It sucks that some math guys have 4th grade level of football Xs and Os

[daggerkobe]

Here's more reasons why it was a terrible decision:

1) Even had they converted the 4th down, game would not be over as the 2 min warning and the remaining timeout wouldve stopped the clock. So unless they could convert another 1st down, they would've had to punt it with nearly a min left for Peyton to do his magic.

2) Belichick was making terrible coaching decisions the entire 4th quarter. With a big lead he continued to throw the ball instead of running the clock on the ground. His other terrible mistake was not telling his defense to let the Colts score the TD with a min left which wouldve given Brady a full min to set up the game winning FG. Instead the defense tackled the RB at the 1, which allowed them to run the clock out and any chance of a comeback.

3) The 70% or so 4th conversion rate for Pats this season doesnt differentiate between 4th down on the opponents 40 in a 0-0 game in the first quarter or inside your own 30 with the game on the line. If you fail in the 1st quarter and the other team scores then you have the entire game to make up for it. But when u do it at the end, it will cost u the game.

4) Precedence. When other teams such as the Cowboys and Trojans went for it in similar situations they all failed and lost the game.

5) Mathemetical probability cant see the future. Pats could have 90% success rate on 4th downs in their history but it doesnt mean that trend will continue. For example, If u flip a coin 100 times and it lands heads 90 times..... what are the odds it comes up heads next? 90%? Nope, still 50/50.



3)

[MrMonkey]

Does emotion play a part in sports anymore? Did you see Peyton's eyes light up when he saw where he was starting the possession at? Would love to have seen the faces on the 11 defenders of NE! Indy high! NE low! Here's a question for everybody? Did one person here think there was a chance in hell that Indy wouldn't score a TD from the 30 after the 4th down miss? Probably not!

In normal situations it's not a given mathematically for a score from there, but with the opposite mental states at that moment IMO it was Sunday night! Any other coach but Bill B. makes that decision and nobody will even discuss it as a math decision. Yes, the genius fuked up this time!

[MonkeyF0cker]

The decision to go for it and the play call are two separate decisions. If you criticize the play call, you aren't necessarily criticizing the decision to go for it. A conversion rate of less than 50% makes it the proper decision, since the probability of the Colts scoring a subsequent touchdown should the conversion fail would certainly be less than 100%.

[durito]

Here's more reasons why it was a terrible decision:

1) Even had they converted the 4th down, game would not be over as the 2 min warning and the remaining timeout wouldve stopped the clock. So unless they could convert another 1st down, they would've had to punt it with nearly a min left for Peyton to do his magic.

2) Belichick was making terrible coaching decisions the entire 4th quarter. With a big lead he continued to throw the ball instead of running the clock on the ground. His other terrible mistake was not telling his defense to let the Colts score the TD with a min left which wouldve given Brady a full min to set up the game winning FG. Instead the defense tackled the RB at the 1, which allowed them to run the clock out and any chance of a comeback.

3) The 70% or so 4th conversion rate for Pats this season doesnt differentiate between 4th down on the opponents 40 in a 0-0 game in the first quarter or inside your own 30 with the game on the line. If you fail in the 1st quarter and the other team scores then you have the entire game to make up for it. But when u do it at the end, it will cost u the game.

4) Precedence. When other teams such as the Cowboys and Trojans went for it in similar situations they all failed and lost the game.

5) Mathemetical probability cant see the future. Pats could have 90% success rate on 4th downs in their history but it doesnt mean that trend will continue. For example, If u flip a coin 100 times and it lands heads 90 times..... what are the odds it comes up heads next? 90%? Nope, still 50/50.



3)

i'm now 100% sure it was the right call

[MonkeyF0cker]

The notion that the "math people" have never played, coached, or do not fundamentally understand the sports that we wager on is absolutely ludicrous.

[durito]

Does emotion play a part in sports anymore? Did you see Peyton's eyes light up when he saw where he was starting the possession at? Would love to have seen the faces on the 11 defenders of NE! Indy high! NE low! Here's a question for everybody?

