Thread: This may be the first Pittsburgh coach to be fired after such a short tenure.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

There are some that think you should never punt the ball. Go for it on every 4th down. I don't know the statistics, but I'd guess that a 4th down conversion at a certain distance yields the same result as a FG attempt.

That one would be a lot harder to make an accurate statistical model on since no one actually uses this strategy at the NFL level. I'm sure models have been done on it, but it's probably one of those things that a team would have to try before we really know how well it would work.

Since you do have a lot of data of teams kicking field goals, punting, and going for it in identical down/distance/field position situations, it's easier to get the stats there and come up with the most reasonable decision.

I think as some of the old football lifers start retiring and more young people who are growing up in this age of data-driven analytics in sports start to rise to power, you will begin seeing much more of it at the pro level. It's already starting, and I think will only gain steam.

I will be fascinated to see how it plays out, but I think we are already at a point where enough data is out there that coaches shouldn't be making some of the stupid decisions that they make.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I'm just not pompous enough to throw a coach under the bus for what might be (IN HINDSIGHT) a poor decision during a game.

Being ridiculed for going with his gut? Please. It's not rocket science, or fact based decision making. I'd guess nearly all calls during a game are based on a "feeling".

IT wasn't just the ONE bad choice though. It was the several choices that accumilated in the hard moments of the game. Kicking a 48 yard attempt at that point? Not kicking in another? Going for it on 4th down at the TIME he did it? They all SPECIFICALLY added to the loss.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

That one would be a lot harder to make an accurate statistical model on since no one actually uses this strategy at the NFL level. I'm sure models have been done on it, but it's probably one of those things that a team would have to try before we really know how well it would work.

Since you do have a lot of data of teams kicking field goals, punting, and going for it in identical down/distance/field position situations, it's easier to get the stats there and come up with the most reasonable decision.

I think as some of the old football lifers start retiring and more young people who are growing up in this age of data-driven analytics in sports start to rise to power, you will begin seeing much more of it at the pro level. It's already starting, and I think will only gain steam.

I will be fascinated to see how it plays out, but I think we are already at a point where enough data is out there that coaches shouldn't be making some of the stupid decisions that they make.

Ehh.... I'm not buying this at all. As much as you like to think that the "old" guys are old, football hasn't really changed in 50 years. The GAME is still played the same, and the situations are the same. There isn't any "analytics" that gives a the coach a better feeling or better knowledge of what's happening on the field than his experience of 30 years. There is a lot more to football than some "%" given data. YOu can see when/if a defense is getting tired, if they had to substitute a player, or maybe you did. Soooo many things that some "analytics" just wouldn't cover. I would MUCH MUCH rather rely on a coaches experience and football knowledge over some spread sheet.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Ehh.... I'm not buying this at all. As much as you like to think that the "old" guys are old, football hasn't really changed in 50 years. The GAME is still played the same, and the situations are the same. There isn't any "analytics" that gives a the coach a better feeling or better knowledge of what's happening on the field than his experience of 30 years. There is a lot more to football than some "%" given data. YOu can see when/if a defense is getting tired, if they had to substitute a player, or maybe you did. Soooo many things that some "analytics" just wouldn't cover. I would MUCH MUCH rather rely on a coaches experience and football knowledge over some spread sheet.

I'm not saying a coach can't take extenuating circumstances like the ones you laid out into account, but the analytics are a tool that can help them to make much better decisions, and most coaches just don't seem to use them.

I will say this if Tomlin was fired he wouldn't be unemployed for long

Originally Posted by chazoe60

I will say this if Tomlin was fired he wouldn't be unemployed for long

As well he shouldn't be. As I said earlier, for all his shortcomings, I don't think there are 32 better coaches than him. Hell, if guys like Jack Del Rio and John Fox can get multiple head coaching opportunities, a guy like Tomlin is pretty safe for a while.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I'm not saying a coach can't take extenuating circumstances like the ones you laid out into account, but the analytics are a tool that can help them to make much better decisions, and most coaches just don't seem to use them.

Like I said, I just don't think the "analytics" really take everything into account, and they can't/won't replace a coaches knowledge of the game. I can't see how any analytics a coach could have on the sideline, in some spreadsheet/color chart, would give him a better idea on what to do than what the coach already knows about the game, HIS team, and then of course the study of watching the game films of the other. I think that's why you don't see coaches using them.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

I will say this if Tomlin was fired he wouldn't be unemployed for long

all NFL coaches are regugitated over and over again. Hell, we have a DC that was our DC and HC back in the last century. So yeah, 'm sure he would find another HC job, but then, I don't know why we would assume he would do a good job there, either.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

Like I said, I just don't think the "analytics" really take everything into account, and they can't/won't replace a coaches knowledge of the game. I can't see how any analytics a coach could have on the sideline, in some spreadsheet/color chart, would give him a better idea on what to do than what the coach already knows about the game, HIS team, and then of course the study of watching the game films of the other. I think that's why you don't see coaches using them.

