Stop with the emotions and look at the math....Belichick made the right call

 

OK....I actually made a typo when I transcribed this.  The math on the formula is still correct.

I wrote:

Pi65 = 58%

Pi28 = 73%

Thats backwards.  Its Pi65 = 73%.  Pi28 = 58%. 

I had it correct in the formula.  Sorry about that......

Good thing today is a slow day at the office......

I am officially obsessed with this topic now.

I think you repeated my typo.  I guess what you are trying to say is:

There is a 74% chance you stop them from the 65 and a 35% chance you stop them from the 28.  In other words the probability of Indy scoring is 26% from 65 and 65% from 28.

Am I reading that right?

What are these numbers based on?  Where did they come from?

How did you get only a 45% conversion rate on 4th and 2?  The league average conversion rates for 2 yards to go are far higher.  Yes, Indy didn't have to defend against the long ball.  Long balls are very rare on 3rd and 2 anyway. Defenses routinely sell out in that situation.  There were a couple other factors.  NE had called timeout to get the exact right plan.  Indy's defensive plan could probably best be described as "Whatever you do don't jump offsides, this play isn't actually happening". Plus, the Off/Def matchup is far more favorable than league average.  I think 60% makes a lot more sense than 4%.

Also, I looked up Indy's historical rates of scoring from certain yardlines this decade.  On drives where they started at or crossed the 28, they scored TDs 58.5% of the time.  On drives where they started at or crossed the 65, it is 32.7%.  These numbers are baseline stats.  My overall numbers that are used in the above calculations include adjusting for the time on the clock plus the fact that NE might score again after Indy scores.  They also adjust for the fact that the Indy numbers are against all defenses and not this particular defense. 

Anyway, you calculate it, I don't buy a 65% score rate for Indy from the 28.  And I also don't buy a 26% score rate from the 65.  And I don't buy a 45% conversion rate in that situation with that offense and that defense. The numbers are off on all 3 categories and with all due respect, I think you are the one making wild ridiculous assumptions.  Nevertheless, I do thank you for being the only one here that actually attempted to put numbers into the equation and didn't just rest on "the
numbers show I'm right even though I haven't bothered to look any of them up" argument most people seem to be making.

Still, even using your numbers, it comes out to being basically a 50/50 proposition between punting and going.  A 50/50 proposition with no right answer is a long ways away from "the worst decision ever" and some of the other hyperbole being thrown around.  

 

um,,,,,,,, am I allowed to blame it on the drugs for not being able to understand???????   

Great post!!

I think he made the right call as well.

the mighty belicheck made afew errorsThrowing on3rd down instead of running the ball was a big mistake to start (indy was in passdef coverage),Then taking a time out.then going for it on 4th down when thedef and the rest of the world watching knows its gonna be a short yardage play.Bellys past results dont make much of a diffrence in a what have u done for me latley league.Uf he made it ,its still the wrong call with lucky results.Even his boy marvin harrison was shocked at the call/all the math in the world doesnt change the fact that it cost him the game

 

"if he made it, Its still the wrong call with lucky results"

 

WTF?!?!??!?!??!?

How do you figure that?

The whole point of this thread is to analyze this.  What are you plugging in as the component probabilities?

Literally every piece I've read today (and I'm kinda obsessed) that has supported the call has tried to mathematically analyze it.

Every piece that hasn't has said "numbers say it was the wrong call" without any numbers.  Seriously, do you guys even think before you post?

all the math in the world doesnt change the fact that it cost him the game

What I love about the conservative playcalling mindset is always the implicit assumption that you would have won the game without making the call that you did.  Calls win and lose games all the time.  The question is what are the odds. 

If he had punted and Manning had scored from the 65, the punt call would have cost them the game.  You do realize that, right?

Tall guy  it is a great post with alotof thght .But the fact remains they lost  NOone else would or should make that callAnd if Belly had it to do over he would punt .Alot more can go wrong driving 70 yrds than 28.Besides mathamatically u probably have torun 5 orso more plays to score.

and take in to count that the pats defence stopped peyton 9 out of 15 drives in the game .They were playing good .Math doesnt take in to count the feelof the game and what has been going on in that particular game . This mite just be  a big thorn in the Pats year.The Def cant be happy there coach showed noconfidence in them at all.On to tonites game  dont loseno sleep over this tallguy .U are obseesed with numbers .(They workbetter in POker)

I'm not sure he wouldn't make the same call again.

The fact is that he has been making these sorts of calls (maybe not this dramatic, but the same sort of calls) his whole career.   They have worked out for him.  The math is valid.

Alot more can go wrong driving 70 yrds than 28

Nobody is disagreeing with this.  Obviously, their probability of scoring is higher from the 28 than the 70.  Thats why the Patriots shouldn't simply hand them the ball on the 28.  However, they didn't do that.  I guess the real question is how much higher?  And how does that relate to the probability of making the fourth down conversion.

Have you noticed a general theme that all of the people criticizing this call seem to have a cavemanlike reaction of "Me no like numbers" when they are asked to quantify why its a bad decision?

I use numbers in my handicapping ,just as I do in poker,but I dont let the numbers alone sway me,there is many varibles to consider math is only part of the equation. What ur saying is its the right play no matter who ur playing, thats why numbers alone do to you.

