Official Week 3 Lions at Packers Game Day Thread

[Patler]

OK, you are counting the 2 yard pass to Ripper that was nullified by penalty. Now the numbers match.

I might have, but not intentionally. I just copied it quickly from the play by play list.

I was surprised by the number of incomplete passes on first down. It "felt" like they were more successful than that.

[pbmax]

Money Quote from Burke:

Implications

Coaches appear to be overly focused on play-level success (represented by SR) and not focused enough on drive-level (represented by EPA) and game-level success (represented by WPA). They’ll spend late nights in the film room dissecting every possible match-up for the slightest advantage on a single play, but they’ll ignore the numbers that suggest they pass more or go for it on 4th down. They’re looking down at the sport from a 10-foot ladder when they should also be looking at it from the 10,000-foot level.

[vince]

Money Quote from Burke:

Implications

Coaches appear to be overly focused on play-level success (represented by SR) and not focused enough on drive-level (represented by EPA) and game-level success (represented by WPA). They’ll spend late nights in the film room dissecting every possible match-up for the slightest advantage on a single play, but they’ll ignore the numbers that suggest they pass more or go for it on 4th down. They’re looking down at the sport from a 10-foot ladder when they should also be looking at it from the 10,000-foot level.

Neither "Success Rate" or "Expected Points Added" of run vs. pass under this analysis considers the score, time remaining, defensive/special teams impacts, or many other variables. This failure also undermines/nullifies the conclusion that coaches are only thinking one play at a time and not at the "game level."

It's clear that NFL coaches, contrary to the conclusion he draws, are very willing to risk "failing" on specific plays to set up greater successes later, protect a deficiency in anther area, and/or put themselves in position to win the game by expiring the time clock.

The suggested conclusion that teams should pass every time and go for it on 4th down until this over-simplified analytical perspective reaches equilibrium does not encompass other real-world complexities into its model.

[pbmax]

Neither "Success Rate" or "Expected Points Added" of run vs. pass under this analysis considers the score, time remaining, defensive/special teams impacts, or many other variables. This failure also undermines/nullifies the conclusion that coaches are only thinking one play at a time and not at the "game level."

Much of the work being done focuses on the first and third quarters. When game plan is likely to be a higher priority than game situation. Or at least, as high as it will be.

Expected Points are based on that situation, when the game is within 10 points. That removes time as a factor. EPA definitely takes into account field position.

I would argue that a focus on the clock in the 3rd Quarter is counter productive if you have the lead. If you are not having success (failure to secure first downs) or EPA (increasing chances of scoring), then you are at best thinking three plays ahead, either causing an opponent to call timeouts. At worst, you have chosen very early to engage in a low variability strategy when your opponent will be engaged in a high variability one. If you are trying to milk clock that early, you will give your opponent more opportunities from better field position, making the high variability approach more successful.

There are simply too many variables to think of clock mainly in the third quarter. You do better by your defense if you move the ball and score.