Pittsburgh’s Onside Kick Decisions Evaluated, Once Bitten Twice Shy PigSkinRevolution.com The onside kick is often used as a desperation measure in the NFL.  Similar to pulling the goalie in a hockey game, the onside kick strategy is typically employed when a team feels its back is against the wall.  More recently however, onside kicks are being used in a greater variety of situations than ever before.  Last year, the Titans attempted 3 onside kicks in the first quarter against the Colts and successfully recovered 2 of them.  Last Monday night, Pittsburgh opened the second half with an onside kick attempt against the Colts.  As the strategy seems to be broadening among the ranks of NFL coaches, let’s take a closer look at Pittsburgh’s decision from last week and one from this week. Last week, trailing 16-7 to start the second half, the Steelers unsuccessfully gambled on the opening kickoff.  Not surprisingly, Pittsburgh’s choice was met with a heavy dose of skepticism.  ZEUS  analysis shows that the strategy is optimal if the Steeler’s believe they can, on average, recover the onside kick greater than 34% of the time.  Because of the limited use of surprise onside kicks, this choice of play is difficult to validate but could easily be correct.  Based upon the most recent ten years of NFL play, a 25% recovery rate is to be expected for typical onside kick situations.  The “surprise” element in the Steeler’s decision will only increase the expected recovery rate for the kicking team.  Thus, Pittsburgh’s decision should only be criticized by those who think a 34% recovery rate is unreasonable.  We don’t think 34% is unreasonable, but with more of these calls likely to come in the future, the data will speak for itself. This week, the Steelers again were placed under the microscope for an onside kick decision.  Trailing by seven with 2:59 remaining in their game against division rival Cincinnati with all of their timeouts in the bank, Pittsburgh chose to kick away.   The Steelers were rewarded for their decision when, using only one of their timeouts, they still got the ball back with more than two minutes remaining.  Unfortunately a series of penalties against Pittsburgh squelched any subsequent offensive momentum they could muster and the Bengals were able to take over on downs and run out the clock. “Clearly Pittsburgh made the right decision…” in not choosing the onside kick, according to one of the TV analysts after seeing Cincinnati burn only 22 seconds in their three-and-out possession.  ZEUS  disagrees.  In this case, the break-even recovery rate is 16%.  Having greater chances than this, Pittsburgh should onside kick.  Almost all of the previously mentioned onside kicks of the past ten years have occurred in situations similar to what Pittsburgh faced:  trailing in the game late in the 4th quarter.  Here the element of surprise is lacking.  The receiving team is prepared for the short kick and are a solid 3-to-1 favorite to recover.  However, they would have to be a 5-to-1 favorite in order for Pittsburgh’s decision of kicking away to be correct. Our analysis of onside kicks in the NFL has shown that they are significantly underutilized.  Therefore, conventional wisdom needs to be challenged in an attempt to capture valuable Game Winning Chance equity that is up for grabs.