[BostonCard]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10584.msg97379#msg97379 date=1410180604]
I think too much has been made of the 49-yard miss. That's a lonnnng kick. We had no right to presume it was an automatic three points.

No such assumption was made.  Williamson is about 50/50 on his career on kicks of 40-49 yards.  We passed up two such tries and missed one. 

I am bothered not just by the punts, but by the decision to go on 4th down at the 3.  It is a bit of stubbornness and reflects Shaw's philosophy that we should always be able to gain one yard even when the opponent expects it.  Yes, we had made 1 yard on the TD but barely, and this was shaping up to be a low scoring game.  But we are also not as well equipped at short yardage as we once were, and the SC defensive line is not a pushover.  Was it worth giving up  3 nearly certain points for the chance at 7?  I thought it was a bad trade when Shaw decided to go for it, although I recognize that it was a close call. 
[/quote]

I'm not bothered at all to go for it on 4th and 1 at the 3.  The expected value of kicking a field goal from there is about 2.7 points (90% chance of making it x 3 points).  On third down and 1-3 yards to go (this would be a proxy for fourth and short), we've had a 75% conversion rate this year (4 rushes, 11 yards, and 3 first down).  Last year, to give us a better sample size, we had 52 attempts, and 32 first downs for a 61.5% conversion rates.  Assuming that we have a 65% touchdown rate on first and goal from the 4 yard line, and a 25% field goal rate (and 10% failure to get points), the expected value is 3.26 points 0.615 x (0.65 x 7 + 0.25 x 3), which is a bit better than the expected value of attempting the field goal.

There's enough uncertainty around the numbers that you can make a credible case for either from that distance, but it certainly shouldn't be something to chap your hide.

BC 

[BostonCard]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10584.msg97379#msg97379 date=1410180604]
I think too much has been made of the 49-yard miss. That's a lonnnng kick. We had no right to presume it was an automatic three points.

No such assumption was made.  Williamson is about 50/50 on his career on kicks of 40-49 yards.  We passed up two such tries and missed one. 

I am bothered not just by the punts, but by the decision to go on 4th down at the 3.  It is a bit of stubbornness and reflects Shaw's philosophy that we should always be able to gain one yard even when the opponent expects it.  Yes, we had made 1 yard on the TD but barely, and this was shaping up to be a low scoring game.  But we are also not as well equipped at short yardage as we once were, and the SC defensive line is not a pushover.  Was it worth giving up  3 nearly certain points for the chance at 7?  I thought it was a bad trade when Shaw decided to go for it, although I recognize that it was a close call. 
[/quote]

I'm not bothered at all to go for it on 4th and 1 at the 3.  The expected value of kicking a field goal from there is about 2.7 points (90% chance of making it x 3 points).  On third down and 1-3 yards to go (this would be a proxy for fourth and short), we've had a 75% conversion rate this year (4 rushes, 11 yards, and 3 first down).  Last year, to give us a better sample size, we had 52 attempts, and 32 first downs for a 61.5% conversion rates.  Assuming that we have a 65% touchdown rate on first and goal from the 4 yard line, and a 25% field goal rate (and 10% failure to get points), the expected value is 3.26 points 0.615 x (0.65 x 7 + 0.25 x 3), which is a bit better than the expected value of attempting the field goal.

There's enough uncertainty around the numbers that you can make a credible case for either from that distance, but it certainly shouldn't be something to chap your hide.

BC