You think Peyton wouldn't have given the same effort starting further away?

Did one person here think there was a chance in hell that Indy wouldn't score a TD from the 30 after the 4th down miss? Probably not!

No. But I was sure they would have scored no matter where they started. But, I was sitting on my couch drinking whiskey. I don't know shit.

[MrMonkey]

You think Peyton wouldn't have given the same effort starting further away?

Yes, but it became simple math at the 30!

No. But I was sure they would have scored no matter where they started. But, I was sitting on my couch drinking whiskey. I don't know shit.

I don't know shit when when I'm somber and sitting on the couch!

[Indecent]

Here's more reasons why it was a terrible decision:

1) Even had they converted the 4th down, game would not be over as the 2 min warning and the remaining timeout wouldve stopped the clock. So unless they could convert another 1st down, they would've had to punt it with nearly a min left for Peyton to do his magic.

True. But if they made it on 4th if they punted next the Colts would probably be both further away and with 1 minute less time on the clock. Whether this entered his thoughts I can't say, but it's something else.

2) Belichick was making terrible coaching decisions the entire 4th quarter. With a big lead he continued to throw the ball instead of running the clock on the ground. His other terrible mistake was not telling his defense to let the Colts score the TD with a min left which wouldve given Brady a full min to set up the game winning FG. Instead the defense tackled the RB at the 1, which allowed them to run the clock out and any chance of a comeback.

This makes no sense... Going for it on 4th was bad because he was making mistakes in the 4th before this play call? No.

And what do mistakes after the play have to do with anything?

See your own pt #5! Just because he was making bad calls before doesn't necessarily mean he will keep making them in the future. And it certainly doesn't make this a bad call.

3) The 70% or so 4th conversion rate for Pats this season doesnt differentiate between 4th down on the opponents 40 in a 0-0 game in the first quarter or inside your own 30 with the game on the line. If you fail in the 1st quarter and the other team scores then you have the entire game to make up for it. But when u do it at the end, it will cost u the game.

Even if the number is lower, the math show it's still a lot closer than you think. I'm not saying it's a clear cut case of him being right, but even at 50% success or less on 4th this depends as much on how likely it is for the Colts to score as anything else. You can argue no one knows the exact numbers, I won't disagree. I would challenge you to find a group of numbers that makes sense and shows punting is a clear favorite. I've tried, and I can't do it.

4) Precedence. When other teams such as the Cowboys and Trojans went for it in similar situations they all failed and lost the game.

If you want to argue pt 3 above and say that it should be ignored because math people aren't differentiating opponents, quarter, etc, you simply can't mak this argument. Different teams, different coaches, different everything.

Besides that, in games of uncertainty you can't always judge based on results. Failing to get the first doesn't make it wrong, and getting the first doesn't make it right. This is similar to all losing bets weren't bad bets, just like all winning bets weren't good bets.

5) Mathemetical probability cant see the future. Pats could have 90% success rate on 4th downs in their history but it doesnt mean that trend will continue. For example, If u flip a coin 100 times and it lands heads 90 times..... what are the odds it comes up heads next? 90%? Nope, still 50/50.

I'm not sure I follow here. I get your example, but I don't understand how it applies to anything relevant to this discussion.

If a team is at 90% in the first half of the season, do you think they would be closer to 90% or 50% in the second half? I don't think they would necessarily continue at the 90% rate, but I'm guessing there is correlation between first half and second half season performances. It wouldn't be hard to find out, if I have time maybe I'll take a look at it.... thanks for giving me something else to research.

[20Four7]

I think it's time to smoke a dube..... at least my 4th grader hooked me up today.

[reno cool]

]You're criticizing his formation more than the actual decision to go for it.
[/B]
You still refuse to accept that the correct way to solve the question of whether to go for it or whether to punt by is using math.

Your contention about stopping them over half the time is not supported by any actual evidence.

