
The Coach Who Never Punts - bennesvig
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9970245/grantland-channel-coach-never-punts
======
thejteam
There's a huge difference between what works at the professional level and
what works at the collegiate level and what works at the high school level. A
lot of it comes down to the difference in abilities between kickers and
punters between those levels.

In high school some teams will always go for a 2 point conversion after a
touchdown. Not because they will make it a large percentage of the time but
because they will be lucky if their kicker will make the extra point 20
percent of the time.

In high school and college it makes sense to go for it on fourth down more
often because most teams don't have punters that can consistently kick the
ball 50 yards or down it inside the 10.

Professional kickers can consistently make a field goal from 40 yards, some
have really good percentages from 50. An onside kick that fails almost gives
the other team 3 free points in the pros. An if the receiving team is
expecting it the percentage of the time it works be small. In high school,
where you almost have to be at extra point distance to even think of trying a
field goal, I could see it being useful.

Main point: The coaches at each level are, for the most part, acting
rationally. The occasional deviation from the typical strategy is like a bluff
in cards. You need to do it occasionally so that they can't gang up on your
typical strategy.

~~~
tghw
This is the sort of broken thinking that prevents NFL coaches from trying
this. The numbers just don't agree with your premise.

Brian Burke of Advanced NFL Stats has a great 4-part write up on it:
[http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-
part-...](http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html)

By the end of it, he has a model that demonstrates when teams should punt,
when they should kick a field goal, and when they should go for it. Spoiler:
They should go for it a _lot_ more often.

For example, if you have 4th & 4 (or less) and are anywhere from the 5 yard
line to the 50, you should go for it.

He even has a calculator so you can now add incorrect statistical decision
making to your list of reasons to scream at the TV on Sundays:
[http://wp.advancednflstats.com/4thdncalc1.php](http://wp.advancednflstats.com/4thdncalc1.php)

~~~
001sky
You only go for it if you have better than average odds of getting it. Its not
like random draws from a known distribution. Any included data on 4th down is
going to be subject to some variation of survivorship bias. See, for example,
also the consideration:

 _I used only data from the 1st and 3rd quarters to exclude situations hurried
by an expiring clock and by desperate teams or teams with large leads playing
differently late in games._

So, by this logic the 4th down data is similarly non-standard, no? It would
clearly be a situation different than normal 1-3 downs in 1-3 quarters.

~~~
tghw
4th down data is not non-standard for 4th down data. Sure, you can't say for
sure what would have happened if they had gone for it, but there's nothing
particularly different about these downs that would lead to a higher
conversion rate.

~~~
thejteam
I think the point is that if you are using game data then the only times the
offense is currently going for it on fourth down is because they have some
reason to believe they can make it with a high percentage. Football is not
played with random number generators, the coaches and players understand the
matchups and the chances they have of making X yards with the players and
plays they have available. The teams that didn't go for it might have a reason
to believe that with the players on the field the probability of them getting
X yards was small.

------
eldude
This is just about the most absolutely bizarre thing in the world for me to
see my High School football coach on the front page of Hacker News. I attended
Pulaski Academy (PA) 6th-10th grade and played football there from 7th-10th
grade, 1 under Coach Kelley who was then the Defensive Coach while I was a
cornerback (and tailback).

As coaches go, Coach Kelley was smart, far smarter than any coach I had at
Plano West, one of the premier school districts for football in Texas. He
pushed us hard, had a great sense of humor, and was out to win. PA was also
the best school I have ever attended (I also grew up in Rancho Santa Margarita
in Orange County, CA).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while this is completely bizarre to
find it on a Silicon Valley tech site like Hacker News, I honestly can't say
I'm all that shocked. Sometimes when you meet people, you just understand and
know that there's something different about them, a potential for greatness,
that they are a mold breaker. Their current circumstances may be
unexceptional, but you have confidence they will go on to do great things. I
think this is of course what we (HN) share culturally with a football coach
from Little Rock, AR: a desire to think outside the box, to break the mold,
and achieve what little greatness we believe we are capable of achieving.

