You're gonna lose 95/100 times anyway in this scenario. It doesn't get worse by trying the onside.
Does it get worse by having around 43 seconds less time to score a tying touchdown?
You're one of my favorite posters and far more knowledgeable of football than I am. I have zero issue with you thinking the onside kick was the right call.
Where I respectfully disagree is in your evaluation of the probabilities as presented in your first few posts. It doesn't properly weigh the statistical advantages of kicking a touchback.
Here's where we agree. I have no reason to doubt our statistical probability to lose was around 96% as we lined up for kickoff. However, that statistic makes zero forward assumptions. In other words, it's a statistical snapshot at that exact moment in time. It makes no difference if we were to kick it long, onside kick it, or simply have the kicker drop a steaming turd on the ball. The odds of winning is 4 percent regardless of what we choose. That can never change although it is fluid as future data is considered.
Your position seems to infer that if we kick onsides, our odds of winning somehow increase. I would argue they don't. I know for certain they don't increase at the rate of a successful onside kick recovery (which I believe you said is 5.6%).
I would honestly bet money that if you ran the two scenarios through a probability calculator accounting for all variables, the odds of winning would be higher by kicking deep (assuming no return).
Why? Two reasons.
The biggest reason is obviously time. A touchback results in the Stealers starting their drive with 121 seconds on the clock. Three opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with about 1:40 or so to play. (7 seconds per run). An unsuccessful onside kick results in the Stealers starting their drive with 118 seconds. Two opportunities to stop the clock results in 4th down with 57 seconds remaining. That's a huge, measurable, statistical advantage when trying to score a TD with zero timeouts.
The second is field position. Clearly there is a statistical advantage to receiving a fourth down punt closer to the opponents end zone with limited time remaining on the clock.
Now..
Would a successful onside kick recovery be the optimal result in this dire situation? Hell yes! We agree there as well, especially since it doesn't require a successful three and out. But like you said, the odds of this are only about 5% (actually less in obvious onside kick situations, the "surprise" onside kick artificially boosts the numbers). That means 95% percent of the time in this situation, one has indisputably decreased their chances of winning the game by kicking onsides as opposed to kicking a touchback.
Is a successful onside kick the best result in this bleak situation? For sure. Enough to risk the 95% chance of being in an even worse situation. I don't know, and unless someone has much deeper stats and probs on time and field position, I'm not sure you, me, or anyone can say definitively what was the best decision. I think it was to kick deep, you think it was to kick onsides. It's all good, but not certain.
WARNING TO ANY SINGLE MEN: My above post is what can happen after 26 years of marriage that has become far too sexless. Please proceed with caution.