Better to be up 3 or 4 at the end of the game?

Good analysis emoney. Homer, the reason the thread exists is because it's a backwards way of anyalyzing the 4th down question that is occupying the media this morning.

Obviously, as emoney points out, there's no conceivable reason one should think a 4 point lead is worse than a 3 point lead. The opposing head coach has every single opportunity available to him with a 3 point lead that he does with a 4 point lead. What more needs to be said?

The question, then, is whether a 4 point lead causes that coach to make decision he wouldn't otherwise make. Specifically, does he NOT go for it on 4th down even though it's a better play.

Or, to put it in a nutshell, does the 4 point lead force the coach to make decisions he wouldn't otherwise make with a 3 point lead but which are, actually, BETTER decisions. Clock management, play selection, going on 4th? I think my answer to that question is . . . Yes. Or at least a qualified yes. There is simply no doubt that the Chargers played that last series essentially in loss-prevention mode. Very conservative. What if they'd played it like they were down 4?

I think the OP is thinking too much. When you are defending for three points, you lose about 30 yards (maybe even 35-40 yards) of field to defend. That makes it easier for the opposing team to get into scoring range to at least tie the game. If you are up by four, you get that 30 yards back. You can also play not to give up the big play and allow the other team to get 5-8 yards a pop while keeping them in bounds.

For the offense, three points gives them options. They can try to drive down to win the game, but have the option to settle for 3 points and bring it into overtime. If they are in field goal range on a third and 10, they can take a shot in the end zone and try to get the seven knowing they can always get the field goal. Down by four, they have to get into the end zone. That means they have to convert the down putting far more pressure to execute on a play like that.

PatsFaninAZ said:

There is simply no doubt that the Chargers played that last series essentially in loss-prevention mode. Very conservative. What if they'd played it like they were down 4?

Click to expand...

I disagree here. I don't think they were in any perceived "loss-prevention" mode. I don't think they did anything really different on the TD drive before. They took a shot deep, and it took a pass rush and great Sergio Brown tackle to stop Gates from getting the first on 3rd down. They obviously would have been different on 4th if they were down by 4, but aside from that I don't think playcalling was affected.

patchick said:

I think folks are laughing this off a little too easily. In the vast majority of cases you'd obviously prefer to be up 4. But I think it's a legitimate point that in the case of the Chargers, making them think conservatively, run down time and position themselves for the field goal worked to the Patriots' advantage.

Click to expand...

I think any statistical analysis of these situations would indicate that playing for the field goal vs. a touchdown yields a much higher percentage of success. The offense has to execute more plays. Of course, the way we were defending the pass ...

I think having the 4 point lead will make you worry more as a fan of the defending team. However statistically the 4 point lead is preferable. Because this eliminates the chance for the other team to tie with a FG and take it to OT, where it becomes a coinflip. The team who wins the coinflip wins about 60% of the time. And usually the team that sends the game to OT has momentum as well.

As for this game, it worked out that the Chargers missed the FG. But if they hadn't had that 5 yard false start penalty, there's a good chance Kris Brown makes that 45 yard kick to send it to OT. Would you have preferred a 4 point lead instead of 3 then? Of course. There's no way I want to face a hot Chargers team in the OT period especially when our offense had been struggling mightily against that D.

Tunescribe said:

I think any statistical analysis of these situations would indicate that playing for the field goal vs. a touchdown yields a much higher percentage of success. The offense has to execute more plays. Of course, the way we were defending the pass ...

Click to expand...

I'm sure it's no contest if we're defining "success" as getting the score. But if success means winning the game, you have to factor in that one kind of score leads you to the 50-50 proposition of OT and the other to near-certain victory. Then the stats start to look more complicated.

Let's say it's 4th & 1 at the 30 yard line. FG% at that distance is 60%, OT win % is 50%. So kicking should yield a winning percentage of 30%.

If you go for it, from the vague stats available it looks like you should pick up the 1st 70% of the time. If you do you have 3 shots at the end zone -- let's give you a combined 25% chance of the TD. And if you don't make it you revert to the FG option. My quick-and-dirty math puts the resulting winning percentage at 38.5%.

Even I don't trust my numbers, but I do think that it's far from clear that a FG attempt is the winning move.

There is simply no doubt that the Chargers played that last series essentially in loss-prevention mode. Very conservative.

Click to expand...

sure there is doubt!

on 1st and 10 from our 35, Rivers THREW over the middle. incomplete.
on 2nd and 10, then THREW DEEP
on 3rd, then threw again, for 8 yards

does that really look like a conservative team to you? conservative would have meant 3 runs between the tackles, gaining 3 yards each time, to put them in place for a 44 yarder. conservative is not throwing 3 straight times, one of them deep

patchick said:

OT win % is 50%.

