game long. That still doesn't change that on the biggest single play of the game, they weren't going to let a defender grab onto and hold a receiver's jersey. He didn't just happen to get tangled up . . . he blatantly grabbed and pulled on the jersey to slow him down.

Rodgers interception before halftime should have been flagged for DPI . . . but it wasn't. If people didn't watch the whole game and were shown only a replay of King pulling on Johnson's jersey, I think the majority of people would say that was some sort of penalty (pass interference, illegal contact, or holding). Lots of folks somehow think "refs letting them play" the rest of the time means refs will look the way all the time, but it doesn't always work that way.

As far as kick vs. go for it, the optics look better in going with your strengths. Having the league MVP and a future HOF QB go for it plays to the strength of Green Bay. Kicking and giving the ball to the GOAT leaves your QB on the sideline hoping for a chance to score a TD . . . which you just had and opted not to pursue. IMO, lots had to go right for GB to win that game at the point they were at.

There were plenty of other plays in the game that impacted the outcome . . . for starters, why were the Packers not even contemplating playing a deep zone on the final play of the half? Get rid of that play, and worse case, TB is trying a FG attempt just before halftime instead of tacking on 7 points before halftime (and GB might not have been in the mess they were in on 4th and 8).

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I keep reading this deep analysis, and keep coming up with the same response.  Brady is getting the ball back with 2 minutes to go no matter what.  The best case scenario is he's getting it back in a tie game.  That's assuming the Packers have scored on 4th and 8 and scored the 2 point conversion.  The OP's estimates of 40% and 67% for those two events seem ridiculously high to me.  If you have to stop Brady either way, it seems far preferable to take the easy 3 points now, then make your stop and let Rodgers take his shots.  As it turned out, the Packers got the stop they needed, but for a highly questionable DPI on 3rd down.

 

 

 

But after kicking the FG, Brady only had to have his team run clock - not move the ball to score. 
 

Edited by Dr. Octopus
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gally said:

Wasn't that the play that King pulled the undershirt of Goodwin for half the field?  It wasn't really questionable as a penalty but I guess it probably should have been holding instead of DPI.

There was a shirt grab on Tyler Johnson on that play so no complaints.  The issue was the refs had a distinct "let them play" approach to the game - one clear example being on the earlier interception where the Bucs db pulled on Lazard's shoulder to make an interception.  They were allowing significant contact all game, but decided to throw the flag on this play at the end.  It wasn't consistent.  The ball also sailed way over Johnson's head, did not seem catchable. For me, the main issue is that LaFleur's decision is being judged harshly, when in fact they were very close to getting the ball back with 90 seconds or so and a chance to win. (https://sports.yahoo.com/fans-erupt-upset-twitter-reaction-green-bay-packers-nfc-championship-loss-tampa-bay-buccaneers-officials-penalty-call-234233953.html)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

But after kicking the FG, Brady only had to have his team run clock - not move the ball to score. 
 

True, but he doesn't have to score in any of the possible outcomes.  If there are 5 possible outcomes (they go for it and fail; they go for it and score 6; they go for it and score 8; they kick and make it; they kick and miss), Brady and the Bucs get the ball back with a lead in 4 of those, and tied in one of them.  The main difference is that, if you assume the Packers make a stop, its great if you're tied or down 2 because a field goal wins it.  This gets back to the eternal debate of kick it now or kick it later.  For me, on 4th and 8, I'm fine if the coach kicks it now.  Yes, there is a reasonable debatable question.  The problem I have is with Joe Six-Packs saying the decision was dumb or its an obvious call.  In this circumstance, I'll defer to the guy standing on the sidelines over the guy watching from his couch every time.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cobbler1 said:

It’s pretty surprising to me how quickly some people are dismissing the difficulty of getting a 2 point conversion and then winning in OT. The difference between being down 5 and down 8 is massive.

