I am a Chiefs fan, probably always will be. This year it is not a joy,
not at all. The Chiefs have a great offense and a horrific defense. the
numbers 9 and 7 seem to be in their future. These are not scores, but
wins and losses. Which goes with which is not so clear. Today the Chiefs
did not have the last possession, so they lost.
However, I was watching the game, and Vermile really blew it more
so than his team.
Here is the scenario. San Diego is trailing 31-28. KC has the ball
around the SD 20. It's 4th and 2. There is about 2:20 on the clock and
SD has used all of its time outs.
Vermile now proceeds to lose the game by failing to understand the
math behind his choices.
He chose to kick a field goal. At this distance and weather and
Morton Anderson on his team, it was almost a lock to succeed. For
simplicity,
let's assume it was a lock.
Now let's analyze the two choices. In doing so, it is important
to remember the tools he has: great offense, paper machete defense.
Vermiles choice:
In an effort to be generous, I will guess the probability that
SD would score a TD on the final drive of the game was about 50%. If you
have seen the KC Chiefs play, you know that is being kind. So, kicking
the field goal gave KC about a 50% chance to win.
The correct choice:
Go for it on 4th down. This is right on so many intuitive levels.
The chiefs get multiple bites at the apple. They can get a first down
and either run out the clock, get a TD or kick a field goal with very little
time left. Even if they fail, SD doesn't really get much. Sure, they get a
chance to kick a field goal to get to overtime, but this option will
change their offensive strategy in a manner that reduces touchdowns.
Here are some numbers to back this up. All of them are guesses,
but I went out of my way to lean in the direction that least favors
going on 4th down.
There are 8 reasonable scenarios that spawn from going on
4th down. Next to each result is a guess at how likely each is to
occur. The +++ marks denote ends of the possible events
KC attempts
4th down
>
>--------------------------------------------|
> >
KC makes KC fails on 4th down (50%)
4th down |
> >--------------|----------------|
> > > >
> +1+ KC win +2+ SD win |
> SD fails to SD scores TD SD kicks FG to tie 25%
> score 25% 50% |
> >------------------|
> > >
> +3+ KC win +4+ SD
win
> KC wins OT SD wins
OT
> 50% 50%
>
>---------------|--------------------|
> > >
+5+ KC win +6+ KC win KC kicks FG with
KC runs out KC scores TD about 40 seconds on clock. 33%
clock 33% 33% |
>---------------------------|
> >
+7+ SD win +8+ KC
win
SD scores final SD fails
to
TD 20% score 80%
If these number are correct, the probability of winning by attempting to
convert 4th down is 157/240 = 0.654. You can do the math yourself to
verify. Just multiply all the numbers on each path and add up the results
that lead to an SD win. Do the same for the paths where the Chiefs win.
Those two results will add up to 1.
That is a whole lot better than 0.5. Remember that I think these numbers
are actually chosen to cast this plan in a poor light. I think KC was
probably
actually less than 50-50 to hold the lead when SD was given over 2 minutes
on the clock. I also think that KC would probably keep SD out of the end
zone
more than 80% of the time as per the +7+ path. KC might be a bit
less than 50-50 to win in OT, but not by a lot. However, that path
is the hardest to reach, only 12.5% of the time. So even if the Chiefs
just win OT 40% of the time, their probability of winning only falls 1.25%
Am I missing something? Is this analysis correct? If it is, why can't
a guy who does this for a rather steep salary reach this conclusion?
My answer is that he is incompetent. Of course, I doubt any other NFL
coach (except possibly Holmgren, who may have done something similar
against Denver in a Super Bowl) would get this right either.
Now maybe you think I am asking too much. How can a NFL coach be expected
to do this kind of thinking in the heat of battle. My answer: Just why
are we paying these guys the big bucks if not to be able to make correct
decisions in the heat of battle. After all, I knew he should go for it
within a few seconds of thought. The analysis merely confirms what was,
IMHO, obvious. In addition, who says he has to do it in the heat of battle.
He can ponder a wide variety of these very common end-game strategies in the
comfort of his office. Come game day, he just recalls the results. If it
is close, he can rethink.
And no, I don't buy the argument that such a move would show a lack of
confidence in the defense and would therefore be inadvisable. Guess what,
if KC wins, the defense won't mind. If they lose anyhow, maybe the
defense WILL take the insult and respond in a positive manner. After all,
that defense should be ashamed to take the same field as the KC offense.
Finally, just which unit should be trusted to win the game for KC. It
is the offense. That simple analysis alone should have led Vermile to
the correct decision.
I did ignore turnovers, blocked kicks, etc. However, these would
probably balance out pretty evenly.
By the way, I no longer bet football. I lost a handful of 11 and 22
dollar bets over the years and decided I don't know jack about handicapping.
Nevertheless, I have been sorely tempted to bet the over on every KC game.
since about week 3. If you look at their scores, they have been over in
5 of 6 games, and came close in the one game that did go under. This was
while playing against teams with defenses of average or above average
skills.
Just why do the books keep posting O/U numbers for KC that are below 50? I
think only two KC games have had totals under 69. Are the books getting
equal action on both sides? That is hard to imagine. Maybe they think
this is the 'true' line. If so, they really need to wake up, don't they?
My other picks for the week: Raiders -7 and Jacksonville -2. Now you see
why
I stay away from the sports books.
QZ