I respect your tactic of jumping around faster than a flower on the fourth of July when your initial argument is emotionally driven, statistically unimpressive, and ulitmately incorrect. Conversely, your use of logical fallacies is quite impressive....something like this:

1. Appeal to authority fallacy - using first the commentators take, and then your own standing as a "coach's son" as the authorities to prove that you are right.

pivot

2. Hasty Generalization Fallacy - falsely assuming the stats would tell a coach to not go for it 10/10 times. Get called out with actual measured data.

pivot

3. Ad hominum fallacy - attacking my credibilty because I used a few CAPS to emphasize one small point in a larger argument and must be an angry person for disagreeing with your take, and therefore if angry I must be incorrect.

pivot

4. Red herring fallacy - questioning if I really believe that Kalani was making a data based decision versus an emotional one, which is a different question entirely and is a tacit admission that the data is in my favor.

pivot back to Ad hominum

5. Ad Hominum - "You came into this all triggered, not cool". I came in all angry with stats and data? Pot calling the kettle black? 

Also, I'd bet Kalani is very familiar with 4th down data, at least as or more familiar with it than a "coach's son" or random CBer like you or I. Whether or not this specific decision was more emotionally driven than data driven is unimportant to my argument that it was the right call.