• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

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

WFU Lurker said:
To me what it comes down to is the field goal allowed us enough time to do what had been working on offense. I think going for it could have put us in a less comfortable clock situation that would lead to narrower range of viable play calls.

I support the decision to kick the field goal. Given the way our offense was playing, winning in regulation did not appear to be on the table.
Click to expand...

that last statement makes no sense. kicking the field goal puts in a position where we'd need to drive the field for a td and convert a 2-pt conversion just to get the game to overtime. if there was that much doubt about the offense moving the ball (a justifiable opinion), it would absolutely behoove you to not waste an opportunity where we were already at the fsu 5-yd line.
 
WFU Lurker said:
I am not saying it is easy (the math, however, is). But posts suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the results is an old donk who doesn't understand statistics are obviously off-base.
Click to expand...

All the people arguing against the process (not the inputs) in favor of conventional wisdom re: end-of-game strategy - which is a lot of folks, most of whom seem to be old and a donk - misunderstand how the model works. Argue the inputs, sure, but when the output shows something different than what your high school coach would have done in 1968 (or 2015, for that matter) then understand that they are wrong.

You can make the wrong decision and still succeed. Doesn't make it the right decision.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
that last statement makes no sense. kicking the field goal puts in a position where we'd need to drive the field for a td and convert a 2-pt conversion just to get the game to overtime. if there was that much doubt about the offense moving the ball (a justifiable opinion), it would absolutely behoove you to not waste an opportunity where we were already at the fsu 5-yd line.
Click to expand...

I didn't have doubts about us moving the ball. I had doubts about us moving it quickly, especially in the red zone where you obviously can't get a first down to stop the clock, and it's much more difficult to get out of bounds. You don't want to use two or three plays worth of clock to cover 5 yards. Honestly, maybe it makes no sense and is completely wrong, but I would rather try to score from the ten yard line than from the five yard line against an opponent like FSU. Just feels like it gives you a lot more options from a playing calling perspective. And shifts burden off your line and onto your play makers.
 
WFU Lurker said:
I didn't have doubts about us moving the ball. I had doubts about us moving it quickly, especially in the red zone where you obviously can't get a first down to stop the clock, and it's much more difficult to get out of bounds. You don't want to use two or three plays worth of clock to cover 5 yards. Honestly, maybe it makes no sense and is completely wrong, but I would rather try to score from the ten yard line than from the five yard line against an opponent like FSU. Just feels like it gives you a lot more options from a playing calling perspective. And shifts burden off your line and onto your play makers.
Click to expand...

Then you must really like the idea of scoring on a play from the 5 yard line rather than scoring on a singular play from the 3 yard line (2 pt conversion)! Glad to have you on board!
 
I've actually come around a little bit on the program building aspect of losing by 8. Maybe we got more eyes on our game because it wasn't completely over in the last minute. Maybe it gives the team more hope for next week. Maybe it helped with a recruit who is considering Wake that watched the game.

So whereas kicking a FG almost certainly lowered the chance of winning the game, it might have other positive externalities that need to be considered. This stuff is all speculation and impossible to quantify though.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
All the people arguing against the process (not the inputs) in favor of conventional wisdom re: end-of-game strategy - which is a lot of folks, most of whom seem to be old and a donk - misunderstand how the model works. Argue the inputs, sure, but when the output shows something different than what your high school coach would have done in 1968 (or 2015, for that matter) then understand that they are wrong.

You can make the wrong decision and still succeed. Doesn't make it the right decision.
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely right to argue against the inputs, which highlights that it's also fair to argue against the process. These are split second decisions. Even using rule of thumb assumptions, it likely took longer to generate those assumptions and multiply them out than the coaches would have had on the field. Now you might be able to set-up some model in the booth with packages of assumptions and figure out a way to quickly build out the right scenario. But, those assumptions aren't going to be very good and might lead to the wrong decision. Real world decisions almost always include qualitative components. That doesn't mean people are stupid.

The most rigorous process is not necessarily the right process.
 
FckVwls said:
I've actually come around a little bit on the program building aspect of losing by 8. Maybe we got more eyes on our game because it wasn't completely over in the last minute. Maybe it gives the team more hope for next week. Maybe it helped with a recruit who is considering Wake that watched the game.

So whereas kicking a FG almost certainly lowered the chance of winning the game, it might have other positive externalities that need to be considered. This stuff is all speculation and impossible to quantify though.
Click to expand...

I'll admit it was nice to get the Close Game alert at around the 2:30 mark.

I think it's funny that people are still going all out to argue between two possible decisions that were probably equally as likely to generate a win rather than argue about our two possible QBs who are probably equally as likely to generate a win.
 
the spread was 20 right?

putting in the down/distance/time/score on this win probability calculator says we were 8 percent to win at 4th and 1 from the 6 and 4 percent to win after the FG assuming you kick off and give them the ball at the 20 after the FG.

ETA: looks like this is model is based on the NFL but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes with all the other relevant info correct.
 
Last edited:
FckVwls said:
Then you must really like the idea of scoring on a play from the 5 yard line rather than scoring on a singular play from the 3 yard line (2 pt conversion)! Glad to have you on board!
Click to expand...

Well, you got me there. If we scored on the 4th and 1 then no more clock would have burned versus kicking the field goal.
 
Hardly anyone is arguing against statistics here. I mean, the FckVwls take is interesting and I think the statistical analysis is interesting, otherwise people wouldn't be posting on the thread. That being said, it's taken a turn towards everyone trying to "prove" they're right so it's a dead argument. You're talking about a sub 5% outcome analysis involving a very heavy reduction of possibilities and variables. It's going to be very prone to error. Grasping at a percentage point here and there and labeling it "proof" is laughable on either side.
 
i mean it's clear that the best way to win the game was to go for it. no need to grasp at anything. you can believe that and not feel a need to crush clawson for that decision. his thinking was understandable.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
i mean it's clear that the best way to win the game was to go for it. no need to grasp at anything. you can believe that and not feel a need to crush clawson for that decision. his thinking was understandable.
Click to expand...

15nkqwp.gif
 
lol no one has come up with a reasonable way to show that kicking the FG helped our chances of a win. nice gif tho.
 
DCDeac said:
Sure they have, you just disagree with their subjective assessment.
Click to expand...

you mean the guy that changed the odds of getting a 3 and out from FSU from 70% to 25% with the only variable change being if we scored a FG or TD?
 
Here's your reasonable way. We were in the game with :21 left.
 
DEACS76 said:
Here's your reasonable way. We were in the game with :21 left.
Click to expand...

You should really stick to explaining to everyone why recruiting ratings don't matter. You're much better (if still always fucking wrong) at that.
 
i will say clawson's decision did increase our "in the game" probability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top