- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,987
- Reaction score
- 7,880
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.6O% is barely better than a coin flip.
How many variables are involved in a seventy yard drive compared to a 28? Did you compute that? also, figure how many short plays a defense can give up and hold when the offense must score a touchdown in that eventy yards.
facing 4th and 2, the Pats had about a 60% of getting the first down. This of course would have ended the game. 60% is a historical league average, you can quibble with this figure up or down if you want, but thats around the ballpark % chance the Pats make it.
so if they will convert 60% of the time, then going for it gives them a Win Probability of at least 60%. I say "at least" b/c even if the fail to convert, the Pats still have a chance of stopping the Colts from the 30. what % is that? the league average in this situation is around 53%, though I think we would agree that the Colts vs our defensive had a much higher % chance of scoring. call it...75% ? that means 25% of the time, even when we don't get the first down, we win by stopping the Colts.
so,
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.75)) = 70% Win Percentage for Pats
the alternative move of course is to Punt, which on average will put the Colts right around their 34. (again, these #'s are taken from the above link).
what are the odds the Colts drive down and score now? We used 75% chance from the Pats 30, so it's obviously going to be much less from their own 34. The historical league average is 30% in this situation, but again I think it's higher than that. Call it 45%. that means the Pats have a 55% Win Probability from punting.
given those assumptions above, going for it leads to pats victories 70% of the time while punting leads to victories 55% of the time. you can play around with those #'s yourself and change the assumptions, but you would need to plug in some weird #'s to come to a conclusion that says punting is the right move.
2nd point: in terms of the decision making process, the results don't matter. the decision to punt or not punt is not made correct or incorrect by what happens afterwards. to call decisions "right" or "wrong" based solely on the results is horribly incorrect "analysis". sometimes Faulk gets to the 30, sometimes he doesn't, but either way going for it was right. sometimes the result is going to look bad, sometimes it won't. you need to divorce yourself from the results if you want to learn how to make the best decision.
Our chances to win the game GREATLY increase if we punt the ball away and give Manning a long field to work with.
If I was being chased by an axe-wielding murderer on my side of the street, yes.
And you're also misquoting the numbers. The 60% is the chance that they convert, and therefore win the game.
QUOTE]
What? they didn't convert, handed the ball over and lost the game.
Whatis your point? They win the game if the colts fail to march 70 yards to, they weren't required to take a real gamble to have a good chance of winning.
You punt the ball in that situation. This is a no brainer. You are up by 6, you punt the ball deep and force them to drive the length of the field and score a TD in under 2 minutes.
This ain't a video game, this is NFL football.
And you're also misquoting the numbers. The 60% is the chance that they convert, and therefore win the game.
QUOTE]
What? they didn't convert, handed the ball over and lost the game.
Whatis your point? They win the game if the colts fail to march 70 yards to, they weren't required to take a real gamble to have a good chance of winning.
Ray read the OP. all the way through. then post the points you disagree with.
facing 4th and 2, the Pats had about a 60% of getting the first down. This of course would have ended the game. 60% is a historical league average, you can quibble with this figure up or down if you want, but thats around the ballpark % chance the Pats make it.
so if they will convert 60% of the time, then going for it gives them a Win Probability of at least 60%. I say "at least" b/c even if the fail to convert, the Pats still have a chance of stopping the Colts from the 30. what % is that? the league average in this situation is around 53%, though I think we would agree that the Colts vs our defensive had a much higher % chance of scoring. call it...75% ? that means 25% of the time, even when we don't get the first down, we win by stopping the Colts.
so,
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.75)) = 70% Win Percentage for Pats
the alternative move of course is to Punt, which on average will put the Colts right around their 34. (again, these #'s are taken from the above link).
what are the odds the Colts drive down and score now? We used 75% chance from the Pats 30, so it's obviously going to be much less from their own 34. The historical league average is 30% in this situation, but again I think it's higher than that. Call it 45%. that means the Pats have a 55% Win Probability from punting.
given those assumptions above, going for it leads to pats victories 70% of the time while punting leads to victories 55% of the time. you can play around with those #'s yourself and change the assumptions, but you would need to plug in some weird #'s to come to a conclusion that says punting is the right move.
2nd point: in terms of the decision making process, the results don't matter. the decision to punt or not punt is not made correct or incorrect by what happens afterwards. to call decisions "right" or "wrong" based solely on the results is horribly incorrect "analysis". sometimes Faulk gets to the 30, sometimes he doesn't, but either way going for it was right. sometimes the result is going to look bad, sometimes it won't. you need to divorce yourself from the results if you want to learn how to make the best decision.
How is letting a punter who had averaged over 50 per punt that game make the other team march down the field 70 yards like that?
We had a 40% chance of handing the ball to Peyton on our 28 with timeouts and four downs. 40% is a lot.
I think that analysis is far too simplistic and dumbs down the decision that Belichick actually made, which, BTW, I think was the right decision. He made a SITUATION SPECIFIC decision to the effect that his Defense couldn't stop Peyton Manning at that time in that game under those specific circumstances. It had nothing to do with a flawed, generic model.
