Apparently, going for it in that situation was actually a roughly 3% decrease in their odds of winning, which is a fairly large swing for a single play.
Now, what I'd say, and what I say with all analytics, is that they are wonderful guidelines. They shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel, simply because analytics tend to be terrible at taking circumstances at the moment into account. I'd say, given the situation that the Lions were in, with the defense in the state it was in, the Packers having already scored 24 points in the half, but only having about 40 seconds and no timeouts... that the decision to go for it was close enough to a 50/50 proposition that you can make a sound, reasonable case for any call made there.
At that point, there are no "good" or "bad" decisions; just good or bad results.
Now, what I'd say, and what I say with all analytics, is that they are wonderful guidelines. They shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel, simply because analytics tend to be terrible at taking circumstances at the moment into account. I'd say, given the situation that the Lions were in, with the defense in the state it was in, the Packers having already scored 24 points in the half, but only having about 40 seconds and no timeouts... that the decision to go for it was close enough to a 50/50 proposition that you can make a sound, reasonable case for any call made there.
At that point, there are no "good" or "bad" decisions; just good or bad results.
Comment