I owe a great deal of my professional success to Coach Kelley and Pulaski
Academy, so seeing them realize this level of success by being different,
smarter, fills me with pride and warms my heart.

~~~
samsnelling
Awesome to see another person from Plano West here on HN! Just added you on
Linkedin! :)

------
jtbigwoo
My dad used to coach high school and college football way back in the 60's
through the 80's. At one stop, there was a rival catholic high school that
almost never kicked. No punts, always going for two on extra points and no
field goals unless it was the end of the half or the end of the game. Their
players and coaches were cocky about it, and beat my dad's teams more often
than not, so my dad never liked them.

Thinking about it further, though, their style of play broke the other teams'
game plans. In general, if a defense can hold the other team to 3 yards or
less they win. (Because 3 yards times 3 downs equals 9 yards and a new set of
downs is 10 yards.) By calling a play on 4th down, they lowered their standard
of success to 2.5 yards per play. In startup terms, they extended their runway
by 33%.

~~~
unclebucknasty
I wonder how it would work out if teams actually structured their offenses
around gaining only 2.5 yards per down; not _averaging_ 2.5, but actually
gaining 2.5?

Of course, they'd have to go deeper now and again just to keep the offense on
its toes, but apart from that 2.5 is the goal. Everything else is a bonus.

If successful, they would also control the clock and keep the other team's
defense on the field.

~~~
ams6110
You'd have football as it was played 50 years ago?

~~~
unclebucknasty
Heh. Bring out the leather helmets.

But, that may be the reason it could work.

------
teuobk
It's not just football where the strategies popular at the moment are probably
sub-optimal.

Consider ice hockey. Most coaches, if down by a goal, will pull the goalie for
an extra attacker with about 90 seconds left in the game. It turns out that
pulling the goalie significantly earlier, with about 3 minutes left in the
game, would be more likely to result in a win:

[http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf](http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf)

However, coaches are understandably reluctant to pull the goalie so early.
When they're down by a goal near the end of the game, they're probably going
to lose regardless. The public accepts that. However, if they lose anyway
after employing an unorthodox strategy, the critics will be vicious, much as
described in the football article.

~~~
ams6110
There's a similar thing going on with penalty shots. A penalty which when
committed also deprives a player of a scoring opportunity can result in the
non-offending team having the choice of a penalty shot or having the offending
player serve the penalty. Teams will frequently choose the penalty shot, but
statistically it's often a better choice to take the power play opportunity.

------
programminggeek
This really reminds me of the book Moneyball. What I found most interesting
about that book and this sort of stats based management phenomenon is that it
flies in the face of human nature and thus, people who are considered experts
tend to reject such ideas.

What often happens is that people reject the ideas until they start winning or
showing an obvious competitive advantage, then they embrace the ideas and they
become the new standard way of doing things and people will parrot that as the
one true way to do things as if it were always so.

I guess that is what progress looks like.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's just a bias for _proven_ ideas, rather than ideas that are theoretically
sound, which depending on your position can be entirely rational.

------
sanoli
I'm from a country that has zero football and soccer is the king of
everything. Some time ago I started watching football and really enjoyed both
the physical tactical aspects of it. Been very busy though (had kids!), and
never got to really study and learn more about the game (read a for dummies
book and that was it - still have last year's superbowl game on media player
to be watched). What would be a good, practical way (book/video/documentary)
to learn about the game? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

~~~
TillE
Unless you have sentimental value attached to places or teams, rugby union is
similar and much more watchable.

~~~
sanoli
Could you elaborate on why is it more watchable?

~~~
lancewiggs
The play stops a lot less often and for a lot less time, and there are no ad
breaks aside from at half-time. So you get a whole lot more action per hour.

The 15 players stay on the field for the whole game, although 5 (about) can be
subbed out (and can't come back).

There are four ways to restart: kick-off, Scrum (big men push), line out
(thrown in from the side), penalty, (kick for goal, kick for touch or chase or
tap and go), and free kick (same as penalty but no shot for goal).

The players run a lot - it's an aerobic and power game combined, which also
means there is a role for players of all shapes and sizes.

The cost of playing is a ball - no pads required. It's also a lot safer as
there are a lot less head injuries, as the protective gear in American
Football just makes players feel safe, while increasing the impacts to the
head..

The coach does not dictate plays - the players decide what to do when on the
ground. It's a lot more fluid.

You can see the players' faces and bodies as they play, rather than just the
coach.

It's played between countries at the top level. We have a world cup that's a
genuine world cup.

