Calling the Mathlete: Zook's Decision
I had a brief discussion about this in the Opponents comments thread, but I'm wondering if anyone can provide some advanced metrics about whether Zook made the right call last week to go for it on 4th and 3, down 10 with a little over a minute left. Heiko (as well as the announcers in the game) tore Zook a new one for this, but it certainly seems defensible to me, and probably the right call. My point from the comments discussion:
The way I see it, you need a touchdown and a field goal either way. They were in fourth and makeable, pretty close to the OSU goal line--that might be the best opportunity they have to convert the fourth down and score. If they kick the field goal there, they might face down a 4th and 10 from the 33 on the next drive, but they would have to go for that much-more- difficult-to-convert play. it seems like whenever you're down 10 and you know you're going to have to recover the onside kick, you should take the 4th down opportunity to go for it when it seems like you won't get a better one. It's not like Illinois was moving the ball up and down the field. If they kick the field goal and recover the onside kick, seems likely they're going to face something worse than 4th and 3 and be forced to go for it.
To take it to the extreme, if it were 4th and goal from the 2, no one would criticize going for it--that's your best chance to get the touchdown you're going to need anyway. By kicking the field goal, you're "wasting" all of those yards you got within field goal range. I don't see the benefit of doing the field goal first just because it's the easier one--you might only have one chance in the two possessions to get the TD, so when you have that chance, you need to take it. You're going to have to convert the onside kick either way.
It seems like we should be able to calculate a "right" answer for this, but that's much too complex for my simpleton mind. Mathlete, do you have a chart that can enlighten us?
October 19th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
He already answered it in today's diary...
Dumb Punt of the Week After inspiring the feature last week but not winning the inaugural award, it looks like Ron Zook is making a push to have the Dumbe Punt of the Week be named in his honor (although since it’s the B1G, do we need to people to name something after?). Trailing by 3 in the second quarter, Zook calls out the punt team on 4th and 4 from the Ohio St 32. Of course, without the points Illinois was still down two scores in the fourth quarter when Zook went the opposite route and skipped the field goal down 10. An extra score in the second quarter would have made the decision a little easier for the Zooker at the end of the game, that is, if he could remember the score.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
I don't see how that answers it. Obviously, that punt decision was dumb, but that doesn't influence whether or not going for it on the 4th and 3 was a bad decision.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
Ah I see, you're talking about a different Zook play. Truly Zookian to make three questionable calls in one game.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
While we're at it, I'd like to know if you have just scored a TD to go up by 7 with 2 minutes left, are you better off going for the PAT or 2pt conversion? By my quick and rough calculations, it seemed like going for 2 was the better way to go, but I was using standard numbers and made a lot of assumptions. It would be cool to know which situations call for which mentality.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^
Brian actually covered this exact question in last week's mailbag:
http://mgoblog.com/content/mailbag-tacopants-flesh-esoteric-two-pointer…
October 19th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^
That's where I got the idea, but Brian didn't go through the numbers at all; he just gave his gut feeling on it. He also made the assumption that the other team moves down the field and scores. He said he loves the Oregon offense. If he had the Oregon offense, would his mind change? If he is playing against Oregon's offense, does that change? Plus, if you can't stop them from moving 80 yards, what makes you think you'll be able to stop them from moving 3 and then 25?
I'm wondering if it's always a good idea, just at home, just away, when you have the better offense, when you have the better defense, etc.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^
Gotcha. All good quesitons.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:26 AM ^
October 19th, 2011 at 3:44 PM ^
Posted in the wrong place.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:58 PM ^
If you score a TD with 2 minutes to go to go up by 7 then the PAT gets you up by 8 while a 2pt conversion gets you up by 9. PATs are far more successful and makes the other team score at least a TD and 2pt conversion to tie. I'd absolutely go with the PAT in that case.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
I don't need the mathlete to calculate how bad a decision that Ron Zook is capable of.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
I'd like to see this as well.
Basically, the question is:
a) What's the probability to score a touchdown on a 4th and 3 from the 17
b) What's the probability to score a touchdown from your own 40
c) What's the probability to kick a field goal when starting from your own 40
You need to recover the onside kick in either case (so that cancels out).
You also need to actually make the FG in either case, though that basically cancels out (though it could be longer on the 2nd drive).
There is also a time element to "b" above (less time will lower the probability of getting the TD), but that's a 2nd order detail which would be too difficult to figure out.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:16 PM ^
There's a time element to (a.) as well isn't there? There's two things to think about, the probability of making a 1st down on 4th and 3 and the probability of scoring a touchdown from the 17 and leaving yourself enough time to get the onside kick and score again. Those two things don't have to occur on the same play (although it would be best if they did).
