Patriots/Colts game

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by realplayeremailhere

Using those numbers:
(.60 *1) + (.40 * (1 - .53)) = 78.8% of winning if you go for it on 4th down
70% of winning if you punt.

Thanks.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by MikeyMikey

I'll listen to Bruschi if he's talking about linebacker play. I'm not all that interested in his opinions on coaching strategy.

Bruschi opinion wasn't on coaching strategy, it was on the fact that he felt the defense was dissed.

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Bruschi opinion wasn't on coaching strategy, it was on the fact that he felt the defense was dissed.

The defense insulted themselves with the way they played in the fourth quarter. If it wasn't for Brady's brutal throw that got picked off... they could have had a TD every drive.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I didn't see the game, so how were the timeouts spent exactly?

As far as I recall, one was used before the first play of the drive, and the other was used before the 4th down play.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by crackpott

The defense insulted themselves with the way they played in the fourth quarter. If it wasn't for Brady's brutal throw that got picked off... they could have had a TD every drive.

Not to mention Maroney's fumble at the goal line.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by realplayeremailhere

Using those numbers:
(.60 *1) + (.40 * (1 - .53)) = 78.8% of winning if you go for it on 4th down
70% of winning if you punt.

Id use two point conversion success rate(45%) instead of the 60% 4th and 2 rate which counts things like 4&2 own 28 down 14 points 3 minutes remaining against a prevent defense. Colts were over playing the short pass similiar to what would happen on a 2 point conversion IMO.

However putting everything against Billicheks favor in doing the math I still couldnt find a way to make it a bad decision.

Its a debatable decision and in all likelyhood the way Manning was playing if the Pats went or punted they were still losing that game if the Colts seen the ball making it a good decision.

I wonder if this now makes Manning more clutch than Brady

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Which one has a better chance of happening, Peyton Manning going 70 yards or Tom Brady getting 2 yards? And many people answer that as what has a better chance of happening Peyton Manning going 70 yards or Peyton Manning going 28 yards? Well to them I say then I will give you the 28 yards, so what has a better chance of happening Tom Brady getting 2 yards or Peyton Manning getting 28 yards?

In defense of the people saying it was a bad call. Brady only had 1 play to get the 2 yards while Manning could have had up to around 10-15 to get the 70 yards.

Its not quite as simple as you are putting it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I am not the only one who thought it was the right call. Bill Belichik thought it was the right call and Tom Brady did too, so I am just going to trust one of the best coaches in the league and one of the best Quarterbacks in the league over a washed up player second guessing a three time super bowl winning coach.

Tom Brady isnt going to call out his coach even if he did think it was a bad call. He probably agreed with the call but who knows. He sure seemed surprised as hell when he was told to stay out there.

[BaseballMan]

It was stupid call. If had been a coach for a team with a losing record there probably wouldnt be any debate. Yes Brady only had 2 yards to go but sometimes 2 yards are a lot harder to get than 28. I dont agree with trusting his defense from the 28. Its not like the Pats are as good as the 85 bears defense or the 76 steelers. Besides if you trust your defense why not help them out by making it 70 yards? As for Manning having 10-15 plays? How do we know that he Manning wouldnt throw an int or a colt player would fumble? Theres more plays for Manning to succeed than Brady but theres also more plays for the colts to have failed too.
Dumb call all the way.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

It was stupid call. If had been a coach for a team with a losing record there probably wouldnt be any debate. Yes Brady only had 2 yards to go but sometimes 2 yards are a lot harder to get than 28. I dont agree with trusting his defense from the 28. Its not like the Pats are as good as the 85 bears defense or the 76 steelers. Besides if you trust your defense why not help them out by making it 70 yards? As for Manning having 10-15 plays? How do we know that he Manning wouldnt throw an int or a colt player would fumble? Theres more plays for Manning to succeed than Brady but theres also more plays for the colts to have failed too.
Dumb call all the way.

When did playing the percentages become "dumb call all the way"? It took baseball a 100 years to figure out that batting average isnt the most important stat in baseball it seems like a lot of football minds are still in that elementary state.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...-vs-colts.html

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

When did playing the percentages become "dumb call all the way"? It took baseball a 100 years to figure out that batting average isnt the most important stat in baseball it seems like a lot of football minds are still in that elementary state.

Advanced NFL Stats: Belichick's 4th Down Decision vs the Colts

How is gambling on 1 play a better pctg than gambling on the colts having
to go 70 yards in 10 plays? Theres a 50/50 chance on 1 play but you get that same 50/50 chance on a lot more plays. So theres more chance the colts could fail. 1 yard is sometimes the hardest yard to get in football. I dont care if you have Brady, Manning, or Joe Montana. It was a stupid stupid call.
If the pats had been at the 50 then i could maybe see going for it. Or if the pats were up against say the rams , lions, or raiders. Hell they would probably have got a td against the raiders.
But would you still say its a good call if a 2-7 team was going against another 2-7 team? If it failed i think the opinion would be well thats why that team is 2-8.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

How is gambling on 1 play a better pctg than gambling on the colts having
to go 70 yards in 10 plays? Theres a 50/50 chance on 1 play but you get that same 50/50 chance on a lot more plays. So theres more chance the colts could fail. 1 yard is sometimes the hardest yard to get in football. I dont care if you have Brady, Manning, or Joe Montana. It was a stupid stupid call.
If the pats had been at the 50 then i could maybe see going for it. Or if the pats were up against say the rams , lions, or raiders. Hell they would probably have got a td against the raiders.
But would you still say its a good call if a 2-7 team was going against another 2-7 team? If it failed i think the opinion would be well thats why that team is 2-8.