Exactly.  People act like it was a given that they'd get the TD, AND the 2point conversion, AND Brady would get no points on his final drive, AND Green Bay wins in OT.  All 4 of those things happening is pretty rare and I doubt all 4 would happen.  I'd rather just need the one stop and then need the TD for the win.  I think it was the right call, but of course hindsight fans are going to say how bad it was. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Exactly.  People act like it was a given that they'd get the TD, AND the 2point conversion, AND Brady would get no points on his final drive, AND Green Bay wins in OT.  All 4 of those things happening is pretty rare and I doubt all 4 would happen.  I'd rather just need the one stop and then need the TD for the win.  I think it was the right call, but of course hindsight fans are going to say how bad it was. 

Right and my point isn’t that it was the obviously right to kick, it’s that it’s very much debatable. When I saw it live I thought it was weird to kick it. Then thought about it and thought it was the clearly the right move to kick. Then read some of the posts here and thought more about the winning scenarios that exist even if they go for it and don’t get it and have come around to agreeing the espn win probability referenced in the other thread, which had it really close. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Exactly.  People act like it was a given that they'd get the TD, AND the 2point conversion, AND Brady would get no points on his final drive, AND Green Bay wins in OT.  All 4 of those things happening is pretty rare and I doubt all 4 would happen.  I'd rather just need the one stop and then need the TD for the win.  I think it was the right call, but of course hindsight fans are going to say how bad it was. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but why do people keep suggesting that the only result in scoring a TD and a 2 point conversion would be a 50% chance of winning in OT? That would greatly increase GB’s chance of winning in REGULATION.

TB would no longer just sit on the ball. They would try to move the ball like normal to win in regulation. That would open up the chance for a turnover. It would also allow for incompletions to conserve their timeouts. And upon receiving the ball back, they would only need a FG to win instead of a TD. 

And if GB scored a TD but failed on the conversion, they would still only need a FG to win . . . a much higher probability of success than going the length of the field for a TD. 

As for the requirement to prevent TB from scoring, that spans across all potential outcomes. So that should not even be a consideration for comparison. Allowing the Bucs to run the clock down and score would be a death knell to anything GB did on 4th and 8.  

Best case, GB goes for it and gets the 8 yards for 8 points, holds TB to a three and out and a punt, advances the ball 30 or so yards, gets TB to use all their timeouts in the process, and kicks a game winning FG with almost no time remaining. That would account for a lot fewer yards from the offense than kicking a FG and then having to mount a 70 yard drive. More importantly, if they missed the kick they would have a second chance in OT. Conversely, if they didn’t score a TD when down by 5, the game would be over. So IMO, going to OT was an EXTRA chance to still win the game, not a big deterrent to LOSING the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but why do people keep suggesting that the only result in scoring a TD and a 2 point conversion would be a 50% chance of winning in OT? That would greatly increase GB’s chance of winning in REGULATION.

TB would no longer just sit on the ball. They would try to move the ball like normal to win in regulation. That would open up the chance for a turnover. It would also allow for incompletions to conserve their timeouts. And upon receiving the ball back, they would only need a FG to win instead of a TD. 

And if GB scored a TD but failed on the conversion, they would still only need a FG to win . . . a much higher probability of success than going the length of the field for a TD. 

As for the requirement to prevent TB from scoring, that spans across all potential outcomes. So that should not even be a consideration for comparison. Allowing the Bucs to run the clock down and score would be a death knell to anything GB did on 4th and 8.  
 

These two statements are at odds. The first one says that Tampa Bay would be more likely to try to score in the scenario where it's tied. The second one says that ther difference in the likelihood of Tampa Bay scoring should not be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CalBear said:

These two statements are at odds. The first one says that Tampa Bay would be more likely to try to score in the scenario where it's tied. The second one says that ther difference in the likelihood of Tampa Bay scoring should not be considered.

Not really. TB scoring would effectively end the game in all scenarios. In a tie game, TB would be motivated and inclined to TRY to score. If they were ahead, all they really needed to do was sit on the ball and get one first down, which ultimately would have been true if they declined the intentional penalty. Trying to score and actually scoring are completely different things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Not really. TB scoring would effectively end the game in all scenarios. In a tie game, TB would be motivated and inclined to TRY to score. If they were ahead, all they really needed to do was sit on the ball and get one first down, which ultimately would have been true if they declined the intentional penalty. Trying to score and actually scoring are completely different things. 

