[pauloalto]

For those interested in statistics, footballscoop has created an interactive graphic of teams' 4th down behavior over the last 9 years. What stands out for me is how relatively few 4th downs Stanford had in the Luck years. Not too surprising. It also provides the numbers for how conservative Shaw has been in going for it on 4th.

http://footballscoop.com/news/interactiv...hilosophy/

[pauloalto]

For those interested in statistics, footballscoop has created an interactive graphic of teams' 4th down behavior over the last 9 years. What stands out for me is how relatively few 4th downs Stanford had in the Luck years. Not too surprising. It also provides the numbers for how conservative Shaw has been in going for it on 4th.

http://footballscoop.com/news/interactiv...hilosophy/

[fullmetal]

tl;dr  -- the LOS (field position) matters when you have to make a 4th down choice.


In red zone situations, I think Shaw would be more likely to go for it (or kick a FG, which should be considered just as mulligan-y as a punt when it comes to avoiding risk).  But pinned back behind Stanford's 20 yd-line, I can definitely understand why a punt would be the less risky play.  I do think Stanford could stand to be less predictable between the 50 yd-line and the opponent's red zone when it comes to going for it on 4th down.

And if we get the Double-Double play installed with Sarell and Little, we are guaranteed to bank short-yardage plays, and we should always go for it on 4th down there  8)

[fullmetal]

tl;dr  -- the LOS (field position) matters when you have to make a 4th down choice.


In red zone situations, I think Shaw would be more likely to go for it (or kick a FG, which should be considered just as mulligan-y as a punt when it comes to avoiding risk).  But pinned back behind Stanford's 20 yd-line, I can definitely understand why a punt would be the less risky play.  I do think Stanford could stand to be less predictable between the 50 yd-line and the opponent's red zone when it comes to going for it on 4th down.

And if we get the Double-Double play installed with Sarell and Little, we are guaranteed to bank short-yardage plays, and we should always go for it on 4th down there  8)

[BostonCard]

The math of course favors going for it much more often than coaches typically do, and (particularly Shaw).  That being said, looking at the teams highlighted (recent national champions), while Clemson bounced around a bit, Alabama, OU (especially recently), and especially Florida State all ranked near the bottom of going for it.  To some extent this makes some sense.  Going for it is a risky strategy, that increases the reward (and most likely outcome), but also increases the risk.  Although over the long run, the math favors the bold, on any particular game you could wind up short.  Thus, if you are a good team who should win anyways, the benefits of going for it on fourth down usually don't make a difference on the outcome of the game (you would win anyways), and increasing the margin is of limited benefit.  On the other hand, going for it and missing out increases the probability of an upset.  The best example of this is the "Greatest Upset Ever", which wound up being a 1-point Stanford win.  You might remember that USC had a 4th and goal at the Stanford 1 right before the half. USC went for it, and Chauncy Washington was stopped short of the goal line.  At the time, it only seemed like it would affect the final margin, but had SC kicked the field goal, the Pritchard to Bradford heroics would have left us down 2 points, and likely we would have had to settle for a moral victory.  That's not to say that Pete Carroll made the wrong call, but the call did increase "beta" in the game, and as a result we improbably won.

BC

[BostonCard]

The math of course favors going for it much more often than coaches typically do, and (particularly Shaw).  That being said, looking at the teams highlighted (recent national champions), while Clemson bounced around a bit, Alabama, OU (especially recently), and especially Florida State all ranked near the bottom of going for it.  To some extent this makes some sense.  Going for it is a risky strategy, that increases the reward (and most likely outcome), but also increases the risk.  Although over the long run, the math favors the bold, on any particular game you could wind up short.  Thus, if you are a good team who should win anyways, the benefits of going for it on fourth down usually don't make a difference on the outcome of the game (you would win anyways), and increasing the margin is of limited benefit.  On the other hand, going for it and missing out increases the probability of an upset.  The best example of this is the "Greatest Upset Ever", which wound up being a 1-point Stanford win.  You might remember that USC had a 4th and goal at the Stanford 1 right before the half. USC went for it, and Chauncy Washington was stopped short of the goal line.  At the time, it only seemed like it would affect the final margin, but had SC kicked the field goal, the Pritchard to Bradford heroics would have left us down 2 points, and likely we would have had to settle for a moral victory.  That's not to say that Pete Carroll made the wrong call, but the call did increase "beta" in the game, and as a result we improbably won.