Click to expand...

Truth is, it sort of felt that our overtime chances were less than 50/50 yesterday, given how easily the Chargers seemed to moving the ball toward the end and how hard the patriots had to fight for every yard.

But, in any event, thanks for not thinking my question was a dumb one. If I think about the flip side of the question, it does start to sound like a dumb one -- would I rather be down 3 or 4 with the ball at the end of the game. Obviously 3. I think. Gulp.

makewayhomer said:

does that really look like a conservative team to you? conservative would have meant 3 runs between the tackles, gaining 3 yards each time, to put them in place for a 44 yarder. conservative is not throwing 3 straight times, one of them deep

Click to expand...

That would be way too conservative -- a 44 yarder outdoors is not what you play for. You have to try to get it closer. What was conservative was letting 40 seconds run off the clock after the Gates catch. Down 4, you call time out or hurry to line and keep all your options available. Down 3, you let the clock run down to ensure the Patriots don't have time left if you kick a field goal.

PatsFaninAZ said:

That would be way too conservative -- a 44 yarder outdoors is not what you play for. You have to try to get it closer. What was conservative was letting 40 seconds run off the clock after the Gates catch. Down 4, you call time out or hurry to line and keep all your options available. Down 3, you let the clock run down to ensure the Patriots don't have time left if you kick a field goal.

Click to expand...

the drive ended with the Chargers having 2 TO's and over 20 seconds left. the clock wasn't really the factor you are making it out to be...the Chargers had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted, they just threw incomplete 3 times.

the play calling was aggresive and their clock management was pretty solid. they did the same BB did - leave yourself plenty of time to do what you want, and don't leave time for the other team. what was bad was the execution.

makewayhomer said:

the drive ended with the Chargers having 2 TO's and over 20 seconds left. the clock wasn't really the factor you are making it out to be...the Chargers had plenty of time to do whatever they wanted, they just threw incomplete 3 times.

Click to expand...

Possible. Only 2 incompletions, though, FWIW.

a 44 yarder outdoors is not what you play for

Click to expand...

btw, I have seen teams play for this plenty of times. it wouldn't have been THAT strange. wrong and dumb, yes, but teams do it all the time.

makewayhomer said:

btw, I have seen teams play for this plenty of times. it wouldn't have been THAT strange. wrong and dumb, yes, but teams do it all the time.

Click to expand...

I would hate that if it were my team. Tied? Sure. Don't risk a turnover, take your chances with a 44 yarder with no time left. Down 3, though, it's unjustifiable. As patchick points out, even if it's a 70 percent chance of making it, a 70 percent chance to get into a 50/50 coin flip situation just doesn't make sense. I guess with Norv, anything is possible.

patchick said:

I'm sure it's no contest if we're defining "success" as getting the score. But if success means winning the game, you have to factor in that one kind of score leads you to the 50-50 proposition of OT and the other to near-certain victory. Then the stats start to look more complicated.

Let's say it's 4th & 1 at the 30 yard line. FG% at that distance is 60%, OT win % is 50%. So kicking should yield a winning percentage of 30%.

If you go for it, from the vague stats available it looks like you should pick up the 1st 70% of the time. If you do you have 3 shots at the end zone -- let's give you a combined 25% chance of the TD. And if you don't make it you revert to the FG option. My quick-and-dirty math puts the resulting winning percentage at 38.5%.

Even I don't trust my numbers, but I do think that it's far from clear that a FG attempt is the winning move.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree that there are situations where going for it on 4th is better than attempting the tying field goal. So maybe if your a fan of a team and you -know- your coach will make the -wrong- decision then you root for the -worse- situation so that your coach will be -forced- to make the right decision. However even assuming a bad coaching decision, the mere fact of being down 4 or 3 does not guarantee or even make it likely that a 4th down with the proper percentages will arise.

The question of whether it's better to be down by 4 or 3 I think is always 3. The question of whether situations may arise that being down by 3 influences a coach to make the wrong decision clearly has to be yes. So in some very very specific situations like the 4th down in SD, it -may- have been better at that instant in time for the fans of that team if they were down by 4. But in general, starting a drive you always want to be down by 3 rather than 4.

PatsFaninAZ said:

Good analysis emoney. Homer, the reason the thread exists is because it's a backwards way of anyalyzing the 4th down question that is occupying the media this morning.

