The 4th Down Experiment

by BirdGT on Jul 30, 2010 8:00 AM EDT

Yesterday, loyal reader/friend of Winfield's/acquaintance of mine asked for data pertaining to CPJ's tendency to go for it on 4th down. So let's cover the basics. CPJ goes for it a good bit. Last season, we led the ACC in total 4th down conversion attempts and had the 3rd best conversion percentage. We like to go for it. In fact, only five teams went for it on fourth down more than us last season. And what made things interesting for Tech fans was that CPJ got more and more aggressive as the season progressed:

And why shouldn't Paul Johnson become aggressive? According to the numbers, we were converting 54% of the attempts under 6 yards to go. The only time we really struggled to attain a first down on fourth down was in crazy long yardage situations. Check out the chart:

Ultimately there were only really three bad fourth down plays last season (excluding the safety at Miami). Two were desparation heaves against Miami and Georgie and the third was a totally effed play against Wake. Otherwise, we never went for it on fourth down in a super crazy situation. Reflecting on the situations from a statistical perspective shows that CPJ was just playing the numbers. When GT converted a fourth down in 2009, GT scored a touchdown on that drive 73% of the time. Opponents scored 10 of their 42 touchdowns against GT after receiving a punt in 2009. Basically, GT automatically conceded 1.89 points every time we punted. Conversely, we only gave up three field goals and a touchdown on drives where we gave the opponent the football on downs (1.45 points per proceeding drive). This doesn't account for field position or long term strategy within a game but who's really worried about that stuff? Not me.

Any questions? Comments and suggestions for future stat write ups are welcome.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can we check the rationale with the stats?

According to CPJ the reason they started going for it on forth down was because they frequently got into “shooting matches” with other teams and it was clear Tech did not need to miss its chance to score. He also explained that the defense was not stopping people. Finally he added that he would not have gone for it had he not thought he could make it.

So the question is this. Is there any way to statistically verify that Tech’s tendency to go for it on fourth down increased as the season progressed in response to the fact that the defense was demonstrating a greater and greater degree of porousness?

by Atlanta's original team on Jul 30, 2010 9:20 AM EDT reply actions

well...

The first chart shows that we’re choosing to punt more as the season progresses. This chart shows that our defense basically dissolved after the 6th game of the season:

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Jul 30, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions

seasons progression of chaos...

1st Game: 0.239 Points Allowed/Offensive Play, 4.09 Yards/Offensive Play
Mid Season Average: 0.411 Points Allowed/Offensive Play, 6.21 Yards/Offensive Play
Season Average: 0.401 Points Allowed/Offensive Play, 6.07 Yards/Offensive Play

I write stuff From the Rumble Seat.

by BirdGT on Jul 30, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions

That's disheartening

Hopefully Groh and his 3-4 will turn that around.

"Everybody talks about SEC speed. The 27 fastest guys at the (NFL) combine, how many of them were from the SEC? Three. But if you say it enough, everybody will believe it."
-CPJ

"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.

by Jesse28 on Jul 30, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks, Bird. That is fairly conclusive.

by Atlanta's original team on Jul 31, 2010 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions

looking to 2010

Based on our success on fourth down conversion to points scored, What players made the yardage to complete the fourth down (In other words, how often was Dwyer the ‘go-to’ guy on forth down – does his departure leave us with a larger gap to fill for fourth down conversions?). Just by memory and gut feel, I would think it was Nesbitt that completed a mjoriity of the conversions – through the QB keeper, Dive play, or straight up option keep.

by twojackets on Jul 30, 2010 1:58 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Why it works

What most people don’t know, but should is that football is like a coin that has two sides. Everyone knows the universal truth of the first side of the coin that says that a team that scores more points than the opponent always wins. What people don’t know is how a team lost a game without factoring the score. The other side of the coin would say that the team with the most real turnovers always losses the game. Statisticians do not count all events that turn the ball over without first scoring atleast 6 points. If they did they would see that the team with the higher number always losses. Try this with any game and you will see that it works:

Complete Turnovers: Interceptions, fumbles lost, missed fg’s, punts, 4th down fails, kickoffs lost, safeties, and turnovers due to time (given if the team in possesion at the end of the half failed to score and has to kick to start the second half. Not counted if another turnover half or whole occurs at the same time. Also when the game ends and the team trailing fails to score before the time expiresn not counted against the team with the lead. also nullified if another turnover takes place.

Half Turnovers: Failed extra point or 2pat, Successful field goal, 2point conversion allowed.

Add these up a complete turnover = 1 and a half turnover =0.5 email me if you find a game where the loser of the real turnover battle won the game. You won’t find a game where this doesn’t work.

by Ben Rushing on Aug 22, 2010 12:09 PM EDT reply actions