tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post4182089430311693698..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Belichick's 4th Down Decision vs the ColtsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger299125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-18934597307319782282010-05-24T11:45:32.954-04:002010-05-24T11:45:32.954-04:00those "stats" are complete bs! do they s...those "stats" are complete bs! do they say if half the other teams players were hurt before that play and subs were in? or how bad the oppositiuons defense and yours was great? or etc, etc.? how about you give me one time when a team up 6 points with about 2 minutes left in game which should have been less as you should have forced the colts to use up their remaining timeouts by not throwing an incompletion then wasting a timeout yourself taking surprise out of it as colts knew you were trying on 4th down now ? btw - manning had been intercepted in the 4th quarter. so tell what happened the previous time in a near similar situation the percentages when it happened! YOU CAN'T! Because there were no similar situations ever so those "stats and probabilities" are completely irrelevant!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-2726266764228987992010-05-24T11:44:29.460-04:002010-05-24T11:44:29.460-04:00those "stats" are complete bs! do they s...those "stats" are complete bs! do they say if half the other teams players were hurt before that play and subs were in? or how bad the oppositiuons defense and yours was great? or etc, etc.? how about you give me one time when a team up 6 points with about 2 minutes left in game which should have been less as you should have forced the colts to use up their remaining timeouts by not throwing an incompletion then wasting a timeout yourself taking surprise out of it as colts knew you were trying on 4th down now ? btw - manning had been intercepted in the 4th quarter. so tell what happened the previous time in a near similar situation the percentages when it happened! YOU CAN'T! Because there were no similar situations ever so those "stats and probabilities" are completely irrelevant!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-89693494949242044472010-05-24T11:35:05.667-04:002010-05-24T11:35:05.667-04:00Your stats are completely irrelevant. Every team l...Your stats are completely irrelevant. Every team lines up facing a different situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-57007037561488271882010-02-22T12:52:16.499-05:002010-02-22T12:52:16.499-05:00The truth of the matter is that play-calls are jud...The truth of the matter is that play-calls are judged by their outcome. If Belichick's decision ended in a first down, it would have been the correct decision. But the Pats did not make the first down. The decision was a bad one. If you ask any coach how they know if they made a good play-call or not, their response will, most likely, be "if it works."<br /><br />Furthermore, the statistics for this analysis are general. Historical teams were not playing that day. The average quarterback was not playing that day; Peyton Manning was playing that day. One would assume that he would have a better chance of scoring from both the colts 34 and the Pats 28. His statistics are the only useful ones. Historical statistics from the whole leage are not viable in this situation. <br /><br />Also, the statistician did not take into account the possibility for a negative play, interception, sack fumble, defensive touchdown. There are many more variables than just make it, miss it, or punt it. Also, in both situations (punt or miss the attempt) the Colts had two possibilities of winning the game: a touchdown or a fieldgoal, onside kick and field goal or touchdown. The latter would be more probable from the 28 than from the Colts 34 also. These statistics you give are essentially useless because they do not take into account the multiple amount of variables that exist in the game. The variable are almost limitless. Lets try to list them.<br />Punt: chance of blocked punt, chance of punt return for touchdown, percent of muffed punt, average net yardage (you did this), PEYTON MANNING'S chance of scoring from his 34, Chance to kick FG recover punt and score again, etc.<br />going for 4th down: chance of making it, chance of sack-fumble, chance of sack that would affect field position, chance of interception that would affect field position, chance of defensive touchdown, chance of PEYTON MANNING scoring from Pats 24, chance of FG then onside kick and score. <br />All are possibilities and must be taken into affect of the decision, and none even get into the probability of that play-call being successful. percent of balls caught by Faulk in contrast to the number he is targeted (the play-call was only designed to throw to Faulk). Percentage of 4th down attempts being successful for the offense, but ALSO percent of 4th down attempts being successful against the Colts. The decision made by Bellichick is far more complicated than chanc of scoring after punt vs percent scoring if you don't make the first down multiplied by the percent chance scoring from the Pats 24.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-80453811282464992072009-12-28T16:36:38.943-05:002009-12-28T16:36:38.943-05:00I love the Colts but this really surprised me.
