The Passing Premium Puzzle Revisited

Rockerbie, Duane W.

doi:10.2202/1559-0410.1093

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rockerbie (2008), for example, used analogies to financial markets in his research on the "passing premium puzzle" (a concept first described by Alamar, 2006). In effect, he assumed that NFL coaches are risk averse over uncertain field positions since the general population is typically risk averse over uncertain monetary outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies

Urschel¹,

Zhuang²

2011

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative analysis of football play calling suggests that NFL coaches do not choose their strategies optimally. They tend to be overly cautious. One possible explanation for this finding is that NFL coaches are averse to risk and loss. We propose a prospect theory based model of coaches' utility and estimate the model's parameters using kickoff data from the 2009 NFL season. Using an outcome measure of points scored on the initial post-kickoff possession we analyze two strategic kickoff decisions that involve risk-reward tradeoffs: the decision to kick a surprise onside kickoff or a regular kickoff, and the decision to accept a touchback or run the ball out of the endzone. Surprise onside kickoffs may yield a more favorable mean points scored value for the kicking team than a regular kickoff, yet surprise onside kickoffs are infrequently used (and thus the same size is small and the p-value of significance test is 0.68). Coaches appear averse to the possible loss involved in the surprise onside kickoff. Running the ball out yields a higher mean points scored for the receiving team than accepting a touchback, but it entails some risk (fumbles are lost in 2 percent of returns). Nevertheless, declining the touchback option and running the ball out is very common. Coaches do not appear excessively risk averse when presented with this choice over possible gains. Prospect theory models allow for risk aversion over possible gains, as in traditional expected utility theory, and in addition they permit an asymmetric aversion to losses. A prospect theory model therefore seems suitable for our analysis of kickoff strategies. We estimate a risk aversion coefficient value of 0.66 and a loss aversion coefficient value of 1.55, where values <1 and>1 indicate risk and loss aversion, respectively. Our analysis supports the notion that NFL coaches are both modestly risk averse and loss averse. In other words, coaches display diminishing sensitivity to changes in scoring outcomes as they move further from a reference point (zero), and for scoring gains and losses of equal magnitude they suffer more from a loss than they enjoy from a gain. This result may explain their propensity for making conservative strategic choices that, at first glance, appear sub-optimal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies

Urschel¹,

Zhuang²

2011

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also control for various observables, such as whether the game was played in excessively cold conditions, 18 excessively windy conditions, 19 wet 1 7 For more on the optimality of the pass-rush mix, see Alamar (2006Alamar ( , 2010, Reed, Critch…eld, and Martens (2006), Rockerbie (2008), Kovash andLevitt (2009), andStilling andCritch…eld (2010).…”

Section: Serial Correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes

Emara

Owens

Smith

et al. 2017

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the strategic behavior of highly informed agents playing zero-sum games under highly incentivized conditions. We examine data from 3455 National Football League (NFL) games from the 2000 season through the 2012 season, and categorize each play as "rush" or a "pass." We …nd that the pass-rush mix exhibits negative serial correlation: play types alternate more frequently than an independent stochastic process. This is an exploitable strategy, and we …nd that this serial correlation negatively a¤ects play e¢ cacy. Our analysis suggests that teams could pro…t from more clustered play selections, which switch play type less frequently. Our results are consistent with the explanation that teams excessively switch play types in an e¤ort to be perceived as unpredictable.

show abstract

“…For the yards needed variable the categories were "short" (i.e., 1-4 yds, distances that are likely to be covered by the average NFL rushing play; Rockerbie 2008) and "long" (i.e., ≥7 yd, distances that are more likely to be covered by a passing play; Rockerbie 2008). Thus, in the first analysis the categories were 1st/2nd down and long; 1st/2nd down and short; 3rd down and long; and 3rd down and short.…”

Section: Data Collection and Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For inspiration we return to football experts whose discussions of situation-specific play calling often (though not always) invoke two types of "risk" (Allen 2002;Levy 1999;McCorduck 1998). The first is the risk of turnovers which, for a variety of reasons, is higher for passing plays than for rushing plays (Rockerbie 2008). The second is "risk" in the form of inconsistent outcomes.…”

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second is "risk" in the form of inconsistent outcomes. In the NFL the variance in yards gained per play is higher for passing plays than for rushing plays (passing plays result in more large gains but also more losses and gains of zero yards; Rockerbie 2008). At the risk of oversimplifying, the conventional football wisdom regarding risk might be summarized as follows: Prefer rushing plays except when the adverse effects of passingrelated turnovers are easily tolerated or when success can only be achieved through the big yardage gains attainable through passing (McCorduck 1998).…”

Section: Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explanatory Flexibility of the Matching Law: Situational Bias Interactions in Football Play Selection

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generalized matching law was used to evaluate play selection (passing versus rushing) in professional football game situations defined by combinations of football-specific factors. Archival statistics were analyzed to determine whether play selection covaried with yards gained from passing and rushing plays, and whether the details of this relationship, as measured by the matching law's fitted parameters, varied systematically across game situations. The matching law accounted for substantial variance in play selection for several combinations of game situations, and statistically significant situation-interaction effects were found for bias, but not sensitivity. Follow up analyses revealed that, across game situations, play-selection bias effects were closely related to relative probability of a turnover (can be described in terms of punishment) and the relative yards-gained variance (which can be described in terms of variable-magnitude reinforcement schedules). These results bolster an operant-choice interpretation of football play selection; they reveal two separate aspects of play preference (generic matching versus bias); and provide a rare example of how face-valid effects in a domain of everyday interest may relate to a theoretically-important term of a laboratory-based quantitative model of choice.

show abstract

The Passing Premium Puzzle Revisited

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies

Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies

Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes

Explanatory Flexibility of the Matching Law: Situational Bias Interactions in Football Play Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About