Imsure belly wouldhave punted against 70% of the other Qbs in the league ,The numbers would still be the same iif it was aginst the browns with brady quinn,are u saying it wouldbe the right call then?You gotta here Tom jackson now on espn .Like I said this play is going  to cause some internal promblems.The man lost his mind

omg even his prize pupil Teddy Brueski is on now  on Tv bashing the call.Quote "he cant let his defence down like that,Iwas in spring trainning with these guys,Ican tellyou tonite they arent to happy with there coach: Marvin Harrison said the same last nite.

Hows this for numbers 5 out of 8 times they played each other the team who won this game  went on to win there division.

I never said use the league averages and leave it at that.  I thought I was pretty clear about the fact that I was using numbers tailored to the individual situation with the Colts.  If it was the Browns, Pi65 would be higher.  Pi28 would also be higher.  You'd need to recalculate.  The formula would still be the same.

there is many varibles to consider math is only part of the equation.

I hate to break it to you, but variables are math and whether you use them formally or informally, you are still using variables.  You seem to be saying that if you raise with JJ and Joe reraises you, you call.  If Bob reraises you, you fold.  You know Joe bluffs more often so there is less of a probability that he has an overpair.  You might not actually go through all of the numbers in that instant, but you are still using math in order to make the decision, even if you don't realize it.   Math is the whole thing in poker.  Not part of the game.  Even tells...which people don't think are math.  He avoided eye contact after raising.  Whats the probability that was coincidence?  the probability it was a tell?  the probability it was an intentionally faked tell?  You are still using math. 

If you go through your game and rethink the hands after they are done and try to recalculate the odds, you'll help fill the holes.   

Now, obviously some of these numbers are subjective.  If you think the probability Bob is bluffing is 10% and I think its 40%, we're going to play the hands differently.  You still need to do the math though if you want to make money handicapping or playing poker. 

There are a lot of variables involved, but that just makes it a more complicated question.  If you look at it in any detail, you'll see that using almost any realistic assumptions Belichick made the right move.

 

When it comes to almost any other subject, people expect football players to be tough and resilient.  Yet when it comes to fourth down decisions, it seems like they are claiming that by simply making the correct decision, the players will lose all heart and be too busy crying on the sidelines to go and do their multimillion dollar jobs. 

I mean why doesn't the coach play his third stringers more often?

Doesn't he realize that by not giving them any playing time, he is hurting their feelings?

The coach needs to make the correct decision to maximize the probability they win the game. 

If that is perceived as saying he has more confidence in the offense than the defense, fuck it.  They are grown men.  They'll get over it. 

As I said earlier, he isn't expressing a lack of confidence in the defense.  If anything he is expressing confidence in both his squads since the bet is that either the offense will convert or the defense will stop. 

buddy ur losing it . Sit backhave a drink/You keep quoting me like im the only one disagrreing with u..U are in such a minority on this subject its crazy. Put on espn and listen to them replay what teddy said on countdown.Ther isnt one pro  who aggrees not even his own.and please dont even tyr to talkpoker cause ur mathwill get u broke in a live game (another varible,math cant help)I would play the same pair diffrenet against u as someone else.You would play the same based on the numbers. Even he knows he would nt do it again

There is a pro that agreed. 

Bill Belichick.  He didn't back down.  He still says it was the right decision.

Being in the minority doesn't mean you're wrong.  Frankly, I think Belichick understands the evolution of the game better than the others.  Thats why he's won the Super Bowls.

BTW....I am a very profitable poker player. 

Would I play the same based on the numbers.  Of course, I would.  I always use the optimum strategy based on the situation. The situation changes.  Blind size, stack size, opponent aggression percentages, position relative to the button etc are also numbers.  If you are assuming that I think that the only numbers that matter are the cards in my hand, you're making a hugely incorrect assumption.

I'm sort of curious as to exactly how you would take advantage of the fact that I always play based on the numbers.

Dude, you have way to much spare time on your hands.

Without a doubt the worst call of the year and maybe the last decade..... He is the most arrogant piece of shit coaching these days..... Rex Ryan and Weiss follow in his footsteps!

 

Belicheat!!!  His face was priceless!!

MTFN, I can tell by reading your posts that you don't even know what a variable is. Nor have you even looked at the math equations. If you have looked at the equations, what part is "complicated" as you claim? The addition? The subtraction? Oh must be the multiplication. That shit always messed me up too. I might've even graduated high school.

Only a NY fan would still use Belicheat. He went 18-1 the year after "spy gate". 

 Your option Mangini, Rex Ryan, Tom Coughlin, John Gruden, Brian Billick, _________, or Bill Belicheck as your coach?  Who do you take?

Get your shit right he was cheating years ago when they were winning championships...

well put yank,Another genus sharpchesse head  lol debating a call that lost the team a big game Ilstick to the pros including his own guys saying it was the stupidest call of the year

 

 

                                        

                                   

he was cheating yrs ago??  cry me a river J.Porter!  

  So according to this logic the Pats should have 6 straight SBs...why did they miss the playoff the following yr after winning '01?