It's now an Olympic sport at the 7s level.

and so on

~~~
patrickk
Agree with most of what you said.

> It's also a lot safer as there are a lot less head injuries...

There's a bit of debate about that point, there isn't enough data on
concussions in rugby as the professional era of massive rugby players isn't as
established as the NFL. Great article: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-
union/24765650](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24765650)

Tongue in cheek article on why rugby is better than American football:
[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/589351-seven-reasons-
why-...](http://bleacherreport.com/articles/589351-seven-reasons-why-rugby-is-
a-better-game-than-american-football)

\---- Where to begin as a rugby newbie? ----

For newcomers interested in rugby union, there's a fantastic subreddit of
dedicated fans, really friendly to newcomers too:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion](http://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion)

Check out the sidebar in that subreddit, it's excellent.

Rugby to Watch

Highlights of the Rugby Championship between South africa v All Blacks (one of
the best games in recent memory - it's got power, speed, skill and massive
hits in abundance) -
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2B0EviQDB0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2B0EviQDB0)

At the moment there's friendlies between top Northern and Southern Hemisphere
teams. Fixtures - [http://www.ultimaterugby.com/november-
internationals-2013](http://www.ultimaterugby.com/november-
internationals-2013)

6 Nations (Top european nations duke it out). Fixtures -
[http://www.ultimaterugby.com/6-nation-2014](http://www.ultimaterugby.com/6-nation-2014)

The above competitions are national teams, that doesn't even cover club sides,
but that's enough to start with!

Watch rugby online -
[http://www.viponlinesports.eu/sports/rugby.html](http://www.viponlinesports.eu/sports/rugby.html)

------
bps4484
Reminded me of an article I read a few years back:

[http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926)

"A year ago at the Hall of Fame reception in Canton, Ohio I found myself
sitting between Bill Walsh and Don Shula. I posed this question: In a day when
the Bears line up five-wide and Texas Tech passes 60 times a game, are there
any fundamental innovations that have not been tried? Walsh supposed someone
might try using trick formations for an entire game. Shula twinkled his eyes
and said: 'Someday there will be a coach who doesn't punt.'"

~~~
graywh
And last season, Gregg Easterbook included weekly updates on PA's "no punt"
strategy.

[http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8333797/annual-t...](http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/_/id/8333797/annual-
tmq-all-haiku-nfl-preview#pulaski)

[http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071113)

------
qooleot
One glaring miss in the statistical-only approach is that the psychology of a
defense on 4th down and how that can impact outcomes. If you just use average
net yards-play to extrapolate expected results for 4th down, or 3rd downs as
per the berkely paper, thats not going to work out. Defenses will most
certainly strategy to take more risks (and decrease the median expected yards
gained in return for a small risk in a huge play), crowd noise can increase,
etc.

The berkeley paper completely writes this off without evidence or reason, even
with his assumption that offenses will not become more conservative with play
calling, and its obvious a defense and crowd would act differently on 3rd and
3 than 4th and 3:

"Since it seems unlikely that the defense has substantially more scope than
the offense to affect the distribution of outcomes"

Primarily, the goal on defense is to get off the field, so other than special
situations like goal-line or the edge of field goal range, its ok to give up 3
yards and even 4 is fine. You really just need one great play out of 3 - a
blocked or missed pass, tackle for loss, etc. and they're 3-and-out.

The paper admits the entire basis and math would be wrong if his assumption
was misplaced:

"Thus using third downs to gauge what would happen on fourth downs would lead
to overestimates of the value of going for it."

On 4th down and 1-3 yards, everything changes. You try to play every play as
hard as possible, but you bring something special when its 'us or them, right
here, right now'. Thats partially why (the other reason is there is less room
to pass) that you see teams march down the field and can't get the last yard 4
tries in a row. I know the offense also steps up, but in a short running play
against relatively even teams, defensive players are usually shorter
(leverage) and have an extra player (unless the offense does wildcat with a
mobile quarterback).

The other missing piece is they didn't seem to look at time left in the half
and timeouts left. Punting in the first quarter is not the same as punting
with 37 seconds and the other team is out of timeouts.

------
gamegoblin
I am from a Little Rock, AR (went to PA's rival school), and when I saw the
headline, I thought "oh, I know of a coach back home that does this." Little
did I know he'd be brought up in an article on HN!

