The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Again, this is a general NFL question, but one that is lifted directly from the Phins/Pats game.

Here's the hypothetical situation:
2:00 on the clock.  3 Timeouts.  You need 3 points.  You are kicking off, after a score.

Situation 1:
Kick Away and Play Defense - What are the odds (as a percentage) that you hold NE to a 3 and out + drive enough yardage (probably 20-30 yards, in 4-down territory, with 0 timeouts) +  convert a FG?

Situation 2A:
Convert the Onside Kick - What are the odds that you convert the onside kick + drive enough yardage (about 20 yards) + convert a FG?

Situation 2B:
Miss the Onside Kick - Having already failed to recover an onside kick, what are the odds that you hold NE to a 3 and out + drive enough yardage (probably 50-60 yards, in 4-down territory, with 0 timeouts) + convert a FG?


So, I need 3 percentages.  If we can reach some kind of general concensus as to what they are, the math will tell us which decision is wiser.

Without some serious data-mining over the last (at least) 10 or more years, the actual odds will be hard to come by. Sounds like fun - if I had the time to do it.

My gut feeling / guess is that we'd see:

Situation 2B is the most likely of the three scenarios that could occur. Very few onside kick recoveries happen.

Situation 1 is the next most likely to occur, as - with 2:00 and 3 timeouts - would be the next logical choice. But if we were to take the # of all 1st downs that ended in a 3 and out, we'd see a small number (3 and out's happen, but do they happen more than teams converting for a 1st down? No chance).

Situation 2A is the least-likely to occur, as very few onside kicks are converted by the kicking team.

If you want some "pulled out of my ass" percentages to accompany that context, my guess for those would be:

Situation 1: 15%
Situation 2A: 2%
Situation 2B: 98%

Of course, Situation 2B is a negative while Situations 1 and 2A are positives (can they be grouped together?)

Update: I was way off. And fucking shocked at this stat:

1 in 4.76
The odds an onside kick in the NFL will be successful are 1 in 4.76 (US, 9/2001 - 11/2008).

Source: Book of Odds:

http://bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Odds/The-odds-an-onside-kick-in-the-NFL-will-be-successful-are-1-in-4.76-US-9-2001-11-2008

and

http://www.bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Articles/A0173-Onside-Kicks

** NOTE: 1 in 4.76 are the odds for any onside kick. This is not segmented by quarter. The article states that the 3rd quarter has the highest success rate - but in this situation we are needing the rate of onside kicks attempted in the end of the 4th quarter...

But - rounding up - 1:5 may be sufficient.

Assuming Jtex's number of better than 1 in 5 is correct, I say the correct call is go for the onside kick.

The chances of holding an offense like NE to a 3 three and out, plus driving the length of the field with the Dolphin's offense is less than 20%. 

How many 1st downs does NE have per game this year? How many possessions?

I think I see where you're going with this.

So basically, if you kick off, you have almost no shot at recovery (unless a fumble happens on the kick return). If you onside kick you at least have a 20% shot at recovery - but if you don't recover it (an 80% chance) then it's the same as kicking it off anyways, sans field position (mid-field-ish vs. their 20 - about a loss of 30 yards).

You don't kick away when your defense is outmatched by the opponent's offense.  In the second half, the defense was way outmatched.

You only kick away if you have high confidence that you can stop them in 3 plays.  They did it in the first half a couple times, but its rare that any team stops Brady in three plays, especially with the game on the line.

Bad decision.

You could argue that even if you don't recover the on-sides kick, if you hold them to a FG, there might still be some time left on the clock and you'd only be down by 6. You'd have to go the whole distance, but still a chance at winning. By kicking off, you're giving the offense more room to work in which just makes it harder to defend it all.

I think the number's we're using are off pretty bad.  I certainly don't understand JTex's 98%.

