Comments on Advanced NFL Stats: Play Calling on 3rd and Short Part 1

If on 3rd and 5, running and passing have equal ch...

2011-12-12T00:41:31.004-05:00

If on 3rd and 5, running and passing have equal chances of conversion, then why do you think they should pass more than run on 3rd and 5?

@ whispers: In game theory, Nash equilibriumis a s...

2011-11-14T23:28:05.123-05:00

@ whispers: In game theory, Nash equilibriumis a solution concept of a game involving two or more players...... 2 or more...

The Nash equilibrium only applies to two player ga...

2011-10-20T00:53:40.123-04:00

The Nash equilibrium only applies to two player games. You cannot expect it to apply to an average of several two player games. As an extreme example, if you have two teams, and Team A gets a 1st down on 3rd and 1 50% of the time while rushing, but 0% of the time while passing, and Team B gets a 1st down on 3rd and 1 0% of the time while rushing but 100% of the time while passing, then Team A should always run on 3rd and 1 while Team B should always pass on 3rd and 1, and your summary stats will say that on average, offenses get 1st on 3rd and 1 50% of the time while rushing, while they get it 100% of the time while passing.
Still, it's an interesting idea. If you assume more homogeneity across teams, your point might hold up.
I think what happens in practice is that teams rush if they feel a high likelihood of success rushing, but if they don't feel that way, they pass, regardless of whether the pass succeeds or fails with high percentage. Which would support your thesis.
It's just not a Nash equilibrium.

coaches drive me bananas when they throw an incomp...

2010-01-20T13:03:33.315-05:00

coaches drive me bananas when they throw an incompletion on third and 2 or less in scoring position/four down territory,then fail on 4th down, or opt to kick the FG.

Yes. I think I address that in the follow-on parts...

2009-12-30T17:33:21.563-05:00

Yes. I think I address that in the follow-on parts to this article. If you look at 3rd and 2, the same discrepancy exists in favor of running suggesting the bias may not be so significant.

Brian- I assume 3rd and 1 includes everything from...

2009-12-30T17:28:44.746-05:00

Brian- I assume 3rd and 1 includes everything from inches up to a whole yard. If this is the case, then I believe your numbers will naturally be slightly skewed in favor of the run because teams almost always run and convert on 3rd and inches, but they tend to pass more on 3rd and a full yard to go, obviously with less success. The difference becomes less significant in longer to-go distances.

I loved this article (as I see many of your reader...

2009-10-16T22:52:46.820-04:00

I loved this article (as I see many of your readers did). Of course the real situation is more complex since a 1st down isn't the only possible outcome. There is also the possibility of a long play (touchdown) and a turnover or a sack.

I have noticed one tendency that should weigh even more heavily in favor of running on 3rd and short; when defenses stack the line to stop a 1st down the runner is often able to score if he can get through to where the secondary should be. I don't have any statistics on this though.

I think the principle of the Nash Equilibrium would still apply; but I would think a correction factor would have to be added so that %1st down + c1%touchdown - c2%turnover for run would equal %1st down + c1%touchdown - c2%turnover for pass. To make matters even more complex the constants themselves (c1, c2) would be functions of field position.

- Happy

What the article says is that given the recent h...

2009-09-22T17:44:48.916-04:00

What the article says is that *given* the recent historical mix of defensive strategies, the run is underutilized. And *given* the pre-snap knowledge gained by both sides, offenses are currently too biased toward the pass.

It does not matter when the call is made--at the line, from the sideline, or in the coach's office a week before the game. The fact remains that running is more effective than passing on 3rd and short, and offenses should do it more often.

You're also mistaken that defenses should be more "keyed in against the run." That would be a big mistake given the current strategy mix of NFL offenses. In fact, defenses should bias more toward defending the pass unless and until offenses begin exploiting the run more often.

YI agree with Sasha. This is a flawed analysis, be...

2009-09-22T16:52:39.538-04:00

YI agree with Sasha. This is a flawed analysis, beacuse you are ignoring the knowledge gained by both sides immediately before the snap (e.g. the defense has 9 in the box, or the offense has 4 wideouts). Decisions are not made in a vacuum - the defense doesn't need to justinformation about THE CURRENT PLAY.

Completely theoretically, I agree - defenses should be more keyed in to stop the run on 3rd and short, and offenses should run more. But what about situations where the offense sees 9 guys in the box? Or where the defense sees a 3-TE set and decides to crowd the line? I'd bet the lines are a lot closer in these situations, if not reversed.

I like your article, but why do you assume that de...

2009-09-01T19:28:58.849-04:00

I like your article, but why do you assume that defensive play calling is not random? What I mean is that you only talk about offensive play calling adjusting to defensive tendencies, but what if the defensive calling is also random? I guess what I am getting at is the objective question of what is better to run or to pass in 3rd and short does not depend on logical actions of either side. Or at least should not depend on that. Instead what is interesting is looking at what is more probable (i.e., in a random situation what is more probable to get a first down running or passing?) Intuitively it seems that running is easier since there are less "things" that have to go right....

