Hey Sark, analytics need context

[Vermin 3061]

Analytics will tell you when to go on it on 4th down to maximize expected points. Early in a close game, by all means follow it faithfully.

However, late in a game when a FG pushes it a 3 possession game (like last game), it's worth lower expected points for less variance to take a FG.

Today, when a FG pushes you to a 20-0 lead, that's huge. Sure, a 17 point lead to a 20 point lead is still 3 possessions, but we're probably not going to score 0 the rest of the way. As the lead increases, you should be getting more conservative and taking more guaranteed points for less variance.

[Pimphand 5999]

He needs a common sense coordinator who can veto his stupid shit

[bullet 1599]

Sark isn't alone in this mindless following of analytics.  Seen some really dumb stuff this season.

[HtownHorn 14795]

Both OSU and OU did the same thing. Gundy gave up 6 points in what turned out to be a 1 possession game. He could have easily been up 30-21 late in that game, and then 33-24.

The problem with Sarkisian's thoughts

1) His defense is good but not elite in the secondary.

2) He's playing a RSFr QB backup, you need to take the points on every drive with him.

Edited November 5, 2023 by HtownHorn

[Lou Loomis 759]

I really worry that Sark is trying to win the stats game over the long-haul sample size versus applying the decision that wins the particular game his team is playing in at the moment.

I get that if a Steph Curry shoots more three-pointers eventually that will net out to more points even if he misses at fairly high rate as long/as he makes a fair amount. Football will just simply bite you in the ass much faster if you fuck around like that. Stop trying to win the weird stats battle. Common sense, always prevails, especially when you have better athletes than the other team.

Just win, please, by making winning in-game decisions and play calls.

[Not a cat 5727]

On 11/4/2023 at 12:29 PM, Vermin said:

As the lead increases, you should be getting more conservative and taking more guaranteed points for less variance.

Thank you!  My dogs are getting sick of me yelling this at the screen during games, though much less eloquently.

If I had 10 million dollars, and someone offered me a coin flip where I win 15 mm if it's heads and lose 10 mm if it's tails, analytics tells me that's a good bet.  But you'd be stupid to take it, given the context.

[UDontKnow 10451]

13 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Both OSU and OU did the same thing. Gundy gave up 6 points in what turned out to be a 1 possession game. He could have easily been up 30-21 late in that game, and then 33-24.

The problem with Sarkisian's thoughts

1) His defense is good but not elite in the secondary.

2) He's playing a RSFr QB backup, you need to take the points on every drive with him.

1.) The secondary has no business playing Keitan Crawford and Michael Taaffe. Overloaded at corner and some of these CB guys have to better than Crawford and Taafe at safety.

2.) Regardless of the QB, take the guaranteed (virtually) points every time - at least until there is a need to gamble.

Edited November 5, 2023 by UDontKnow

[TOR 5820]

Being a slave to analytics in college ball is nuts.  Too many variables and too small a sample size that ignores game momentum, especially with young players. Can't trust it.

[Surly Bevo 25239]

It's sort of like the Monty Hall problem.  Once the goat of your freshman 2nd start QB has been revealed behind door number three you should switch to door number 2 and get your ass into a less hypertensive crisis of a victory.

Or something like that....

[David Dennison 18961]

Counterpoint: 8-1, bitches!

[Jkwellborn 6769]

1.) The secondary has no business playing Keitan Crawford and Michael Taaffe. Overloaded at corner and some of these CB guys have to better than Crawford and Taafe at safety.
2.) Regardless of the QB, take the guaranteed (virtually) points every time - at least until there is a need to gamble.

Crawford was out against KSU wasn’t he?

[Hookem2147 21373]

Can’t have it both ways. I’m sure you were jumping for joy when CJ Baxter scored a TD on 4th and 2 from our own side of the field.  

Texas is converting 63% of their 4th downs. That is pretty solid. Of course we only remember the ones they don’t get. We don’t remember the ones they do that lead to extra points.

[HtownHorn 14795]

32 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

Can’t have it both ways. I’m sure you were jumping for joy when CJ Baxter scored a TD on 4th and 2 from our own side of the field.  