While BB was definitely right to go for it, you are probably right that his formation/management of the situation was incorrect. But that doesn't change the fact that going for it in that situation with both teams having above average offenses (more so than the defenses are above league average) is absolutely correct and that the crucification of BB in the press has been beyond ridiculous.

you don't see how the two are related?

[donjuan]

you don't see how the two are related?

Few if any of these idiots in the media have come out and criticized the play call/formation. They have all criticized the decision to go for it. The two are very different.

[pavyracer]

I agree with Seer and I am more of a math guy than a football guy. The math I have seen supporting Belichek's decision is poor and doesn't factor in some really obvious variables, some of which Seer has pointed out.

Understanding variables is essential to good math.

I agree to. The math models and stats are as good as the input you put into it. I have yet to find a math geek explain to me how do you compare incompatible situational results in the statistical analysis.

[daggerkobe]

True. But if they made it on 4th if they punted next the Colts would probably be both further away and with 1 minute less time on the clock. Whether this entered his thoughts I can't say, but it's something else.

It was obvious in his post game press conference he was oblivious to the fact that he wouldve had to punt regardless had they not gotten another 1st down. Even Brady believed they could knee-down and run out the clock had they converted. This alone tells you it was a horrible decision.

Im pretty sure Peyton has scored a TD or two with under a min left.

You have to look at the risk/reward. The reward was that if they convert they take a min off the clock before punting. Risk was that they gift wrap a win on a silver platter. Risk far outweighted the reward by a mile.

This makes no sense... Going for it on 4th was bad because he was making mistakes in the 4th before this play call? No.

What happens in the same game in the same situation has far more relevence than what happened a year ago in a completely different game. The fact of the matter is, he made mistake after mistake.

1. Throwing the ball and not running the clock in the 4th qt.
2. Going for it on 4th down when the Colts DB nearly got a pick 6 on 3rd down. The DBs were jumping the routes because they knew they wouldnt run or throw deep.
3. Not having a plan B had they not converted. He should have told his defense to let them score ASAP. But he obviously did not because they tripped up the RB inside the 5 when he was about to score with a min left. Which was plenty of time for Brady to drive 50 yards for the game winning FG.

And what do mistakes after the play have to do with anything?

See your own pt #5! Just because he was making bad calls before doesn't necessarily mean he will keep making them in the future. And it certainly doesn't make this a bad call.

Again, what happens in the same game in same situation carries far more relevence than what happened a month or a year ago.

I remember ESPN showing stats that the Patriots had converted over 70% on 4th downs vs Colts since 2000. But how many of them were inside their own 30 with the game on the line? Problem with this stat is that going for it at midfield in the 1st qt in a tied game carries the same weight as 4th down with the game on the line. Obviously the former doesnt carry nearly the same risk/reward as the latter.

[betphoenix]

How many data points are being considered for the calculation here, and under what circumstances (perfect vs flawed) are they derived to get to the probability number??

[daggerkobe]

Even if the number is lower, the math show it's still a lot closer than you think. I'm not saying it's a clear cut case of him being right, but even at 50% success or less on 4th this depends as much on how likely it is for the Colts to score as anything else. You can argue no one knows the exact numbers, I won't disagree. I would challenge you to find a group of numbers that makes sense and shows punting is a clear favorite. I've tried, and I can't do it.

I think you're missing the point. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the math. The fact is, it omits such relevent info such as score, clock, position on the field, risk/reward and others.

You can not tell me converting 4th downs in the first quarters of tied game or going for it down 3TDs carries the same risk/reward as inside your own 30 where a failure means a certain loss.

If you want to argue pt 3 above and say that it should be ignored because math people aren't differentiating opponents, quarter, etc, you simply can't mak this argument. Different teams, different coaches, different everything.

again, due to the flaw in math I singled out games where the situations were similar and neither the Cowboys or the Trojans were able to convert and lost the game. Again going for it in the 1st qt or down by 21 doesnt carry the same risk/reward.

Besides that, in games of uncertainty you can't always judge based on results. Failing to get the first doesn't make it wrong, and getting the first doesn't make it right. This is similar to all losing bets weren't bad bets, just like all winning bets weren't good bets.

