Decision Analysis: 4th and 1 at FSU 6, Down 11, 4 minutes Remaining

I didn't watch the game, but my Miami friend was going off on Al Golden for going for it on 4th and goal from the 5 down 11 vs. Cincy.

PhDeac said:

I didn't watch the game, but my Miami friend was going off on Al Golden for going for it on 4th and goal from the 5 down 11 vs. Cincy.

Click to expand...

Good job Al Golden. Bad coach, got one right!

bobknightfan said:

Sure, winning with two touchdowns is the best scenario. What I said was that overtime was the best reasonable scenario....because the chances were remote that you were going to have enough time to go for it on 4th down, score a touchdown, hold FSU on downs, and get the ball back in time to drive the length of the field to score a 2nd touchdown. So, in reality, if you scored a touchdown, made the 2-point conversion, held FSU and got the ball back again.... you were almost certainly only going to have enough time to get into position for a tying touchdown.

Scoring two touchdown in less than 4 minutes is not a reasonable scenario.

Click to expand...

If you are so worried about time just throw into the end zone on 4th and 1. Pretend it's your 2 point conversion play from 2 yards further out.

Only need to make it half as often as you make your two point plays for this to be better.....

Eh, I just disagree strongly with all the assumptions you're making. I mean, just from basic strategy if you score immediately on 4th and 5 you'd go for 2 to make it a 3 point game. Maybe you make it, maybe you don't. Either way it influences the following drives of both teams and alters the likelihood of the 2nd two point attempt.

The bottom line is you can't argue that a certainty (going for it and not making it) equates equally to an unknown (taking 3 and playing out 2 more series, multiple kickoffs, etc). It's certainly factual that the vast majority of coaches would kick there. An even higher percentage would if they were playing the game with Wake's team and not, say, Alabama's O-line. Setting up a coin flip loss scenario in a short yardage situation where that is not a strong suit of yours is not a desirable play - particularly when any win outcome is a long shot and therefore any deviation in predicted outcomes can drastically change that probability.

I disagree. You get 2 out of 7 onside kicks. Stop them on 3 straight play happens maybe 3 out of 7. Kicking the onside gives you more opportunities to get the ball.

bobknightfan said:

When you are 11 points behind with 4 minutes to play, the only way you can win in regulation is by scoring 2 touchdowns....so everyone should be in agreement that we are talking about a situation where OT was the best reasonable scenario, because even if you make the first down, then make a touchdown, and then make a 2-point conversion.....3 uncertain variables.....you are still almost certainly going to be in the situation...if you get the ball back....of trying to get into position for a tying field goal to force overtime. You are very unlikely to score two touchdowns in this amount of time.

A field goal from that position was almost like an extra point....a virtual sure thing....which took no time off the clock. That eliminates all those first three variables and gives you more time to try to reach the same goal...forcing an overtime....that you would have ended up trying to accomplish by going for it on 4th down. You needed three things in either option: a FG, a TD & a 2-point conversion. Clawson chose to get the sure thing for one of them without using any more time off the clock. It was obviously the correct thing to do. If he had gone for it on 4th down and not made it, the game would have been over....and even if he made the first down, he was using up precious time and would have still needed the same three scores.

Click to expand...

Facepalm

I disagreed with the decision but like I said after Cuse, I'm not going to fret over individual playcalls. I'm way more focused on the macro.

bmoneydeac said:

I disagreed with the decision but like I said after Cuse, I'm not going to fret over individual playcalls. I'm way more focused on the macro.

Click to expand...

#TEAMCHUCK

If we had been playing, say, Elon in this situation, I'm pretty sure Clawson would've gone for the first down. But he wasn't. He was facing FSU with a very stout defense who stood a very good chance of stoning us on our plunge for one yard. Our rushing attack is still very unreliable, and Hinton's capability of completing an effective short pass for a yard isn't as good as Wolford's. You take the 3 in that situation every day and hope to come back for the TD hopefully with better fortune.