That being said, I'd be interested to see various modern machine learning and
statistical techniques applied to football (as they have become applied to
baseball).

~~~
eldude
Very cool to see a fellow Arkansan and Little Rocker on HN![1] Ping me if
you're ever in the valley, would love to grab lunch.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6730823](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6730823)

------
5vforest
Related: the basketball coach who always did a full-court press:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell)

~~~
snowwrestler
This strategy works so well for the same reason that the no-punt strategy
works so well: because the opponents are kids.

In high-end college basketball, or the NBA, full-time full court press can
become a recipe for easy fast break points. Inbounding teams can pass faster
than defenders can run, and smart, disciplined players can memorize and run
dozens of full-court plays.

At minimum you need a deep bench to consider it, because it is exhausting. So
it's perfect for a kids team, where getting all the kids into the game is a
virtue in itself.

~~~
harywilke
The Bulls teams of the 90's used the full court press to destroy teams in the
third quarter. I agree that it would cause too much wear and tear to run it
all the time.

------
ams6110
Reminds me of a story I read about a girls basketball coach who was not really
familiar with basketball but I think he had coached soccer. He didn't
understand why you would only defend half the floor, so he trained his players
to run the floor like soccer players so that they could defend the entire
floor all the time. Pissed off the opposing teams something fierce, but he did
win a lot of games.

Edit: the story I recalled is the one already posted in another comment,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6729372](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6729372)

------
TheBiv
"There are those kinds of people that are different, becuase they want to be
different. And there are those kinds of people that are different because they
want to be successful" -Coach Kelley, from the video embedded in the link.

I think that is a very valuable lesson for us to take into startups, because
so often we just want to "disrupt" things, but we don't have solid reasons for
why disrupting something will lead us to being successful.

------
rickdale
I have seen this story on E:60 before and actually think about it quite a bit
in regards to the NFL. I think the reality is that most coaches would get
roasted in the media if they tried and failed and playing the media is a big
part of the NFL. ESPN is always looking to cause a distraction and then ask
all of their commentators whether or not the 'distraction" is a distraction.
But you do see coaches going for it when the benefit out ways the risk or they
are feeling lucky. And I do think with the more mobile quarterbacks get the
more you will see teams going for it based on the ability to do more.

This last Sunday, both Detroit and Chicago went for it on 4th down back to
back drives. It was like one coach was challenging the other and I thought
that was pretty cool. Ultimately if you look at these punters today though,
most of them can put the ball on a dime with special spin to make it go where
they want. Field position is tested strategy that works.

~~~
tghw
Go read the write up that Brian Burke did on it. If you're optimizing for
points, the answer is, no, punters still aren't good enough.

[http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-
part-...](http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html)

------
TheBiv
One major flaw to this article doesn't point out is that you may have a
numbers advantage, as the coach and author suggests as the reason to why this
works. Or, you may have a practice advantage against your opponent.

Practice advantage means that very rarely do teams practice their onside kick
coverage or their 4th down defense on the opponents 12 yard line, because it
just never happens. So the week before you play this team, your coaches will
over index on the amount you practice onside kicks and 4th down coverage,
meaning there will be a lot less time to practice for their actual offense and
defense.

~~~
pkulak
Chip Kelley mentioned several times during his coaching at Oregon that the
reason he lined up for two points after every initial touchdown wasn't as much
for the possible extra point, but so that every opposing team would have to
devote precious (very precious in the NCAA) practice time to learning how to
properly line up against it.

------
13hours
As a fan of rugby, I've often wondered why football coaches don't try some
other radically different strategies. For example, why not use a lateral pass
more? Usually football fans explain it by saying it's too risky. But in Rugby
they do it all the time, it's a skill that can be practiced and be almost
guaranteed of success if done correctly.

