Charlie Foley
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,376
If you look back at that Bengals game, it was mighty close to not getting it done. I agree the “looking like mugsy malone” factor is primarily why teams don’t do it. But also, there is an angle that you trust your defence too. It’s easy with hindsight but i guess what it ultimately boils down to is a) % chances of scoring with x tries in x minutes/seconds inside the x yard line, vs b) % chances of your defence not allowing x yards (assuming a touchback) in x minutes of play to prevent a TD/FG, including % chance of the team making that FG. If you strip out the looking like a fool element, that’s the analytic that should be driving your choice real time.
I actually think this is really important. There is a certain subset of fans of every sport who push back against analytics and I think there is still a mindset of it’s worse to get something wrong being “over analytical” and going against perceived wisdom in making it a mathematical equation, than just not doing the percentages and doing what “feels right” or adheres to conventional wisdom. It is a more extreme version of that guy who accidentally scored a touchdown last year, or the Titans coach saving clock by getting intentional penalties on D on 2nd and short, since you’re behind and have a shot to take the lead you might not get again. I don’t know when that cultural Mental breakthrough will fully happen and we all agree you look stupider not playing the percentages and going with what’s more normal.
It’s like Wilt Chamberlain (indeed most players) and the granny shot/underarm free throw in basketball. Especially after the 100 point game, it was idiotic that he went back to the conventional free throw shot, but his “reasoning” is accepted.