It amazes me that so many ESPN talking heads are defending Detroit Lions head coach Jim Schwartz's fake field goal in the Lions 37-27 loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday afternoon. While listening to the ESPN programs Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption yesterday, the verdict was nearly unanimous - Jim Schwartz was aggressive, playing to win the game, and in essence, made the right call.
I get it. A lot of sports enthusiasts like seeing aggressive play-calling. Even if a team is facing a 4th-and-27 from their own 8-yard line, I'll hear hometown homers yell out, "Go for it!" However, while these out-of-the-ordinary play-calls might be good for sports talk radio, that doesn't make them good calls.
I'm a numbers geek through and through, and this is even true when it comes to football. I can remember being at a bar for an Ohio State/Northwestern game about a month or so ago. The Buckeyes, whom had trailed almost all game, were about to face a 4th-and-goal from inside the Northwestern 2-yard line late about midway in the 4th quarter. A field goal would tie the game and a touchdown would give the Buckeyes the lead. Almost everyone in the place yelled for Buckeyes head coach Urban Meyer to go for it, while I sat back and said, "They've trailed all game. They have the momentum. Tie the game and at worst, force overtime. With the momentum they've got going, I'd like their chances if that situation presents itself." Fortunately for Coach Meyer, he didn't have to make that decision, because via instant replay, it showed that Ohio State had actually scored a touchdown on the 3rd down play.
It strikes me as odd sometimes how mathematically unconscious many head coaches and fans are. It's about playing both the momentum and the odds. If a team is up 14 points early in the 4th quarter and face a 4th-and-short inside the 20-yard line, a field goal makes it a three possession game. It boggles my mind how often times, coaches will decide to go for it, only to get stuffed at the line-of-scrimmage, and failing to make it a three-score game. While momentum is incredibly important, increasing one's mathematical odds of winning is of greater importance.
So, let's look back at Jim Schwartz's decision. The Lions, whom had trailed by 14 points earlier in the game, led 27-23 early in the 4th quarter. At the Pittsburgh 5-yard line, they faced a 4th-and-goal. If they go for it and score a touchdown, they dramatically increase their odds of winning, as the game would have gone from a one- to a two-score game. However, if they go for it and fail, their odds of winning decrease by a decent margin, because a touchdown by the Steelers would put them ahead. If Detroit kicks a field goal, they slightly increase their odds of winning, because at worst, Pittsburgh can tie them in a single drive with a touchdown. If Detroit had left their offense on the field, the odds would have been slightly less than 50/50 that they'd score a touchdown. If they had kicked the field goal, the odds would have been close to 100/0 that they would have converted. However, Schwartz didn't even go with the 50/50 option. He decided to place the ball in the hands of rookie punter Sam Martin and trust that he'd be able to run the ball in from five yards out to put the Lions up 33-23 (34-23 with the extra point). The odds of that working is probably around 20/80. If the Lions had the ball at the 1-yard line and Schwartz decided to go for it, while I still wouldn't agree with the call, I could somewhat understand ESPN talking heads saying it was an "aggressive" call. However, faking a field goal from the 5-yard line and trusting a guy, whom has about as much experience running with a football as I do, to score a touchdown was downright stupid.
I'm sorry, but that's not playing to win the game; that's playing to lose the game. Playing to win the game would have been to make the chip-shot field goal, put the team up by 7 points and make it more difficult for the Steelers to make up ground both in momentum and mathematical odds of winning. It would be akin to the following situation in a baseball game. A road team is up a run in the top of the 9th inning. They have a runner at 3rd base with one out, and instead of the manager instructing the batter to hit a sacrifice fly, he tells him to go for the home run. Oh, and by the way, this batter is a pinch hitter who is arguably the worst hitter on the team, replacing a guy who is one of the most reliable bunters and RBI men in the league. The batter goes on to strike out and the home team gets out of the inning still only down one run. Sticking with the original batter and doing everything possible to get that run in from 3rd base would have put his team up two runs going to the bottom-half of the inning and increased the odds of them winning quite substantially. Instead, due to that missed opportunity, it provides the other team a better chance to steal the momentum and the game.
ESPN talking heads can defend Schwartz's call all they want. It was a dumb decision, plain and simple.
Comments
Post a Comment