I am not basing my argument on the fact that they lost. I am basing it on risk/reward where the risk far outweighed the reward. And the fact that he didnt know he would still have to punt shows what a stupid decision it was.

Every week there are several games where a team has a chance to ice the game if they go for it but no one is stupid enough to do it. They punt and force the other team to go the length of the field and no one blames them for it cause its the correct thing to do in those situations.

I'm not sure I follow here. I get your example, but I don't understand how it applies to anything relevant to this discussion.

If a team is at 90% in the first half of the season, do you think they would be closer to 90% or 50% in the second half? I don't think they would necessarily continue at the 90% rate, but I'm guessing there is correlation between first half and second half season performances. It wouldn't be hard to find out, if I have time maybe I'll take a look at it.... thanks for giving me something else to research.

my point is that even if the Pats had been 100 for 100 on 4th down conversions their chances of making the next one was still 50/50.

If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up all heads, would you risk your entire savings that the next one will also be heads? Of course not, because the odds are still 50/50.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It's glaringly obvious that there is no point in arguing about this with people who have no mathematical proficiency. 100 heads is 50/50? LOL. The odds of that occurring is 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,37 6. It's fairly doubtful that the true odds are indeed 50%. We can calculate a posterior probability model and find out how likely it is that the odds are 50%, but hopefully you get the point.

[pavyracer]

MonkeyF0cker,

What are the odds of converting an on side kick on the first play of a football game? I can guarantee you it is better than going on 4th and 2 from your own 28 yard line when leading a game by 6 with 1:57 to go in the game. Why don't coaches do it more often? Do you think there is a stat guy going to suggest this for a coach and a coach who will look at the odds on deciding to go with such a game plan?

[MonkeyF0cker]

I could prove mathematically that it isn't, pavy. The difference is that the counter argument is something along the lines of, "But you didn't factor in that the kickers shoelaces weren't very tight." I don't have the data available right now, but it's all spelled out in Bayesian inference if you'd like to argue against a well established probability theory. Not only are all of these side factors already accounted for from past performances, but a reasonable amount of error (variance) is accounted for as well.

[pavyracer]

Like I said I don't know what the odds are for the onside kick recovery on first play but they can be calculated and compared to 4th and 2. The reason I suggested the on side kick on first play it's because it's the only play that I can think off who has the same parameters in terms of statistical analysis. The game is always 0-0, noone is tired, it always starts from the 30 yard line so it's something that can be compared without any other data coming into play like the 4th and 2.

[MonkeyF0cker]

This scenario is no different than live betting first down propositions. You have a distribution based on matchups and past performances that give you the probability of converting. Are they 100% accurate? No. But if it's a profitable model, it's close.

[daggerkobe]

It's glaringly obvious that there is no point in arguing about this with people who have no mathematical proficiency. 100 heads is 50/50? LOL. The odds of that occurring is 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,37 6. It's fairly doubtful that the true odds are indeed 50%. We can calculate a posterior probability model and find out how likely it is that the odds are 50%, but hopefully you get the point.

I'm talking about the 101th flip landing heads.

[durito]

I'm talking about the 101th flip landing heads.

No shit, really?

Recess is over better get back to class.

[daggerkobe]

Shouldn't you be washing the bikinis for your next renter?

[MonkeyF0cker]

I'm talking about the 101th flip landing heads.

LOL. Unreal. Chances are that you have a two-headed coin, genius. If you'd like, you can certainly attempt to make an uncut video of flipping a fair coin 100 times and getting heads every time. Post it on here when you're done. See ya in December of 3681.

[daggerkobe]

Listen, retardo.

Whether the coin lands heads 100 times in a row, or 10 times in a row.... the probability of it landing heads or tails on the next flip has NOTHING to do with the previous results! It will always remain 50/50!!!!!!!!!!

Just like the Patriots' 70% success rate on 4th down had NO BEARING on whether they converted the 4th & 2 on Sunday. It was still 50/50.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Holy fuk. You're a complete moron. Like I said earlier, there is no point in having this discussion with someone who has absolutely no fukkin mathematical clue. It's like trying to argue the hue of a diamond with a blind fuk.