October 19th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
True, though I think going for a FG then a TD would take more time than a TD and FG, based on the total number of yards you need (assuming that's a loose metric for the time it would take).
So option 1) = 17 yards for the TD + about 35 yards for the FG = 52 yards
option 2) = 0 yards for the FG + 60 yards for the TD = 60 yards
That's actually a lot closer than I thought.
Your FG kicker obviously plays a factor. If you're on the 17 and you think your FG kicker is good from about 25 and in (42 yard FG), then that means you already spent the time getting 8 yards you might not have needed. This becomes more pronounced as you get closer.
I think the above equation is a lot more obvious if Illinois was on the 4.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
I'm not so sure the equation is more obvious if you're on the 4. If you're on the 4, with 4th and essentially goal to go, with around a minute and a half to go, you kick the field goal don't you? From the 4, as opposed to the 17, your odds of making the FG go from pretty good to pretty much automatic. So now are you going to put the whole game on one, less than 100% play, to gain an additional 4 points?
October 19th, 2011 at 6:29 PM ^
Right, but would you ever get a better shot at a TD than one play from the 4?
There's three elements to consider when deciding if going for it or kicking a FG is the better option when down 10: distance to go; time remaining; and field position. The first element is easy, as you have further to go to get a first down (TD in goal to go situations) you should kick the FG. I only have intuition on the latter two.
Generally, the more time that is left, the more likely I am to take the FG, extend the game and try for a TD drive. If there's between about 30 seconds and a minute left, it would favor going for a TD, figuring you can be in FG range in 1-2 plays. Anything less than 30 seconds, I'd take the FG and hope for a hail mary.
For field position, if you're within the 5, I'd go for the TD. Further out until range where your kicker is maybe only a 60/40 proposition, I'd kick. Beyond that, I'd obviously go for it.
So, clearly you have to balance all three elements. In the Illinois game, I'd say a 4th and 3 probably leans towards going for it. Not a sure thing like 4th and inches (GUH!!!!), but still a reasonable opportunity for success. The time remaining, for me leans towards kicking. There was 1:15 left, two timeouts, plenty of time to move 55-60 yards for the TD. Finally, the field position leans towards kicking, 34 yard field goal should be a relatively sure thing. If it was me, I'd have kicked, but I don't think Zook's decision was indefensible.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:44 AM ^
without running the clock.
FG then TD: 2 (kick the FG, recover the onsides kick). As long as you have :01, you can throw the Hail Mary.
TD then FG: 3 or 4 (score the TD, recover the onsides kick, get into FG position, potentially stop the clock)
October 19th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
Would be curious if something could prove that wasn't a dumb decision. As of now, that is probably one of the worst play calls of the season (IMO)
October 19th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
What exactly makes it so bad?
October 19th, 2011 at 6:10 PM ^
It goes against conventional wisdom, which holds that you should take points wherever you can get them. But I agreed with the call. You need a touchdown at some point, and you might never again drive that deep in OSU territory. Fourth and three is a makeable distance. The FG is the easier of the two scores to get, so that's the one you should put off until your next possession, not the TD.
October 19th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
I liked the decision. Im not mathlete but I think the odds favor you getting the first down. Scheelhase (sp?) would be hard to stop on a 4th and 3 with his dual threat abilities. I would have kicked if it was 4 or more yards.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^
The correct decision has nothing to do with 4th down in that situation -- the correct strategy is to kick the field goal as soon as you possibly can in order to leave maximum time left on the clock for yourself after the onside kick. Worse comes to worse you can chuck Hail Marys in from midfield or even further depending on your QB. You're not kicking a field goal with any semblence of a chance until you get to around the 35 or 40. Zook wasted time putzing around even getting to that 4th and 3 -- Dimke is a good kicker, he should have been kicking after they got to the 25 three plays earlier.
Coaches screw this up all the freaking time, by the way.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
So, you would advocate kicking the field goal if it were 4th and goal from the 2, when you're right there to get the hard part (scoring the touchdown) out of the way? You're going to have to take the time to score the touchdown at some point, whether on the first drive or the second, so why not try to score it when you're already pretty close and have better odds of making it?
October 19th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
If you bombed it down to the 2 from outside of field goal range that might warrant going for the TD then, but that's not usually how this happens, and that's not what happened with Illinois here.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^
So you're saying when they got to reasonable field goal range (say the 25) they should have just kicked it on first and 10 right then? That seems crazy to me. The TD drive, which they'll need either way, should take the same amount of time whether on the first possession or the second, right?
