|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 6, 2021 15:16:58 GMT -8
In 2020 OSU’s 4th down conversion rate was a tad over 63%, this year it was just over 52. 63 is a very good rate, 52 much more middling. I agree with you on the play selection aspect a couple of times this season, primarily the fake punt vs WSU, still scratching my head over that one. 52.4% is below average but just barely. One of the fourth down "failures" was when the punter mishandled the snap against Arizona State. If you take that out, you are at a 55.0% conversion rate, which would put you in the top 60 teams. Another was that stupid fake punt against Wazzu. 57.9%. And the difference between the 57.9% in 2021 and the 63.2% in 2020 is one conversion succeeding, where the other failed over the entire season. Two others 2021 failures were desperation heaves at the ends of the Purdue and Wazzu games. 64.7%. When they failed, both Purdue and Wazzu went into victory formation. And... another is 2020 was a 7 game season with less opportunities to go for it. Less games, less situations for coaches to make a 4th down decision. Less opportunities easier for the higher %. Also, we can throw out attempts that include mistakes? Mishandled snaps, poor play calls? If so, OSU is at 100%. I'm sure that every failed attempt included some "mistake".
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 6, 2021 15:23:34 GMT -8
You are supposed to go up 10, when given the opportunity, unless there are generally less than 12 minutes left, then you kick the extra point. There is actually an exact time that the odds flip. No idea when that exactly is. But with 13:43 left, there are more than 12 minutes left. So, going for two is the correct call. You improve your chances to win by going for two. False start made kicking it an easy call, though. The +8 circumstance is the only one that I know of where the switch from two to one is that late in the game. Time left matters. with about that much time on the clock, after you scored, the assumption is the trailing team will get one more possession than you. They likely get three possessions to your two possessions from that point in the game forward. The question is if the up 10 is significantly better than the risk of being up only 8 and if 9 good enough. Being up 9 or 10 still leaves you in the situation where you can lose with two scores against. two TDs, or a TD + a FG. going to 10 requires a two point conversion and the FG to lose. This does matter because the trailing team, if they get the TD first, has to make the choice to kick to ensure ability to tie, or go for two to ensure the ability to kick to win. Most teams will likely kick and play to ensure agility to tie or TD to win. because failure at that 2 point conversion now requires a TD to win with no option to tie. flipping the situations around, pushing to 10 then puts the pressure on the other team to make the call if they score a TD next. There is tangible benefit going to 10 over 9. The question is if this benefit really outweighs the risk of failure and being up 8, where the opponent can now tie with a TD + conversion. Failure is loss of a possession. You gave your opponent one less required possession and that is worth A TON. I don't see the risk/reward balance favoring the 10. Not being privy to what modern models says, I'm kicking if I am coach. Obviously in the real world that call comes with information you gathered in the game, based on how it was all going. On paper... I take the kick. All that you stated, plus said analytics, charts have no way to take into account the current game situation. In both 4th down or going for two. Something as simple as kicker/long snapper injury, etc. As mentioned time on the clock with directly van affect the # of possessions possible, opponent's time out situation. Analytics can guide, but they're not justification for coaching decisions.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 6, 2021 15:30:40 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! I think the first one was stupid. He hadn't done this all year and part of me wonders if it was far more a momentum play than anything else. We had been struggling, it was 3-24 at the half and offense looked like crap. We come out and have a great drive, no 3rd downs until the redzone, pull off the 4th down TD pass... I think it was to build offense momentum. because mathematically, 11-24, a 13 point deficit is not that much better than 10-24, You are still two full TDs away either way, but you can pick a better time for the two point conversion if you want. No... I think he was playing for the momentum, not just the numbers or advantage. I think it just blew up on him. but now being 9 to 24 it requires another two point conversion. you are down 15. You made your bed and now you had to chase the points because now you have to have a two point to get back to square. I think unfortunately, based on that first one, he was then chasing points the rest of the game. I think it is a good reminder about what the downside is to analytics. People get fixated on the upsides and the odds of success for the upside and I am not sure now close they look at the consequence of failure.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 6, 2021 16:38:57 GMT -8