BC

[johnnyo53]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

[johnnyo53]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

[fullmetal]

Or if you don't trust your special teams execution...!  ???

[fullmetal]

Or if you don't trust your special teams execution...!  ???

[johnnyo53]

ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION OF ALL!  REMEMBER THE MOMMYKICKER DAYS?

[johnnyo53]

ARGUABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION OF ALL!  REMEMBER THE MOMMYKICKER DAYS?

[fullmetal]

Is that how we should refer to the tlaW sirraH 3rd down QB kick days?  Ugh.  Did both Trent Edwards and TC Ostrander have to limber up their legs that season?

[fullmetal]

Is that how we should refer to the tlaW sirraH 3rd down QB kick days?  Ugh.  Did both Trent Edwards and TC Ostrander have to limber up their legs that season?

[johnnyo53]

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

[johnnyo53]

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

[Goose]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

I'm going to argue it is the other way around. If you have a good defense, you can afford to fail on a fourth down because you D will bail you out. If you have a weak D, you better punt, because giving up field position will be fatal for sure. Your only hope in the "weak D" case is to make the other team drive the field and hope they stop themselves! OTOH, with a strong D, you can afford to punt because you D will get the ball back soon. That is probably what Shaw would say. So, the situation is arguable. Perfect for the internet!

[Goose]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

I'm going to argue it is the other way around. If you have a good defense, you can afford to fail on a fourth down because you D will bail you out. If you have a weak D, you better punt, because giving up field position will be fatal for sure. Your only hope in the "weak D" case is to make the other team drive the field and hope they stop themselves! OTOH, with a strong D, you can afford to punt because you D will get the ball back soon. That is probably what Shaw would say. So, the situation is arguable. Perfect for the internet!

[Bruce Wang]

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

We should have known we were in trouble when the Pitt fanbase laughed at us for hiring Wlat.  That's usually a good indicator.  Kind of like when the UNJ-Durham fans laughed at us for hiring Dawkins.  The contra-indicator works in our favor with Haase.  The UAB fans were upset to lose Haase.  My concern is this apparent tradeoff between success on the gridiron vs the hardwood for a college athletic program.  I am, of course, all about Stanford's exposure of false choices and am excited to see us excel in both sports in the coming years.

[Bruce Wang]

PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

We should have known we were in trouble when the Pitt fanbase laughed at us for hiring Wlat.  That's usually a good indicator.  Kind of like when the UNJ-Durham fans laughed at us for hiring Dawkins.  The contra-indicator works in our favor with Haase.  The UAB fans were upset to lose Haase.  My concern is this apparent tradeoff between success on the gridiron vs the hardwood for a college athletic program.  I am, of course, all about Stanford's exposure of false choices and am excited to see us excel in both sports in the coming years.

[fullmetal]

What did kal fans think of Muir hiring Esquer...?  ???

If you have a weak D, maybe your good offense will keep you on the field longer and hide your weakness.  The decision calculus illustrates a universal truth of football--better have a good defense.

[fullmetal]

What did kal fans think of Muir hiring Esquer...?  ???

If you have a weak D, maybe your good offense will keep you on the field longer and hide your weakness.  The decision calculus illustrates a universal truth of football--better have a good defense.

[BostonCard]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

I've often thought that you should go for it if you have a great D, as you say, but also if you have a piss-poor D.  The logic is that if your D is bad enough (we are talking Cal D under Sonny Dykes bad) your D is basically a sieve and the likely result of an opponent possession is an opponent touchdown, regardless of whether you give them the ball at your own 40 or at their own 20.  Where field position really makes a difference is when you have an OK D; one that might struggle to stop a team from driving 40 yards, but has a decent chance of stopping them if they have to go 80.