Texas is converting 63% of their 4th downs. That is pretty solid. Of course we only remember the ones they don’t get. We don’t remember the ones they do that lead to extra points.

There is a difference in those plays. Texas wasn't in FG range with the Baxter play and it was 4th and inches. Texas was in easy FG range and it was a 4th and long 2.

[Hookem2147 21373]

9 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

There is a difference in those plays. Texas wasn't in FG range with the Baxter play and it was 4th and inches. Texas was in easy FG range and it was a 4th and long 2.

It was a long yard to go on the Baxter play, but yes they were different situations. I’m just pointing out that if you are going to be aggressive on 4th down, fully commit to it (which obviously Texas has). 
 

We are a good 4th down team. If we don’t get that Baxter TD and punt instead do we end up losing that game?

The context of the 4th and 2 decision is a 20-0 lead holds very little value compared to a 17-0 lead, especially with so much game left. If the logic is well you force KSU to score 3 TD’s to beat you if you go up 20-0, that is playing soft and scared. Kansas State was going to get at least 7 or 8 more possessions at that point. Now, if it was late 3rd quarter and you are faced with the same decision, you probably kick it because possessions are starting to become a premium, which is exactly what Sark did when he asked Auburn to make the long field goal with 4 minutes left to go in the 3rd quarter to make it a 27-7 game. Our QB just decided to try to hand the game away at that point.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Hookem2147

[mdleast 8335]

[Codaxx 5912]

29 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

There is a difference in those plays. Texas wasn't in FG range with the Baxter play and it was 4th and inches. Texas was in easy FG range and it was a 4th and long 2.

I have 0 issue going for it on the 12. Offense was doing well. The defense was killing it.  The play call was dead on. Sanders was wide open for an easy TD. Red just dropped the ball. They didn’t get it, but KSU went out and gained -1 yards on 3 plays, punted, and Texas got the ball on the KSU 47 yard line. 

[closetojumping 62917]

1 hour ago, Hookem2147 said:

Can’t have it both ways. I’m sure you were jumping for joy when CJ Baxter scored a TD on 4th and 2 from our own side of the field.  

Texas is converting 63% of their 4th downs. That is pretty solid. Of course we only remember the ones they don’t get. We don’t remember the ones they do that lead to extra points.

 

21 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

It was a long yard to go on the Baxter play, but yes they were different situations. I’m just pointing out that if you are going to be aggressive on 4th down, fully commit to it (which obviously Texas has). 
 

We are a good 4th down team. If we don’t get that Baxter TD and punt instead do we end up losing that game?

The context of the 4th and 2 decision is a 20-0 lead holds very little value compared to a 17-0 lead, especially with so much game left. If the logic is well you force KSU to score 3 TD’s to beat you if you go up 20-0, that is playing soft and scared. Kansas State was going to get at least 7 or 8 more possessions at that point. Now, if it was late 3rd quarter and you are faced with the same decision, you probably kick it because possessions are starting to become a premium, which is exactly what Sark did when he asked Auburn to make the long field goal with 4 minutes left to go in the 3rd quarter to make it a 27-7 game. Our QB just decided to try to hand the game away at that point.

The original poster made a concise and elegant point that marries with both the issue at hand and similar issues and circumstances in other arenas. 

Your posts show ignorance measured against the point. 4th and 1 from midfield isn’t scoring position. Kicking the FG to go up by 20 near the end of the half adds greater value given the matchup than the expected value of going for it instead. 

Don’t worry though, with Sarkisian coming out and saying “I’d do it again and that is what the book says.” shows that he is a dumb dumb too when it comes understanding the value and limits of the “analytics” in the first place. 

[Chooky 13321]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

Sark isn't alone in this mindless following of analytics.  Seen some really dumb stuff this season.

Being a robotic slave to it is dumb. I think Lanning went overboard with it and it contributed to Oregon's loss.

Early in the Herman tenure, he'd dismiss logic defying decisions with "that's what the binder said to do." The binder. It was enraging.

I cringed a tad yesterday when Sark said "also that's what the book said to do, too." It didn't piss me off as much because I think he called a really good offense Saturday. People open everywhere but Murphy seized up for some reason. 

