Risk Versus Reward

I continue to lead in my Pigskin Pick’em pool, which means I’m necessarily locked in and following closely just about every NFL game each week. I’d be watching and checking scores anyway, but my motive for doing so has increased considerably thanks to the pool standings.

Amid all those missed extra points yesterday (which created a few interesting spots, strategy-wise), there were a few instances of coaches faced with key fourth-down decisions late in games. A couple stood out, both involving teams that were ahead and looking at a fourth-and-short with just a few minutes left.

One came late afternoon when the Los Angeles Rams were up 10-0 against the Miami Dolphins with six minutes and 45 seconds remaining. The Rams had a fourth-and-1 at the Miami 30-yard-line, and rather than go for it decided to try a 48-yard field goal that like those PATs ended up a miss (hitting the left upright).

Miami subsequently marched down the field to score a touchdown in less than three minutes, held the Rams to a three-and-out and got the ball back, then took just a minute-and-a-half to mount another TD drive to win 14-10. Rams coach Jeff Fisher was maligned somewhat afterwards for not going for the first down rather than try to stretch the lead from 10 to 13 -- certainly more so than would have been the case if L.A. had managed to hang on to win.

Another instance came in the night game between Washington and Green Bay. In that one the Redskins were up 29-24 and in fact there was exactly the same amount of time left -- six minutes and 45 seconds. In Washington’s case, they were on their own 41-yard line and facing a fourth-and-1. They decided to go for it, got a couple of yards and the first down via a quarterback sneak, then went on to score a TD themselves and more or less seal the game.

Of course, in the latter situation Green Bay’s offense was proving hard to stop for Washington (they’d scored TDs their last two possessions), so the desire to retain possession was higher there than was the case in the Rams-Dolphins game where Miami hadn’t scored a point in any of their 11 possessions. In any case, Washington coach Jay Gruden earned accolades for what was deemed a gutsy decision to go for it on fourth in that spot, although again it’s easy to imagine the decision being judged differently had it not worked out the way it did.

“Gruden was feeling risky all night,” writes ESPN, alluding both to the fourth-down try and Washington having gone for two-point conversions twice earlier (failing both times).

Meanwhile many noted the very conservative game plan followed by the Rams who had rookie QB Jared Goff making his NFL debut, with Fisher’s decision to try that field goal earning some censure for being too risk-averse. “Los Angeles could have won that game if Jeff Fisher was less conservative on fourth down late in the game,” concludes RamsWire, articulating a thought shared by many.

Neither of these fourth-and-1 decisions were unambiguous in terms of their reward. That is to say, making the first down didn’t guarantee victories, although certainly would meaningfully improve the team’s chance of winning the game. The risk each presented wasn’t cut-and-dry, either, although it appeared Washington faced a greater one with a smaller lead and worse field position.

I saw a stat not long ago stating that over the last 20 years nearly half of all NFL games ended up being “one score” games decided by seven points or less. Games finishing with margins of eight points up to 16 are also often still in doubt by the middle of the fourth quarter, which means the majority of NFL games present situations in which teams that are ahead face similar challenges to weigh risk versus reward when it comes to clock management and possession.

Like a player with a final table chip lead, such teams and coaches still often have to continue to take risks in order to increase their chances of winning. In other words, they usually can’t just “fold” their way to the win.

My frontrunner status in the pool is causing me to identify somewhat with this position. And the example presented by these coaches and their disparate ways of handling the endgame is making me recognize I shouldn’t become too conservative with picks going forward, since being overly risk-averse may lessen my chance at the reward of winning the sucker.

Photo: Advanced Football Analytics.

A Game of Risk

Like about seven or eight million other people, I dialed up that bit of daredevilry everyone seemed to be buzzing about yesterday morning and watched Felix Baumgartner jumping from a balloon 24 miles up to a (thankfully) safe landing in New Mexico.

And like a lot of those who watched, I hadn’t heard the first thing about the attempt until I woke up yesterday and began seeing folks tweeting back and forth about it. I tuned in occasionally during the long ascent -- ultimately to 128,100 feet -- then became fairly locked in during the nine minutes or so it took Baumgartner to fall back to earth.

I have to admit I wasn’t as immediately inspired as others seemed to be while watching the successful attempt. I most definitely felt the anxiety and worry that necessarily arises whenever someone’s life is at risk, and, of course, is all the more intense (or excruciating) when bearing witness. And while I’m all for space exploration and its benefits -- direct and otherwise -- to the advancement of the species, I was perhaps too unclear on the specifics of the sort of research being accomplished by the stunt to appreciate its value while watching.

From reading around a bit, I see that the jump did help test parachute systems as well as offered some useful data for future space programs, in particular with regard to coming up with emergency evacuation systems from high altitudes. So yeah, I see how it all added up to something more enduring than jumping a motorbike over a dozen buses or whatever.

The one thing watching the jump did inspire me to think about, however, was the whole idea of risk and its importance to our experience -- the way our ideas of risk could be said to shape our understanding of the meaning of our lives. Some of us crave it, a lot of us shun it. But we’re all aware of it, pretty much at every moment, and thus does it have a huge influence on our ideas of ourselves and each other.

Self-preservation tends to keep us from taking too many risks, particularly those that threaten our survival. But within that scope a lot of us frequently indulge, taking gambles constantly, usually (but not always) motivated by ideas of improving some aspect of our lives when we do.

Thanks to many of the readings I assign in my “Poker in American Film and Culture” class, I’m constantly invited to think about how the significance of risk-taking provides an important link between poker and American culture. I’m talking about that argument for poker being a particularly “American game” that stems from the way the game so neatly reflects the country’s penchant for risk-taking, its history having been so dominated by examples of such.

Of course, a willingness to take risks -- and curiosity about others’ doing so -- isn’t just an American thing. (Nor is poker, for that matter.) The jump by Baumgartner, an Austrian, was carried on 40-plus networks in 50 countries and streamed by something like 130 digital outlets. For whatever reason, a lot of people were into it.

I think there’s always some benefit to taking a leap once in a while, whether by buying into a poker tournament or pursuing a new career path or just testing oneself in a way that enables one to edge outside the otherwise carefully-maintained orbit of one’s existence.

So -- to quote @BadBlood’s reapplication of Bud Light’s Real Men of Genius campaign -- “Here’s to you Mr. Jump Out of a Capsule From Space Guy.”