~~~
lmm
Rugby doesn't have the funny clock business so possession is much less
important.

~~~
13hours
Possession is more important in football, I agree. But I'm saying I suspect
the risk of a lateral pass can be much lower than generally accepted because
you can almost guarantee a pass completion by doing it right. In rugby, in
open play, it's also very risky to loose the ball when attempting a lateral
pass. The opponents can then gain possession and attack while your defensive
line is not in place properly. So dropping the lateral pass is also very
risky. But rugby solves that risk by making sure lateral passes are dropped
very seldom (watch a top level game and see. Around 5 turnovers per team are
because of a lateral pass that's dropped, if that much).

------
Permit
It's interesting to hear there's someone doing this. Nate Silver came to a
similar conclusion at his Google Talk[1]. He proposed this as the answer to
the question "What is the most statistically unsound tactic in sports?"

[1] [http://youtu.be/mYIgSq-ZWE0?t=20m2s](http://youtu.be/mYIgSq-ZWE0?t=20m2s)

~~~
albedoa
Silver also defended Bill Belickick's controversial decision to attempt a 4th-
down conversion over a field goal against the Colts in 2009:

[http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-
beli...](http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-
fourth-down-decision)

~~~
albedoa
My apologies, that should say Brian Burke, not Silver.

------
hkarthik
My feeling is that the automatic punt while you're up has also become a
sportsmanship/etiquette thing now when your team is ahead.

If you're up by 2 touchdowns and you go for it on 4th, I can't think of a
single announcer in the NFL who wouldn't make it seem like you were rubbing
dirt in your opponent's face by doing so.

~~~
twoodfin
I disagree. Especially when you're trying to drain the clock with a lead,
going for it on fourth-and-short is a completely orthodox strategy. I've never
seen an announcer criticize a team for applying it: Far more often, I've heard
some variation of "it's the defense's job to stop you, not your job to stop
for the defense."

------
tristanz
The paper he cites is by David Romer, but it definitely does not say you
should go for it 100% of the time.

[http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf](http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/JPE_April06.pdf)

"Teams’ actual choices are dramatically more conservative than those
recommended by the dynamic-programming analysis. On the 1,604 fourth downs in
the sample for which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off
kicking, they went for it only nine times. But on the 1,068 fourth downs for
which the analysis implies that teams are on average better off going for it,
they kicked 959 times."

------
abuehrle
To anyone who has been through the analysis/math: are fake punts considered
"going for it"? I assume they are.

The following is possible: the surprise element of a fake punt makes going for
it on 4th down more advantageous than it otherwise would be. It could make
P(good outcome | going for it on 4th down) > P(good outcome | punting) if and
only if the defense expects a punt, which they no longer would if a team
adopts the strategy of routinely going for it on 4th down.

------
joshdance
Stats + football. What could be better.

------
outside1234
I wonder how much of this is total commitment. If there is no punt, the
offense is really forced to make it happen or put the defense in a terrible
spot - does that change their mindset to be more gritty, more concentrated -
more "these 10 yards has to happen"?

------
drpgq
As a CFL fan, I'm wondering how these approaches would work up in Canada. It
does seem that most CFL teams go on 3rd and one (easier since the defence has
to give up a yard from the ball unlike US football) now, even in their own
end.

------
avelis
Never would of thought I would see something from the Grantland channel on HN.
Yet here we are. For those more into sports, especially BBall. Listen to Jalen
Rose's podcast. Real insightful information and fun stories to hear.

------
unclebucknasty
You know, if punting was just eliminated from the game, it would be a ton
better from a fan perspective.

I say take it away for everyone and make 'em play all four downs!

------
Glyptodon
Anyone ever watched Moshidora? The "No bunt, no ball" strategy from it kind of
reminds me of this.

------
cglace
Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech goes for it on fourth down all the time.

------
mattspitz
Never punting and always doing onside kicks is nothing new. I've been doing
that in NFL blitz for years.

Always going for the 2-point conversion is the real secret.

------
mbloom1915
this news story is at least 3 years old, also high school football is wacky

------
corresation
High school play obviously has strategies that aren't appropriate for higher
stakes or at a higher level of play: There are a lot of silly plays that high
schools do that you'll never see in the professional leagues, aside from pro
bowl level frivolity.

It's worth noting that this isn't about "going for it" on the 4th down, but
instead about trying onside kicks. I mention that because one of the academic
papers linked (by David Romner) is specifically about going for it on 4th
down, and it doesn't say not to punt, but rather that _on the average_ there
are are many situations where teams punt when odds favor going for it on the
4th down (e.g. 4th and inches at your own 30 yard line. Aside from the last
minutes of the 4th quarter down 6 points, the vast majority of teams would
punt it).

