[BostonCard]

A few games ago, we failed to convert a fourth down because something, something, Shaw stubborn, something.  Thus when this tweet came across, I thought I’d share:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sportspac12/status/1054460426015059968?s=21[/tweet]

We’ve converted 71% of our fourth downs (5/7), which is actually not bad in the PAC-12, though all caveats about small numbers apply. By the way, the breakdown is 4 rushes, of which we have converted 2, and three pass, of which we have converted all three.

Also, 71% is pretty good for us historically; in the last 10 years, only 2011 (Luck) and 2015 (McCaffrey) have been better.

BC

[BostonCard]

A few games ago, we failed to convert a fourth down because something, something, Shaw stubborn, something.  Thus when this tweet came across, I thought I’d share:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sportspac12/status/1054460426015059968?s=21[/tweet]

We’ve converted 71% of our fourth downs (5/7), which is actually not bad in the PAC-12, though all caveats about small numbers apply. By the way, the breakdown is 4 rushes, of which we have converted 2, and three pass, of which we have converted all three.

Also, 71% is pretty good for us historically; in the last 10 years, only 2011 (Luck) and 2015 (McCaffrey) have been better.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Of course you could make the very plausible argument that too high a percentage of 4th down conversions is actually a bad thing (because it means you aren't taking several lower-probability but still expected-value-positive shots.). Stanford is actually last in the conference in fourth down attempts; while the offense's slow pace makes it hard to do apples-to-apples comparisons, it certainly suggests Shaw should be going for it more frequently.

[washingtonismoney]

Of course you could make the very plausible argument that too high a percentage of 4th down conversions is actually a bad thing (because it means you aren't taking several lower-probability but still expected-value-positive shots.). Stanford is actually last in the conference in fourth down attempts; while the offense's slow pace makes it hard to do apples-to-apples comparisons, it certainly suggests Shaw should be going for it more frequently.

[CTcard]

Of course you could make the very plausible argument that too high a percentage of 4th down conversions is actually a bad thing (because it means you aren't taking several lower-probability but still expected-value-positive shots.).

It does not necessarily mean that - though it may, at least in part.

At least by eye, I do not see any strong correlation between number of attempts at fourth down conversions and success rate. I suspect that is because the primary correlation is whether you primarily try for a conversion when the distance and field position is in favor or whether you do so because you are desperate.

U$C is tied with us (and UW) for for fewest fourth down conversion attempts, and they have by far the lowest success rate. That makes me suspect that Helton does not like going for it on fourth down, and $C's attempts are primarily in desperation mode - though I don't know that is true (and at the moment I am not going to go figure it out).

Oregon State has the largest number of attempts, and second highest success rate. So, they don't seem to be trying for a first down out of desperation - despite being in general a desperate situation as a team.

I also see no obvious correlation between either success rate or fourth down attempts and actually winning. Not surprising - even if it is generally a good idea other things obviously matter more.

[CTcard]

Of course you could make the very plausible argument that too high a percentage of 4th down conversions is actually a bad thing (because it means you aren't taking several lower-probability but still expected-value-positive shots.).

It does not necessarily mean that - though it may, at least in part.

At least by eye, I do not see any strong correlation between number of attempts at fourth down conversions and success rate. I suspect that is because the primary correlation is whether you primarily try for a conversion when the distance and field position is in favor or whether you do so because you are desperate.

U$C is tied with us (and UW) for for fewest fourth down conversion attempts, and they have by far the lowest success rate. That makes me suspect that Helton does not like going for it on fourth down, and $C's attempts are primarily in desperation mode - though I don't know that is true (and at the moment I am not going to go figure it out).

Oregon State has the largest number of attempts, and second highest success rate. So, they don't seem to be trying for a first down out of desperation - despite being in general a desperate situation as a team.

I also see no obvious correlation between either success rate or fourth down attempts and actually winning. Not surprising - even if it is generally a good idea other things obviously matter more.