BC

[BostonCard]

A LOOK AT THE DEFENSIVE STATISTICS MIGHT REVEAL WHY TEAMS DO OR DON'T GO FOR IT- IF YOU HAVE NO D, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A SHOT, IF YOU'VE GOT A D THAT BAILS YOU OUT CONSISTENTLY, AS SHAW HAS GENERALLY HAD, YOU MIGHT BE MORE CONSERVATIVE.  THIS STAT SCRATCHES THE SURFACE, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION STARTER.

I've often thought that you should go for it if you have a great D, as you say, but also if you have a piss-poor D.  The logic is that if your D is bad enough (we are talking Cal D under Sonny Dykes bad) your D is basically a sieve and the likely result of an opponent possession is an opponent touchdown, regardless of whether you give them the ball at your own 40 or at their own 20.  Where field position really makes a difference is when you have an OK D; one that might struggle to stop a team from driving 40 yards, but has a decent chance of stopping them if they have to go 80.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=johnnyo53 link=topic=17089.msg196169#msg196169 date=1501263646]
PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

We should have known we were in trouble when the Pitt fanbase laughed at us for hiring Wlat.  That's usually a good indicator.  Kind of like when the UNJ-Durham fans laughed at us for hiring Dawkins.  The contra-indicator works in our favor with Haase.  The UAB fans were upset to lose Haase.  My concern is this apparent tradeoff between success on the gridiron vs the hardwood for a college athletic program.  I am, of course, all about Stanford's exposure of false choices and am excited to see us excel in both sports in the coming years.
[/quote]

Cal fans laughed at us when we hired Pete Alomar.  He's done pretty well for himself.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=johnnyo53 link=topic=17089.msg196169#msg196169 date=1501263646]
PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME RELIVE THAT, I HAD SUCCESSFULLY BURIED THAT MEMORY- I HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WLAT'S "ME FIRST" BS AT THE JOE MORGAN CHARITY GOLF TOURNAMENT AT DIABLO CC A FEW YEARS AGO.  LET'S JUST SAY, WLAT WAS THERE FOR THE SWAG NOT TO SUPPORT THE EVENT... HE'S A MISERABLE S.O.B. IN MY BOOK.

We should have known we were in trouble when the Pitt fanbase laughed at us for hiring Wlat.  That's usually a good indicator.  Kind of like when the UNJ-Durham fans laughed at us for hiring Dawkins.  The contra-indicator works in our favor with Haase.  The UAB fans were upset to lose Haase.  My concern is this apparent tradeoff between success on the gridiron vs the hardwood for a college athletic program.  I am, of course, all about Stanford's exposure of false choices and am excited to see us excel in both sports in the coming years.
[/quote]

Cal fans laughed at us when we hired Pete Alomar.  He's done pretty well for himself.

BC

[johnnyo53]

BC, I AM MORE INCLINED TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING ON GOING FOR IT EITHER WAY, BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS MITIGATING FACTORS.  I STILL THINK HARBS WAS WRONG TO TAKE THE BALL OUT OF TOBEY'S HANDS IN SEVERAL KEY GAMES...AND THAT SHAW WAS WRONG TO TAKE IT OUT OF LUCK'S (FIESTA) HANDS AND RELY ON MOMMY KICKER...

[johnnyo53]

BC, I AM MORE INCLINED TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING ON GOING FOR IT EITHER WAY, BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS MITIGATING FACTORS.  I STILL THINK HARBS WAS WRONG TO TAKE THE BALL OUT OF TOBEY'S HANDS IN SEVERAL KEY GAMES...AND THAT SHAW WAS WRONG TO TAKE IT OUT OF LUCK'S (FIESTA) HANDS AND RELY ON MOMMY KICKER...

[Mick]

What did kal fans think of Muir hiring Esquer...?  ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpnk5OuzUE

[Mick]

What did kal fans think of Muir hiring Esquer...?  ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpnk5OuzUE