[4th and 5 4924]

Not only kicking the FG and taking the three but there was enough time on the clock to force a 3 and out and get the ball back and score again, even if it was a FG, knowing that KSU was getting the ball in the second half. 

[Surly Bevo 25239]

Gallup is so spare these days.

[Not a cat 5727]

Watching the Oregon st/CU game last night I laughed when OSU accepted an encroachment penalty on a made xp, went for 2 from the one and promptly gave up 2 points to cu on a turnover on the attempt.

I can just imagine this board exploding if that happened to us.  Does 1 yard really shift the analytics that much?  Im of the school of thought that if you really thought 2 points was worth it, go for it the first time from the 2, but perhaps the analytics say there's a 47% chance from the 2 and a 70% chance from the 1 (keep in mind we're discussing the average red zone team and not Texas which would be roughly 15% and 20%, respectively).

Based on that, it makes sense, depending on the situation.  You'd never go for 2 in a tied game late in the 4tg quarter unless your kicker's leg fell off.

[Chooky 13321]

7 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Watching the Oregon st/CU game last night I laughed when OSU accepted an encroachment penalty on a made xp, went for 2 from the one and promptly gave up 2 points to cu on a turnover on the attempt.

I can just imagine this board exploding if that happened to us.  Does 1 yard really shift the analytics that much?  Im of the school of thought that if you really thought 2 points was worth it, go for it the first time from the 2, but perhaps the analytics say there's a 47% chance from the 2 and a 70% chance from the 1 (keep in mind we're discussing the average red zone team and not Texas which would be roughly 15% and 20%, respectively).

Based on that, it makes sense, depending on the situation.  You'd never go for 2 in a tied game late in the 4tg quarter unless your kicker's leg fell off.

It was dumb. They took points OFF the board that would give them a 3 possession lead. And that was after a twelve play, 85 yard drive. CU was instantly motivated again and the crowd went from dead to apeshit. Then, like clockwork karma, sanders started hitting receivers deep. 

We forget that most of these guys are just overrated P.E. teachers. 

[WBT 20693]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

 

The original poster made a concise and elegant point that marries with both the issue at hand and similar issues and circumstances in other arenas. 

Your posts show ignorance measured against the point. 4th and 1 from midfield isn’t scoring position. Kicking the FG to go up by 20 near the end of the half adds greater value given the matchup than the expected value of going for it instead. 

Don’t worry though, with Sarkisian coming out and saying “I’d do it again and that is what the book says.” shows that he is a dumb dumb too when it comes understanding the value and limits of the “analytics” in the first place. 

I think it's worth the risk to go for a >21 point lead, given around an average offense vs an average defense.  The chance of giving up net 17-20 points for the remainder of the game but not 21 seemed slim to me.

Our struggles in these situations would shift me more towards kicking though.

Edited November 5, 2023 by WBT

[Codaxx 5912]

5 minutes ago, WBT said:

I think it's worth the risk to go for a >21 point lead, given around an average offense vs an average defense.  The chance of giving up net 17-20 points for the remainder of the game but not 21 seemed slim to me.

Our struggles in these situations would shift me more towards kicking though.

Texas is odd they were 8/9 on short yard conversions (less than 4 yards) inside the 25, but outside the 5 yard line.. They are actually pretty good, until they get inside the 5, then it all goes to shit 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Codaxx

[TwiceHorn 31642]

23 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

Texas is odd they were 8/9 on short yard conversions (less than 4 yards) inside the 25, but outside the 5 yard line.. They are actually pretty good, until they get inside the 5, then it all goes to shit 

At this point, I think Sark may be using "the book" to provide bare justification to force these guys to execute in short yardage/short field situations.

It's like Ewers couldn't hit a deep ball and Worthy couldn't catch one, until they could.  So he's forcing it when he thinks it's non-critical.

[Knoxtnhorn 6071]

My issue with the call was less with the eventual final score and more with giving KSt momentum.  They were down and dead at that point.  You give them a glimmer of hope, you end up in OT games.

[Codaxx 5912]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At this point, I think Sark may be using "the book" to provide bare justification to force these guys to execute in short yardage/short field situations.

