Jump to content
  • Finish your profile right here  and directions for adding your Profile Picture (which appears when you post) is right here.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

CalBear95's Achievements

  1. Probably an unknowable but one has to wonder how much the prospect of working at ASU colored/impacted his approach over the last three games. It's hard compartmentalizing that sort of thing.
  2. I was at that game as a student and I remember it as a great win... Today was pretty bad all told (clearly). The Ducks' Achille's Heel, their defense, really bit them today. There is no way they should have lost that game. Up 17 to start the 4th quarter against a team that cannot throw the ball and, in fact, did not throw the ball once in their last 5 possessions. Lanning needs to really knuckle down this offseason and get this fixed. Not sure how else to put it.
  3. @Log Haulin Given what DL was seeing from his defense would you have punted back to OSU? I think what people aren't grasping here is that the quality of the Ducks' D means DL has to assume he can't count on his D to get him the ball back w/out the other side scoring. If he had a lockdown D and punted from the 29, the math would very likely support that (or it might be a close call). But he doesn't. Yeah, that's on him but his decision making is correct
  4. Watching the SC game. 3 and change left, up by 10, 4th and 2. Goes for it which is the correct call because another set of downs drives your win % way up and a TD absolutely closes the door. Two of the four outcomes pretty much end the game. One pretty much assures no worse than OT. The other perhaps a loss. I would bet most here would think FG because no worse than OT. But if your goal is to win the game the decision is incorrect. Going for it has the biggest chance of winning the game right then and there.
  5. The takes of DL being a crazy gambler are just flat wrong. I could go around and around on this but the TL;DR is this: the math supports DL. If he punts when you want him to and they lose you would not blame him because, well, punting is what people are supposed to do and it was the right play. What you aren't seeing, however, the punt is actually riskier but because it's often distanced from the consequences you don't make the association. DL is taking the correct risks. I encourage you all to adjust the way you think about the game and explore how analytics works and what it says about how to think about the game and how to play certain situations. I sure hope boosters and any other people in positions of power try to put pressure on DL to play conventional ball because it will be value destructive to do so. The Ducks problems were in the play calling and the D collapsing. It isn't in the situational risks DL is taking.
  6. I didn’t say always. I said punting should be avoided as much as possible (bunting is always wrong but that’s a very different dynamic as to why) You seem to be confusing the outcome of a decision with whether the decision leading up to that outcome was the ‘right’ one. If you get a win making low value risk decisions in favor of highest value options you are still making incorrect decisions. That’s also known as getting lucky which isn’t a sustainable paradigm
  7. You are both overthinking and oversimplifying it. Your framework suggests there are so many variables that it’s impossible to really trust the math so ultimately gut feel is the best course. This is just functionally incorrect. That isn’t how analytics work. Analytics is simply a way to understand the game outside of conventional wisdom. Analytics totally changed baseball because it helped people see the game as it actually was. It exposed the framework for executing and a set of probabilities (expected value of decision y). Simple example: never bunt. Like ever. In football’s case, possession is the coin of the realm (hard to score without it). If you believe that then it’s easy to accept punting is giving away a down and should be avoided whenever possible You have a better chance of earning a set of downs with four plays vs three. Also, your strategy changes (example: is 3rd and 6 really an obvious passing down if you know you are going for it on 4th?) It’s counterintuitive because everything you know about football says that giving the Dawgs the ball inside your own 35 is more dangerous than getting the ball away from your goal line. Analytics helps you see the situation as it actually is from a risk perspective and not through an emotional lens (better to take $75 in hand than a coin flip for $150 which is actuality backwards). Anyhow, the horse is in the glue factory on this point. Hear your perspective but (clearly) I don’t share it.
  8. Last comment I swear! You are asked to make as much money as possible given two choices: Choice 1: flip a coin where if you win you are paid $150 but if you lose, you get $0 Choice 2: Get paid $75. Which would you choose? This is a famous question about people’s ability to correctly assess risk. If you have read my earlier posts you can probably guess the correct answer but absent that clue, what does your instinct tell you to do?
