Colts vs. Jets: A tale of 4th and 2 www.pigskinrevolution.com This past Sunday in the midst of a heated contest, the Colts and the Jets had a chance to match wits with nearly identical decisions taking place only minutes apart. First the Jets: Situation 1 Ball Position: Indianapolis 2 yard line, 4th and Goal Clock: 4:40 remaining in the 3rd quarter Timeouts: Colts 1, Jets 2 Score: 14 – 14 The Jets decided to go for the TD in lieu of the field goal with a short pass attempt. Not only did they fail in their attempt, but the ball was intercepted for a touchback and the Colts began their subsequent possession on the 20 yard line. After a successful drive down the field, the Colts now faced a very similar situation: Situation 2 Ball Position: New York 2 yard line, 4th and Goal Clock: 13:02 remaining in the 4th quarter Timeouts: Colts 1, Jets 2 Score: 14 – 14 Surely influenced by the Jets recent failure, the Colts conservatively chose the field goal and succeeded at taking a 17 – 14 lead. If the ends justify the means, then the Colts were far better strategists than the Jets. Not only did they have a better result in each of the given Situations, but they also went on to win a close game. ZEUS Analysis If you are becoming a student of ZEUS, then you know by now that the ends do not justify the means. Good strategy is based upon the highest expected returns and not just what happens on a single trial. This is the essence of being successful over the course of a long season. So how did each team fair in the critical eyes of ZEUS? Situation 1: The Jets were correct to go for the TD by 6.4% GWC according to an extended simulation. Since a touchdown attempt in this situation is about as likely to succeed as a typical 2 point conversion, the Jets are (as are the rest of the NFL), a slight underdog to convert the 4th and short. However, even failing to score typically leaves the Colts pinned on the goal- line and throwing an interception for a touchback is not as bad as if first appears for the Jets. Here is the breakout of possible outcomes with corresponding Game Winning Chances for the Jets: Successful TD: 81.5% Unsuccessful TD: 63.1% Successful FG: 67.9% Unsuccessful FG: 56.0% Interception for Touchback: 56.0% It is clear that the upside and the downside of the TD attempt are favorable compared to the FG option. Kudos to the Jets for a courageous, although ultimately unsuccessful, decision. Situation 2: The Colts made one of the bigger blunders we have witnessed so far this season. Yes, they succeeded with their Field Goal attempt and yes, they went on to win the game, but they also left a significant amount of expected wins on the table with this very conservative decision. ZEUS says that, on average, the Colts cost themselves approximately 7.2% GWC by choosing the Field Goal over the TD attempt. To show why ZEUS is so confident in classifying this situation as a clear blunder please reference the following table: This table indicates the difference in expected Game Winning Chances ("GWC") between the optimal choice (attempting the TD) and the sub-optimal choice (Field Goal). The matrix indicates how the magnitude of the error is affected when different combinations of offense, defense and kicking are applied. In every possible case the TD attempt is overwhelmingly supported. The most important number on this table is in the bottom left box. The least likely combination of opposing strengths and weaknesses to support the ZEUS recommendation is represented there. Yet, even under the most improbable scenario that would support the field goal in this situation, it is still wrong by a whopping 3.3% GWC! In reality, based on the custom features of both teams, the error was far worse at 7.2% and coincided with the figure in the middle box. To put it simply, this is irrefutable evidence that the Colts made a serious error. For this one game however, they dodged the bullet. Onside Kick On a side note, the Jets surprised the fans with an on-side kick early in the 2nd Quarter after tying the game at 7-7. ZEUS suggests this is a clear error costing the Jets about 1.5% GWC. In fact, the Jets would need to recover the kick well north of 40% of the time to justify the action at this particular juncture of the game. 40% recovery rates are optimistic indeed when the league average over several years is in the vicinity of 25%. Could the surprise element of this situation boost the Jets recovery prospects above a 40% recovery rate? Not Likely. While we at pigskinrevolution will be the first to tell you that the on-side kick is grossly underutilized in the NFL, this was not one of the instances where it was a correct strategy. |
|