[max]

td success rate - 4th & 1 from opponent 1:

VirtualBox_2019-01-24_12-47-41.png

note - rams are 3 for 3 in this sitch under mcvay.

I love when you post these tables. Makes me think

The most relevant stat would be success rate on the road in the playoffs. Where teams are more equally matched at a high level.

Based on the numbers in your chart, my guess is that in that hostile environment against a top run D with them knowing exactly what we’re doing the chances of getting the TD were closer to 40% than 50%.

[aeneas1]

It wasn't out of character for him.

agree, he's faced 4th & 1 from the opponent's 1 five times as the rams head coach, went for it 3 times and kicked a field goal 2 times, now it's 3/3 when you add the saints game.... he's faced 4th & 2 from the opponent 2 four times, kicked a field goal every time.

[aeneas1]

Based on the numbers in your chart, my guess is that in that hostile environment against a top run D with them knowing exactly what we’re doing the chances of getting the TD were closer to 40% than 50%.

it was a tough call, and probably not made any easier by the two plays the rams ran from the saints 1 yard line prior to that decision, 3 drives earlier, on one of the plays the snap exchange was fumbled and the rams lost 3 yards, on the other goff threw a td pass to higbee, so the rams were 50/50 from the saints 1 up until then... anyway, at that point in the game, 5 minutes remaining in the 4th, i wanted to see the rams get points, the idea of a tied game at that point was fine with me.

[max]

it was a tough call, and probably not made any easier by the two plays the rams ran from the saints 1 yard line prior to that decision, 3 drives earlier, on one of the plays the snap exchange was fumbled and the rams lost 3 yards, on the other goff threw a td pass to higbee, so the rams were 50/50 from the saints 1 up until then... anyway, at that point in the game, 5 minutes remaining in the 4th, i wanted to see the rams get points, the idea of a tied game at that point was fine with me.

That’s a reasonable take.

One thing I always bear in mind is not to get overly influenced by these analytics guys with degrees in sports journalism. They spout off numbers with bravado. Guys like Barnwell, Shatz, Benoit, Salfino, and others, have all the answers with zero accountability.

McVay is smarter than all of them, and I’d bet has all the numbers memorized. But football is not a pure science, there’s also an art to it. Those guys have none of the experience of understanding the art being on the field of battle. McVay does.

I questioned the decision to better understand it, not to criticize McVay. Critical thinking is not the same as criticizing the coach.

[Gareth]

I’ve seen a couple of different analyses which both show that the math says that going for it was the proper call and by more than just a little bit. And that was my thought as well when it was taking place.

However, I will admit that the circumstances might make the math questionable in this particular case. With the incredible amount of noise, It’s quite possible that the offensive line would not get the normal push necessary (assuming they called a run play) to score on a 1-yard plunge. I’ve never played football but I assume that just the slightest bit of hesitation or mis-timing would likely cause that play to fail.

So while I would have gone for the TD, I can definitely understand the decision McVay made.

[aeneas1]

I questioned the decision to better understand it, not to criticize McVay. Critical thinking is not the same as criticizing the coach.

maybe i didn't read the entirety of the thread closely enough, but i didn't get the feeling anyone was criticizing mcvay, just discussing an interesting topic.

anyway, mcvay's 4th & 1 from the 1 decisions:

away, cards, up 3-0 middle of the 1st - went for it.
home, cards, up 11-0 end of the 2nd - went for it.
home, cowboys, up 23-15 middle of the 4th - went for it.
away, niners, up 24-13 early in the 3rd - kicked a field goal.
away, seahawks, tied 7-7 early in the 2nd - kicked a field goal.
away, saints, down 17-20 late in the 4th - kicked a field goal.

[aeneas1]

I’ve seen a couple of different analyses which both show that the math says that going for it was the proper call and by more than just a little bit. And that was my thought as well when it was taking place.

However, I will admit that the circumstances might make the math questionable in this particular case. With the incredible amount of noise, It’s quite possible that the offensive line would not get the normal push necessary (assuming they called a run play) to score on a 1-yard plunge. I’ve never played football but I assume that just the slightest bit of hesitation or mis-timing would likely cause that play to fail.

So while I would have gone for the TD, I can definitely understand the decision McVay made.

yeah, i think i remember seeing that math, i wonder if it looked at overall 4th/1 success/win rate vs 4th/1 from the 1 success/win rate? for example in 2018 teams converted on 4th/1 74.4% of the time when not faced with 4th/1 from the 1, but that rate dropped to 60% when at the 1-yard line, last year it was 65% / 50% respectively.

anyway, it's hard for me to second-guess mcvay's decision, unless there's a chart that shows a solid success rate on 4th/1 from the 1, on the road, in deafening noise, trailing late in the 4th, know what i mean?

[PARAM]

The whole win-percentage thing supposedly showed a much greater reward for the TD and a still good chance if they got nothing.

I don't go that far 'in' for percentages. Head coaches are faced with many decisions throughout the course of a game. They are all very important and some are 'crucial'. So rather than look at the decision to kick the FG there, look at all of them collectively. I would believe the 3 biggest decisions were that 4th and 1, the fake punt and the FG attempt in OT (taking nothing away from the naked boots in OT).

It took huge balls to go for the fake punt. Failure there would have possibly doomed the Rams. It took huge balls to go for the FG attempt in OT. Failure there would have probably sealed it for the Saints. The 4th and goal from the 1 was sandwiched in between them. Is it possible McVay thought, "I won on the fake punt, so I'll play this one safe and get the tie."? Then in OT he went back to his gambling ways?

If so, or anything close to that theory, I commend him on all 3 decisions. Hell, I commend him on all three anyway!!!! I wonder what the 'percentages' said for those other 2?

[aeneas1]

The whole win-percentage thing supposedly showed a much greater reward for the TD and a still good chance if they got nothing.

yeah, no doubt, i get that, just wondering if the math is based on overall stats or if it's more granular... for example in 2018 home teams starting at their own 1 yard line, with the lead:

punted - 40%
scored a td - 30%
scored a field goal - 0%
turned it over - 30%

so, using 2018 averages, we're looking at the rams having around a 55% of scoring a td on 4th & 1 on the road, with the opponent having a 30% of scoring a td from the 1 at home if the try fails.

personally i'd like to see the percentages at 75% / 5% but that's just me.

[PARAM]

Here's an article that aligns with all those others as far as the percentages are concerned.

Saints had a 57.1% chance of winning if the Rams failed from the 1.
A 51.7% chance of winning if the Rams kicked a FG
And a 40.4% chance of winning had the Rams scored the TD.

That's in general. IMO, you should factor in the Rams success rate on 4th and 1 (or less) and the Saints success rate defensively when the opponent is 4th and 1 (or less). The bottom line for me is, even without those factored in, the Rams chance of winning had they scored the TD would have only been 60%. I would think 10 points better than 50/50 isn't much improvement. They took the 48.3% route and won anyway!!!

What's funny is what follows in the article. The decision to attempt the GW FG in OT.

The article says a 57 yard FG is at best, 50/50 even in a dome, so going for it there was also stupid. I suppose because New Orleans taking over on their 47 would have given them great odds on getting into field goal range and converting. Yet Zuerlein had a 65.5% success rate from 50-59 yards and nailed it. Reports I've heard is it had the distance to make it from 65 or 70 yards. What am I missing? The 50/50 isn't taking GZ into consideration?