Read the article. They had a 79 percent chance of winning if they go for while they had a 70 percent chance of winning if they gambled and punted the ball to the Colts.

Gambling would have actually been punting the ball since the odds were worse of winning the game that way

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Read the article. They had a 79 percent chance of winning if they go for while they had a 70 percent chance of winning if they gambled and punted the ball to the Colts.

Gambling would have actually been punting the ball since the odds were worse of winning the game that way

79% doesnt tell you where the other teams went for it on 4th. How many other times have you heard of a coach going for it on 4th and 2 on his own 28? If the pctg is so great we would see it happen all the time. Theres a reason teams punt. It works. The problem is when they lay back in a prevent defense too soon.
Given the same amount of times as a team punting im willing to bet that that 79% drops lowering than the 70%.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

79% doesnt tell you where the other teams went for it on 4th. How many other times have you heard of a coach going for it on 4th and 2 on his own 28? If the pctg is so great we would see it happen all the time. Theres a reason teams punt. It works. The problem is when they lay back in a prevent defense too soon.
Given the same amount of times as a team punting im willing to bet that that 79% drops lowering than the 70%.

League Average is 60 percent of going for it on 4th and 2. Colts had a 53 percent chance of scoring a TD from the Pats 28 while they had a 30 percent chance of scoring a TD from their own 30. These arent numbers I made up. They are league averages.

Given the Colts and Pats have better than average offenses it makes the case that much stronger to go for it and try to keep the ball out of their hands.

Going for it= (0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 Win Percentage
Punting= 30 percent chance is league average of teams scoring from their own 30 = 0.70 Win Percentage

.60 is the league average of converting the 4th and 2.....40 is the league average of the failed 4 &2, .53 is the percent that teams score from the other teams 28.

Its simple math on why is was the smart play.

NFL Coaches are conservative by nature and that would explain why so many of them get fired while aggressive coaches like Bellichek and Parcells seem to do quite well for themselves.

[jazzrack]

you guys are making this far to complicated. if the call works it's a great call & he is a hero, if it doesn't work it's a bad call & he is a goat. there is no middle ground, you can't sit here and tell me it's a good call.... BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK! results are the only thing that matter.

period.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

you guys are making this far to complicated. if the call works it's a great call & he is a hero, if it doesn't work it's a bad call & he is a goat. there is no middle ground, you can't sit here and tell me it's a good call.... BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK! results are the only thing that matter.

period.

In the long run you win more games by making the higher percentage play. I dont think Id bench Pujols if he was 0-18 against a pitcher and play the guy that was 1-1 vs a pitcher even though the guy that was 1-1 had a bloop single to right while Pujols hit 8 warning track fly balls and 4 line outs against X pitcher.

But yes you are right that a unique decision like that is only a good decision if it works. Initially I thought it was a terrible decision as well until I seen the numbers actually supported the decision. Im not a big Belichek fan but it did help me realize what makes him so successful as a coach(he has the stones to do things no other coach would do). I really hope that decision makes other coaches start realizing their conservative approach isnt always the best way to win football games.

[crackpott]

I'm really amazed at the number of people on a baseball forum who are arguing against statistics and reason with just... well, nothing.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

League Average is 60 percent of going for it on 4th and 2. Colts had a 53 percent chance of scoring a TD from the Pats 28 while they had a 30 percent chance of scoring a TD from their own 30. These arent numbers I made up. They are league averages.

Given the Colts and Pats have better than average offenses it makes the case that much stronger to go for it and try to keep the ball out of their hands.

Going for it= (0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 Win Percentage
Punting= 30 percent chance is league average of teams scoring from their own 30 = 0.70 Win Percentage

.60 is the league average of converting the 4th and 2.....40 is the league average of the failed 4 &2, .53 is the percent that teams score from the other teams 28.

Its simple math on why is was the smart play.

NFL Coaches are conservative by nature and that would explain why so many of them get fired while aggressive coaches like Bellichek and Parcells seem to do quite well for themselves.

Again how many were 4th and 2 on the 28? Big difference between going for it at the 50 instead of the 28. Seems to me that losing coaches would tend more to gamble because what do they have to lose? Bottom line is that it didnt work so if Bellichek gets the praise when it works then he deserves the blame when it fails and last i checked the play failed.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Again how many were 4th and 2 on the 28? Big difference between going for it at the 50 instead of the 28. Seems to me that losing coaches would tend more to gamble because what do they have to lose? Bottom line is that it didnt work so if Bellichek gets the praise when it works then he deserves the blame when it fails and last i checked the play failed.

Why is it different? It is STILL 4th and 2. Do defenses play a lot better with more field to cover or WHY would it be easier at the 50 then the 28?

Either way change the conversion rate to 45 percent and the call still makes sense.

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Again how many were 4th and 2 on the 28? Big difference between going for it at the 50 instead of the 28. Seems to me that losing coaches would tend more to gamble because what do they have to lose? Bottom line is that it didnt work so if Bellichek gets the praise when it works then he deserves the blame when it fails and last i checked the play failed.

The difference in going for it at the 28 vs. the 50 only affects the odds of the other team scoring if you don't make it. It's been accounted for.

Further, there's no reason he should get blame for making the correct decision just because it didn't work out. If you're playing blackjack and you stand on 20 on the dealer's 15, and the dealer draws a 6, you don't deserve blame, you just got unlucky when making the correct decision.