A Quick Review of the 4th Down Decision
I’m not touching the play call itself. Most of have pretty strong feelings about it. Criticizing a failed play in hindsight is usually a pretty lazy thing to do, but Michigan has a set of plays this year that have a firm history of no success and should never be run in critical situations.
But what about the decision itself to go for the 1st down. In the situation there were two possible choices and two possible outcomes for each.
| Kick the FG | Success/Failure |
| Go for the 1st | Success/Failure |
Each choice has an associated odds of success and each outcome has a resulting win odds.
Kick The FG
The safe, NFL worthy decision would have been to kick the field goal (“Take the points,” because field goals are never missed). In a low scoring game this probably gets you to overtime and there are no guarantees you get another chance or that you can take advantage of it. The downside is that with about 5 minutes to go, you are opening the door to give Northwestern the ball with plenty of time to drive the field and run out the clock.
A successful field goal means kicking off in a tie game with about 5 minutes left. In this situation, the team kicking off wins about 46% of the time. A made field goal would have made Michigan a slight underdog.
In the fourth quarter of close games, college kickers make 94% of field goals from inside the 5 yard line. Those are pretty good odds, but still a 1 in 16 chance that the kick is missed or blocked. A missed kick would have given Northwestern the ball at the 20 and dropped Michigan’s odds of winning to 23%.
Go for the First Down
Picking up positive yardage has been a challenge for Michigan the last month. Had they been able to convert for a first down their win odds would jump up to 70% (74% with a touchdown). Still plenty of time for a Northwestern touchdown, but definitely putting Michigan in the driver’s seat.
The failure to secure the first down left Michigan with a 34% chance at victory. Far from over but a lot of leverage on the play.
The Break Even Point
A field goal attempt would have given Michigan a 45% chance at victory once the small chance of a miss or block is factored in. With 70% odds with a first down and 34% odds if they failed to get the first down, Michigan would need to be able to have at least a 30% chance of success to break even on going for the first down. Michigan has had its troubles on offense but a 30% break even point is a low bar. 3rd or 4th and 1’s from inside the 5 are converted at 57% historically. So even if Michigan was half as likely as an average team to convert it still would have been an even decision with kicking the field goal.
If the numbers seem too high or too low there are a couple of follow up dynamics in play. A failed fourth down would have left Northwestern with the ball and the lead late. Coaching history as taught us that this is a recipe for most coaches to curl up into a ball and try and ground out the clock and if they’re lucky get a first down or two. Because of this often failed mentality, giving the other team back the ball with a lead can be more valuable than giving them back the ball with a tie where there is some pressure to push forward.
I think this was absolutely the correct decision to go for the first down in the situation even if the “execution” was less than ideal.
November 18th, 2013 at 6:14 PM ^
with all of your points there, why not just take the FG and then give NW the ball at the 25? you're taking the tie (at worst), yet all of your other points apply - good D, NW bad punter, etc. we likely get the ball back with some time on the clock and some TOs to try for a game winning FG. personally, i would trade the 20 yds for a guaranteed tie any day.
the downside is that NW has to drive at least 50 yds and kick into a big wind to try to win. not happening.
November 18th, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
The difference is what the Mathlete alluded to above:
A failed fourth down would have left Northwestern with the ball and the lead late. Coaching history as taught us that this is a recipe for most coaches to curl up into a ball and try and ground out the clock and if they’re lucky get a first down or two. Because of this often failed mentality, giving the other team back the ball with a lead can be more valuable than giving them back the ball with a tie where there is some pressure to push forward.That is definitely true for a guy like Fitzgerald. If he can sit on the ball, he will.
November 19th, 2013 at 6:58 PM ^
NW got 2 first downs and were a couple yards from icing the game.
November 18th, 2013 at 3:10 PM ^
November 18th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
We kicked a FG to go ahead 13-10 with 8:00 to go in the fourth. Very different situation. Defense gave up a TD, we needed to respond and couldn't.
It was also 4th and 7 when we kicked it, much lower percentage.
November 19th, 2013 at 11:24 AM ^
it was 3rd and 1, and we lost a yard making it 4th and 2. We were 0 for the game on 3rd down and had just lost a yard on 3rd down. Take the points - NW into the wind had scored 3 points total in the 2nd half. Plenty of time for both teams.