But if you kick on 4th and 3 (or on 1st and 10, for that matter) you've given up one of your two chances to pick up the TD. I'm saying on 4th and 3, they've got at least a reasonable chance to get the TD on that drive, probably much better than whatever they're going to get on the next drive.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^
I think he's getting at my point in the other tread that teams often spend so much time getting that first TD that they don't leave themselves a reasonable shot at a FG. Another element to consider is that while it does take more time to drive for a TD, you theoretically can score on your first play after recovering the onside kick (or the second play if you only gain 10 yards, or the third if your first two only gain 15, etc.). For a game ending FG, you have a certain yardage mark to reach to even get a chance, which takes time, plus then you have to either have a TO, go out of bounds, or have enough time to get your FG unit on the field.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:39 AM ^
There's was nothing forcing Zooker to run the clock out had he made the first down.
I would have gone for it, but at some point, I'd say ~25 seconds, the time becomes the bigger obstacle. To continue trying for the TD, you have to leave enough time to kick the onsides, run a play to get in FG range, potentially stop the clock. Once you no longer have time to do that, the game is over. But I'd continue going for the TD until then.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
I certainly don't have the ability (or time) to figure out the exact math on this, but I think too many people are ignoring one other benefit of going for it on 4th and 3: If you make it, and then subsequently score a TD, you have the ability to win in regualtion with another touchdown.
People keep assuming you need 10 points either way. Your best case if you kick the field goal is recover the onside kick, score a TD, and then have ~50% chance to win in OT (assuming you wouldn't go for two after that TD). Scoring a TD first gives you the chance to win in regulation if you recover the onside kick.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^
So to win if you go for it you have to:
#1 Convert 4th and 3 from the 17 (50%)
#2 Score a TD (74%)
#3 Recover an onsides kick (23%)
#4 Kick a FG and win in OT or win outright in regulation, likely with less than a minute remaining (15%)
About 1.3% chance of winning if you go for it like Zook did.
If you kick to win you have to:
#1 Make the FG (75%)
#2 Recover an onsides kick (23%)
#3 Score a TD (23%)
#4 Win in OT (50%)
About a 2.0% chance of winning.
The odds are slim either way but if you have at least an average kicker your odds are 55% better if you kick.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^
What is the breakdown for #4 in the first scenario? Going to OT and winning, and winning in regulation, are two distinct probabilities.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
I assume he just added the probabilities of each, since either one results in a win.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
Well I guess that settles it. Thanks! I'm surprised by the numbers, but that at least shows the incredulous rage toward Zook was not warranted. It's a close call either way.
October 19th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
How is it in scenario #2 you have a 23% chance to score a TD after the onside kick, but in scenario 1 you have only a 15% chance to either score a TD or kick a FG and win in OT? I understand you're more likely to kick a FG since its a viable option, and therefore less likely to score a TD, but that still seems strange to me.
Is a function of how much time you'd have left?
October 19th, 2011 at 3:55 PM ^
The time left is the key. I assumed that to score on the first try you would take off more time, giving less time for the second score vs the first.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
but at that point, you need to get fewer yards, if you got the TD first (see calculation above).
Basically, you already spent the time getting well into FG range. Getting the TD then the FG would take fewer yards than the other way around (assuming yards = time).
October 20th, 2011 at 9:42 PM ^
At what time do you acknowledge the time constraint and attempt the FG?
See post below
October 20th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
October 19th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
The "win in overtime" part is what you are missing. .23 * .5 = .115 < .15
October 19th, 2011 at 3:54 PM ^
What are you assuming for #2? It depends on how you did on #1, or did you account for that?
Also, you have the probability of scoring a TD after the recovery (with limited time) at 23%, but the probability of kicking a FG at 30% (15% / 50%). It seems like those are too close (though in reality, with the conditions the way they were, it's probably correct).
Either way, it doesn't seem as obviously dumb as people made it seem.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
Isn't there about a 2% chance of scoring 2 TDs in regulation?
.5*.74*.23*.23 = ~2%
October 20th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
The part of this analysis that I have a really hard time swallowing is that you have a 30% chance of kicking a field goal after an onsides kick and a 23% chance of scoring a TD. I don't see how those two could possibly be so close together. Especially if you've only got a 50% chance of converting a 4th and 3. Scoring a TD from your own 45 yard line when you are low on time is about half as likely as getting three yards on one play? You might run off some time getting from the 17 into the end zone (going for it), but you're going to run off that same time if you try to get a TD after the onside kick.
