There’s an ebb and flow to my sports viewing habits. Even though the Bengals tragically lost our starting quarterback to a season-ending injury this year (it still hurts), I watched far more NFL than in the past. Perhaps it’s because the daughter now enjoys watching along with me to discuss X’s and O’s.
Watching this year’s NFC Championship game, I was pulling hard for the Detroit Lions. They had never progressed to a Super Bowl, but after storming out to a 17-point lead, it almost seemed an inevitability. They actually led by 14 facing a fourth down on the 2 yard line with just seconds before halftime and the coach pensively decided to kick a field goal to secure three points.
It was this action right before halftime that made the second half so peculiar. After a few fluke plays, the San Francisco 49’ers had gained momentum. The Lions responded by moving the ball into Niners territory, but when facing a 4th-and-short situation, instead of kicking the 40+ yard field goal, Coach Dan Campbell left his offense out there to go for it. They did not succeed.
Later in the fourth quarter, after the 49’ers had stormed back to tie the game, Campbell once again faced a 4th-and-short situation and, true to his nature, tried for the first down; the team failed to execute.
As the Lions lost the lead and were now pushing for a comeback, Fox commentator Greg Olsen tried to excuse Campbell from any potential critique. He cited that analytics and statistics made the decision to go on it for fourth down the only logical choice. He even made the statement, “you can’t judge the decision by the outcome.”
The Lions lost.
Other NFL-types were pretty critical and I was too.
It’s easy for me to dissect when my favorite team didn’t even make the playoffs, but I think this incident allows us to consider our views on risk and probability. It’s been quite the conversation in professional football. Just this season, NFL coaches have started to opt for the two-point conversion when behind by two touchdowns. This has irked many football fans because kicking the nearly automatic extra point would put the team down by 7, rather than missing the two-point conversion and trailing by 8. But the statistics have shown that teams have a high chance of converting 50% of those two-point conversions. Additionally, two teams this year won games in the fourth quarter by employing the “go-for-two” technique.
Statistics don’t lie. Yet sometimes, they mislead.
We are in a data-first era, where we believe we can reduce mistakes by playing the statistics. To be sure, I’m grateful we’re arriving at this point. Rather than rely on gut instincts and heuristics, we’re now looking to make more educated decisions. But while this can be beneficial, it doesn’t mean it’s perfect. Data doesn’t relieve us from making hard decisions.
Too often, we use stats as an excuse to mitigate risk and eliminate our need to make a bold decision. It’s why many voices have emerged to praise Campbell, saying that he made the intelligent choice, even though the outcome worked against him. This exposes the potential stumbling block when adhering to data-only thinking. It’s fine to play the percentages, but in the end, if the percentages prohibit you from winning, you aren’t immune from criticism.
Admittedly, Lions players had moments to execute in big situations that might have made Campbell look like a genius. In sports, small singular moments (like surrendering a big play after the football ricochets off a defender’s facemask) have massive impact.
Yet the longer you watch and play sports, the more you realize that it just isn’t fair. The best team doesn’t always prevail. It’s why I would never gamble on sports. As long as it’s played (and officiated) by humans, strange things will happen.
I’m very much a moderate. I’m not saying that analytics should be ignored. Instead, we mustn’t surrender the tough decision just because probability says otherwise.
The leadership takeaway for me is that there are moments when bold leadership is more important than playing the percentages. Ironically, in this game, the most daring decision would have been the safer one. Yes, statistics and probability are helpful, but there’s always the outlier. If you come out on the losing end, it won’t matter if you made the logical choice.