Lohengrin said:

If we had been playing, say, Elon in this situation, I'm pretty sure Clawson would've gone for the first down. But he wasn't. He was facing FSU with a very stout defense who stood a very good chance of stoning us on our plunge for one yard. Our rushing attack is still very unreliable, and Hinton's capability of completing an effective short pass for a yard isn't as good as Wolford's. You take the 3 in that situation every day and hope to come back for the TD hopefully with better fortune.

Click to expand...

To me, your TD scoring opportunity isn't going to get better than 4th and 1 at the 5. You gotta try to get at least 6 there. Getting 3, then you are still required to score a TD and a 2 point conversion on your next possession to tie.

I generally agree with bmoney that the macro is much more important now.

Chris, as has been said, 4th and 1 is just getting a first down. You then have to drive it into the EZ in another short yardage situation. The FG is immediate. On the second scoring attempt -- assuming you get the ball back without FSU scoring again -- you might be able to score more quickly on a long pass or something. Extending the game is always the choice of coaches, no matter that fans always want to go for it. And that's the right call IMO.

The fact you may be able to score on a long pass or something doesn't really make "extending the game" more attractive. You are still favoring making a 2 point conversion and winning an overtime vs. only scoring a touchdown when you are at the 5 yard line.

You have a better chance of scoring a touchdown from the five yard line than you do of making a two point conversion from the 3 yard line AND winning an overtime. This can be proven via hard data.

Alright, some of you won't be placated no matter what. I just want to stand up for Clawson doing what is recognized as the most sensible thing under the circumstances. I realize fans usually want to be more aggressive for various reasons, and there's that. But Clawson's being paid to make these calls and he got the team points with a chance to stay in the game. To come away with no points -- surely more than 50% likely -- would have demoralized the team IMO.

Lohengrin said:

This point doesn't deserve this degree of discussion. Stop flogging the dead horse.

Click to expand...

He said, posting three more times afterward.

It's better to be having this discussion instead of getting blown out and having nothing to talk about. Same with having a minor QB controversy. These are good problems to have. Gotta think we're going to be good again. I enjoy this discussion, especially the stats.

I saw "The Martian" last night and one of the central themes was "do the math". I agree that "doing the math" is a valuable exercise and applaud Fckvwls effort. However I have some problems with the conclusions and a couple of assumptions.

1. First the conclusion. If we accept that all 15 of your variable assumptions are absolutely correct, then the probability of winning goes from 2% to 4%. You rightly point out that is a doubling of your chances and that sounds impressive. Problem is that that is only a 2% incremental increase in chance of winning. Do you base your decision on doubling only a 2% increased chance of winning? By that logic you should always spend all your money on the lottery because you are increasing your chance of winning by a factor of thousands. However, we all know that you can spend all your money on the lottery and that the incremental increase in your chance of winning is still virtually zero. So you fall back on personal preference to decide how much to spend on the lottery. For me, the breakeven point would be if your analysis showed about a 10% improvement in incremental chances of winning.

2. Second the assumptions... rendered moot by #1. But if you want to discuss assumptions and logic then PM me. I'm sure 98% of the posters on this board quit reading after the first sentence.

Let me add to this thread that I do agree that Clawson is doing a really good job as coach and game management doesn't really matter too much. I'm really happy with the offensive improvement this season.

Also I went through his Bowling Green game logs when we hired Claw and I thought he was pretty reasonable/aggressive in general on 4th downs. I just think in this one particular situation he made a sizable mistake.

It is a WF sports message board. There isn't really that much else to talk about.

@ Townie - Ha, well people kept it up and I still don't think there's any nuances to the argument.

BTW, the reason I said score on a long pass or something is that I have more confidence in Hinton throwing a long strike than I do him tossing a shorter scoring pass in a goal line situation. He just doesn't have the touch at this point.