[The Seer]

This thing is getting too crazy now, but as a coach, the thought process is the risk vs reward. There is too much risk for the reward. I know there is a good chance I won't make it and leave the Colts with 32 yards. Knowing this, I'd rather punt and give my defense more opportunities to stop him over a long field with TIME being a huge factor now. One thing I forgot to say earlier is on the previous drive, the Colt TD had alot to do with the Colts getting a bogus pass interference call for a 31 yard gain on a 79 yard drive. In this particular game, they had been stopping him 9 out 13. This HAS too be factored in so clearly the chances of stopping him were in the Pats favor. Factor in all of the variables IN THIS PARTICULAR GAME IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION is all I am saying. Bill obviously didn't. I understand where you guys are coming from but there are too many variables not being accounted for.

[daggerkobe]

Tell me this, retardo... why did you math geeks refuse to take my challenge to hit 55%...... when all you gotta do is hit 70% trends? Should've been easy.

[MonkeyF0cker]

1. What challenge?
2. What do I win?
3. What does this have to do with the current thread?
4. Is changing the subject an admission of defeat and ignorance?

Cheers.

[daggerkobe]

[Indecent]

Listen, retardo.

Whether the coin lands heads 100 times in a row, or 10 times in a row.... the probability of it landing heads or tails on the next flip has NOTHING to do with the previous results! It will always remain 50/50!!!!!!!!!!

Just like the Patriots' 70% success rate on 4th down had NO BEARING on whether they converted the 4th & 2 on Sunday. It was still 50/50.

You are hitting on his point though.. The chances of a fair coin (or 50/50) hitting 90% (or whatever number you want to use) is very low. After enough tosses at 90%, you can start assuming that the coin isn't fair (or more likely to hit above 50%) without actually having to know the exact number.

Beyond that, you've done nothing to show 4th down is a 50/50 situation. Comparing it to a coin is all fine and dandy, but there's no proof. You jump on us for saying it's 60% because we can't account for everything, but we accept 50% on your word. Why?

We get your point, just because they are at 90% now doesn't mean they will be at 90% later. But that doesn't mean they will be at 50% either. You could argue they have a much higher chance of being closer to 90% than 50% going forward assuming enough data.

[daggerkobe]

Dude, you're missing my point.

If the Pats were 10 of 10 on 4th down conversions this season..... would the probability of converting 4th & 2 on Sunday been 100%?

Of course not.

[Indecent]

Why say 50/50 if you don't mean it? That's my point. You have no basis for this number, yet you use it repeatedly.

I know there's no guarantee they will be at 100% going forward, especially not with 10 attempts. If they are 100% at 100 attempts, what do you think the chances are for attempt 101? I don't think it's 100%, would you agree it's not 50%?

[daggerkobe]

My point: probability of the coin coming up heads or tails (whatever they may be) will NOT change or be affected by previous coin flip results.

Just like had the Pats been 0-10 in previous 4th down attempts, their probability of converting their next 4th down would not be 0%. Nor would they be 100% if they were perfect 10 for 10.

If you were to lose 20 bets in a row, what are your odds of losing the next bet? 100%? Nope. 50/50. Always will be.

[Indecent]

My point: probability of the coin coming up heads or tails (whatever they may be) will NOT change or be affected by previous coin flip results.
If you were to lose 20 bets in a row, what are your odds of losing the next bet? 100%? Nope. 50/50. Always will be.

Stop using the coin example, it doesn't work. People aren't coins. They aren't bets either. We can accurately measure the odds of a coinflip and bets.

If you knew with 100% certainty that the odds were 50/50, then their next attempt would be 50/50 no matter what percentage they are running at now. It's not 50/50, and your example falls apart.

Let me ask you this... Does every play for every team have a 50/50 chance of succeeding? Can you at least admit you have no basis for saying they had a 50/50 chance?