Still have to drive back tonight, but stopping at the Monterey Pub for a beer, bite and to use their wi-fi to post.
It wasn’t pretty, but it was a win. Where last week it was the offense that did everything and the defense hung on by its fingertips. This week it was the defense playing well and the offense barely doing enough. As Coach Paul Chryst put it in his post-game comments, the script was flipped from one week to the next.
The Pitt O-line did not have a good day. They struggled against a much better and more disciplined Virginia D-line. Compounding that problem was a poor effort at blocking by the running backs and tight ends. It was almost as if they were trying to get Tom Savage killed.
Let’s put it this way, the running game had only 8 yards because Savage accounted for -57. And that includes a 12 yard run he did have. He took an absolute beating. If I have it correct, he was sacked 6 times and knocked down more times than I could count. Even if you think he sometimes holds the ball too long at times (like me), that was no where near the reason he took such a beating. As if that wasn’t enough he took a helmet to helmet hit when he slid. Somehow that was not flagged as a flagrant targeting penalty despite the defender diving at him leading with his head. (And yes, Ray Vinopal got away with what sure looked like a targeting play as well, but it wasn’t nearly so flagrant.)
Per the post-game presser, Chryst said that Savage passed the base concussion tests after the hit. He did, however, begin to show concussion symptoms later. Which was why “he didn’t finish the game.” He obviously wasn’t made available for interviews afterwards as he was receiving treatments.
Now, let’s not lie. The Virginia offense was hideous. When David Watford wasn’t missing his receivers, it seemed like they were dropping big passes. Their running game was as unproductive as Pitt’s, but Watford has more running ability.
Still, that shouldn’t diminish the work by the Pitt defense. They got penetration up-front. Aaron Donald continues to wreak havoc up the middle. Ejuan Price responded really well to his first start at defensive end — blowing up a couple plays in the backfield. Aaron Hernandez [geez, I was tired] Anthony Gonzalez looked more comfortable at linebacker than I’ve seen him all season.
Pitt’s offense struggled — as may have been mentioned — but they took advantage of the Virginia mistakes. Both Virginia turnovers were turned into 14 points. That pass in the corner to Devin Street for the TD was as perfect a pass as I’ve seen. It really seemed that Pitt was going to blow out the Hoos. If for no other reason that Pitt was at least avoiding big mistakes. Unfortunately the line really couldn’t hold. The offense started making mistakes. While the turnovers continued to be blunted by the defense holding, it kept the game’s outcome in doubt.
The one weakness the defense continues to display is being able to handle teams when they go no-huddle. UVa was at its best when it didn’t give Pitt’s defense time to set or sub, but Virginia couldn’t sustain going no-huddle. In no small part because that isn’t how they want to play. They want to be a power-running team that grinds you down. They don’t want to spread teams out and put teams off-balance. That gave Pitt’s defense chances to regroup and adjust.
3-1 and hitting a bye week. All things considered, that’s where Pitt needed to be.
Run your numbers based on expected points with the probability and it will be close. It’s absolutely not open and shut.
Furthermore, if you look at the actual play on the field that day, then the decision makes less sense. UVA was 1-6 on 4th downs and many were short yardage, therefore I think the probability of converting was less than the D1 average of 60%. The probability of getting both the TD and 2 point conversion was miniscule. UVA needed multiple scores quickly. The win probability goes to zero if they fail to convert. The probability that UVA was going to fail to convert was better than 50%. A FG was a 99% certainty.
After thinking about it more closely yesterday, it was a close decision. However, I do not think UVA’s coach had a process that he followed. He went for it with reckless abandon throughout the game based on the fact that he was playing from behind.
As it turns out, the UVA kicker hurt himself on the made 32-yard FG earlier in the game and could not kick.
Nonetheless, it was a productive conversation. Thanks for your input.
Let’s say their probability of scoring from the 2 yard line on one play was 15%. Let’s say a kick from the 2 (FG or extra point) is automatic. Let’s say the chance of a subsequent TD drive is p and the chance of a subsequent FG drive is r>p. Let’s suppose Pitt doesn’t score again.
The likelihood of tying by kicking the early FG = (1)(p)(.15) = .15p. This reflects 100% chance of the made FG, probability p of a later TD, and a 15% chance of the made 2 pt conversion after that.
The likelihood of tying or winning by going for the early TD = (.15)(.15)(r) + (.15)(1-.15)(p) = .0225r + .1275p > .15p, because r>p by assumption. The term before the addition sign reflects the chance of making the early TD, making the 2pt conversion, and getting a later FG. The term after the addition sign reflects making the early TD, missing the 2pt conversion, and getting a later TD (to win).
So going for the early TD unambiguously increases the odds of tying OR winning over the odds of merely a tie by going for the early FG. That is, the odds of a good outcome are better, and “good” in this case reflects some chance of an outright win rather than a certain tie (better still). Further, there is a chance that Pitt scores a later FG but still gives UVA one more possession. There is no chance of a win if UVA goes for the early FG, but UVA can still win if they went for the early TD. This, too, increases the benefit of the early TD attempt.
Even with a healthy kicker, the early TD attempt was unambiguously the right call. The odds of either decision paying off were quite small, so in terms of the impact on the game the difference is small. And since most fans fall into survivorship bias in these situations, it’s probably rational for the coach to kick the early FG. He decreases his odds of winning by a little bit, but with a high likelihood he “stays in the game” much longer, staving off criticism from most fans who suffer survivor bias and don’t understand probabilities (or do but weight entertainment higher than winning).
Thanks. If I assume r= 50% and p= 25%, then going for it increased UVA’s win probability by 0.57 percentage points. Not exactly a large difference, but higher than kicking the FG.
It’s clear by reading most of what’s been posted, it really isn’t about Pitt winning, cause before the season started most people said they would be lucky to win 4 games in the ACC since the compeition would so much better than the Big East. Hmm, they are already 3 and 1, but no it’s not good enough. Now they are winning ugly, and one of the worst 3 and 1 team in the country.
Seriously, this is what it’s come to. They suck when the lose, they suck when they win. You got freshmen and sophmores all over the field playing, who do you think they are going to look on the field. The great thing is they are learning but winning, and you guys can’t ride with it.
It’s just clear to me that most people on here don’t really want them to win. They want Pitt to lose so they can come with the same, they suck, same old Pitt, the other team offense sucks, and all the other things said over and over.’
Whether you like it or not, the young men are playing better, and deserve to have the record they do.