Decision to go for it on 4th & 2, up by 6, on your own 29, no timeout, no chance to review: EPIC FAIL!
Colts 35 - Pats 34: Next!
Decision to go for it on 4th & 2, up by 6, on your own 29, no timeout, no chance to review: EPIC FAIL!
Colts 35 - Pats 34: Next!
*awaits second fit of rage*
statistics show it was the correct call, they didnt execute as well as they should have, the colts won.
On their own 28 yard line? That is simply delusional. Period. Giving a guy like Peyton Manning a 28 yard shot at a win instead of a 70-80 yard drive for a win and then trying to justify it as being statistically correct is pure fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Can't fk'ing believe I went to bed in the 3rd quarter. Probably missed one of the best games of the season. The pick-me-up was waking up to news of the win though.
*still awaiting the rage*
The only rage should go against Belichick. His team played for a win, and probably deserved a win. His selfish call was the only thing separating 4 quarters of solid effort from a win or a loss.
I believe that silver (and Belichick) are correct. Statistically, it was the correct call.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...-vs-colts.html
they get the conversion the games over, They punt and manning IS good enough to drive the field. the defense was thin after banta cain got injured early in the game, They were gassed.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
It was the right call, we lost the end.
In my experience, giving yourself a chance to win the game is always better than not. Given the concept of opportunity cost (gamble the 4th and 2 and maybe win, else give yourself NO chance of winning) I'd never be happy with a coach making that call. While you make the 2 about half the time, you LOSE the game 100% of the time on the 50 or so percent of the time that you don't make it by giving Peyton and crew a 28 yard target to shoot for.
The Patriots have consistently had one of the deepest defenses of the last decade. To not trust them (gassed or not) to win the game for you is just sad...shows you how big Belichick's ego is. He should pocket that ego and trust his highly paid staff to...well, win the game.
Please stop playing devil's advocate (again) and re-read what I wrote. My complaint about the statistical validity has nothing to do with how often you make it...has to do with the chances of losing on the off chance (about half the time?) that you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
50 yard FG's make it about 50% of the time too. Why don't more coaches try them all the time? As you know, most would RATHER give the opposing team a long field than a short field in the event (half the time) of a miss.
I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm not happy about it. I don't like Belichick. He's a cheater and I don't buy his crappy outfit gimmick any more than I buy Michael Moore's soiled cap schtick. But, right is right. And he made the best call, assuming that the criteria for best is the one that gave his team the best chance to win.
I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding your clarification about what you meant (the link was about what happens if you don't make it in addition to how often you do). The bottom line is that Belichick's decision to go for it gave his team the best chance to win that game. That is supported by statistics.
You might argue that he should have chosen a different play. But, the decision to go for it was sound.
Whether or not to attempt a long field goal is an entirely different situation involving different statistics and math.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
If the Patriots converted, the game was over. According to historical data, they had a 60% chance of accomplishing that. That 60% is the NFL baseline. The Patriots being a better than baseline team offensively probably had better than a 60% chance.
THEN, if they failed to convert, they still had a chance to stop the Colts from scoring. From that spot on the field, the NFL baseline to stop that TD is 47%.
If they chose to punt and achieved an average 38 yard punt, the Colts would have had a 30% chance of scoring the TD.
The math, from the link I provided:
According to statistics, going for it on fourth down in that situation gave the Patriots a 9% better chance of winning the game than punting would have.Quote:
(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP
It seems unconventional only because, in most circumstances, the opponent either has time outs or there is more time left on the clock so that the advantage gained by converting isn't winning the game out-right. The advantage instead is only a few yards gained field and still needing another first down.
Where the **** is my unbridled rage!?
Stats only make sense with all things being equal. In this instance, they are not. You seem to negate the x-factor of momentum which WILDLY moved to the Colts' favor once the blew the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
That being said, let's play your game. If they convert (60% chance), they win. If they punt, they have a 70% chance of winning. Guess what, champ?
70 - 60 = 10.
Yup, that's right. Math wins again. 10% better chance of winning. Don't go for it...punt.
Incidentally, Chris Hansen had 4 punts in the game averaging 44 yds per (that's NET, btw) with a long of 55.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I am 99.9% sure if all the teammates surround the quarterback and just bulldoze their way forward, with quarterback jumps over the players wall and do the front head flip, they would gain that 2 extra yards instead of a throw. The 0.1% is for quarterback trips himself over.
The momentum factor was already in the Colts favor since they had been surging up to that point and the Patriots defense was gassed. And statistically, giving the Colts more momentum only increases the advantage of going for it rather than punting.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Good grief. Have you been hitting some of our Oregon pinot down there? I know you're sharper than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Read the link. Your math is wrong. You're not adding the chance that the Patriots had to stop the Colts if they failed the conversion. When you do that, it adds up to better total odds of winning (79%) than the 70% chance they had punting.
That's pretty good. But, how much statistical change do you think it would give the Colts going from a 38 to a 44 yard punt? 2% difference? Definitely not more than 9%.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Ratty is just upset that his giants have lost every game they have played against a real team since finishing off their JV squad schedule.
Hes realizing that ELI manning was not worth 16 million a year, And that the giants have no chance of making the playoffs.
But the aforementioned JV team played and beat a nigh-unbeatable Patriots team last year...
9 out of 10 times the pats win that game. plain and simple.
This thread is NOT picking me up.
I am pretty sure with that loss, the Pats have virtually no chance of controlling home field advantage. We all know how that works out for them. As far as the G-men making the playoffs, who knows...the entire NFC East seems to be imploding...not just them. They shouldn't have been a 5-0 team anyway. It was all smoke and mirrors.
