4th and 2 on the their own 30 - Discuss it here [merged 10x]

[makewayhomer]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

Making up percentages that have no basis in reality is a great way to have a meaningless argument.

the only people who continue to say things like this are intellectually ignorant

 

[maverick4]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

I disagree with going for it, but could have been okay with it had Belichick been consistent. If you fail conversion, have your defense immediately lay down and get the ball back to get a FG.

His actions were not consistent or coherent.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

Why do people keep suggesting that the Pats' defense was "gassed"? Do you even know how much time the D was on the field in (a) the whole game, and (b) in the 4th quarter?

Look up those numbers and explain to me how a defense filled with young guys could be "gassed".

I think they just started to suck....not suck wind.

Three reasons: one, they spent a lot more time out there in the second half than the first.

And two, Manning was in a hurry-up for 3 straight drives. That will condense the clock.

Three, Belichick did not have enough bodies to rotate the DL.

I literally saw Wilfork just standing around on the second to last drive. he was totally immobile.

 

[maverick4]

Weak defense of decision on Reiss' Blog

Some guy gives a pretty weak defense, using numbers, of the decision.
New England Patriots Blog - Doing the math on Belichick's decision - ESPN Boston

He looks at 4 possible outcomes and figures out the total win probability. The biggest flaw is that he tries to claim that losing the conversion means the Pats would still win 66% of the time giving Manning the ball 30 yards away. This is ridiculous since he says the Pats would win 79% of the time if they punted and made Manning drive from his own 30.

Giving Peyton the ball only 30 yards away is almost a sure score, and lets him kill the clock too... so basically losing the conversion means you are very likely to lose the game and have all time run out. So... failing conversion should give the Pats a low win probability, not 66% like he used in the formula.

If you change the win probability on failing conversion, then the overall win probability favors PUNTING.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

Some guy gives a pretty weak defense, using numbers, of the decision.
New England Patriots Blog - Doing the math on Belichick's decision - ESPN Boston

The biggest flaw is that he tries to claim that losing the conversion means the Pats would still win 66% of the time. This is ridiculous since he says the Pats would win 79% of the time if they punted and made Manning drive from his own 30.

Giving Peyton the ball only 30 yards away is almost a sure score, and lets him kill the clock too... so basically losing the conversion means you are very likely to lose the game and have all time run out. So... failing conversion should give the Pats a low win probability.

If you change the win probability on failing conversion, then the overall win probability favors PUNTING.

Isn't there already a thread for this?

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

The biggest flaw is that he tries to claim that losing the conversion means the Pats would still win 66% of the time. This is ridiculous since he says the Pats would win 79% of the time if they punted and made Manning drive from his own 30.

you don't get it

by going for it, the Pats can win in 2 potential ways:

1. getting the first down
2. stopping the Colts if they fail

those 2 things COMBINED are greater than 79%

 

[maverick4]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

you don't get it

by going for it, the Pats can win in 2 potential ways:

1. getting the first down
2. stopping the Colts if they fail

those 2 things COMBINED are greater than 79%

No, if you look at how he actually calculated it, it barely beats 79% only because he claims the Patriots would still win 66% of the time after failing the conversion. Do you honestly think that number is close to being right? If you plug in say 40% for that number, the decision favors punting after you do the math.

 

[Nunchucks]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

you don't get it

by going for it, the Pats can win in 2 potential ways:

1. getting the first down
2. stopping the Colts if they fail

those 2 things COMBINED are greater than 79%

No it isn't. Those numbers are inaccurate. Nobody can truly know all the variables that make up the probability of getting the first down, colts scoring from the 30 compared to the probability of punting and forcing them to go the length of the field.

These probabilities are unknowable, too many confounding variables. That is why the math is a lie.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

Isn't there already a thread for this?

I searched the forum list before making this. Did not see it linked at all.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

No, if you look at how he actually calculated it, it barely beats 79% only because he claims the Patriots would still win 66% of the time after failing the conversion. Do you honestly think that number is close to being right? If you plug in say 40% for that number, the decision favors punting after you do the math.

if you lower that number to 40%, then you also need to lower the % of time the Colts score after we punt. you need to be consistent. if you do that - it's not hard to follow his equation, but I can help you - then going for it becomes an even better option.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

No it isn't. Those numbers are inaccurate. Nobody can truly know all the variables that make up the probability of getting the first down, colts scoring from the 30 compared to the probability of punting and forcing them to go the length of the field.

These probabilities are unknowable, too many confounding variables. That is why the math is a lie.

LOLOLOL

the only people who say the probabilities are unknowable are people who are intellectually ignorant or are afraid of math

every team CONSTANTLY uses probabilities and variables to help them in playcalling. why do teams pass instead of run on 3rd and 10? b/c probabilities say they have a better chance at a first down that way. why do teams not usually kick 65 yard FG's? b/c the know the odds are low are making it.

in a similar way BB knows, within a decent range, what his odds are of making a 4th and 2, the odds of his defense making a stop from his own 30, and his odds of his team making a stop after punting

 

[Nunchucks]

Re: Weak Defense of Decision on Reiss' Blog

LOLOLOL

the only people who say the probabilities are unknowable are people who are intellectually ignorant or are afraid of math

every team CONSTANTLY uses probabilities and variables to help them in playcalling. why do teams pass instead of run on 3rd and 10? b/c probabilities say they have a better chance at a first down that way. why do teams not usually kick 65 yard FG's? b/c the know the odds are low are making it.

in a similar way BB knows, within a decent range, what his odds are of making a 4th and 2, the odds of his defense making a stop from his own 30, and his odds of his team making a stop after punting

I am sorry that you do not understand confounding variables, I am sorry that you don't understand that you can not calculate things like player fatigue, injury, defensive alignment, offensive alignment, play call, yards, etc...