It's like Ewers couldn't hit a deep ball and Worthy couldn't catch one, until they could.  So he's forcing it when he thinks it's non-critical.

I do believe he treated BYU like a scrimmage. I don’t think that was the case here. He was going for the chance to get up 4 scores. Guessing he had that  play in his bag and was dying to use it based off scouting. He called it. Got everything he wanted from the defense. He saw Sanders wide open and then he saw the ball on the ground. 

[Codaxx 5912]

2 minutes ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

My issue with the call was less with the eventual final score and more with giving KSt momentum.  They were down and dead at that point.  You give them a glimmer of hope, you end up in OT games.

That play gave KSU 0 momentum. Unless you believe losing 1 yard on the next 3 plays and punting qualifies as momentum. The pivotal moment happened 7 plays later, when KSU blocked the punt. That was where the game changed. It took another shitty turn on Maalik int 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Codaxx

[Knoxtnhorn 6071]

3 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

That play gave KSU 0 momentum. Unless you believe losing 1 yard on the next 3 plays and punting qualifies as momentum. The pivotal moment happened 7 plays later, when KSU blocked the punt. That was where the game changed. It took another shitty turn on Maalik int 

I get your point, but I still think kicking it deep after being up 20 may have been the straw.  Stop them there, don't get screwed by the refs, and we're fine in the 2nd.  Granted, it's all hypothetical, so you prob have a better argument.

[LonghornBreeder 550]

On 11/4/2023 at 12:29 PM, Vermin said:

Analytics will tell you when to go on it on 4th down to maximize expected points. Early in a close game, by all means follow it faithfully.

However, late in a game when a FG pushes it a 3 possession game (like last game), it's worth lower expected points for less variance to take a FG.

Today, when a FG pushes you to a 20-0 lead, that's huge. Sure, a 17 point lead to a 20 point lead is still 3 possessions, but we're probably not going to score 0 the rest of the way. As the lead increases, you should be getting more conservative and taking more guaranteed points for less variance.

This x1,000,000

I am not a Sark hater. I think he's doing great and I'm very pleased to be 8-1 (fuck OU).

But there is one gaping hole in his gameday performance this year.

[Codaxx 5912]

12 minutes ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

I get your point, but I still think kicking it deep after being up 20 may have been the straw.  Stop them there, don't get screwed by the refs, and we're fine in the 2nd.  Granted, it's all hypothetical, so you prob have a better argument.

Everything is hypothetical. The 3 pts are not guaranteed. The game is unlikely to played exactly the same outside of that one singular play. I get people that say take the pts and don’t like the call. I happen to have liked the call. Either way, I don’t think this is one anyone should have a really strong opinion on. It’s not like KSU deciding to go for the win from the 4 in OT 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Codaxx

[TwiceHorn 31642]

12 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

That play gave KSU 0 momentum. Momentum happened 7 plays later, when KSU blocked the punt. That was where the game changed. It took another shitty turn on Maalik int 

Even though he may not have been treating it as a scrimmage, to that point, we were kicking the shit out of them, so I think he saw it as a lower-risk situation.

[Real Papi 1004]

Just can’t take those sacks, get out of the pocket and throw it away.

[WinningIsHard 4129]

3 hours ago, Jkwellborn said:

Crawford was out against KSU wasn’t he?

This made me laugh, username checks out to the poster you responded to. Lulz 

[LonghornBreeder 550]

2 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

Can’t have it both ways. I’m sure you were jumping for joy when CJ Baxter scored a TD on 4th and 2 from our own side of the field.  

Texas is converting 63% of their 4th downs. That is pretty solid. Of course we only remember the ones they don’t get. We don’t remember the ones they do that lead to extra points.

I think we are all happy with that play, but it doesn't contradict the OP's point.

You're omitting a key factor in the decision tree... that was 4th and 1 well out of fieldgoal range. If we are 4 and 3 vs a 35-yd fieldgoal, we need to take the points.

[Nivek 17006]

I can deal with the points vs. going for it. What I can’t take is the wild red.

[Codaxx 5912]

2 minutes ago, LonghornBreeder said:

I think we are all happy with that play, but it doesn't contradict the OP's point.

