Why BB "goes for it on" 4th Down

[jmt57]

Super Bowl Economics: Incremental Analysis, With Two Yards to Go

"I read it," he said, according to The Boston Herald. "I don't know much of the math involved, but I think I understand the conclusions and he has some valid points."

Upon hearing that, Professor Romer's jaw dropped, he said. His paper was available only on his Berkeley Internet site, emlab.berkeley.edu /users/dromer, and the site of a group called the National Bureau of Economic Research.

And Professor Romer's paper is not the only ivory-tower research that has made its way into the coach's head. After Harold Sackrowitz, a Rutgers statistician, was quoted in The New York Times and elsewhere saying that teams try for a two-point conversion too often after scoring a touchdown, he received a call from Ernie Adams, the Patriots' football research director and a friend of Mr. Belichick's since they attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., together. The research director sent Professor Sackrowitz a copy of the team's chart telling coaches when to go for two points, and the statistician critiqued it. "Nobody had any real interest other than the Patriots," said Professor Sackrowitz, who now roots for them in addition to the Giants and Jets. New England did not try a single two-point conversion this year.

Interesting footnote: this column came out just before the Super Bowl against Carolina. The Panthers chased points by referring to the conventional "chart" that announcers talk about on when to go for two depending on the score of the game, going for two and failing to convert. The Pats later went for it and converted when that move made sense. Those three two-point conversions may have been the difference between a win and a loss in that game.

 

[TruthSeeker]

IIRC, those statistical studies found that 4th-and-very long (20+) was definitely NOT worth it, but even the 4th-and-13 in That Game, the odds were on going for it.

Actually, I don't think that's accurate, particularly when the Patriots were in field goal range (about a 48-yard attempt if I remmeber correctly). It's the only time I've disagreed with BB going for it.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Actually, I don't think that's accurate, particularly when the Patriots were in field goal range (about a 48-yard attempt if I remmeber correctly). It's the only time I've disagreed with BB going for it.

I looked it up, and I admit I was wrong.

The actual argument, according to Christopher Price's The Blueprint, is that even at your own 10, the odds are in favor of going for it on 4th and less than 3.

More importantly though:

There were 1,575 cases in 1998, 1999, and 2000 where teams were better off kicking/punting; teams went for it only seven times in those cases.

Of the 1,100 cases where teams would have been better off going for it, they kicked 90% of the time.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think the Vikings should have gone for it today near midfield ... I think more often than not there are numerous non statistical reasons for going for it. Even when the team fails I believe it builds character and benefits the team in the long run through the season.

 

[djd8960]

Super Bowl Economics: Incremental Analysis, With Two Yards to Go




Interesting footnote: this column came out just before the Super Bowl against Carolina. The Panthers chased points by referring to the conventional "chart" that announcers talk about on when to go for two depending on the score of the game, going for two and failing to convert. The Pats later went for it and converted when that move made sense. Those three two-point conversions may have been the difference between a win and a loss in that game.

If you're a Patriot's fan, you've got to know who Ernie Adams is.

Adhttp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams