Should the 49ers Have Deferred on the OT Kickoff

Originally posted by scooterhd:
You realize the first team punting changes the game into sudden death right? Next score wins. A punt for either team 1 or team 2 creates the exact same scenario. You cannot claim there is a third possession advantage on an exchange of punts without also claiming there is a second possession advantage if the first team punts.

Exactly right again.

Any playcaller who is making decisions influenced by fear of a sudden death scenario can face the same choices whether they have the ball first or second.

This is silly anyway because coaches are kicking near universally unless it's 4th and short or they are trailing and need a 1st down.

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
Chiefs would be scored either way. Even easier IMO if they deferred.

Defense was EXHAUSTED.

This is an idea with merit. You may want to give your defense a break if they just got dragged down the field for a score to go overtime. You can't just consider numbers when it's flesh and blood human beings, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:
Chiefs would be scored either way. Even easier IMO if they deferred.

Defense was EXHAUSTED.

This is an idea with merit. You may want to give your defense a break if they just got dragged down the field for a score to go overtime. You can't just consider numbers when it's flesh and blood human beings, lol.

.. and another reason why SHANNY should ran the ball over and over

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
I can say you are definitely wrong that a 3rd possession disadvantage won't change the decision to kick a FG or go for it on 4th down.

4th and long bro. Jesus. Teams will go on 4th and short. We don't want them to do it lol.

Do you think Shanahan goes for two if we score on that opening drive? That would be consistent with playing for a 3rd possession yea?

4th and medium???Why do you keep ignoring this.

4th and medium, but only after team 1 kicks a field goal. Don't forget the limiters. If team 1 scores a TD, you always go for it and get an extra down to gain a first. If team 1 punts, that already started sudden death. They made the same decision you have to, so there is no third possession advantage. It's equivalent to the second possession advantage on a punt. So you are already arguing from a narrowed range of outcomes even if you find some truth.

This is like saying if you fumble the ball on the kick off return, you are at a disadvantage. Or if you throw an int, you are in a disadvantage. To describe that as 2nd possession advantage is ridiculous.

You realize the first team punting changes the game into sudden death right? Next score wins. A punt for either team 1 or team 2 creates the exact same scenario. You cannot claim there is a third possession advantage on an exchange of punts without also claiming there is a second possession advantage if the first team punts.

You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

You cited a presumably blind poll of (6?) analytic staffers. Did they cite the reasons for their decision as part of the question?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

You cited a presumably blind poll of (6?) analytic staffers. Did they cite the reasons for their decision as part of the question?

10 analytic staffers. I doubt they have reasons we haven't heard of or discussed already. At the end it is a matter of considering all potential outcome and probabilities without biased and put it in a simulation model.

Here are a few. You would want to click on the link. There are more in the reply.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Lets agree on something. If it goes to a 3rd possession, the team with the ball has an advantage. Your figure was 70% win rate earlier. Thats fine, use that. If it comes to a 3rd possession the team with the ball has a 70% chance to win. OK. But what if it goes to a 4th possession? Well, then the team with the ball has the advantage. What about a 5th, a 6th, 7th, 8th? Yes. Those are less and less likely scenarios to happen and not prioritized because the advantage is delayed, but the team with the ball would have the advantage. In other words, the TEAM WITH THE BALL WHEN THE GAME GOES TO SUDDEN DEATH HAS THE ADVANTAGE. In your words, the 70% win rate lies with the team that possess the ball in a sudden death scenario. Take the 3rd possession phrase out of it. Its not a 3rd possession advantage, it a sudden death possession advantage. Once again for clarity, the team with the ball first in sudden death has a 70% win rate. Its just like the old school OT. This is your claim. By those numbers, we want the ball in the soonest possible sudden death scenario. Having the ball 5th is better then 9th for example. Having the ball 3rd is better then 4th.

OK. How do we get to this clearly advantageous sudden death scenario? There are 4 possibilities.

1. Team 1 turnover. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (maybe more depending on field position)
2. Team 1 punt. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (more or less depending on field position)
3. Exchange of TDs
4. Exchange of FGs.

So far 2 of the 4 possible scenarios heavily favor the second team. Lets explore the 2 possibilities, touchdown and field goal, of an even exchange of points.

Team 1 Touchdown. In that case, Team 2 would be forced to score a TD obviously. Assuming even teams considering we got to OT in the first place, the odds of Team 2 scoring a TD are slightly higher then Team 1 because they know they need one. 4th and 5 from the 10 yard line, Team 1 might elect to kick a FG (as the 49ers did), whereas Team 2 would go for it knowing they need a TD. 4th and 12 from your own 30, Team 1 likely punts but Team 2 would go for it. 4th and 25 from midfield, Team 1 would surely punt. Team 2 would go for a hail mary or some pitch play. 4 downs is always an advantage. But more importantly for the discussion, if Team 2 scores the matching TD, they know that kicking a PAT would give Team 1 the 70% win rate advantage of a third possession, so they would not do that. They would go for 2. And 2 point conversion rates are over 50% so the advantage lies with them. Therefore, an exchange of TDs does not lead to a third possession, and an exchange of TDs favors Team 2.