Neurodeac said:

I saw "The Martian" last night and one of the central themes was "do the math". I agree that "doing the math" is a valuable exercise and applaud Fckvwls effort. However I have some problems with the conclusions and a couple of assumptions.

1. First the conclusion. If we accept that all 15 of your variable assumptions are absolutely correct, then the probability of winning goes from 2% to 4%. You rightly point out that is a doubling of your chances and that sounds impressive. Problem is that that is only a 2% incremental increase in chance of winning. Do you base your decision on doubling only a 2% increased chance of winning? By that logic you should always spend all your money on the lottery because you are increasing your chance of winning by a factor of thousands. However, we all know that you can spend all your money on the lottery and that the incremental increase in your chance of winning is still virtually zero. So you fall back on personal preference to decide how much to spend on the lottery. For me, the breakeven point would be if your analysis showed about a 10% improvement in incremental chances of winning.

2. Second the assumptions... rendered moot by #1. But if you want to discuss assumptions and logic then PM me. I'm sure 98% of the posters on this board quit reading after the first sentence.

Click to expand...

So you don't care if your coach is making game management mistakes that cause 2-5% drops in win equity on a regular basis? That seems silly. That can add up over a season.

And yeah, I will not accept your argument that "we are losing by a lot, and we won't win very often anyways, so it doesn't matter what tactics we do"

Ok.

1. I am OK with our coach overriding your calculation of a 2% drop in win equity in this case. Doesn't mean he will always choose the conservative option. You yourself noted that he was a reasonably aggressive play caller at BG, so I'm certain he is aware of the advantages of being aggressive. He just determined that, in this case, the success rate of the aggressive option was much lower than you are assuming.

2. You have a major flaw in logic in your simplified version of the problem. It does not boil down to the chances of scoring a touchdown on one play from the 6 yard line vs.the chances of making the 2 point conversion x chances of winning in overtime. You "canceled out" the chances of scoring the subsequent touchdown in each option because they are the same mathematically. Unfortunately you ignored the effect of the success rate of the first touchdown vs. the success rate of the field goal has on the subsequent touchdown drive. Even in the simplified version, that success rate differential affects the probability of the subsequent touchdown drive winning the game, lowering the chances of winning in the riskier version. The formula becomes (chance of scoring the single play touchdown) x 12% (your estimate of the chances of scoring the subsequent touchdown). You've already calculated the chances of the FG option at 2%. You would have to estimate the chance of the 6 yard touchdown success at better than 16% to make the two touchdown option to be superior. I'm not buying it and Clawson didn't either.

3. Only in the simplified version is the timing virtually the same. In your original proposal you grossly underestimate the effect of the time cost for the additional plays and the effect of the decreased time on the success of subsequent events. We kicked the field goal and, with probably the best outcome that could be reasonably expected, regained the ball with 1:42 on our own 37. It took 58 seconds (clock down to 44 seconds) to get to the FSU 46. Taking the time to get the first down and then score the touchdown would take a minimum of 20 seconds and on average 40 seconds (my estimates) leaving the chance of getting to field goal range much less a touchdown almost zero. The chances of success of the subsequent events goes down as an exponential function with a limit of zero, not linearly.

4. Clawson has 20-30 seconds to decide, not however much time it took you to decide on those 15 variable assumptions and then do the math to come up with a 2% better chance of success that is controversial and probably within the margin of error of your assumptions. I'm comfortable with our coach having an appreciation of the benefits of a risky option and rejecting it for the conservative option based on knowledge of team and factors that change the mathematical assumptions. i.e. gut feeling.

That said, sincerely thank you for taking the time to do the math and sparking this very interesting discussion.

I have always said that before the year the coaching staff (or somebody) needs to sit down and evaluate EXACTLY what will be done in a certain situation. If you are down 11 with 3 minutes left and have a 4th down conversion from inside the 10 then what do you do?

I get that he has 20-30 seconds to decide, but that decision could have easily been made beforehand, so all Coach Clawson has to do is ask another coaching member "what do we do in this situation?"