Las Vegas welcomes all you that would go for it on 4th down ... from an odds perspective. And incidently the Vegas bet would have been on making it on 4th down ... not who wins the game.
Go Blue!
November 19th, 2013 at 7:15 PM ^
between missing a fg and not getting the first down? shoudn't they be the same?
November 20th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^
Northwestern gets it inside the 5. Miss the kick and the ball gets moved back out after the touchback.
November 19th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
1. Why weren't the odds of this season's Michigan team converting 4th and 1 presented?
2. Why weren't the odds of this season's Michigan team scoring a TD from within the red zone presented?
3. Why after all the math is presented, hard science, is the soft science of team psychology used to justify the decision?
If you're going to argue that team B will work harder, or not, score dependent, why bother showing any math, it's irrelevant. While you're speculating about what the other team might do, what do you suppose they'd do if Michigan scores a TD and leaves 3 or 4 minutes on the clock? Why wouldn't NW try to score their own go ahead TD? I mean it isn't like Michigan has never lost a game to a Hail Mary last second TD.
November 19th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
November 19th, 2013 at 9:01 PM ^
As the Mathlete mentioned in this thread Michigan has converted 58% of 3rd/4th and 1 this season. So I am not sure why everyone keeps saying we are horrible at converting short yardage plays. And your "the odds of making the first down were more like slim to none" comment isn't exactly true. In fact we actually ended up converting 2 crucial 4th downs later in the game.
November 19th, 2013 at 8:25 PM ^
I don't think either kicking the field goal or going for it were bad ideas. I would have kicked it in that situtation but at the same time I liked Hokes call. The specific play call they used wouldn't have been my first choice however.
November 19th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^
Double-checked the calculations myself and they're right...of course.
Math doesn't tell us the right decision, but it does inform our opinion. In particular, the breakeven point being only 30% is extremely important and non-intuitive (I think most people would have guessed a much higher number). If you're the coach here and, based on your team's performance so far, think you have a 40% chance of converting, you might not go for it...but you'd be absolutely wrong. We can debate whether Michigan actually had a 30% chance of converting in that moment, but the math tells us what we're shooting for.
November 19th, 2013 at 8:50 PM ^
the fourth down is only the first aspect of the decision. For the conversion to matter Michigan must then score a TD....what is the probablity of this year's Michigan team scoring a TD from within the redzone? I believe the esteemed Mathlete is wrong to assume Michigan has a 70% chance of scoring a TD after converting the 4th down. At least for this team this season.
November 19th, 2013 at 8:51 PM ^
You wouldn't look at the probability of scoring a TD in the redzone, you would look at the probability of scoring a TD from 1st and goal at the 3 yard line or closer. My guess is it's over 70%.
November 19th, 2013 at 10:42 PM ^
So where do you put the TD %, say after a team shanks a punt that travel 7 yards and Michigan takes over at the 10 yard line? Wait ... its not hypothetical. How about the % that after taking all the momentum from the shanked punt that Michigan actually loses 1 yard in 3 plays? Based on experience, the TD % is zero and the losing 1 yard % is 100%.
The above scenario took place immediately preceding the 4th and 2, go for it call.
The fact is we were EXTREMELY lucky... and Borges is still a MORON.
Go Blue!
November 19th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^
I think we both know that is a dumb argument to make. But back to the orignal point of our chances of scoring a TD from inside the 3 if we get the 1st down. Michigans Red Zone TD % this year is 64%, so its not unreasonable to assume that from the 3 yardline and in, it would be higher than 70%.
November 19th, 2013 at 11:09 PM ^
I just flipped a coin and it came up heads. Based on experience, the tails % is zero and the heads % is 100%.
November 19th, 2013 at 9:17 PM ^
Given that the argument that the statistical odds of Michigan this season picking up the first down are considerably less than the average 30% is undeniable, given the weather conditions, and other factors already discussed, the odds of wining the game if we score a touchdown are also likely much greater than the 70% given by Mathalete.
Also does anyone remember if the ball was between or on the hashes? I don't remember. Very short field goals are much more difficult from the hash marks because of the angle. Is it possible that the coaches know that Gibbons may have trouble on short angle kicks from one side or the other?
November 20th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
Given that the argument that the statistical odds of Michigan this season picking up the first down are considerably less than the average 30% is undeniable,How is it "undeniable" when Michigan has a season 3rd-down conversion rate (from all distances) of 38% and a season 4th-down rate (again, all distances) of 55%?
