Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.

x <nobody@x.com> writes:

> Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.

Let me go on record. Going for it was the right choice IMO.
I hate so many decisions Staley has made, but this wasn't one.

I just wish coaches wouldn't try to make the analytics people
look bad by rushing the ball up the middle every damned time.

Eddie

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-7, Eddie Grove wrote:
> x <nob...@x.com> writes:
>
> > Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.
> Let me go on record. Going for it was the right choice IMO.
> I hate so many decisions Staley has made, but this wasn't one.
>
> I just wish coaches wouldn't try to make the analytics people
> look bad by rushing the ball up the middle every damned time.
>
>
> Eddie

We had no success running the ball all day. The only reason we won is the Vikings did what we did last week and run an unorganized play that cost them the game. They could have easily won that game.

Eddie Grove wrote:
> x <nobody@x.com> writes:
>
>> Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.
>
> Let me go on record. Going for it was the right choice IMO.
> I hate so many decisions Staley has made, but this wasn't one.
>
> I just wish coaches wouldn't try to make the analytics people
> look bad by rushing the ball up the middle every damned time.
>
>
> Eddie
>

I think most people agree with the decision to go for it, just not with
the play call, since the running game had not worked all game.

In partial defense, Popper of The Athletic points out that it was a
variation of a play they ran last week on fourth down, and they hoped
that the Vikings would expect the same play:

> The play call was a dive handoff to Kelley. Going a bit deeper, it was the exact same formation and design as the Chargers’ fourth-down conversion pitch to Derius Davis in the second quarter against the Tennessee Titans last week. The only difference in personnel was Allen was in the game for Williams, who had gone to the locker room with a knee injury. (Williams was carted to the bus after the game.) This time, instead of faking the handoff to Kelley and pitching to Davis, Herbert handed off to Kelley. It was stuffed.
>
> There was intention in the play call. Offensive coordinator Kellen Moore was playing directly off a call and design from the previous week. And the Vikings had an edge rusher who jumped to the outside to defend Davis on the play. They had clearly studied the Week 2 fourth down play on tape.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> x <nobody@x.com> writes:
>>
>>> Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.
>>
>> Let me go on record. Going for it was the right choice IMO.
>> I hate so many decisions Staley has made, but this wasn't one.
>>
>> I just wish coaches wouldn't try to make the analytics people
>> look bad by rushing the ball up the middle every damned time.
>>
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>
>
> I think most people agree with the decision to go for it, just not
> with the play call, since the running game had not worked all game.

We must get our info from different sources. I went searching for an
estimation of the analytics, and everything that turned up was a
yet another opinion that the choice was idiotic.

Hmm ... I did see an article on the athletic that in theory could have
been positive, but I couldn't get to it on the device I was using at the
time.

I listen to too much sports talk on tv/radio.
I didn't hear a single voice backing the choice to go for it.

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Eddie Grove wrote:
>>> x <nobody@x.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Moron. Kick the ball and make them drive the length of the field.
>>>
>>> Let me go on record. Going for it was the right choice IMO.
>>> I hate so many decisions Staley has made, but this wasn't one.
>>>
>>> I just wish coaches wouldn't try to make the analytics people
>>> look bad by rushing the ball up the middle every damned time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eddie
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think most people agree with the decision to go for it, just not
>> with the play call, since the running game had not worked all game.
>
> We must get our info from different sources. I went searching for an
> estimation of the analytics, and everything that turned up was a
> yet another opinion that the choice was idiotic.
>
> Hmm ... I did see an article on the athletic that in theory could have
> been positive, but I couldn't get to it on the device I was using at the
> time.
>
> I listen to too much sports talk on tv/radio.
> I didn't hear a single voice backing the choice to go for it.
>

I was thinking of fan reaction. From Popper's Twitter, shortly after the
game only 29% of 8,300 people responding to his question thought the
Chargers should have punted:

https://twitter.com/danielrpopper/status/1706071929059164393

Daniel Popper @danielrpopper

Honestly curious for the temperature on Staley's fourth down decision

Should have punted: 29.3%

OK decision, bad playcall: 64.9%

Fine decision + playcall: 5.8%

8,293 votes Final results

6:23 PM · Sep 24, 2023

I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those numbers
now, though.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
> numbers now, though.

I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
This did not seem like a close decision.

I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.

Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they say.

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
>> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
>> numbers now, though.
>
> I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
> This did not seem like a close decision.
>
> I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
> Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.
>
> Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
> crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they say.
>

The one I saw at the time was something like:

Go for it and make it: 100% win probability

Go for it and not make it: 59% win probability

Combined go for it win probability: 89% because the probability of
success was high

Punt: 83% win probability

So +6% win probability to go for it.

I will post actual numbers if I can find them.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
>>> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
>>> numbers now, though.
>>
>> I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
>> This did not seem like a close decision.
>>
>> I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
>> Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.
>>
>> Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
>> crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they say.
>>
>
>
> The one I saw at the time was something like:
>
> Go for it and make it: 100% win probability
>
> Go for it and not make it: 59% win probability
>
> Combined go for it win probability: 89% because the probability of
> success was high

Not if your plan is to run it up the middle with a RB who was only
managing 1 yard per carry and you gave up on running during the game. :(

> Punt: 83% win probability
>
> So +6% win probability to go for it.
>
>
> I will post actual numbers if I can find them.
>
> --Robin

Thanks!

