DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Going for it on 4th Down

Milk Man posted this in the Post Game thread and I wanted to use it to discuss factors that influence going for it on 4th down:

Some follow that statistics and will simply say Stefanski (and others) are making the "RIGHT" call when they go for it on 4th and short no mater what because analytics says it's the right call. Personally I think there are several factors which play into this.

One factor that doesn't seem to get enough air play is the vast differences that "4th and Short" cover. Short typically is anything from 1-3 yards. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize going for it on 4th and 1 is (or it should be) significantly different and easier than going for it on 4th and 3. The statistics that tell us that teams are successful on 65% of 4th down attempts is therefore highly skewed - teams going for it on 4th and 1 *probably* are successful much more than 65% of the time. Teams going for it on 4th and 3 are most probably significantly less successful. But when it's 4th and short during a game - or even post game when discussing the call - no-one is breaking down accurate figures for the actual down and distance. It's why the 4th and 3 attempt versus the Falcons is far from a slam dunk that some seem to want to pretend.

Another factor which Milk Man's tweet highlights is the outcome differential between going for it and being successful vs not getting it AND the outcome of simply punting or kicking a FG. If I am reading the tweet correctly - the stats suggest that getting the 4th down gives the Chargers an 88% win probability. (I'd argue it was higher based on the time on the clock and CLE time outs - but we'll roll with 88%). Odds of winning if they punted was 76%. They estimated the Chargers had a 70% chance of being successful on 4th down. That *seems* to suggest the right call was to go for it. BUT what they have not shown us is the probability the Browns win if the Chargers went for it and were not successful. I think we all felt we were going to win the game as soon as they failed the 4th down attempt. The probability of a win in that situation should have been very high - maybe 70-80%? Two or Three plays to make 6-7-8 yards to make the FG easier. . . . So the win differential between going for it and being successful (88%) and not being successful (say 30%) for the Chargers needs to be looked at in comparison to the win probability if they had punted - 76%. To me that is an easy call - punt every time unless you are facing Josh Allen, Herbert, Mahomes or similar dynamic offenses. So a third factor below needs to be factored in, see below.

A 3rd factor which I think is uber important - momentum of the game and both teams. And this can affect the decision whether you are in the lead or behind and chasing. If you are winning and your defense is dominating, it affects your decision (it should have yesterday). If you are behind and your defense is struggling to stop the other team, you go for it when the stats might not quite be in your offenses favor, but you know the odds of your D stopping them is even less. I mean this would seem so completely obvious to anyone watching a game live - but in the aftermath and when the discussion suddenly relies mostly on statistics and analytics I think a lot of it gets lost. And again drawing from yesterday's game, in that moment I know I wanted the Chargers to go for it because I felt that was the only chance we had to win: somehow stop them, because if they had punted I had absolutely no confidence we could move the ball 40 yards into FG position.

Specifically with Stefanski and the Browns and fans questioning his calls, others defending his calls .... I've said and others have said: If you are successful at a lower rate than the rest of the NFL - then the point and frequency with which you decide to go for it MUST change. Teams successful at 65% of the time should have a different trigger point for going for it than teams being successful at 41% of the time. AND when we do have a 4th and 1 - QB sneak is definitely the most successful play call. Two links below: First is team success rates on 4th down from 2021 - CLE is 3rd worst in the NFL at 41.4% --- but we went for it at a rate that was 8th highest in the league. That's so backwards to how it should be. The second link is from 2015 so a little dated but shows the play type and success rates for 4th and short - QB sneak, run, pass. QB Sneak is by far and away the most succesful call - and no doubt reflects that it is normally called from a 4th and 1 situation.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/most-4th-down-attempts-in-2021

https://sports.sites.yale.edu/success-short-yardage-play-types-fourth-down

Bottom line is there is a lot of grey to many of these decisions and not nearly as black and white as some pretend.

For clarification, you're reading it incorrectly. Had the Chargers been successful on getting the 4th down the win % was 100%. The Browns win % if the Chargers failed to get the first down was 40%. The chart shows the Chargers win % at 60% if they had gone for it and failed, therefore, the Browns had a 40% to win in that situation.

If the Chargers went for it like they did and succeeded they had a 100% chance at winning and a 60% chance even if they failed.

What's more is that just by going for it vs punting, the Chargers increased the likelihood of winning by nearly 12%. (88% win probability going for it and 76% win probability by punting).

When it comes to 4th downs, the Chargers and the Browns are all in what the math says.

Thank you for that - I was reading the 60% as the chance of success.

I think the Browns chances of winning should be higher than 40% in that situation - but that's an emotive opinion not based on data.

I think the actual distance - momentum and your teams actual success rate should all be factors to include in any discussion. It looks like the differential in the outcome is something they try to factor in.

What I think is left out is taking into consideration how "your team" succeeds or does not succeed on fourth and shot yardage situations. In the Browns case with such a good run blocking OL along with Hunt and Chubb one would think it would favor the Browns. I don't know that it does. First you would have to call a play that would take advantage of that situation.

Looking at a stat from a league wide average is certainly one way to approach it. But I would think that the success rate would most certainly be situational from team to team. You are correct about 4th and 1 having a higher percentage of success....


It's actually a pretty good breakdown on 4th and 1 calls.

When it comes to breaking down 4th and short situations by team, it appears some teams simply don't have the team to make it successful as the stats used in your post would indicate at least for this season. The Browns rank 9th and seem to do pretty well at it which I didn't really expect being 9th in the league.


By changing the year on the chart to last year, a total season, they did very poorly at it ranking 30th with just over a 41% rate.