...I love the Colts but this really surprised me.<br /> <br /><br />RickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-28498683318469709112009-12-08T13:52:01.987-05:002009-12-08T13:52:01.987-05:00I realize i'm pretty late on this...but where ...I realize i'm pretty late on this...but where everyone (including this site) is screwing up is giving the pats a 60% chance of picking up that 4th & 2. that's the chance of picking up a normal 4th & 2 where it's not the worse thing if the other team doesn't stop them because they're still concerned with the deep threat. there was no deep threat on that play and was closer to a 2 pt conversion...which has a far less chance of being successful. that's where belicheck screwed up with his statsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-4988372576595002452009-11-22T23:48:21.868-05:002009-11-22T23:48:21.868-05:00Morons, who don't know how to calculate risk.....Morons, who don't know how to calculate risk.. And there's really no point in trying, with morons like you guys..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-90167684186033341242009-11-22T22:11:38.325-05:002009-11-22T22:11:38.325-05:00spoonfulofpeter,
I'm pretty sure Brian's ...spoonfulofpeter,<br /><br />I'm pretty sure Brian's numbers include data from only the first and third quarters. That ensures the results aren't skewed by prevent defenses or desperation come-from-behind situations.James Sinclairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-88586327031696834162009-11-22T20:13:52.691-05:002009-11-22T20:13:52.691-05:00Also, as Tony Dungy mentioned on SNF, 60% is a lea...Also, as Tony Dungy mentioned on SNF, 60% is a league wide average of 4th and 2 situations. That includes a large number of situations where teams are down multiple scores and facing prevent defenses. This skews your entire calculation as their conversion rate has to be way less than 60%. The Colts were not playing prevent. They were playing do or die.spoonfulofpeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832341691079044253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-54145328790725542232009-11-20T19:23:50.423-05:002009-11-20T19:23:50.423-05:00I didn't see a comment discussing how Manning ...I didn't see a comment discussing how Manning and the Colts do in the final two minutes, when they are tied or behind. Surely there's a stat for that floating around somewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-43434476157863866852009-11-20T16:17:56.554-05:002009-11-20T16:17:56.554-05:00Does anyone consider that the decision was a win-w...Does anyone consider that the decision was a win-win for Bill (despite what the media coverage says)?<br /><br />A) Pats make 4th down, essentially the game is won.<br /><br />B) Pats fail to make 4th down, defense holds Colts offense ... Pats win.<br /><br />C) Pats fail to make 4th down, defense allows Colts to score quickly. Pats offense roars back with game-winning drive of its own.<br /><br />And finally the winning situation that BB has created ...<br />D) Pats fail to make 4th down, Colts score to win game - no-one gives them credit for the victory. Colts players don't actually know whether they could have driven 75 yards in the final 2 minutes against the Pats defense. A spectre of doubt looms as to whether they could have done it plus Pats defense gives nothing away about how it would defend that situation. They're still in prime position of the AFC East to make the playoffs.<br /><br />The questions for me are:<br />- would Bill have made that same choice in the Super Bowl? (As opposed to a regular season game where he has 7 more games to qualify for the playoffs).<br />- would he have made that choice with 45 seconds left in the game? (Over 1 minute - same decision; 30 seconds - punt; 45 seconds much more in the balance as to whether Peyton can drive the Colts 70 yards in that time).<br />- if the Colts had been held on that final drive and faced a 4th down at say the 20 with 1 min left; would they have gone for the 4th down OR would they have kicked the FG hoping to recover the onside kick?<br />- when is Bill going to do something about the Pats defense tiring late in games? (See 2006 AFC Championship, Super Bowl XLII).