You're omitting a key factor in the decision tree... that was 4th and 1 well out of fieldgoal range. If we are 4 and 3 vs a 35-yd fieldgoal, we need to take the points.

I don’t agree Texas needs to always take the pts.  I don’t think anyone agrees that Texas should always take the pts. Personally, I still think Sark messed up kicking the FG vs OU 

[closetojumping 62917]

59 minutes ago, WBT said:

I think it's worth the risk to go for a >21 point lead, given around an average offense vs an average defense.  The chance of giving up net 17-20 points for the remainder of the game but not 21 seemed slim to me.

Our struggles in these situations would shift me more towards kicking though.

Hence the notion of context. 

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At this point, I think Sark may be using "the book" to provide bare justification to force these guys to execute in short yardage/short field situations.

It's like Ewers couldn't hit a deep ball and Worthy couldn't catch one, until they could.  So he's forcing it when he thinks it's non-critical.

This is fan fiction. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Sarkisian is as intelligent or thoughtful as you. He’s just an average guy and he doesn’t possess a ton of impressive forethought. 

[NashLonghorn 272]

27 minutes ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

My issue with the call was less with the eventual final score and more with giving KSt momentum.  They were down and dead at that point.  You give them a glimmer of hope, you end up in OT games.

But then Chris Klieman did Sark a solid by going for the win on 4th down.  They kick a FG and the probably win on the  next possession since  our offense was sucking wind at the end. 

[Jkwellborn 6769]

Watching the Oregon st/CU game last night I laughed when OSU accepted an encroachment penalty on a made xp, went for 2 from the one and promptly gave up 2 points to cu on a turnover on the attempt.
I can just imagine this board exploding if that happened to us.  Does 1 yard really shift the analytics that much?  Im of the school of thought that if you really thought 2 points was worth it, go for it the first time from the 2, but perhaps the analytics say there's a 47% chance from the 2 and a 70% chance from the 1 (keep in mind we're discussing the average red zone team and not Texas which would be roughly 15% and 20%, respectively).
Based on that, it makes sense, depending on the situation.  You'd never go for 2 in a tied game late in the 4tg quarter unless your kicker's leg fell off.

You’re damn right we would have lost our shit on that. You don’t do dumb shot like that. Again, fuck the ignorance of analytics. That shit is cool in a vacuum.

[LonghornBreeder 550]

16 minutes ago, NashLonghorn said:

But then Chris Klieman did Sark a solid by going for the win on 4th down.  They kick a FG and the probably win on the  next possession since  our offense was sucking elephant cock at the end. 

FIFY

[TwiceHorn 31642]

18 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Hence the notion of context. 

This is fan fiction. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Sarkisian is as intelligent or thoughtful as you. He’s just an average guy and he doesn’t possess a ton of impressive forethought. 

Well thanks for the compliment.  I am pretty much a football moron.

Nonetheless, I have sensed a sort of frustration and disbelief from Sarkisian when we can't execute things like:  the long ball (for a while anyway), short yardage/short field situations, and a couple of other things slipping my mind at the moment.  May be simply stubbornness in disbelieving that his talent can't do what he asks of them seemingly more often than not, at least until some point at which they prove to themselves that they can.  I think he may be trying to install winnerness.   

And that may be foolhardy as hell.  I don't know.

[closetojumping 62917]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well thanks for the compliment.  I am pretty much a football moron.

Nonetheless, I have sensed a sort of frustration and disbelief from Sarkisian when we can't execute things like:  the long ball (for a while anyway), short yardage/short field situations, and a couple of other things slipping my mind at the moment.  May be simply stubbornness in disbelieving that his talent can't do what he asks of them seemingly more often than not, at least until some point at which they prove to themselves that they can.  I think he may be trying to install winnerness.   

And that may be foolhardy as hell.  I don't know.

I’ve been around him. I know people who have been around him plenty. You’re projecting what you hope is happening. It’s not. 

I am not saying it won’t get figured out,  but if the program figures out “winnerness” with Seven Win Steve at the helm, that journey will be shared by everyone involved. Cheering for it. 