As you read what I write below and if you doubt what I'm saying, ask yourself this question: if the score of the game and the position on the field and the time on the clock and the timeouts remaining were all exactly the same but the QB and Team on the other side of the ball were Trent Edwards and the Bills, would Belichick have gone for it or punted? The model to which you link us suggests that he should have gone for it. Do you really think that would have been the right decision? Be honest. This was a situation-specific decision. The model you cite is not robust enough to be used to make that decision, one way or the other.
I followed your link. It's pretty amateurish stuff. The statistical error is called the "flaw of averages." It's based on a generic model of any NFL team and doesn't take into account the game circumstances (other than the yard line and score) and certainly doesn't take into account the players on the field. In other words, the model is basically useless unless you're programming a video game. The fact that it suggests that Belichick made the right decision is blind luck and has nothing to do with the circumstances BB was facing last night.
Just because a few guys have turned it into a web page and call it "Advanced NFL Stats" doesn't make it right. What you end up with is a mean/average with no indication of the distribution around it. That's the only way even a well-designed model can guide this kind of decision.
In the case of this "model," there is presumably a .60P of gaining 1.5 yards. Fine, but that really tells us nothing and if the SD is anything more than .1 yards, it really doesn't help you decide at all, and I'm pretty sure the SD is in the range of .50--.75 yards. What the model doesn't try to consider is what happens when the Colts get the ball. How long will it take them to score from the 30, if indeed they score.
The model then says that there is a .30P that the Colts score from their 38 after a punt. That part of the model muddles two different sets of uncertainties; one, where the Colts actually get the Ball. The Average is the 38. Once again, what is the SD? Then, from the 38, there's a .30P that they score. Once again, what is the SD? What does a distribution of likely outcomes look like, based on real data from THESE TWO TEAMS.
Finally, even if you Monte Carlo a few hundred thousand scenarios and it shows the Pats better off within reason, the only way that model could possible be useful is if it's robust enough to account for the propensities of those players on that field at that point in the game.
All of that said, I think that the Computer in Belichick's head decided that the risks of going for it outweighed the risks of punting, but for entirely different reasons.
BTW, their models yesterday predicted the following:
.72 likely that the Jets would win.
.74 that the Steelers would win
.83 that the Broncos would win
.65 that Oakland would win
.54 that Dallas would win.
They also called some games right, but really did no better than Vegas bettors.
I'm also 100% sure you didn't read my post
look if you want to be angry and follow the herd of the media idiots, then go ahead. if you want to be intelligent, learn something, and get insight into why BB did what he did and why it was correct, then read about the % chance of various outcomes
BB probably knows more about football than anyone who has ever lived. trust him over Peter King or trite nonsense media cliches, for the love of god
You have a chance to end the game with 2 yds from your HOF QB and juggernaut offense. On the opposing sideline is another HOF QB and his own unstoppable offense waiting for a chance to tear up your defense for the 3rd time this quarter; their running game is averaging almost 8 yards a crack in the quarter as well. You're in a hostile environment and you've lost several key defenders. Is it really that surprising a decision?
I read your post, I just think it is BS. What are these %'s based on? They are numbers that have no reflection on the actul game played last night, they are numbers pulled out of games in general. .
That is football 101.
Conclusive statements are not helpful in this debate. BB, who knows football and knows his team better than you, disagrees. The mathematics of the decision have already been posted, but apparently the only thing that matters are your unsupported, conclusive statements. How did that long field work out on the previous 2 Td drives, or the 2006 AFCCG, or any number of Manning 4th quarter comebacks? Sorry, but I'll take our offense getting 2 yards over our depleted D stopping manning at the end of the game every single time. The math supports it and BB's decision supports it. Now, you change the facts and everything changes. If we had a pass rush, for example, it may have been the wrong decision.
I read your post, I just think it is BS. What are these %'s based on? They are numbers that have no reflection on the actul game played last night, they are numbers pulled out of games in general. Here is the thing though, each game stands on its own, you can't just assume that since the odds are in your favor due to chance based on the aggregate of the past that things will go well.
You punt the ball, force them to drive the ball 70 yards in under 2 minutes.
That is football 101. Belichick outsmarted himself and that is the truth of the matter. I haven't read King this morning.
With 2:08 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful 4th-and-2 conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A conversion on 4th-and-2 would be successful 60 percent of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53 percent of the time from that field position. The total win probability for the 4th-down conversion attempt would therefore be:
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP (WP stands for win probability)
A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their 34. Teams historically get the TD 30 percent of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.
You have a chance to end the game with 2 yds from your HOF QB and juggernaut offense. On the opposing sideline is another HOF QB and his own unstoppable offense waiting for a chance to tear up your defense for the 3rd time this quarter; their running game is averaging almost 8 yards a crack in the quarter as well. You're in a hostile environment and you've lost several key defenders. Is it really that surprising a decision?
At that point, the decision should have clearly been to punt the ball and give Manning a long field to work with.
Now, if you can make a strong argument that shows that Manning's chances to score from 70-80 yards out were just as good, if not better than his chances to score from 25 yards out, then I'll listen.