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-62327905240298373072009-11-20T12:21:02.953-05:002009-11-20T12:21:02.953-05:00Applying .60 conversion factor is way off. NFL 4t...Applying .60 conversion factor is way off. NFL 4th down conversion in 2009 (3 yards or less) is .449. The Pats are 5 for 11 this year or .455 which is only average. When the conversion attempt failed did anyone actually think the Colts wouldn't score? <br /><br />Even conservatively, if the Colts/Manning had a 70% chance to score (if 4th down conversion failed), and based on NFL 4th down conversion stats for 2009, the Pats would have a WP of only 62%, going for it. From this website, the league average is 27%, scoring from own 28 (more realistic punt based on Pats average that day)- that would be a WP of 73%, for punting. Manning is great but is there close to 40% chance the Colts would drive 72 yards for a TD in less than 2 minutes? Possible, but a tall order. Looks like Belichick should have called for a punt, but apparently didn't have any confidence in the D, or just plain screwed up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-68289058004185739182009-11-19T14:11:32.741-05:002009-11-19T14:11:32.741-05:00Here's why Belichek's choice was too risky...Here's why Belichek's choice was too risky...<br /><br />NE has ~70 yards to go, same distance to endzone for IND if NE decides to punt.<br /><br />Therefore, we can assume NE's WP is at least 70% BEFORE the decision, but not much more because they're only up by 6 with 2 mins. to go.<br /><br />AFTER A PUNT, NE's WP stays about the same at 70% (assumes 40 yds net to IND 30)<br /><br />4&2 Make it: NE WP% jumps to 99%<br />4&2 Blow it: NE WP% falls to under 50%<br /><br />REDICULOUS! He could have kept his WP about the same and force IND to go the ditance 3 times in row!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-52479738373075037642009-11-18T22:16:30.325-05:002009-11-18T22:16:30.325-05:00I think this is not nearly as complicated as peopl...I think this is not nearly as complicated as people are making it. Belichick normally punts on 4th down. He would have punted here but he did not think Manning could be stopped by his D. He had to quickly decide if he wanted Tom Brady deciding the game or his D. Since Manning was the other QB he probably looked at a punt as giving him a 30% chance to win and going for it is 50/50 at worse. Any other QB in the league and he punts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-88113170525556844042009-11-18T19:16:37.307-05:002009-11-18T19:16:37.307-05:00Probabilities are very interesting to consider (th...Probabilities are very interesting to consider (this is the Tony LaRussa format of coaching), but I think Belichick did the RIGHT thing, considering his offensive personnel vs. his defensive personnel, and how deadly Peyton Manning is in a must-win situation. The problem was the play execution on 4th and 2. Why have a guy go to exactly 2 yards to attempt the catch (which he made, but juggled so fell back to 1/2 yard shy)? If Faulk (who had a GREAT game) would have gone out 1-2 yards further, the 1st down would have been made and all the second-guessing would be history . . . not to mention Maroney's ridiculous fumble at the goal line, which cost the Pats one score, and Brady's interception in the end zone that likely cost them at least a FG try. The Pats had a great offensive game (except for the 2 miscues I just mentioned), but this defense (though good at times in the game) is not really a Super Bowl defense. I think the Colts are quite overrated, and will not be your Super Bowl champs, though I don't think NE will be either. It was a devastating defeat, but considering how weak the AFC East is, it will not cost them the division title - only best record chances for the playoffs. The boring coaches (that DOMINATE the No Fun League) always opt for easy choices like punting. I liked the gamble, and am sorry they did not execute the 4th down and 2 play better, but it should have been successful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-88839085794266521402009-11-18T18:05:17.604-05:002009-11-18T18:05:17.604-05:00I agree that going for it on 4-2, even in that pos...I agree that going for it on 4-2, even in that position, is the true mathematical favorite. However, in practice I only agree with the decision if the defense is told to allow a touchdown if/when the Colts are very close... tackling the runner at the 1 with 1:20 left (and no timeouts) ultimately is what cost the Pats the game. With a minute and only needing a field goal Brady is successful most of the time (say 75% but I am sure someone can correct).