[hookem48 4703]

Philly throws deep on 3rd down vs Dallas when they should be running the clock, every fucking coach does shit that defies logic. Every fucking one.

[Shaggyhorn 641]

I’ve been around him. I know people who have been around him plenty. You’re projecting what you hope is happening. It’s not. 
I am not saying it won’t get figured out,  but if the program figures out “winnerness” with Seven Win Steve at the helm, that journey will be shared by everyone involved. Cheering for it. 

What context are you using to still call him Seven Win Steve?

[Paul Wesley 3289]

For the past few weeks, I keep seeing "treat it like a scrimmage" as one of the main arguments for going for all these 4th downs.  But that argument works both ways.  

I can't remember the specific time left on the clock vs BYU, but we had a short FG that puts us up 3 scores with 7 or 8 minutes left in the game.  For me, the "scrimmage" argument would be kick the short FG, play defense, then let Arch (who is one rolled ankle away from carrying ALL our playoff hopes on his shoulders as the only healthy QB) run the full offense at full speed.  

[LonghornBreeder 550]

Given the thread title, let's add the context to all the 4th down calls we're concerned with. Since the UH game, here's what we've done on 4th down:

Down/Dist, Field Pos, Score (Tex-opp), play result, points on drive

Vs UH

4th/2, opp 30, 0-0, 1st, 7

4th/6, opp 26, 21-7, TOD, 0

4th/1, Tex 45, 21-21, 1st, 0

4th/2, opp 44, 21-21, TOD, 0

4th/2, opp 15, 21-21, 1st, 3

Vs BYU

4th/2, opp 2, 21-6, TOD, 0

4th/1, opp 2, 21-6, TOD, 0  

Vs KSU

4th/1, Tex 46, 10-0, TD, 7

4th/2, opp 12, 17-0, TOD, 0

4th/4, opp 37, 27-27, 1st, 3

 

So in the last 3 weeks, we are 5/10 on 4th down and that's not terrible in itself.

But looking a 4th down from the opponent's 30 or further (>46-yard FG) we are doing really well: 4/5 and scored 17 points on those drives. When going for 4th down inside FG range, we have been absolute shit: 1/5 and scored only 2 points. 

Adding more context, when the score difference was 14 or more, we are 0/4 on 4th down. We were also in FG range in all of those cases. In each of these 4 cases, we gave up momentum and empowered a team that had been on the ropes.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Sark should never go for it on 4th down. I think "the binder" and recent performance shows that going for 4th and short between the 30's is a really good idea. But when we are up big and have a chance to pile 3 more on them, recent performance says, take the f'ing points. The Rig12 is already waiting for its chance to fuck us. We don't need to help them by giving up momentum too.

[WBT 20693]

I should have included this in my earlier post, but there is also the good chance that any trends we try to tease out from our games are really just small sample size noise and we'd be better off just going by the book.

Edited November 6, 2023 by WBT

[burntorangebongos 10752]

7 hours ago, Lou Loomis said:

I really worry that Sark is trying to win the stats game over the long-haul sample size versus applying the decision that wins the particular game his team is playing in at the moment.

I get that if a Steph Curry shoots more three-pointers eventually that will net out to more points even if he misses at fairly high rate as long/as he makes a fair amount. Football will just simply bite you in the ass much faster if you fuck around like that. Stop trying to win the weird stats battle. Common sense, always prevails, especially when you have better athletes than the other team.

Just win, please, by making winning in-game decisions and play calls.

This is not what he is doing. He has said it himself that he believes in his team to execute the play. He puts it on them to go and make it for the sense of "us". But what you say is right. Pump the brakes on this philosophy and take the more conservative approach when they are more tired. I don't know if he or the team will change this though.  

He and this team seem to want to play to win and not to "not lose". But with all the possibilities that they have at this point in the season, I sure as hell wish they would be more prudent. Take the fucking points and keep playing hard to hold the win. 

[Vermin 3061]

21 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

This is not what he is doing. He has said it himself that he believes in his team to execute the play. He puts it on them to go and make it for the sense of "us".

Ah yes, the Mario Cristobal school of football, what could go wrong?