The simple fact is that past statistics have no bearing whatsoever on what is about to happen. The only thing the statistics are good for are to identify past trends. But, the truth is that trends don't mean squat for the next play.

You are just showing your ignorance. People misuse statistics all the time and that is simply because they do not understand them.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Weak defense of decision on Reiss' Blog

the simple fact is that past statistics have no bearing whatsoever on what is about to happen.

looooooooooooooooolooooooooooooooooooooolooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooollllllllllllll

I mean, this is foolish at face value

statistics are used in tons of fields to try to predict the future. want me to list them all?

 

[Nunchucks]

Re: Weak defense of decision on Reiss' Blog

looooooooooooooooolooooooooooooooooooooolooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooollllllllllllll

The sad truth is that deep down you know I am right and you are resorting to nonsensical ridicule in order to feel better about your ignorant position.

That's fine.

 

[SVN]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

if BB can have his rookie QB start a drive near their own EZ in the SB without timeouts and ask him to win the game then he is being just consistent with the 4th down call. If brady is intercepted in the last drive in SB 36 BB wouldve been killed then.he hasnt changed 1 bit

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Weak defense of decision on Reiss' Blog

The sad truth is that deep down you know I am right and you are resorting to nonsensical ridicule in order to feel better about your ignorant position.

That's fine.

educate yourself. we will all be better off. but mostly you.

MathWorks Tools Used to Predict Financial Crises in Emerging Markets

Supercomputer Stokes soaks up statistics to predict the weather

Amazon.com: Stock Market Probability: Using Statistics to Predict and Optimize Investment Outcomes, Revised Edition (9781557385642): Joseph E. Murphy: Books

Combining player statistics to predict outcomes of tennis matches



Bayesian profiling of molecular signatures to predict event times

 

[thenepatsrule]

Why Bill B was right.... (Mathematically)

Number-crunchers: Bill Belichick's 4th-down gamble was the right call - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

A bit of their numbers:

[LIST]
[*]Fourth-and-2 conversions are successful 60% of the time.
[*]The Pats' win probability on the fourth-down gamble was 0.79
[*]The Pats' win probability by punting would have been 0.70
[*]Assuming that the Colts would have started a drive at their own 34, teams have a 30% chance of scoring. But given the Colts' dynamic offense, their chances of scoring likely would have been higher. And that would have decreased the 0.70 win probability.
[/LIST]

 

[eagle eye]

Re: Why Bill B was right.... (Mathematically)

OMG not another one.

 

[ivanvamp]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

Three reasons: one, they spent a lot more time out there in the second half than the first.

And two, Manning was in a hurry-up for 3 straight drives. That will condense the clock.

Three, Belichick did not have enough bodies to rotate the DL.

I literally saw Wilfork just standing around on the second to last drive. he was totally immobile.

First, your time of possession argument is completely false.

The Colts had the ball for a grand total of 24:58. Here were the possessions in the 2nd half:

NE - 5 plays, 59 yds, 3:10
Ind - 3 plays, 35 yds, 1:18
NE - 12 plays, 86 yds, 7:51
Ind - 4 plays, 16 yds, 2:26
NE - 2 plays, 7 yds, 0:42
Ind - 5 plays, 79 yds, 2:04
NE - 7 plays, 27 yds, 4:12
Ind - 1 play, INT, 0:10
NE - 7 plays, 13 yds, 3:32
Ind - 6 plays, 79 yds, 1:49
NE - 4 plays, 9 yds, 0:23
Ind - 4 plays, 29 yds, 1:47
NE - 1 play, 0 yds, 0:13

TOTAL T.O.P. in 2nd HALF
NE - 20:03
Ind - 9:57

The Colts had the ball for about 15 minutes in the first half, and just under 10 in the second half.

Second, the "Manning was in the hurry-up for 3 straight drives" argument misses some important things. Go back and look at that drive chart. The Colts first 4th quarter scoring drive lasted 2:04. Ok, at a hurry up pace, yes, I can see how that would be a bit tiring. But it's just two minutes. After that, the Pats had the ball for 4:12, then were on the field for one play, then were off the field for another 3:32 when the Pats had the ball again. That's nearly 8 minutes of game time, plus about 12 minutes of commercials...that's nearly 20 minutes' worth of rest in-between the Colts' first and second scoring drives.

Now, in-between the Colts' 2nd quick scoring drive (another hurry-up offense, but still, only 6 plays and 1:49 off the clock), the Pats got the ball for that fateful drive. There were two timeouts on that drive, which, added to the 0:23 of game clock, and an incompletion, probably meant another 6-7 minutes' worth of rest.

So by the time Belichick made his decision, the Pats' D had been on the field for about 2 minutes of real-time action, after about 25-27 minutes of rest. How in the hell could they have been "gassed" with that ratio? How come the Colts, who had been on the field for a hell of a lot longer than that, still have been flying around the field?

It's possible that you saw Wilfork standing around, and maybe they were gassed, but if they were, someone should be fired. 2 minutes of hard play surrounded by 20 minutes of rest, after a pretty easy time of it in the half (only having been on the field for about 8 minutes in the half up to that point)....something is TERRIBLY wrong if that's the case.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Re: Joe Posnanski: Why Belichick made right decision

I disagree with going for it, but could have been okay with it had Belichick been consistent. If you fail conversion, have your defense immediately lay down and get the ball back to get a FG.

His actions were not consistent or coherent.

good point but aren't you assuming that the Colts will score immediately once our D lays down? What if they do what the Jags did earlier in the eve and milk down the clock to the last seconds and give us no time to run two plays?