I'm in no way an expert like many of you but I watched the 60 minute reply last night and had the following observations: 1. We got f%#*ed all night long on spotting the ball. Seems like we always got cut half a yard to a yard short while it went the opposite way for the phucks. 2. I get his fascination with the "metrics" but going for two after every TD was a stupid move in my opinion. Changed the metrics against us in my opinion. I'd like to see a stat that shows how successful these and the going for it on 4th down played out this year. Didn't feel like it worked in our favor that often. 3. Our defense gave WAY to much cushion - seems like a 5 yard pass was there for taking most of the game and plenty of room for Brown to take off if he wanted to. Similar to prior year complaints and something I thought we corrected since Bray took over. Not sure what they saw there but it killed us - especially in the first half. 4. We never really got any serious pressure on Brown or certainly not enough of it. Our defensive line never dominated and Avery had an average game at best though I assume his injury was part of that. 5. If I was Harrison I would have punched the motherf%#*er too. The targeting reversal was truly egregious and when added to Thibidicks slam to the ground and McKinley's cheap shots all night I'm surprised it took this long. Pretty entertaining second half and we were nearly right there to challenge for the victory but the deep hole make it a tough task. I thought Nolan looked pretty damned good in the second half though he certainly could have been better. Wasn't as one sided as it felt watching it live but that's because the first half was so horrible and dashed your hope as a fan that we could make a game of it. I think Jonathan needs to re-evaluate his gambling nature for next year and we DEFINETLY need to find some big, strong defensive lineman if we want to seriously challenge for the PAC12 title. Looking forward to next year though I have no idea where the heck I'll be sitting. Go Beavs !!! I think the first one was stupid. He hadn't done this all year and part of me wonders if it was far more a momentum play than anything else. We had been struggling, it was 3-24 at the half and offense looked like crap. We come out and have a great drive, no 3rd downs until the redzone, pull off the 4th down TD pass... I think it was to build offense momentum. because mathematically, 11-24, a 13 point deficit is not that much better than 10-24, You are still two full TDs away either way, but you can pick a better time for the two point conversion if you want. No... I think he was playing for the momentum, not just the numbers or advantage. I think it just blew up on him. but now being 9 to 24 it requires another two point conversion. you are down 15. You made your bed and now you had to chase the points because now you have to have a two point to get back to square. I think unfortunately, based on that first one, he was then chasing points the rest of the game. I think it is a good reminder about what the downside is to analytics. People get fixated on the upsides and the odds of success for the upside and I am not sure now close they look at the consequence of failure. Being down 9-24 DOES require another 2 point conversion, but it doesn't have to be on the next one. That was Smith's second mistake, was chasing that point that he failed to get on the first TD with the second try. When we scored to get it to 31-15, we should just take the XP to be down 31-16. Remain 15 points down. We get the onside kick, and score. Kick, be down 31-23, and still within one score. Instead, we chase points AGAIN, and we're down 16, which means we REALLY have to go for 2 on the third TD. It was dumb all around.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 6, 2021 21:09:59 GMT -8
You are supposed to go up 10, when given the opportunity, unless there are generally less than 12 minutes left, then you kick the extra point. There is actually an exact time that the odds flip. No idea when that exactly is. But with 13:43 left, there are more than 12 minutes left. So, going for two is the correct call. You improve your chances to win by going for two. False start made kicking it an easy call, though. The +8 circumstance is the only one that I know of where the switch from two to one is that late in the game. Time left matters. with about that much time on the clock, after you scored, the assumption is the trailing team will get one more possession than you. They likely get three possessions to your two possessions from that point in the game forward. The question is if the up 10 is significantly better than the risk of being up only 8 and if 9 good enough. Being up 9 or 10 still leaves you in the situation where you can lose with two scores against. two TDs, or a TD + a FG. going to 10 requires a two point conversion and the FG to lose. This does matter because the trailing team, if they get the TD first, has to make the choice to kick to ensure ability to tie, or go for two to ensure the ability to kick to win. Most teams will likely kick and play to ensure agility to tie or TD to win. because failure at that 2 point conversion now requires a TD to win with no option to tie. flipping the situations around, pushing to 10 then puts the pressure on the other team to make the call if they score a TD next. There is tangible benefit going to 10 over 9. The question is if this benefit really outweighs the risk of failure and being up 8, where the opponent can now tie with a TD + conversion. Failure is loss of a possession. You gave your opponent one less required possession and that is worth A TON. I don't see the risk/reward balance favoring the 10. Not being privy to what modern models says, I'm kicking if I am coach. Obviously in the real world that call comes with information you gathered in the game, based on how it was all going. On paper... I take the kick. Teams push less down eight than they do nine, because they are "only one score down." However, what analytics shows you is that by-and-large, an eight-point-lead is already two possession lead. The chances that a failed two-point conversion will come back to haunt you with 12 minutes left in a +8 situation is less than one in four and that percentage decreases the further you get away from the end of the game. At +10 with 12 minutes left, you cover a situation where the opponents' final two possessions result in a field goal and touchdown. And, odds on, the worst result from that unlikely occurrence is overtime. The usual result from the same occurrence at +9 is a loss. As with all analytics, though, it is only as good as the assumptions. The assumption is that you are converting two-point conversions somewhere in the 45-50% range. If you are not hitting that 45% mark, the time, when you start kicking extra points rather than going for two +8 gets earlier and earlier in the game.
|
|