In 2020 we ranked 27th with just under a 41% rate.

When looking at these charts it seems most teams have far less a percentage of success at 4th and short than the statistics listed overall for the league.

While I can't say for a fact that whether a team should go for it on 4th and short is dependent more on their actual teams success rate, these stats certainly indicate that's the case.

Still am not over Kevin's 4th down call when JB should have gone QB sneak.

I am officially off the CKS bandwagon.

With our O-line we should be able to pick up 1 yard on 4th down.

I also wonder if Analytics factors in our roster, meaning should we go for it with Brissett at QB? or the past couple seasons with Mayfield when we failed in the redzone often. Being aggressive is one thing, but till Watson is available, we need every point we can get, so please KS, kick it early

Browns rank 9th in the league this year at converting 4th downs, w/a success rate of 60%.

Indy is dead last at 16.67%. Raiders are first with an incredible 80% success rate.


https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fourth-down-conversion-pct

The Lions were 0-6 on Sunday vs the Pats.

Wow, that's bad.

On the other side of the coin. It was 4th and 1 for the Raiders tonight against KC. They threw a 58 yd TD pass.

That’s gotta be close to an NFL record

One analytic says, if you go too often for it on 4th down,

then the playerz won't try as much on 3rd down, because they'll get used to having one more try.

And Then,
another analytic says if you go for it on 4th down and don't make it,
y'know you can't punt on 5th down. There is no such thing as 5th down. you can't kick a Field Goal on 5th down either.
5th down does not exist.

I have no problem with going for it based on the statistical evidence. In many cases it's the right call. We have made many 4th down calls and stayed alive over the last few years where in years past we and other teams punted.

It still doesn't, nor can it take in to account game situations. That is where the individual coach has to weigh the pro's and cons of going for it on 4th down.

If you are punting on 4th down pretty much no matter what, that is wrong. If you are going for it every time in situations where your chart says to go for it, that is wrong. This isn't like playing blackjack where if you are good you know when the odds are in your favor. Nothing really changes that. In football there are things like momentum that do come in to play.

I guess it was the last game. We went for it early in the game on the 3 yard line. Everything may have pointed towards going for it, but it didn't take in to account the importance of scoring first. Somewhere in the stats it has to show that the team who scores first has a better chance of winning. I have to believe that until someone can show me differently.

That was the one time we went for it where I totally disagreed with the decision. I was fine with all the others. I am no analytics guru, but I think the stats show that 3+3=6. In a game where points add up, it seems to me that when you add points to your total, it has to have some impact on the opponents analytical chart on how they have to go about managing their game.

Like John Madden once said "The team that scores the most points, is probably going to win this one."

I tend to agree - and I like being aggressive and playing to win and not playing 'not to lose' .... in 2021 we were successful on 41% of attempts - that's an enormous gulf between the 65% success rate that is used to justify going for it. So the way the team executes is significant.

What's somewhat ironic - Stefanski has lost games by being ultra conservative when playing with big leads ... that's the definition of playing not to lose. But then is very aggressive on 4th down.

We keep losing games by small points because we refuse to take the fg.

It is becoming more stupid every week. ( 3 weeks in a row they lost a FG opportunity in the first half.)

Good teams know how to take a 3 point advantage out of a drive that earns it.
Then continue to play positive and have a chance to make it a ten point advantage on the next drive.

Just watch the good teams, the really really good teams, they all know how to do that, all of them.

That's not true. If we went for FGs all the time, folks would be claiming that you have to come away w/TDs and not FGs.

We do need to come away with TDs. We also need to be more efficient on third down so we don't have so many fourth down decisions to make.

I think we simply need points. We need to convert 4th downs when we go for it inside FG range.

It's human nature to remember the bad / misses more so than the success - but it FEELS like and SEEMS like we make 4th downs to sustain drives when we are midfield. We seem to have failed at a very high rate when we went for it inside of FG range. And certainly at least 2 games this year instead of taking a lead and scoring points on opening drives (or certainly the first drive points could have been had) - we went for it, failed and handed all the momentum to the other team.

I'd be interested in a review of all the 4th down attempts - whether they were in FG range or not - and the ultimate outcome of the drive we went for it on (did we get points when we were successful). Bottom line I am more interested in the real/actual analytics of the BROWNS success/failure and ignore the NFL wide stats.

One reason we’ve been less efficient is because Hunt hasn’t been as good this year

The Browns are tied for 7th in 4th down conversion percentage according to the site that I'll post the link to. We are at 60%.

Minnesota is first at 75%. Indy is last at 16.6%.

I do think losing Teller was huge yesterday. The guy who replaced him was getting abused all day. I actually saw him get pancaked while trying to block on one play. On 4th downs, having a guy get immediate penetration in the middle of the line is huge.

Here is the link:

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fourth-down-conversion-pct

I'm not sure the onus is on him.

In general, maybe some odd calls on short yardage plays?

I don't know.

I feel like he needs to be "involved" to be effective. A few games this year he's spent too much time on the sidelines. At one time yesterday I blurted out "does Hunt still play for the Browns?" 4 carries for 12 yesterday with 1 target.

I don't disagree with us needing points. In football first downs are the life blood of winning. Keeping the chains moving is huge. We have a really good rate on fourth but we are 10th on 3rd down. I don't know if that includes 3rd downs with a subsequent 4th down attempt.

Maybe there is a shift happening in the league that 3rd down efficiency isn't as strong a benchmark as it used to be. Teams seem to be willing to go on 4th even on their side of the field (desperation attempts not included). Do the analytics drie the attempts or do the attempts drive the analytics?

We need points. The team that scores the most points usually wins the game.