The FG changes both the offensive and defensive goals, and therefore the probabilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Not really. TB scoring would effectively end the game in all scenarios. In a tie game, TB would be motivated and inclined to TRY to score. If they were ahead, all they really needed to do was sit on the ball and get one first down, which ultimately would have been true if they declined the intentional penalty. Trying to score and actually scoring are completely different things. 

You're counting on a LOT of things happening for GB to come back and win the game (getting a TD on 4th and 8 form the 8 is not easy and is likely unlikely they get it... for sure under 50%).

And you say TB trying to score increases GB's odds of a turnover.. it also increases TB's chances to WIN the game in regulation.  So you are hoping for an unlikely td, and then a 50% shot 2pc,  and then tampa rushing to take the lead and gb stopping them, and then gb getting points.  EXTREMELY unlikely GB wins that game in regulation if they go for the TD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deamon said:

You're counting on a LOT of things happening for GB to come back and win the game (getting a TD on 4th and 8 form the 8 is not easy and is likely unlikely they get it... for sure under 50%).

And you say TB trying to score increases GB's odds of a turnover.. it also increases TB's chances to WIN the game in regulation.  So you are hoping for an unlikely td, and then a 50% shot 2pc,  and then tampa rushing to take the lead and gb stopping them, and then gb getting points.  EXTREMELY unlikely GB wins that game in regulation if they go for the TD. 

In their last 4 possessions of the game, Tampa had 3 turnovers. They had one big play in the second half (to Gronk) that got them in FG range. When the Bucs were actively trying to move the ball, they didn’t do much. Brady was 6 for 13 in the second half with 3 picks at that point. 

Now compare that to needing to get one first down by running the ball. It seemed a lot more likely they could get one first down vs. having to drive 40-50 yards to get a FG attempt. But we’ll never know because that’s not how things turned out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anarchy99 said:

In their last 4 possessions of the game, Tampa had 3 turnovers. They had one big play in the second half (to Gronk) that got them in FG range. When the Bucs were actively trying to move the ball, they didn’t do much. Brady was 6 for 13 in the second half with 3 picks at that point. 

Now compare that to needing to get one first down by running the ball. It seemed a lot more likely they could get one first down vs. having to drive 40-50 yards to get a FG attempt. But we’ll never know because that’s not how things turned out. 

Again, that's all assuming the maybe 25% chance that they got the 8 points. Likely wouldn't have got the td and game over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Again, that's all assuming the maybe 25% chance that they got the 8 points. Likely wouldn't have got the td and game over. 

Again, people are piecing together things while ignoring possible outcomes. If GB went for it on 4th down and failed, TB would have had the ball at the 8 yard line. With a 3 and out and forcing a punt, the Packers would have gotten the ball back at midfield with a minute and a half left to get a TD and a two point conversion. 

For any of the outcomes being discussed to work and for GB to win, lots of things needed to go right. That’s why the calculated probabilities were only 10%. 

But this wasn’t a situation where GB needed 2 possessions being down by 10 points. So it wasn’t like they needed a TD and a FG and the debate was which one to get first. Kicking a FG left them STILL needing a TD. So in a one possession game they TURNED it into a two possession game. 

No matter how you slice, there was no easy, clear path to victory at that point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Again, people are piecing together things while ignoring possible outcomes. If GB went for it on 4th down and failed, TB would have had the ball at the 8 yard line. With a 3 and out and forcing a punt, the Packers would have gotten the ball back at midfield with a minute and a half left to get a TD and a two point conversion. 

For any of the outcomes being discussed to work and for GB to win, lots of things needed to go right. That’s why the calculated probabilities were only 10%. 

But this wasn’t a situation where GB needed 2 possessions being down by 10 points. So it wasn’t like they needed a TD and a FG and the debate was which one to get first. Kicking a FG left them STILL needing a TD. So in a one possession game they TURNED it into a two possession game. 

No matter how you slice, there was no easy, clear path to victory at that point. 

Right and in the likely scenario where they didn't get the td,  then they would STILL need a td and 2pc and then an ot win.

Hypothetically, which would you prefer? (assuming a stop was made by gb defense)

A= Down 5, your ball at midfield
B= 75% chance at down 8, your ball at midfield, 25% shot at tie game your ball on your own 25.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...