1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.SPORT.FOOTBALL.COLLEG

  • I probably would have gone for it 4th and 5, but people are making fals

    From michael anderson@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 12 20:29:21 2022
    It's not do you trust mcmanus to make a 64 yard field goal more than
    you trust russell wilson to convert 4th and 5.

    It's do you trust mcmanus to make a 64 yard field goal more than you trust russell wilson to convert 4th and 5 *and* Mcmanus to make a somewhat shorter field goal of undetermined length after that?

    I probably go for it.....and I'm surprised he opted to kick.

    But people in these situations need to remember you're comparing the outcome of 1 event happening vs 2 events happening.

    We see the same thing in cases where a team has a small lead and the ball and they face a fourth and short. If you punt, you have one chance to win- stop the other team. If you go for it though, you have 2 chances to win- make the first down, or stop
    the other team.

    This case is sort of the reverse of that in that you had 1 chance to lose(miss the kick, which they did) vs 2 chances to lose had they not kicked(fail on 4th down or miss the kick)

    I'm an analytical guy on things like this and I hate when people aren't looking at it the appropriate way

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From michael anderson@21:1/5 to michael anderson on Mon Sep 12 20:33:48 2022
    On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:29:23 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
    It's not do you trust mcmanus to make a 64 yard field goal more than
    you trust russell wilson to convert 4th and 5.

    It's do you trust mcmanus to make a 64 yard field goal more than you trust russell wilson to convert 4th and 5 *and* Mcmanus to make a somewhat shorter field goal of undetermined length after that?

    I probably go for it.....and I'm surprised he opted to kick.

    But people in these situations need to remember you're comparing the outcome of 1 event happening vs 2 events happening.

    We see the same thing in cases where a team has a small lead and the ball and they face a fourth and short. If you punt, you have one chance to win- stop the other team. If you go for it though, you have 2 chances to win- make the first down, or stop
    the other team.

    This case is sort of the re verse of that in that you had 1 chance to lose(miss the kick, which they did) vs 2 chances to lose had they not kicked(fail on 4th down or miss the kick)

    I'm an analytical guy on things like this and I hate when people aren't looking at it the appropriate way

    And as I suspected, it's basically a coin flip I just heard on van pelt whether you kick or go on win probability.

    That surprises people, but thats because they aren't thinking about needing 1 thing to happen to win vs needing 2 things to happen.

    20 percent is the same thing as 40 percent x 50 percent after all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Falkner@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 12 21:44:46 2022
    This was a Denver team who fumbled twice inside the 1.

    You had to make the five yards on that play or it doesn't matter...

    Tough call, but that's why coaches get the bucks.

    Mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)