Perhaps weak tight isn't the best play after all --- Kubiak vs Belichick

Almost all coaching decisions basically come down to the same choice.

Passive vs Aggressive

95% of the time if there is any doubt whatsoever, coaches pick the passive route.  Thats actually whats the matter with the NFL.  Its also one of the reasons why Belichick is the most successful coach in the league.  Coaches pick passive because they know that if they lose, they can pass the buck and say "I had confidence in ____.  How was I suppose to know they were going to blow it?"  They'll get a little bit of blame for a bad play call, but it stops there because ultimately somebody else will get the majority of the blame.  They want to win the game.  Who doesn't?  But winning isn't the top priority.  The top priority is making sure that somebody else takes the blame if you lose?  A passive coach always has a scapegoat.  An aggressive coach is the scapegoat.

Have no qualms about this.  In coachspeak, "confidence" doesn't actually mean confidence.  It means "not my fault". 

Anyway, tonight Kubiak had the decision between aggressive and passive.  He could throw for an extra 10 yards which would have greatly increased the probability of a successful kick. Or he could be passive and stand pat.   

The ball was on the 32.  That gave the kick about a 64% probability of success.  Since a kick only tied the game, the WP was 32% (0.64 * 50% win in OT)

If he threw the ball to the 20, it would have been a 84% kick (42% WP). 

Source for these stats:  https://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-2.html

Of course, there was the probability of a sack or an interception.  A sack would have lowered the kick to about 40% (20% WP).  An interception obviously would have made it 0% WP.  Of course, there was also the possibility of a TD.  A TD would have made it 99% WP.

So here are the probabilities of running a play in terms of relative gains in WP.

Interception = -32

Sack = -10

Incompletion = 0

Completion = +10

Touchdown = +67

I'm going to let you place the numbers into a spreadsheet and assign the various probabilities to them.  Its too late and I don't feel like bothering to look up the numbers. 

But I think I can see where I'm going with this. Whatever realistic probabilities you use, Kubiak made a huge error in not running a play there.  Monumental error. 

In contrast with the Belichick decision (which was actually the right decision), Kubiak very well might have made the worst decision of the year.  Its hard to say.  There is a lot of competition.  In every single case, the coach made an ultra-passive decision.

Why did he do this?  Why did he pass up such an obvious opportunity to increase the probability of winning the game?

Because "he had confidence in his kicker".  

Translation: Blame the kicker not me.

I'm sure that all of the people that were arguing "passive was right because Belichick went aggressive and they lost" are now saying "aggressive was right because Kubiak went passive and they lost".

Still they argue it much louder when a coach is aggressive and loses.  Thats why coaches almost always go passive even when it is the clearly inferior choice. 

If bellicheck would have been aggressive on the colts side of the field rather than his own... No one would have complained, or actually less people would have argued.  It was the fact that Bellicheck left the colts such a short field that mattered

here is a link to an interesting article that brings up some great points

https://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120

That wasn't the decision he faced.  He had to decide between punting and going at that point in the field.  He made the right decision.

You guys are so brainwashed by coaches' passivity that you don't even realize when they are making horribly bad decisions. 

Do the math and you will realize that coaches are almost never too aggressive...and they are very often too passive.

In an intelligent universe where coaches were trying to maximize the probability of winning the game and not to minimize the probability of getting blamed for losing the game, Belichick's call wouldn't have been at all controversial.  The only controversy would have been if anyone even considered punting there. 

If you honestly think he made great points, you are clearly not very smart...and probably lose quite a bit of money betting football.

"The odds of the Colts winning here are 34 percent; I will give you 3-to-1 odds that they score," would you have taken that wager in a millisecond or a kajillasecond? I think we can throw that number out. Whatever.)"

This man can't do basic math and you think its a great point.  34% = 2-1 odds not 3-1.  How can anyone claim to be giving betting advice and get such an obvious calculation wrong?

"By this logic, Belichick also should have held a loaded pistol to his head on the sideline, spun the chamber and tried to shoot himself like Chris Walken in "The Deer Hunter." If those 1-in-6 odds came through and he succeeded, we could have said, "Hey, he played the percentages: 83.6666 percent of the time, you don't die in that situation! You can't blame him for what happened!"

WTF!!!!!!!!!

Pulling the trigger was inevitable.  What if the guards had taken Chris Walken and said we are going to force you to play Russian Roulette but we're going to let you choose which gun.  We put two bullets into the gun on the left (punting) and only one bullet in the gun on the right (going).

Now, you can do the math yourself and pick the gun with one bullet in it or you can just do what every other person has done and pick the gun with two bullets in it.

Simmons thinks Belichick was dumb for picking the gun with a bullet in it.   Thats why Simmons is an idiot.

I can't believe people actually take this stuff seriously.

Very good post.  Great in fact.

You articulate what most cant understand - that most coaching decisions are COUNTERINTUITIVE.  That is - the right decisions are often what seem wrong.

The average person cant calculate probabilities.  They say things like "we should turn it over to our defense" or "our kicker can make it" without considering how to increase their chances to win the game.

Coaches prefer to take the path of least resistance - to do what has always been done - even though it is the WRONG THING TO DO.

Of course belichik did the right thing, and of course Kubiak did the wrong thing.  We see this week in and week out - but nobody brings it up most of the time because conventional wisdom wont get you in the news - but if you do the right thing in terms of probability - and you make the news - because it is counterintuitive.

Thanks Vanzack,

Let me make one more point.   Tennessee was almost certainly playing a prevent defense for that play.  It was probably the wrong defense, but "prevent or normal" is basically just another way of asking "passive or aggressive". 

This made the odds on a TD fairly low, but it also made the odds on a 10-15 yard catch extremely high. 

Kubiak was passing up basically a free opportunity to increase his chance of winning by 10%. 

Pass up an extra 10% a game and you lose an extra 1.6 games a season.  Thats the difference between playoffs and sitting at home.  In some cases, its the difference between a first round bye and sitting at home. 

Thats part of the reason the Patriots are the Patriots and the Texans are the Texans.

But none of that matters.  What matters is passing the blame....aka showing confidence in your ____.

Boy did Kubiak show a lot of confidence...