[teejers1]

So I ran the numbers sampling from the actual data from the game against Cal (with the caveat that the sample size especially for the running plays, was small) To be fair, I considered sacks and Mills scrambles to be pass plays as I assume they were not designed runs.  Pretty much regardless of what we called, the probability of "success", defined as getting a first down is between 75 and 80% (because it is a simulation, it fluctuates a bit).  The probability of getting a touchdown (a play of >26 yards) on that set of downs was low regardless of what we did, but zero if we ran twice (we did not have two running plays that together added up to 26 yards), 15% if we passed twice, and about 6% if we passed once.  Of course, a fresh set of downs would have offered a chance to score a touchdown from somewhere inside of the Cal 22, but I didn't want to program and run that.  The flip side of that is that around 7% of the time Mills will throw an interception if he passes it twice.  You could make an argument that this is an unacceptable risk at that stage of the game.  

That being said, to the extent that previous plays in the game are representative of what might have happened, and taking sample size into consideration, it is not clear to me that the numbers prove that one or the other call is clearly a better strategy.

BC

---

And Shaw and Harbs are nothing alike.  And I am grateful for that on many fronts and am fine that Harbaugh moved on.  But I also know that when it comes to running a football program - including the W/L column - Shaw can't hold a candle to Harbaugh.  Cue BC drumming p respective records, blah, blah, blah, which he better do quickly because the point is only going to become more clear to even the most ardent Shawpologists.  

There is no comparison to where Stanford and Michigan are right now program-wise, which is pretty depressing inasmuch as Harbs handed Shaw the keys to a Ferrari (while Harbs himself was given a functional Dodge in Ann Arbor).

Come on, man, Harbs was given the keys to the winningest program in division 1.

BC

Your first paragraph is almost entirely a non-sequitur.  The 75-80% success (for what?  Run twice or pass twice for 4 yards?) is a mystery, and one that does not account for the benefit of burning clock.  The goal was (or should have been) to score at the very end of regulation (or with as little time left on the clock as possible).  The goal was not - or should not have been - to score a TD from 26 yards out.

I take it your last line is just a throwaway, which is about all that is left when anyone tries to compare Harbaugh and Shaw as D1 coaches.  But to be clear, I was totally good with Harbaugh moving on (mainly because the players were, if rumblings I heard were representative).  And I was "wait and see" with Shaw at time of hire.  His record is good, but his deficiencies on O were apparent very early on.  What is most disheartening is that he could have rectified those with a good hire and delegation, but he has stubbornly refused to do so.

And as a result, Stanford is now 4-7 (soon to be 4-8), with our recent post-season "glory" being two of the ugliest, least-enjoyable Sun Bowl wins imaginable.  That is a precipitous decline from the NY6 bowls, and the prospect of a return to that level (forget CFP) is really difficult to see, barring massive shake-ups.  [And this doesn't even account for home game atmosphere, whose decline is even more precipitous than Stanford's bowl participation].

[teejers1]

So I ran the numbers sampling from the actual data from the game against Cal (with the caveat that the sample size especially for the running plays, was small) To be fair, I considered sacks and Mills scrambles to be pass plays as I assume they were not designed runs.  Pretty much regardless of what we called, the probability of "success", defined as getting a first down is between 75 and 80% (because it is a simulation, it fluctuates a bit).  The probability of getting a touchdown (a play of >26 yards) on that set of downs was low regardless of what we did, but zero if we ran twice (we did not have two running plays that together added up to 26 yards), 15% if we passed twice, and about 6% if we passed once.  Of course, a fresh set of downs would have offered a chance to score a touchdown from somewhere inside of the Cal 22, but I didn't want to program and run that.  The flip side of that is that around 7% of the time Mills will throw an interception if he passes it twice.  You could make an argument that this is an unacceptable risk at that stage of the game.  

That being said, to the extent that previous plays in the game are representative of what might have happened, and taking sample size into consideration, it is not clear to me that the numbers prove that one or the other call is clearly a better strategy.

BC

---

And Shaw and Harbs are nothing alike.  And I am grateful for that on many fronts and am fine that Harbaugh moved on.  But I also know that when it comes to running a football program - including the W/L column - Shaw can't hold a candle to Harbaugh.  Cue BC drumming p respective records, blah, blah, blah, which he better do quickly because the point is only going to become more clear to even the most ardent Shawpologists.  

There is no comparison to where Stanford and Michigan are right now program-wise, which is pretty depressing inasmuch as Harbs handed Shaw the keys to a Ferrari (while Harbs himself was given a functional Dodge in Ann Arbor).

Come on, man, Harbs was given the keys to the winningest program in division 1.

BC

Your first paragraph is almost entirely a non-sequitur.  The 75-80% success (for what?  Run twice or pass twice for 4 yards?) is a mystery, and one that does not account for the benefit of burning clock.  The goal was (or should have been) to score at the very end of regulation (or with as little time left on the clock as possible).  The goal was not - or should not have been - to score a TD from 26 yards out.

I take it your last line is just a throwaway, which is about all that is left when anyone tries to compare Harbaugh and Shaw as D1 coaches.  But to be clear, I was totally good with Harbaugh moving on (mainly because the players were, if rumblings I heard were representative).  And I was "wait and see" with Shaw at time of hire.  His record is good, but his deficiencies on O were apparent very early on.  What is most disheartening is that he could have rectified those with a good hire and delegation, but he has stubbornly refused to do so.

And as a result, Stanford is now 4-7 (soon to be 4-8), with our recent post-season "glory" being two of the ugliest, least-enjoyable Sun Bowl wins imaginable.  That is a precipitous decline from the NY6 bowls, and the prospect of a return to that level (forget CFP) is really difficult to see, barring massive shake-ups.  [And this doesn't even account for home game atmosphere, whose decline is even more precipitous than Stanford's bowl participation].