November 20th, 2013 at 1:33 AM ^
November 20th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^
Isn't that an argument to go for it? If you tie it with that much time left aren't they more likely to try and score and our defense would give up the game losing drive than if they have the lead and play it conservatively?
November 21st, 2013 at 12:00 AM ^
Obviously Brady had a feel or just felt like it needed to be done. I think a major factor in the decision that I did not previously mention was the wind. While not strong enough to effect the passing game it definitely played a role on special teams. Brady may have realized that they were capable of a long range FG so if he misses the 4th down they're in bad field position with a decent amount of time left.
It worked out so I'm happy for the kids but I'll tell ya that was too close for comfort.
November 20th, 2013 at 1:47 AM ^
you need to factor in the wind/rain and Northwestern having to drive into that wind/rain when neither team had done much going that direction all game.
The weather conditions and time remaining flip the going for it decision to bad for me. Kick the FG, games tied looking at OT with 5 min left, still likely to hold NW after the kickoff and get good to decent field position going for the win instead of a mad scramble to tie.
November 20th, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
Both teams had FG drives going into the wind. There didn't seem to be a big difference in terms of offensive success between going into and with the wind, at least in regulation.
November 20th, 2013 at 8:39 AM ^
A lot of numbers are being thrown around out of context.The 70% in OP didn't refer to Michigan's chance of scoring a touchdown, and 30% isn't an average, it's how often M would have to convert to make going for it the best decision. Guys, read the post before responding!
November 20th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
This "near" interception is what terrifies me....There could have been 5,6 of them that will actually happen, if not fixed come ohio time....
November 20th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
Liked the decision to go for it, but not the play call. Look at our formation- we're showing run formation. Then look at their D...basically 11 men in the box, expecting a run. Al should at least give the appearance of a dual threat formation, where it isn't obvious whether it's going to be a pass/run. I actually would have preferred a pass play called, because even if that pass play breaks down, Devin can try to run it then.
November 20th, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
Biggest takeaway for the non-math-inclined: you don't have to get the first down very often to make going for it the right play.
November 20th, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^
Going for the tie at that point would have made me uncomfortable, for psychological reasons, more than anything else.
a) Make the kick, and NW has all the time it wants to run or pass, all the way down the field for a TD or FG, or get conservative whenever it wanted, all the way to overtime. Make the first down and score the TD, or at least the FG you run some time off the clock, and NW becomes more one dimensional, which is easier to defend.
b) As effective as the defense has been most of the year, they have had the habit of giving up long drives to the opponent just when we've need a stop the most. (see NE and MSU).
c) I was reminded me of the Carr years, where I almost felt more comfortable when Michigan was trailing in the 4th quarter in a close game, and we had to rely on Brady, Henne, etc. and the offense to do it or else, rather than crawl into a shell, punt the ball away, and go on to lose. Anybody else?
d) The PSU game. At same point Michigan has to develop a more confident, aggressive personality on offense. Leaders and best? Champions of the West? Come on! The playing for FGs in the PSU game really bothered me most this year, not only for this team, but just as importantly, the milquetoast message it sent to recruits.
e)The crisis of confidence (particularly OL and Devin). I believe Borges has been desperately trying to start a fire somehow, someway, to get this team/season/program headed in the right direction, using the wet kindling available. A first down there could have done that. [apologies for the mixed metaphors]
f) If Gibbons had missed the FG? (PSU again?), What would that have done to the kicker/team/season? The good thing about the kick at the end, was they didn't have time to think about it- they just executed.
November 21st, 2013 at 2:53 PM ^
Mathlete may have done a nice job of looking at the numbers. But the numbers do not tell the entire story of this call. It was a low scoring game (9-6), you are down 3, you are on the road, the weather sucks. You have a terrible offensive line and you struggle running the ball. On top of that...you run away from your best offensive lineman. This situation SCREAMS to take the 3. I have watched Michigan Football for 25 years. This ranks in the top five BONEHEAD calls I have seen.
November 21st, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
Bonehead might be harsh considering where they are this season a loss costs them a Gator Bowl at best. On the road, Cats get ball inside the five and plenty of time in a game of field position all day where your defense has been stellar. I agree the correct call is to kick the FG but bonehead is harsh.
Comments