I recall seeing a story on a high school coach who refused to punt. He’d go for it on 4th and 50 from his own 1 yard line. It was all based on his team’s expected probability to score compared to his opponent’s probability to score (the idea being that punting from the endzone is going to give the ball to your opponent at the 40, which has a high probability in resulting in a score - and giving it up on 1 has an even higher prob., but you still get the ball back via kickoff, but with the smaller added chance of converting).
I wonder if those numbers are available, as well as applicable to giving expected probability to score for each scenario of taking a timeout v. taking a penalty.
There are many more valuable conditions that occur much more frequently in which a time-out is more valuable than losing 5 yards. Confusion on a critical play (short and goal; a field goal where 5 yards will put you out of range); stopping the clock when it is 31-30 late; having the ability to challenge a crucial play–remember, no timeout, no challenge. Losing 5 yards in these situations are likely to immediately cost you points. Certainly it’s much more likely to lose you points than losing 5 yards on 3rd and 8 (low conversion chance) from your own 27 early in the 3rd quarter. Even if they do convert, there is still only a small chance they will score after the conversion. In the above scenarios, losing 5 yards has an immediate chance to lose you points, or increase the chance that you might not score or score the maximum points.
But I think the big message is, regarding the OP, that the value of a timeout is conditional and can’t be instantaneously measured.
But that’s not at all clear to me. What makes you think so, and can you put numbers on it?
I’m more convinced otherwise: for instance in one of the links above, they take a situation that seems pretty typical: 7:00 left in the 4th quarter, 3rd and 10 from their own 20, down by 7. They conclude that it’s better to take the 5-yard penalty and save the time out.
Not often. I’m not sure I understand the point of the question. The question in the OP presumes that condition exists: call a time-out or take a 5 yard penalty. It doesn’t matter how frequently it occurs.
ETA: Actually, I misread your question. I thought you were asking how often the condition presents itself. But I guess you’re asking how often they would call a timeout vs. not call a timeout. Well, from experience, I’d have to say they’d call a timeout close to 100% of the time. But I still don’t understand the point of the question. Are you asserting they’re correct because they do call the timeout almost universally?
“Pretty typical” might be a bit much. I’d question the coaching if that were pretty typical.
A good coach will keep the down and distance manageable. Keeping each series “on schedule” is a pretty key element to a successful offense. That’s why after an incomplete pass on first down, most everyone runs the ball on second down. Armchair quarterbacks may think a two yard run is a waste there, but 3rd & 8 is much better than 3rd & 10. If you happen to get three or four yards instead of two, so much the better.
I think I’d agree with furt that 5 yards is usually more valuable than a timeout, which you may never even end up needing. You always need those 5 yards.
The point of my question is that if you add up all your examples, plus all the times you take it to avoid delay of game, it averages out to fewer timeout than teams have to spend. So it doesn’t make sense not to use it.
I mean, those delay of game timeouts happen less than once a game. Why wouldn’t you spend it? It’s not like you’re doing it 5 times a game so you have to choose between that and your second challenge.
EDIT: A fun anecdote from a couple years ago, Antonio Pierce was the MLB for the Giants, who weren’t lined up properly on a play sometime in the second quarter. Rather than call a timeout, he jumped offside and tagged an OL. After the game he was asked about that, and he replied that he wasn’t about to waste a timeout just to get lined up correctly.
It would have been a great example for the OP’s premise if only the Giants hadn’t let up a touchdown that drive. Did that 1st & 5 help the opposing offense establish a rhythm? Who knows.
If it does occur less than one time per game, then you would lose less than 5 yards per game due to taking the penalty. Is that significant enough? I consider timeouts insurance, instead of auto, home, and life, you have timeout insurance for confusion on a play, stopping the clock late in a close game, having a challenge available. It’s insurance you want to have if those situations occur, regardless of how rarely. They may happen less than one time per game, but sometimes they happen twice in a series. In 20 years, your house never burned down. Was it wise to pay for 20 years of fire insurance?
This is a bizarre way to look at it. My gut reaction is that it’s an inappropriate (read as: inapplicable, not offensive) mentality.
So, 3rd & goal on the 1, play clock winding down, you take the penalty because you’re losing fewer than 5 yards per game and it’s smart to have homeowner’s insurance?
And remember, when trying to stop the clock late in the game when trailing, having 3 timeouts vs. 2 is exponentially valuable. That situation might not occur that often, but I’d sure like to have 3 timeouts when it does, instead of saving 5 yards on a 3rd and 8 play from my own 13 earlier in the third quarter when it is more likely I’ll punt anyway.
No, read my previous posts. I stated emphatically that you save the timeouts precisely for those situatiions. I don’t think, as stated above, you should take a timeout when it’s 3rd and 8 at your own 13 early in third (or fourth) when the likeliest result is that you will end up punting, even if you convert the 3rd and 8. You should save that timeout for precisely the situation you describe here.
But again, it’s all conditional and almost impossible to quantify. What if you’re on your 1 yard line? The penalty is less than a yard. Take or not take?
I don’t even honestly know what your position is. You seem to be arguing that the smart play is to not use a timeout, unless it feels like a good time to do so. Which isn’t a position so much as it is a given.
I’m arguing that it’s pretty much always a good time to do so, except maybe when it’s 3rd and more than 10 and you’re outside your own 20.
When are you saying it’s a good time to burn the timeout to save the yards?
Maybe you could determine, using average punt distance, average punt return distance, average yards-per-drive, average yards-per-successful field goal, etc., that punting from the 8 gives up X number of points more than punting from the 13, and preventing those X points is worth way more than a timeout. I just haven’t seen any kind of convincing argument thereto.
When it would immediately prevent you from scoring a touchdown or field goal. Use a timeout on 3rd (or 4th) and goal from the 1 or 2, when the 5 yards will probably turn a touchdown into a field goal; or use a timeout when the 5 yards would push you out of field goal range.