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Lets agree on something. If it goes to a 3rd possession, the team with the ball has an advantage. Your figure was 70% win rate earlier. Thats fine, use that. If it comes to a 3rd possession the team with the ball has a 70% chance to win. OK. But what if it goes to a 4th possession? Well, then the team with the ball has the advantage. What about a 5th, a 6th, 7th, 8th? Yes. Those are less and less likely scenarios to happen and not prioritized because the advantage is delayed, but the team with the ball would have the advantage. In other words, the TEAM WITH THE BALL WHEN THE GAME GOES TO SUDDEN DEATH HAS THE ADVANTAGE. In your words, the 70% win rate lies with the team that possess the ball in a sudden death scenario. Take the 3rd possession phrase out of it. Its not a 3rd possession advantage, it a sudden death possession advantage. Once again for clarity, the team with the ball first in sudden death has a 70% win rate. Its just like the old school OT. This is your claim. By those numbers, we want the ball in the soonest possible sudden death scenario. Having the ball 5th is better then 9th for example. Having the ball 3rd is better then 4th.

OK. How do we get to this clearly advantageous sudden death scenario? There are 4 possibilities.

1. Team 1 turnover. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (maybe more depending on field position)
2. Team 1 punt. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (more or less depending on field position)
3. Exchange of TDs
4. Exchange of FGs.

So far 2 of the 4 possible scenarios heavily favor the second team. Lets explore the 2 possibilities, touchdown and field goal, of an even exchange of points.

Team 1 Touchdown. In that case, Team 2 would be forced to score a TD obviously. Assuming even teams considering we got to OT in the first place, the odds of Team 2 scoring a TD are slightly higher then Team 1 because they know they need one. 4th and 5 from the 10 yard line, Team 1 might elect to kick a FG (as the 49ers did), whereas Team 2 would go for it knowing they need a TD. 4th and 12 from your own 30, Team 1 likely punts but Team 2 would go for it. 4th and 25 from midfield, Team 1 would surely punt. Team 2 would go for a hail mary or some pitch play. 4 downs is always an advantage. But more importantly for the discussion, if Team 2 scores the matching TD, they know that kicking a PAT would give Team 1 the 70% win rate advantage of a third possession, so they would not do that. They would go for 2. And 2 point conversion rates are over 50% so the advantage lies with them. Therefore, an exchange of TDs does not lead to a third possession, and an exchange of TDs favors Team 2.

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

When we say 3rd possession advantage, we are talking about an inherent advantage before the OT start. We are not talking about the shifts in advantage after OT started and something happened.

The reason we are discussing the advantage before OT starts is so we can build simulation model incorporating all probabilities and potential outcome, including if the 1st team throws a pick or had to punt.

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive. You did a good mental exercise , but the way you come up with a conclusion was garbage unless you did a detail simulation model.

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

Based on Kyle's presser this is basically the scenario he was playing for

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

These scenarios are based on an average team vs an average team. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm not sure you get the same answer if they are specifically considering one team having the best QB in the game.

The more I think about the bigger the mistake was imo. If I am the HC I want my qb to have the last say. Reid saying he would have gone for 2 is experience talking. He knew by then the defenses would be gassed. Then andd the 3 down vs 4 down reality of the sequence etc etc.. Big Mistake.

In short we gave the BEST player in the league the final say and he spoke.

I wish he gave Purdy that chance, but our o-line was toast regardless.

Originally posted by mcwoot:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

These scenarios are based on an average team vs an average team. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm not sure you get the same answer if they are specifically considering one team having the best QB in the game.

Agree. But also they might have the worst WR group in the NFL. Overall their offense wasn't explosive this whole season.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by scooterhd:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You realize if you are going to be stop for no points in your first possession, you need to stop your opponent from scoring for at least one drive to not lose the game. This is regardless of whether you have the ball first or deferred. However, a 3rd possession advantage can significantly increase your winning %, wand this is offset by the information factor.

I don't think you really understand all of the possibilities and probabilities for all the scenarios. And that is why you can't figure out why analytic experts are really split on this.

Lets agree on something. If it goes to a 3rd possession, the team with the ball has an advantage. Your figure was 70% win rate earlier. Thats fine, use that. If it comes to a 3rd possession the team with the ball has a 70% chance to win. OK. But what if it goes to a 4th possession? Well, then the team with the ball has the advantage. What about a 5th, a 6th, 7th, 8th? Yes. Those are less and less likely scenarios to happen and not prioritized because the advantage is delayed, but the team with the ball would have the advantage. In other words, the TEAM WITH THE BALL WHEN THE GAME GOES TO SUDDEN DEATH HAS THE ADVANTAGE. In your words, the 70% win rate lies with the team that possess the ball in a sudden death scenario. Take the 3rd possession phrase out of it. Its not a 3rd possession advantage, it a sudden death possession advantage. Once again for clarity, the team with the ball first in sudden death has a 70% win rate. Its just like the old school OT. This is your claim. By those numbers, we want the ball in the soonest possible sudden death scenario. Having the ball 5th is better then 9th for example. Having the ball 3rd is better then 4th.

