IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/jqsprt/v7y2011i3n14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Urschel John D

    (State University of New York at Buffalo)

  • Zhuang Jun

    (State University of New York at Buffalo)

Abstract

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 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Urschel John D & Zhuang Jun, 2011. "Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:7:y:2011:i:3:n:14
    DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1311
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1559-0410.1311?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Kenneth Kovash & Steven D. Levitt, 2009. "Professionals Do Not Play Minimax: Evidence from Major League Baseball and the National Football League," NBER Working Papers 15347, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Rockerbie Duane W., 2008. "The Passing Premium Puzzle Revisited," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Alamar Benjamin C, 2010. "Measuring Risk in NFL Playcalling," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, April.
    6. Alamar Benjamin C, 2006. "The Passing Premium Puzzle," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 2(4), pages 1-10, October.
    7. David Romer, 2006. "Do Firms Maximize? Evidence from Professional Football," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 340-365, April.
    8. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    9. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195300574.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lefgren, Lars J. & Platt, Brennan & Price, Joseph & Higbee, Samuel, 2019. "Outcome based accountability: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 121-137.
    2. Brian Goff & Stephen L. Locke, 2019. "Revisiting Romer: Digging Deeper Into Influences on NFL Managerial Decisions," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(5), pages 671-689, June.
    3. Ryan Elmore & Andrew Urbaczewski, 2021. "Loss Aversion in Professional Golf," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 202-217, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emara, Noha & Owens, David & Smith, John & Wilmer, Lisa, 2017. "Serial correlation in National Football League play calling and its effects on outcomes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 125-132.
    2. Jared Quenzel & Paul Shea, 2016. "Predicting the Winner of Tied National Football League Games," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(7), pages 661-671, October.
    3. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    4. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    5. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    6. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    7. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    8. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    9. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    10. Amedeo Piolatto & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 543-565, April.
    11. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    13. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    15. Chi, Yichun & Zheng, Jiakun & Zhuang, Shengchao, 2022. "S-shaped narrow framing, skewness and the demand for insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 279-292.
    16. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon, 2013. "Sign-dependence in intertemporal choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 225-253, December.
    18. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 14-24.
    19. Henderson, Vicky & Hobson, David & Tse, Alex S.L., 2017. "Randomized strategies and prospect theory in a dynamic context," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 287-300.
    20. David Peel & David Law, 2009. "A More General Non‐expected Utility Model as an Explanation of Gambling Outcomes for Individuals and Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 251-263, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:7:y:2011:i:3:n:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.