Obviously, as emoney points out, there's no conceivable reason one should think a 4 point lead is worse than a 3 point lead. The opposing head coach has every single opportunity available to him with a 3 point lead that he does with a 4 point lead. What more needs to be said?

The question, then, is whether a 4 point lead causes that coach to make decision he wouldn't otherwise make. Specifically, does he NOT go for it on 4th down even though it's a better play.

Or, to put it in a nutshell, does the 4 point lead force the coach to make decisions he wouldn't otherwise make with a 3 point lead but which are, actually, BETTER decisions. Clock management, play selection, going on 4th? I think my answer to that question is . . . Yes. Or at least a qualified yes. There is simply no doubt that the Chargers played that last series essentially in loss-prevention mode. Very conservative. What if they'd played it like they were down 4?

Click to expand...

you still answered your own question in your first post.

assume for the sake of argument, that coaches down 4 make better decisions b/c they need a TD. it doesn't even matter, b/c teams down 4 points come back to tie or win less often than teams down 3 points. you can make correct, aggresive, 4th down decisions and still lose, b/c its A LOT harder to score a TD than a FG.

emoney_33 said:

The question of whether it's better to be down by 4 or 3 I think is always 3. The question of whether situations may arise that being down by 3 influences a coach to make the wrong decision clearly has to be yes. So in some very very specific situations like the 4th down in SD, it -may- have been better at that instant in time for the fans of that team if they were down by 4. But in general, starting a drive you always want to be down by 3 rather than 4.

Click to expand...

That's a nice nuanced take on it, thanks!

Its better to be up 4 but it is a little harder to watch the other team drive down the field taking shots at the end zone in that situation. When your up 3 there is always the option of a tie which makes it easier to stomach than the life or death situation of being up 4.

emoney_33 said:

I definitely agree that there are situations where going for it on 4th is better than attempting the tying field goal. So maybe if your a fan of a team and you -know- your coach will make the -wrong- decision then you root for the -worse- situation so that your coach will be -forced- to make the right decision. However even assuming a bad coaching decision, the mere fact of being down 4 or 3 does not guarantee or even make it likely that a 4th down with the proper percentages will arise.

The question of whether it's better to be down by 4 or 3 I think is always 3. The question of whether situations may arise that being down by 3 influences a coach to make the wrong decision clearly has to be yes. So in some very very specific situations like the 4th down in SD, it -may- have been better at that instant in time for the fans of that team if they were down by 4. But in general, starting a drive you always want to be down by 3 rather than 4.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

The coach of a team down by 3 always has a chance to go for the win rather than the tie.

if you have a great defense, you probably want to be up by four. If you are going against a great offense, you probably want to be up by three. I say this because if Manning is down by four and is going against our 2009 defense, he has a good chance of scoring a TD but if he is down by three, he would be slightly less adventurous and play for a tie or win. Reason why BB went for it on 4th and 2. He knows Manning can move the chains.
If a QB like JP Losman is going against a defense like Pitsburgh, you would probably want to be up by four because the chance of him scoring a TD compared to a Manning is slim.

patchick said:

I think folks are laughing this off a little too easily. In the vast majority of cases you'd obviously prefer to be up 4. But I think it's a legitimate point that in the case of the Chargers, making them think conservatively, run down time and position themselves for the field goal worked to the Patriots' advantage.

Click to expand...

I agree the OP raises an interesting question that each of us would naturally have a different answer to...

Every coach and team is going to apply a different strategy as well

Up by 3 a coach may have a tendency to play for a tie depending on field position and time left...

Up by 4 a coach has no choice but to play for the win

In case it's not crystal clear to all, that's the quandry raised by the OP and it's worth chatting about, as evidenced by the many responses to this thread.

For my part I think I prefer up by 4 - with the need to stop an opposing offense from getting into the endzone rather than preventing the opposing offense from making it to the 35 even if up by 3 the FG only ties

But I can completely see the point of those who prefer a situation where the opposing coach might be less apt to go for the win.

Ultimately any play can break loose for a TD - in which case the Patriots, if up by 4, would then be down by 3 (or 2 if the opposing team went for the 2 point conversion to put it more out of reach themselves and missed it)... up only by 3 and a play broke loose for a TD then the Pats would be looking at a need for a TD themselves, being down by 4

So much depends on how much time is left, and the capabilities of the team you're playing, that I can't say I'd even go with that 100% of the time.

There's plenty of thread topics worth mocking but this is not one of them... and for what it's worth, I think the context of the question is which do you prefer AS A FAN... yesterday was a nailbiter - and yet there was some condolence expecting that a probable outcome was that the Chargers would get it into FG range and force overtime. I think that's what the OP is trying to illustrate.