I think it's something like:

1) Kick away and play defense.  Odds of stopping a team for a 3 and Out. -- 50%.  Odds of driving the field with no timeouts. -- 50%.  Make the kick -- 70%.
That equals out to: 17.5%

2A) Recover the kick. Odds of recovering the kick -- 20%.  Odds of driving the yardage with 4 downs and 3 TOs -- 70%.  Odds of making the kick (likely to be closer in this situation) -- 80%.
This equals out to: 11.2%

2B) Not recover kick.  Odds of stopping the team for a 3 and Out -- 50%.  Odds of driving the full field with no timeouts -- 20%.  Make the kick -- 70%.
This equals out to: 7.0%

2A and 2B are significant because they aren't mutually exclusive.  You can try for 2A and then still have a shot at 2B.  Whereas if 1 fails, it's game over.    *** not counting flukes

So, using my numbers: Kicking away gives you a 17.5% chance of victory.
Onside kicking gives you a 17.416% chance of victory.

...nearly identical.  Of course, we can debate my numbers for individual chances, but the decision is much, much closer than I originally thought it would be.

I agree.  You don't kick it to a Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Etc led team.  I'm usually against the onside kick, except when you are going against a team that has powerful offensive weapons.

Good point. 

You are still basically in the same position, if you don't recover the onside kick as if you kick it away.  Your defense must force a 3 and out.  (Just this time it is in FG range) and then the offense must score. 

No way both of these could be right.  Or even close to the same percentages.

What you are saying is the Dolphins offense has the exact same odds at being able to drive down the field with no timeouts as the the Patriots have of making a single first down. 

Never mind NE has a better offense than the Dolphins.  Just that it is much harder for any team to score than to get a first down. 

Driving down the field for the Dolphins in that scenario would only be 20-30 yards in 4 down territory.  I don't think that 50% for that is crazy.

Wheras, the Pats only have 3 downs to do it.  Also, you can easier predict a team's plays that is trying to run out the clock. They don't throw to the sidelines and are more likely to run to force timeouts.  I think that 50% is apt for that, as well.

It is true that the Dolphins have four down and the Pats only three. 

But, actually the Dolphins offense would be considerable more predictable. 

NE offense -- either run or short passes, no deep down the field or toward the sidelines.

Dolphins offense -- either side lines or very very deep.  In fact NE would be better off letting the Dolphins complete a pass in the middle field than have an incomplete pass, no timeouts.

Dave I have no idea how you're coming up with a 50% chance of stopping a team for a three and out. Are you saying that, for any drive, a team has a 1 out of 2 shot of stopping them for a "3-and-out"? So you're saying that 1/2 of all drives are 3-and-outs?

Also - a 50% chance of driving the field with no timeouts on any drive?

98% came from the opposite of 2% (converting a onside kick, without taking into account driving and kicking a FG). But obviously that is wrong as that website I found stats 1 out of 4:78 for onside kick conversions in the last 10 years.

on any given play, you have a 50% chance to get 10+ yards or less than 10 yards.

You have to get less than 10 yards on three consecutive plays.  In addition, you have to get less than 10 yards in the sum of three plays.  At most, the chances of getting a first down should be 12.5%

But, this whole probability crap is meaningless because it assumes that the offense and defense are the same - NFL average.  I'd give the Packers a great chance of getting a first down in 3 plays against the Rams, where I'd give the Colts a terrible chance against the 49ers.

You can't base decisions on probability.  You have to consider the circumstances as well.

At end of game situations, I think so, yes.  ...at least close to 50%.  When a team is trying to burn three TOs, they don't play the same style as with their regular offense.  Of course stopping a team 3-and-out is more difficult in the middle of a game, but at the end, one team is more likely to run and you can bring up your safeties, because there is absolutely no threat of a deep ball.  It's almost like running a goalline defense at midfield.

 

"Driving the field" in that situation would only be 20-30 yards and you'd have 4 downs to do it, since you aren't going to punt.  I think that it's also about 50-50.


This is a misunderstanding of the question, so I will let it go.

Yes, I agree.  ...but teams aren't THAT different.  The concepts are probably sound.  You do have to take circumstances into effect, of course.  I'm speaking more in generalities.

9 times out of 10, I kick away and play defense. 

2A, there's a time and a place for this, but you have to make sure you have the matchup.

2B, that's part of the gamble in 2A.  If you're defense is playing lights out, it's worth a shot.

2A and 2B are not a decision. 

It's either 1 or 2.  ...but if you choose 2, there are two seperate parts.

for the most part since I have all my timeouts, I kick deep.

I don't understand this math.

Is this like saying I have a 50% chance to win the lottery, because either I win it or I don't?