OK. How do we get to this clearly advantageous sudden death scenario? There are 4 possibilities.

1. Team 1 turnover. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (maybe more depending on field position)
2. Team 1 punt. Game immediately becomes sudden death. Any Team 2 score wins. 70% win rate for Team 2 (more or less depending on field position)
3. Exchange of TDs
4. Exchange of FGs.

So far 2 of the 4 possible scenarios heavily favor the second team. Lets explore the 2 possibilities, touchdown and field goal, of an even exchange of points.

Team 1 Touchdown. In that case, Team 2 would be forced to score a TD obviously. Assuming even teams considering we got to OT in the first place, the odds of Team 2 scoring a TD are slightly higher then Team 1 because they know they need one. 4th and 5 from the 10 yard line, Team 1 might elect to kick a FG (as the 49ers did), whereas Team 2 would go for it knowing they need a TD. 4th and 12 from your own 30, Team 1 likely punts but Team 2 would go for it. 4th and 25 from midfield, Team 1 would surely punt. Team 2 would go for a hail mary or some pitch play. 4 downs is always an advantage. But more importantly for the discussion, if Team 2 scores the matching TD, they know that kicking a PAT would give Team 1 the 70% win rate advantage of a third possession, so they would not do that. They would go for 2. And 2 point conversion rates are over 50% so the advantage lies with them. Therefore, an exchange of TDs does not lead to a third possession, and an exchange of TDs favors Team 2.

Team 1 FG. Obviously Team 2 wants to best that, but if they cannot and find themselves in field goal range in a 4th and X distance where a conversion seems unlikely, then yes, they will kick a FG. As a result, Team 1 would get the 3rd possession advantage. Therefore an exchange of field goals favors Team 1.

There's 4 ways to create sudden death possession advantage. 2 of them actually give the initial sudden death advantage to team 2. 1 of them is theoretical only and does not actually create a 3rd possession. And the field goal, yes, creates a 3rd possession advantage. 1 out of 4 possible scenarios favors your position.

When we say 3rd possession advantage, we are talking about an inherent advantage before the OT start. We are not talking about the shifts in advantage after OT started and something happened.

The reason we are discussing the advantage before OT starts is so we can build simulation model incorporating all probabilities and potential outcome, including if the 1st team throws a pick or had to punt.

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

Run simulations from all NFL averages and then act surprised when its 50/50. The average offense is as good as the average defense. Therefore advantage to team that has the ball multiple times first if any advantage is to be gleaned. Great. You formulate the exact average team on Madden, go to playoff OT, let them play 100k times under the same 3 down rules with no 2 point conversions, and sure, 50/50 or slight advantage to Team 1. But thats not what happens...

These models are based on the data that we do have. Kudos for a best guess. There is no empirical data related to the new OT rules, so they are simulating situations from all teams across the league under scenarios that DO NOT apply. A 3rd and 10 from the Bears in the first quarter of week 3 is not the same as a 3rd and 10 from the Chiefs in the SB when they know they have a 4th down behind the play. Completely different playcalling. So if you want to average conversion rates on a 3rd and whatever, cool, but its not applicable to the situation. You want to look at conversion rates when the Patriots are in 2 and 8, great. Thats not the same as the Chiefs against a gassed defense in the 5th quarter, knowing they still have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down. You want to look at league averages of field goals from X distance, great, thats not Harrison Butker. You want to look at 2 point conversion rates of the Falcons, cool, thats not Reid and Mahomes. You want to look at the odds of the Jets with a backup QB producing a scoring drive, great, thats not a superbowl caliber team. The new OT is a completely separate game. The prospect of sudden death changes the strategy. The capabilities of the teams involved changes the strategy. Its a much more complex simulation then you've been made to believe.

Originally posted by mcwoot:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

These scenarios are based on an average team vs an average team. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm not sure you get the same answer if they are specifically considering one team having the best QB in the game.

Correct.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by mcwoot:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Again, many analytical professionals who looked into the current playoff OT format have done simulation models and so far from what we can tell is that it is certain not a no brainer decision to go first or deferred. If you are telling me you haven't done a detail simulation model and you have concluded it is no brainer to deferred, then I certain think you are quite naive and your analysis is a garbage.

These scenarios are based on an average team vs an average team. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm not sure you get the same answer if they are specifically considering one team having the best QB in the game.

Agree. But also they might have the worst WR group in the NFL. Overall their offense wasn't explosive this whole season.

They scored on their final 4 possessions...