Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
BTW the aversion to going for it in these spots is a known cognitive bias called the Zero-risk bias. People generally prefer complete elimination of one risk over simple reduction of a second, even when the simple reduction gets rid of more risk than the elimination. In this case, punting completely eliminates one risk (that of losing straightaway because you don't get the first down), while going for it reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk that you will lose due to a game-winning Saints drive. In the mind of people who aren't EV nerds, elimination > reduction, it's that simple.
The problem when people say things like "9% chance of winning" and are then laughed at because "ZOMG 9% why bother" is that people never express the % chance of the alternative when discussing the option i.e that if you choose to not go for it the Falcons win 5% of the time or whatever the %'s say.
People purely think that since going for it means you lose a higher % of the time you win, that the play is bad. Same thing when Atlanta played Philly in week 2(?) where Atlanta screwed up the game clock, allowing Philly to get off a hail mary into the endzone as well as a DeSean Jackson punt return attempt, when they should have never got the ball back.
When Mike Smith did that (screw up the gameclock management), he may have only given Philly a 5% of so chance of winning the game. But even if you tell someone that, MS still gave the Falcons a 95% chance of winning the game, so he must be a genius.