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Eddie Grove wrote:
>>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
>>>> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
>>>> numbers now, though.
>>>
>>> I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
>>> This did not seem like a close decision.
>>>
>>> I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
>>> Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.
>>>
>>> Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
>>> crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they say.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The one I saw at the time was something like:
>>
>> Go for it and make it: 100% win probability
>>
>> Go for it and not make it: 59% win probability
>>
>> Combined go for it win probability: 89% because the probability of
>> success was high
>
> Not if your plan is to run it up the middle with a RB who was only
> managing 1 yard per carry and you gave up on running during the game. :(
>
>> Punt: 83% win probability
>>
>> So +6% win probability to go for it.
>>
>>
>> I will post actual numbers if I can find them.
>>
>> --Robin
>
> Thanks!
>

Here's a tweet with two analytical model predictions:

https://twitter.com/GACPodcast17/status/1706287494243975537

The one on the left is the one I saw. My memory was pretty close,
although going for it was an even better choice than I remembered, as
both models have a +8-9% win probability for going for it.

--Robin

Robin Miller wrote:
> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Eddie Grove wrote:
>>>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
>>>>> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
>>>>> numbers now, though.
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
>>>> This did not seem like a close decision.
>>>>
>>>> I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
>>>> Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
>>>> crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The one I saw at the time was something like:
>>>
>>> Go for it and make it: 100% win probability
>>>
>>> Go for it and not make it: 59% win probability
>>>
>>> Combined go for it win probability: 89% because the probability of
>>> success was high
>>
>> Not if your plan is to run it up the middle with a RB who was only
>> managing 1 yard per carry and you gave up on running during the game. :(
>>
>>> Punt: 83% win probability
>>>
>>> So +6% win probability to go for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will post actual numbers if I can find them.
>>>
>>> --Robin
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
> Here's a tweet with two analytical model predictions:
>
> https://twitter.com/GACPodcast17/status/1706287494243975537
>
> The one on the left is the one I saw. My memory was pretty close,
> although going for it was an even better choice than I remembered, as
> both models have a +8-9% win probability for going for it.
>
> --Robin
>

Here is a tweet thread by Popper explaining the Chargers' apparent
reasoning in choosing the run by Kelley:

https://twitter.com/danielrpopper/status/1706762884540481815

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Eddie Grove wrote:
>>>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw one win percentage calculation somewhere, and "go for it" had a
>>>>> significantly higher percentage than punting. I can't find those
>>>>> numbers now, though.
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could find one. If you notice one, would you post it?
>>>> This did not seem like a close decision.
>>>>
>>>> I heard one analytic, but that was about kicking the FG in PIT @ LV.
>>>> Someone said 16% win chance going for the TD, 10% for the FG.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, most of the analytics groups, ESPN in particular, produce
>>>> crazy numbers all the time. Nevertheless, I remain curious what they say.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The one I saw at the time was something like:
>>>
>>> Go for it and make it: 100% win probability
>>>
>>> Go for it and not make it: 59% win probability
>>>
>>> Combined go for it win probability: 89% because the probability of
>>> success was high
>>
>> Not if your plan is to run it up the middle with a RB who was only
>> managing 1 yard per carry and you gave up on running during the game. :(
>>
>>> Punt: 83% win probability
>>>
>>> So +6% win probability to go for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will post actual numbers if I can find them.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
> Here's a tweet with two analytical model predictions:
>
> https://twitter.com/GACPodcast17/status/1706287494243975537
>
> The one on the left is the one I saw. My memory was pretty close,
> although going for it was an even better choice than I remembered, as
> both models have a +8-9% win probability for going for it.

Thanks again! Those are interesting numbers.

I have a really different way of looking at the situation. I am bemused
by analytics based on comparing how random teams have done in the past
playing a game with different rules. I want probability based analytics
decision making focused on the current game in the current conditions.

If you punt, the opposition needs to (a) get the ball from the punt
reception back past the Chargers line of scrimmage with a first down and
then (b) get the ball from that yardline into the end zone.

Accounting for (b) is mostly a wash between the two options. If the
opposition can't do it, it doesn't matter which decision you make. So,
for making the decision, it is not terrible to assume (b) is a given(*).

The difference in which choice is optimal mostly comes down to comparing
the likelihood your offense can make the 4th down to the likelihood your
defense can prevent (a). That's my rule to apply in this case.

The mistake many people make is to compare to the likelihood the defense
has of stopping a TD, which is not the right comparison.

(*) I'm oversimplifying in 2 ways. There is a time element involved that
makes (b) harder if you punt. The precise amount of time left matters,
but IMO there was sufficient time left for it not to overwhelm the other
math. However, if you punt, (b) also becomes easier when they get past
the original line of scrimmage they may get significantly further.
IMO this tradeoff was fairly even, but I admit I could be completely
wrong about this.