  9. This is kinda like how Seahawk fans feel about Russell. The trade that keeps on getting more lopsided by the week in only the best of ways. They paid the Ducks to upgrade their coach and probably set their own program back for at least 5 years. Yikes!
  10. I think it’s situational. Right now, continuity and building 3 good recruiting classes (especially w/yr 2 having Moore) has to be the priority and I’d be willing to overpay for that. Once the program and DL’s rep has stable inertia then keeping coordinators has less impact on the program’s success
  11. I’ll just leave it with this last set of thoughts. In UW’s case, the FG was the right call because the most probable worst outcome of that decision was heading to OT. The Ducks’ calculus was totally different in that the most likely outcome of a punt was losing (I still argue punting carried a bigger hit to win % than going for it because UW plays to get into FG range and probably takes all time off the clock) I go further and say if you are willing to go for it inside your own 35 you go for it inside their 10 because of the huge increase in win % but that’s a different conversation I would love to have someone that does this kind of calculation break down this very question of the go for it/punt debate
  12. Can’t the converse be true? Playing a conservative Offense (take points when you can get them even if that decision isn’t maximalist EV) plays to the Beaver’s strength? I’m not saying take stupid risk like running low probability plays in non ideal situations (e.g., the onside kick v UW or trickery to start 3Q v Utah). But there must be some point threshold where the Beav’s win % collapses because of their anemic offense. I would play pedal to the metal EV all day long. If kicking a FG gives me an EV of 2.8 points and going on 4th gives me 2.9 (or more), I’m going for it. Put maximum pressure on the Beavs.
  13. OK, this is so the same question I have. Base analytics are one thing but how do teams calculate their specific index (as well as those of the other team) both before and during the game? My admittedly dorky dream is to sit with one of these gurus and ask how they do this. Example: many people highlight TT being a reason to punt. Implicitly this line of thinking says the probability of conversion is lower than the Ducks’ normal personnel set. Seems fair. Let’s set aside whether some plays are better than others and just go with an über EV On the flip side, however, is the Husky offense. Penix was out of his mind that night. So whatever EV scenarios you had entering the game had to be plussed up given the actual performance that night. At some point you have to conclude the most probable outcome if you give the ball back to the Dawgs via punt or downs was going to be points. So, TT wasn’t an ideal option at that point but it’s still better than punting and hoping your D outperforms it’s expected result (which, TBH, there was no rational reason for doing so. Also, in an odd way I suspect giving the ball over inside the 35 increases the Ducks win % because DeBoer prioritizes burning the Ducks’ TOs and so becomes more conservative in turn tipping the stop probability in the D’s favor) Math is fun.
  14. You asked the exact right question: Why would you ever punt if that is the math? Answer: You don’t. But that runs counter to conventional wisdom so it gets dismissed as wrong even though it is mathematically correct. Your ‘flipping the field’ comment is a ‘aversion to loss’ mindset that Romer highlighted as why coaches fundamentally misjudge how to play 4th down (FWIW, studies have shown most people are wired to think this way and is why most people aren’t good at assessing risk) I hope DL said it was the wrong decision in terms of play call because it wasn’t strategically.
  15. It would have made sense regardless. This is a much longer discussion but suffice to say, I’d be probably OK with the decision at almost any other part of the game. Let me approach this in an entirely different scenario. You are down 15 points and you score a touchdown. Do you go for 2? Does your answer change based on some threshold of time remaining that needs to be crossed (e.g., only if under 10 minutes in the 4th quarter?)? You should always go for 2 regardless of when in the game this scenario presents itself. Announcers always say “too early to chase points” which gets back to the problem with punting. Football is a game of possessions, namely how many you will get. Knowing how many possessions you need to tie or win is the most valuable piece of information. So, here you need to know if you are down two scores or one as you coach differently based on the answer. Anyhow, don’t fear 4th down
  • Create New...