Go for it on 4th down

I want chicken nuggets.

I tend to disagree.  He may not know a thing about statistics, but his decisions tend to maximize expected value.

Now he may not know how to read a digital clock, but however he got his "feel" for when to go for it, it aligns pretty well with the statistics

Likewise I have no idea how much Hoke understands the numbers behind it, but he clearly seems to know what works in this regard

How many times can you punt to Drew Brees with a below averge pass defense and expect to hold them? Especially since you have an above average rushing attack against a poor rush defese.  I feel statistically it would be backed up as close to 50-50, but the intangibles of the scenario in my opinion push it to going for it,. 

It is always good to see smarter and better stats used in sports, but game context has to matter.

Why not analyze going for 4th down in the same "red zone" fashion as the regular offense?

The risk of turning over the ball on 4th down when there is at least 50 yards to your own goal line probably makes sense if your defense is pretty good. Most teams can't reliably drive 50 yards every time. Game context - time remaining, score and situation (OT) clearly all can affect these calculations.

Our views are probably pretty close on this.  Here's where I'm at:

The starting point for what's the right decision should be something like what's in the Romer paper.  In other words, if you have a median offense against a median defense in median weather with median fatigue... go with Romer.  I think the starting point that people use (conventional wisdom) is much too conservative.  Still, there's enormous context-specific variation that needs to be accounted for in order to intelligently play the expected value game in a particular situation.  I think that people around here tend to be very good at understanding the starting point and not as good at understanding the relevance of context.  (Note that that means that "people around here" are just as likely to be too conservative, in my view, as too aggressive.)

I'm definitely not arguing that conventional wisdom > Romer.

If it works, it's "gutsy."

If it doesn't work, it's "boneheaded."