Fade":3vot7f17 said:
How often do these teams punt 4th and a short 1 from midfield?
I have found it interesting that Bill Belichick has made many similar "cowardly" decisions to kick field goals within 5 and 10 yards of the endzone and punt on 4th and short from the opposing team's ~40 this year, and in the past. He is not that averse to punting on 4th and short -
depending. That's the key point though. While Baltimore appears to have "surrendered" decision making to a computer program and an economics undergrad student (keeping Ben Baldwin's dreams alive), they probably look much better than they might, for now at least, because of the so far unstoppable threat provided by Lamar Jackson and his brutish offensive line on fourth and short. Also note, the Ravens embrace of "analytics science" is incredibly tepid and minimal, since their run-pass ratios make a mockery of Baldwin's hobby horse that there is only one way to win "properly", by passing a lot (never will he stick his neck out with a number though).
The real Field Generals of football, especially the clear #1 (BB) and #2 (PC) most successful of the decade, might just know a thing or two more than the faux science of football analytics, which takes league wide averages and crudely squashes them like Christmas templates onto the complex cookie dough of situational football. Belichick himself has repeatedly said he weighs this kind of spreadsheet analytics "less than zero" when it comes to highly contextual, concrete situations on the field. What analytics dismisses as "gut" (versus "science") is actually based on evidence too: weighing the undisclosed health as well as fatigue of your players, the observed success of in game individual matchups to that point, the slipperiness of the turf, and every other micro-factor. And in Pete's case he must feel some faith in his decision making having found a way to defy all odds, for example, with that truly preposterous record of being 55-0 while up 4+ points at half. A record like this actually demands a logical, football explanation, even if analytics cannot provide one. Because there is obviously a method behind Pete's madness of carefully and cautiously managing risk (pushing and easing the gas pedal) that pains us fans but works in the end.
Having said all that, there are occasions obviously where Pete trends a bit conservative with respect to in game decisions, even to a fault, and that is part of his makeup. It probably hasn't helped that the Seahawks short yardage power run game has been off quite a bit from last year, as Football Outsiders stats show. But Pete is not consistently conservative and uses a very different calculus when behind. And when he does go for it on 4th, including two failed attempts against the Saints (both justified given the game state, even the "uncowardly" decision to go for it on Seattle's own 28 yard line), it seems many of the same analytics bozos come out of the woodwork to find fault. That's in part because the unofficial Seahawks Society of Analytics/Cynics (all 4 or 5 principals and their loyal following) seems far more concerned to discredit Pete Carroll and discount Seahawk success in order to confirm their priors than to give credit where it's due.
I suspect that if there were an omnicient Football Allfather capable of weighing Pete's "cowardice", he would reassure us that it has been far less costly than the critics believe (much cowardice went into the 55-0 record noted above). If anything I think it's the too casual use of early timeouts that is getting worrisome. But there is no Football Allfather and whatever people think of Pete they should be wary of the hubris of analytics and claims to quantify the spectacular chaos, contingency and game-of-inches of football down to 12 decimal places or whatever and name it, from the safety of their armchairs, a "surrender index".
Rant aside, thanks a ton for these ruminations and all your weekly ruminations, Fade. I greatly enjoy them.