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-19255095700526258622009-11-18T17:03:30.669-05:002009-11-18T17:03:30.669-05:00Please stop the madness. Enough of the defense of...Please stop the madness. Enough of the defense of the mad scientist. There's no way to defend the call; it lost the game for the Patriots. The Pats website says it all - 2009 3rd down conversions 56/123 (45%); 4th down conversions 5/11 (45%), so converting (in 2009) is worse than a coin flip. If Belichick is so worried about giving the ball to Manning in this game, why would he decide, more likely than not, to give it to him with a short field? Methinks many statisticians overlooked the fact that the mad-one had such great success with unconventional 4th down conversions in his early season game at Atlanta that he forgot one key fact - probabilities are just that, probabilities - the outcomes are binary - success, or in this case, failure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-77311413378832112902009-11-18T13:48:41.840-05:002009-11-18T13:48:41.840-05:00Going for it in that situation is too risky becaus...Going for it in that situation is too risky because if you fail:<br /><br />1) The game clock becomes a non-factor.<br />2) The offensive play book is wide open.<br /><br />All these statistics are great but the fact is Indy had only scored on 4/13 possesions in the game and 2/5 in the second half. So what are the real odds of them scoring again with only 2 minutes left and 1 TO?<br /><br />He had the big stack and went all-in with a marginal hand and when he lost he wasn't out of the game but he was crippled. <br /><br />I say keep the advantage and force the other guy to play. Obviously he felt Indy held the advantage and, based on his decision, he had zero confidence in his defense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-44732664246464101592009-11-18T13:44:06.742-05:002009-11-18T13:44:06.742-05:00He (and the team and his other coaches) only had 2...He (and the team and his other coaches) only had 25 seconds to not only decide YES or NO but to a play... against arguably the BEST team in the NFL. They didn't have 24 hours and computers and replays and historical games to look back on... or a bunch of 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks' or 'Yahoos'. GREAT CALL ! Awesome Call. Gave his Offense AND his Defense a chance. Colts had to score a TOUCHDOWN ! Not 'just a FG'. We missed a few other chances to add more points earlier. Oh... and by the way... how come non of the whining yahoos are complaining about the Colts running up the score on the Pats by scoring 35 points and not letting up? I guess the Pats should have taken it easy on the Colts earlier and only scored 34. Oh wait... they did. Great Game. 198,000 people were there. I know I was one. Ha ha ha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-82263978876348450542009-11-18T11:43:21.299-05:002009-11-18T11:43:21.299-05:00Anony 1.
"Yes a 70%WP means that you are like...Anony 1.<br />"Yes a 70%WP means that you are likely to win but describing a 70% probability as "almost certain to still be the most likely winner" is incorrect".<br /><br /><br />You're miss reading me.I'm saying if you punt in the vaste majority of those punts you come out of it with a higher WP than Indy.I never said anything remotely resembling "a 70% chance means you are almost certain to win."<br /><br />Anony 2<br /><br />"But if you play one only hand,you still have better odds from the dealers's side."<br /><br />So if we toss a fair coin once and if you're corrct I give you a million pounds,but if you're wrong I take your house,you're playing are you?.....Or is the downside on this favourable bet too risky?<br /><br />D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-90263224243939480932009-11-18T10:06:11.282-05:002009-11-18T10:06:11.282-05:00I've read through most of the arguments and fi...I've read through most of the arguments and finally the last anonymous poster is the only one here who seems to get it. It a risk-reward type call and I think the call was way too risky in this situation. <br /><br />As a coach myself, I like the idea of creating the most opportunities for my team to win. By punting you force the opposing team to beat you and they have zero room for error. Your defense will have multiple opportunities to force an error or make a stop while having time on their side.<br /><br />So IMHO, by taking this huge risk and going for it, you are in fact showing zero confidence in your defense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-48712508661980110852009-11-18T06:10:45.038-05:002009-11-18T06:10:45.038-05:00"Given that he only gets to play this play on..."Given that he only gets to play this play once,shouldn't he trade off part of his longterm win probability (which he only gets if he continually goes for it on 4th down)"<br /><br />Another misperception....<br /><br />A casino invites you to be a blackjack dealer and keep the profits. Or you can sit on the regular side play like a regular gambler.<br /><br />Play 10,000 hands from the dealers side and you will almost certainly be profitable.<br /><br />Play 10,000 hands from the players' side and you will almost certainly lose.