Trusting your Kicker - Levels of Probability - CHI at MIN December 1, 2013

The Situation

In Sudden Death Overtime, Chicago has the ball and is driving after a Minnesota missed field goal (well, kicker Blair Walsh actually made one attempt, but was called back due to a stupid face mask penalty).  

On 2nd down and 7 at the Minnesota 29 yard line, coach Marc Trestman elects to have kicker Robbie Gould try a game winning 47 yard field goal.  Was this the right move?

On CBS, former Ravens coach and current color commentator Brian Billick agreed with Trestman, saying something to the effect of deciding what yard line your kicker can make the kick from, get it there, center the ball, then trust your kicker to make the kick.  Billick basically means the 30 yard line is a plenty good position to kick from, so instead of trying to get more yards, try to kick the FG now and now have anything bad happen.

Why would he say that?

Binary Thinking

Once the offense is in "field goal range," especially in a sudden death situation, most coaches go ultra conservative, making sure the ball isn't turned over.  These coaches decide what "field goal range" is for their kicker, then once they cross that line, worry more about keeping possession, centering the ball and the time on the clock rather than the distance to be kicked.  This is an example of binary thinking, where the kick can be made at one distance, but missed at another distance.  In reality, kickers make shorter kicks with more frequency than longer kicks (duh).  So, why are coaches thinking this way?

The reason coaches engaging in binary thinking decide to kick "too early", is because giving up possession on a potential game winning drive is a disaster.  They decide to turtle up and take the long field goal try, rather than trying to get closer.  Coaches in this situation also typically kick on 3rd down instead of 4th, just in case there's a bad snap or botched hold.

A broad analysis of field goals at the 45-49 yard distance shows a 68.6% chance of making the kick. Since 68.6 is more than 50%, surely it's the right move, right?

Given this number, why would any coach try to move the ball down the field further?  What are the benefits and costs of trying to move the ball down the field further, particularly in this sudden death situation?  

Playing not to lose in OT? Packers vs. Vikings Nov. 24, 2013

My buddies give me a lot of flack for suggesting to always go for it on 4th down or for a 2 point conversion, so when my instincts said to kick a field goal, but my friend Tony wanted to go for it, I had to take a step back and see if I was wrong. Even though Tony likes trolling, I think he might be onto something.

The situation: 

Green Bay Packers have the ball at 4th down and Goal at the 2 1/2 yard line in overtime.  This is the first possession in OT, so a field goal does not win the game for the Pack outright but gives the Vikings a shot at matching.  Scoring a touchdown ends the game right there for the home team Packers.

The question: What decision gives the Packers the best chance to win the game?  Going for the touchdown, or kicking the field goal?  How do we decide this?

The first question we have to ask is what factors do we have to consider to make this decision?  There are many, many factors that can go into this calculation.  For example, how good is your offense?  How good is the opponent's offense? How good is your kicker?  Do you have momentum on your side?  It would be impossible to evaluate the effect of each of these factors perfectly, but ultimately, they boil down into one of 4 factors:

1) What is the probability of making the field goal?
2) What is the probability of scoring a touchdown?
3) What is the probability of winning the game, if you go for a touchdown and miss?
4) What is the probability of winning the game if you attempt a field goal?

The coaches know (or SHOULD know) this information very, very well.  Even if they can't perfectly quantify it, their gut instinct is usually pretty good at figuring out these percentages.  However, if they're off, then the future calculations might be off as well.

The second part to this decision is how does the math shake out once we figure out what are the relevant factors. Even if one decision is "too risky", is the other decision the better choice, or is it even riskier?  While we won't be able to 100% accurately figure out the percentages, we can at least attempt to decide the best course of action, given the information we have.

Ultimately, we need to look at the chances of winning (or Win Probability, abbreviated WP) of each decision.

if WP(Field Goal) > WP(going for it), then the Packers should have kicked.
if WP(Field Goal) < WP(going for it), then the Packers should have went for it.
if WP(Field Goal) = WP(going for it), then it doesn't really matter either way.