Great comments Brian..I have the same discussion w...

2008-10-03T19:00:00.000-04:00

Great comments Brian..I have the same discussion with my buddies all the time who likewise refuse to acknowledge the role random/luck plays in sports outcomes ....while its somewhat easier for the 'masses' (who buy into the 'romantic narrative'...often for a personal or collective psycological need for MYTH..)to accept when the underdog wins by luck (like the Giants) it is almost impossible for them to 'get' that the favorite wins often because of randomness as well! I postulate that the lack of acknowledgement of these % of games (where the favorite wins by luck )
leads to an overall distortion and reduction of the true impact of randomness
How many times have you heard a commentator
state when a favorite wins by luck? (" they were the better team anyways", etc etc)
In other words almost always when the expected team wins it is attributed to their skill advantage alone, regardless of the objective facts as to how they won?(random penalties called, random turnovers,etc ditribution of first downs etc

Also even when the underdog wins often masses will attribute it to poor play by the favorite, poor preparation etc etc.

I have mentioned that Tango has a formula for calculating the amount of luck involved in the outcome in each sport it is astonishingly high

(For example last year in the Stanley Cup)
Detroit won the cup and universally were
celebrated as the best team etc etc.
However, in the first two games there were a large number of 'suspicious' non penalty calls
especially early on in each game
(In fact the TV ran all the evidence in a montage)
These non-calls were a result of good fortune or luck for Detroit (or league intervention if one is a conspiricy theorist) there is no skill involved in having refs miss penalties
Of course the commentators brushed off Pittsburgh's complaints as whinnng.

in any event the average hockey game only has 5 goals (unlike football which has I believe an average of 9 scoring events?) so the margin of error between teams is the slightest - scoring is so difficult and rare that luck is a huge factor
Using Tango's formulas I calculated that skill
may only account for at most 20% of each outcome)

In a related non- sports topic one of the best and most controversial articles I have eve read was from a russian mathametician (his name escapes me right now)who argues that global warming cannot be proven because predicting weather over any significant period of time is not possible there are simple to many random events and any attempt to do so is humans simply projecting order or pattern over random events(for there obsessive need for control)Of course the alarmists do not wish to here this

P.S. Great outright washington pic (+11)

stunning actually !Boy the effects on hyperbole media hype is alive and well
even to a pragmatic statistican as myself!
I simply could not follow your objective evidence and thus lost my weekly office pool by one game ARGH!

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines watching...

2008-10-03T10:39:00.000-04:00

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines watching the baseball playoffs last night. One of the announcers/commentators was saying that the next pitch should be a "fastball, slightly high and inside. That's the only right pitch."

If that's true, then the batter knows this too, so this is the exact wrong pitch. And around we go.

Therefore, you can't do better than to randomize, which means the batter has to "look" for pitches in a random way too.

I'm sure it's the same in hockey--skates left or right, passes back or forward, goes for the 5-hole or for a high slap shot, etc. The defender has to guess.

And that means, a huge part of all these games really are random. People debate me about luck all the time. It really spoils the whole determinist and romantic narrative of destiny in sports that a lot of people buy into.

If we could have the 2007 Patriots replay the 2007 Giants 100 times, the Patriots would have won 75 or so of the games. We were just treated to one of the 25 games in which the Giants win.

hi Brian;
this comment is in regard to your pos...

2008-10-03T10:17:00.000-04:00

hi Brian;
this comment is in regard to your post regarding the effectiveness of using a random strategy in play calling.

it seems to me this would also apply to pitchers in baseball and pitch calling..

in fact after one of the playoff games this year the hitters on the losing team were complaining that they couldn't hit the pitcher because hispitch selection was completly unpredictable,there was " no pattern" or "sense to the pitch selection"
i thought this was an interesting example as to the effectivness of instituting a random strategy to an enviroment nowadays, in sports coaching which is obsessed with predictablity, and intellectual prior preperation.

As you know I am engaged in the general issue of random/luck in sports (primarily NHL hockey)in regards to scoring
however, once again you have opened up another topic of interesting debate and questioning extending the impact of randomness to game strategy.thanks for another great post!

You're absolutely right. Theoretically, the best t...

2008-09-01T11:17:00.000-04:00

You're absolutely right. Theoretically, the best thing for an offense to do to a defense that is over-defending the pass is to run every time.

But even the dullest defensive coordinators would realize the tendency and react. That's why I would suggest running more and more often on 3rd and short until I started to see the defenses respond.

love the post. question though--doesn't the notio...

2008-09-01T03:06:00.000-04:00

love the post. question though--doesn't the notion of reaching the equilibrium assume that other team's properly adjust to your team's tendencies? In other words, suppose your team ALWAYS runs on 3rd and 1, and other teams DON'T adjust to this tendency. Then it seems like you are making the right move since you are exploiting the advantage that running has in this situation.

(This is just a theoretical question here--I am ignoring the other issues such as expected yardage gain and expected points for that drive)