<br /><br />But if you play one only hand, you will still have better odds from the dealer's side. Yes, there is variance and you might win or you might lose from either side, but the smart move is to sit in the dealer's chair even if its only for one hand....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-42434938614514905982009-11-18T06:06:30.073-05:002009-11-18T06:06:30.073-05:00With all due respect, I think your post illustrate...With all due respect, I think your post illustrates part of the disconnect between the math people on this site and the conventional wisdom.<br /><br />The conventional wisdom relies heavily on rounding. <br /><br />Punt = 70% Win Prob (WP) = probable win<br /> <br />Go for it and make it = 99% WP = probable win<br /><br />Go for it and miss = 43% WP = probable loss<br /><br />Go for it and make it and all you've done is turn a probable win into a probable win. No real difference. Go for it and miss and you've turned a probable win into a probable loss.<br /><br />I guess the problem is people are too quick to round. Yes, a 70% WP means that you are likely to win but describing a 70% probability as "almost certain to still be the most likely winner" is incorrect. <br /><br />Alex Rodriguez has a lifetime batting average of .305. That means (disregarding walks and sacrifices) he is out 70% of the time he comes up to bat. With A-Rod at bat, would you say he is "almost certain to win"?<br /><br />People seem to treat 50% as some sort of magic number. Slightly above it and you are the favorite. Just cruise and you'll win. Slightly below it and you are the dog. You're in a lot of trouble. How did you get here exactly...<br /><br />I guess the point is that 50% isn't a magic number. You can't just round up or round down. If you are risking turning a slight favorite into a slight dog but in return you get a 60% chance to turn that favorite into a virtual guarantee, you should take it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-43007995067244474732009-11-18T05:13:53.017-05:002009-11-18T05:13:53.017-05:00Isn't there something missing here.
BB goes f...Isn't there something missing here.<br /><br />BB goes for it.Six times out of ten he comes out the other side of the 2 minute warning as the most likely game winner.(WP around 100%).But 4 times he comes out as the most likely loser because Indy stop them.<br /><br />If he punts,he's almost certain to still be the most likely winner after the punt,although his win probability will be reduced compared to the best and average case scenario of going for it.<br /><br />Given that he only gets to play this play once,shouldn't he trade off part of his longterm win probability (which he only gets if he continually goes for it on 4th down)for the knowledge that he will still be the most likely winner if he punts the ball away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-49568551313769491382009-11-18T04:13:38.238-05:002009-11-18T04:13:38.238-05:00Yeah, I agree with all of that, and I agree that f...Yeah, I agree with all of that, and I agree that four-down football will catch on. I'll go as far as to predict that in the near future we'll look back on this 4th-and-2 play as the best thing to ever happen to four-down football, because it got people to start talking and, in some cases, thinking. The great irony is that it's all because they didn't get the first down (I completely disagree with everyone who's said Belichick would be hailed as a genius if the "gamble" had worked--I think the pundits would just call him gutsy and lucky and then quickly forget about it).<br /><br />It just makes it so much more baffling that there's an option that's (1) strategically preferable and (2) more fun to watch, and people are so adamantly opposed. Does everyone hate fun?<br /><br />As for Deal or No Deal, that raises an interesting point. I agree that the contestants aren't exactly mathematicians (for the record, neither am I), but I wouldn't go strictly by EV. If I had a choice between $300,000 and a 50/50 shot at $0 or $1,000,000, I'd take the 300K. There's all sorts of stuff I could do with 300K that I couldn't do with 0 (i.e. that I can't do now), but the difference between 300K and a million doesn't nearly as important.<br /><br />I think that's a rational way to think when you're dealing with your own livelihood, but people use the same thought process with football, and that's entirely irrational. The obvious differences are, in football (1) there's no guaranteed middle option, it's either win or lose (ignoring ties, because ties in the NFL are ridiculous), and (2) there's no serious consequence for losing (you might miss the playoffs, and your coach might get fired, but nobody's going to get hurt or wind up homeless because of a loss).James Sinclairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com