You sound a lot like the old scouts in Moneyball that scoffed at the idea that Billy Beane's metrics could provide better player evaluation of players than all of their years in baseball. Today, every team in baseball uses some of his metrics in evaluating players.

The reason you don't see coaches use it isn't because it wouldn't be effective. It's because they are set in their ways and scared to death of trying something new that would cause them to get heat from the media/fans.

One prime example of coaches sticking with their "gut" and "experience" instead of making the most statistically sound decision is when they run a draw play in the closing seconds of a half instead of simply taking a knee. Their logic is that there is a chance the RB could bust a big play and give them a free score. The actual data, though, shows that things like the RB fumbling or someone on the offense getting injured on said plays happen FAR more often than the RB breaking a big play that sets up a score. Teams do this every week, and it never ever actually leads to a score. It's a play with an upside approaching zero, and tons of downside, and the stats prove this out, but coaches are stubborn and sticking to their gut and continue to do it.

This is just one of several examples, but if you would choose to just go with coaches "gut" and "experience" and simply ignore the data, then you are just sticking your head in the sand IMO.

I would highly recommend this article to anyone curious about the numbers on whether you should punt, kick a field goal, or go for it on 4th down.

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics...4th-down-study

His conclusion is that teams should be far more aggressive on 4th downs than they are, and here is his summary of why coaches are not more aggressive, and it echoes a lot of what I have been saying:

If the benefit of going for it is so clear, why are coaches choosing to kick so often? The authors of Hidden Game of Football suggest that the current 4th down doctrine in football is a hold-over from the early days of the sport. Back in the day, teams were lucky if they mounted one successful scoring drive all game. A good punt basically ensured the opponent wouldn't score on their ensuing possession.

David Romer's explanation goes a step further. He suggests that coaches are thinking more about their job security than their team's chances of winning. Coaches know that if they follow age-old convention by kicking and lose, then the players get most of the blame. But if they defy convention and go for the 1st down and fail, even if it was the best decision, they'll take all the criticism.

I buy both of those explanations, plus I'll throw in my own take. In addition to the natural conservatism of coaches, I believe much of the reason why coaches don't go for the conversion more often can be explained by Prospect Theory. As I outlined in my Decision Theory article, people tend to fear a loss more than they value an equivalent gain. This is a built-in tendency toward risk aversion means that coaches would be biased toward kicks rather than conversion attempts.

Do I expect coaches to do all this math on the sideline? Of course not. What I hope is that some coaches will one day see research like this and reset their baseline 4th down paradigm.

I'd pick Tomlin over Kubiak if given the option.

I see what you are saying, but what you are pointing out is an opinion based on.... guess. Meaning, YOU feel that it woudl give some kind of "insight"..yet the mathmatics can't take everything into account. Money Ball is based on money per _________. What mathmatical analytics gives a coach a better 'feel' for the game? The FG percentage of a 45 yrd kick? The % of 3rd down attempts from 4 yrds vs 6 yrds out? Does that apply to his team? Does that apply to the different defenses, defensive packages, blitz..fake blitz..safety injured...corner weak... we having Gronk on our team, wind in our face... rain muddied up the field.. my #1 WR is out of the line-up on this play?

Moneyball was completely different. Making decisions on the field, in a fluid game, doesn't have a math formula that works. I mean, do you really take the QBR seriously when judging a QBs play?

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I would highly recommend this article to anyone curious about the numbers on whether you should punt, kick a field goal, or go for it on 4th down.

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics...4th-down-study

His conclusion is that teams should be far more aggressive on 4th downs than they are, and here is his summary of why coaches are not more aggressive, and it echoes a lot of what I have been saying:

I would say that you are echo'ing the article rather than the other way around.

I think we all know that going for 4th down, percentage wise, would work out in the better numerically in the long run. But going for it in wrong circumstances just is bad coaching....%'s in your favor or not.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I would say that you are echo'ing the article rather than the other way around.

I'm curious if you actually read and thought about the article. I'm not disagreeing with you that every team has different strengths and weaknesses, so you can't treat a study that covers every team like the gospel, but it's a good reference to use as at least a baseline to start your decision making. To me, it's pretty much an undeniable fact that NFL coaches, in general, are far more conservative than the stats say they should be. To use your argument of basing the decisions off of your own team, look at our own Denver Broncos. Two years ago, we had one of the most unstoppable offenses in NFL history. Despite that, Fox still made conservative call after conservative call.

Would you not agree that coaches tend to play it safe to protect their jobs rather than make the more aggressive (and probably statistically better) call?

The Steelers are 2-2 not 0-4. One game where bad decisions were made won't get him fired.