It seemed like the right decision to me. If you need two scores, then you've got to go for it inside the 20. If you kick the FG, you waste yardage gained. You can kick a field goal from the 30 yard line after you recover an onside kick. You waste less field position and you need fewer total yards for the same amount of points. And, as somebody said, if you need a TD on that second drive, you are almost certainly going to run into a situation where you need more than three yards on one deciding play.
October 19th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
There was plenty of time in this game so as the Mathlete showed the odds wer pretty much the same the only thing you are changing is pyschological. Kicking the FG has a higher probability of success(assuming you are not Michigan) than the 4th down play so it continues the game longer.
The error coaches make all the time is when you are under 2 minutes and need a score. If you are under a minute and you are inside fg range but not near the goalline you should kick the fg immediately so you can save time for your next drive.
Assuming you recover the onside kick you need to leave yourself a chance and if you waste all that time you give yourself no chance. My extreme example is this.
Ball on the 20yd line. 18 seconds left down 10.
Scenario 1-Kick the FG, Recover the onside, Hail Mary
Scenario 2-Score the TD, Recover the onside, Hail Mary
The only differnce in the 2 scenarios is the huge difference between a fg from the 20 or a 1 play td from the 20.
This was an extreme example and often times it is good to go ahead and get the TD, the mistake the coaches make is when they waste time when they are bogged down or go for it on 4th down. A typical example I saw in the NFL was the team had a 3rd and 20 from the 30 with a minute to go after a holding call. At that point they should have just kicked the fg and moved on and saved the time they would have wasted trying to get the 20 yards in 1 play they likely wouldn't have got.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:42 PM ^
That game was just bizarre. Taking all of his timeouts to the locker at halftime when they could have forced a punt just reinforced to me that he's a recruiter that somehow got a coaching job.
October 19th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^
Illinois has a very good kicker. You take the 3 points and keep the time on the clock for the touchdown you have to score. Also, by kicking the field goal, you keep the pressure on the other team. You keep momentum on your side. You lift your team's spirits. You get the crowd fired up to be the 12th man. Someone just might get the yips on the onside kick because now that play really matters. If they turn over the ball, you only need the touchdown. If you can get the ball back with time on the clock, you only need the touchdown This is a situation entirely within your control. All you have to do is tell the field goal team to get on the field. It's a positive scenario. No one is going to call you stupid for doing it, because it is the conventional wisdom and it does make sense. You get one of the two scores you need unless your field goal kicker shanks it, of course.
Instead, he goes for it, they don't make it, and it's game over. Even if they get the ball back, there isn't enough time to get two scores. You never keep the pressure on the other guys, you don't give your guys a chance to fight for the onside kick, you look like an idiot, you send the fans home questioning your sanity, and you have to explain to your team why you prematurely ended the game. Classic Zook.
October 20th, 2011 at 10:30 AM ^
You are going to have to use that time one way or the other. The way I see it, it's a question of whether you feel confident in your offense's ability to get back to the 17 yard line. If you can't make a 4th and 3, then you probably can't drive the 40 yards or so that you would need after an onside kick to get back to that spot. And if you do get back to that spot, you still will use up the same time that you would have used getting into the end zone if you went for it the first time. If you go for it and make it and score a TD, you only have to get to the 35 or 30 yard line to kick a field goal and tie it. The total yardage that you need for the same amount points is less if you go for it the first time. The time that you spend gaining a yard is no different either way.
October 19th, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^
I watched the play a few times after that game, and the more I considered it, the more amazed I was that Zook went with the bolder of his options (i.e., the riskiest overall). I don't know if he was trying to at least make it look like a game or not - I didn't see how they could possibly have had time to get the FG necessary as well if they had made this play.
The problem I would have with it is the same one everyone else is apparently having - OK, say you get the TD, now get OSU to basically go 3 and out and get the ball back and run it down the field with onlyenough time to get a couple plays in if you really manage the clock superbly.
I understand that you take the points when you can, of course, but is this just a tribute to Zook's lack of awareness regarding the clock (for it seems like he is not a great manager of the clock historically), or do you think he honestly thought they could do it all basically in such a short time? Seemed like a "go for broke" play to me.
October 20th, 2011 at 2:30 AM ^
while at Washington on something and goal down nine with about 20 seconds to go. My first reaction was what was he thinking? And then I realized that he only had 3 plays, so the FG, onsides kick, perhaps a quickie and the hail mary was the only chance he had.