@ FL - I am IGNORING your 'stats' as I don't care to pay any attention to some blog-dick's analysis and revere it as fact. Speak to me like a man, not like a google-bot and I'll be glad to continue with you. If you give the Colts the ball on the 28 yard line in a 2 minute drill, I'll put my money there everytime. The idea that ANYONE could stop them is just stupid. My comparison to the FG situation is entirely appropriate, btw.
i have faith that the patriots even without home field advantage are capable of going to the superbowl.
they were one bad spot from the ref away from beating Indy In Indy. No reason to say that wont be able to beat them in the playoffs once the multiple defensive players that were deactivated for this game are available for the next.
the colts getting the ball back either way there is a chance they can march down the field and score. The pats picking up 4th and 2 and the game is over.
Simple as that, damned if you do damned if you don't. I trust the offense over the defense after the drive the colts had prior to this situation.
Colts win in Indy in 2007
Broncos win at Invesco in 2006
Speaking of stats, since the win at Heinz Field against a then-rookie Ben Roethlisberger, it don't look good.
hanratty you seem more upset that BB had the balls to go for it then most pats fans. did you have money on the game or something?
Actually, not upset at all. Shocked that the Pats fans who live and die by their team would not be furious about allowing their arrogant head coach to choose their destiny instead of letting the team play it out on the field.
agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaBe_80z
How is letting the offense try and win the game not letting the team play it out on the field? what are the chances Tom Brady picks up two yards? Id say really ****ing damn good. The refs gave them a bad spot on the ball imho and i think they got those 2 yards.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
What im more upset about is the pats going into the prevent defense for the colts touchdown drive before the 4th and 2. the prevent defense has never ever worked against a good team. EVER.
I didn't just take some "blog-dick's" analysis as fact on the face of it. I read the article, considered the logic and looked at the math myself. He's right. And he's not the only one to come to the same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
How have I not spoken to you like a man? Do you want me to coddle you by not questioning points that I think you're wrong about? Does speaking like a man, for you, involve insisting things without backing it up and ignoring what the other person has pointed out? I think that a man should admit when they are wrong or have something better than insistence in response to an argument or facts that they are faced with.
Stating that you would bet that the Colts would score from the 28 really speaks nothing to whether or not it was the right call to go for it. I would bet that as well because, as we have already gone over, they had a high chance of scoring. However, they did have some chance of not scoring. That chance plus the Patriots good chance of converting adds up to a higher chance of winning than punting to Manning did.
And you can't have it both ways. In that quarter alone, Manning had two huge touchdown drives. It was not a bad decision for Belichick to try and win the game over two yards while he had the chance rather than give Manning another shot to do what he had already done twice within the last 15 minutes of play.
I understand that you hate the Patriots. I don't like them either. I'm with Joey Porter on that. But, I think your zealousness has clouded your thought on this point.
How about you read some of the comments on that site not just the '2nd blog dick's' opinion. As I stated, the stats are being applied incorrectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
You're misinterpreting...again. I said to speak like a man, not like a googlebot posting random links. You come up with your own statements and stop trying to just post links disputing my independent thoughts and I will feel you are a man/human/pick your title here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
That chance of not scoring goes up EXPONENTIALLY with another 50 or so yards to cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
And the Patriots had put up one interception on Manning in the same quarter. 2 scores, 1 interception. That's 66%, stat-boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
If you go back and read my posts, I've actuallly thrown some pretty nice compliments out there towards the Pats (as a team.) I don't like Belichick (though he did come from the Giants' organzation) and I believe his ego has now made him bigger than his team. I hate the Cowboys too, but I can't imagine Tom Landry ever making that call.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Point out which of those comments you stand by, "come up with your own statements"-boy. We can go from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
I didn't post random links. I posted a specific link that spelled out the math and statistics of the situation so that I wouldn't have to re-write it myself. After you fumbled around trying to discount it, I ultimately had to re-write it in so many ways anyway. So, yeah, I guess I should have just cut and paste it over here instead. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Last time I checked, the difference between 53% and 30% is not exponential, let alone EXPONENTIAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
And, for the third time, this was not a choice between those two percentages.
And intercepting the ball was also a possibility after a failed conversion, wrong-boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
jeebus christmas someone lease split the posts from this thread out already.
Look what the **** I did? :yarr:
Honestly, the call was borderline insane, but so be it. Every game is filled with 'em (or at least chances to make them).
I think the biggest issue I had with the call was the fact that they called their final TO prior to it ... thus giving up any chance for review (on a play that could possibly come down to inches to boot). That, and not running on 3rd and short which would have at least cost Indy their final time out.
Anyway, great game. Indy struggled for 3/4 of the game and still found a way to win. Lots of dropped balls and Manning mis-cues that likely won't happen the next time around.
john stumpf, rob, jim - find the rest on your own...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
p.s. We don't need to go anywhere. This is the same old M.O. from you over and over again. It's tired. Old...and...tired. Arguing for arguing's sake. Back to the high school debate team BS again.
Stats
Are
Being
Applied
Incorrectly.
Period.
None of those numbers take into account field position, situation, opponent, game momentum swing, the 12th man, time on the clock, a gassed defense having to play 'double time' due to the short field, etc.
ratty, what are the odds you would give tom brady to pick up the 4th and 2?
In general, I wouldn't. I'd look at the situation. A hungry Colts team that is dying to get a hold of the ball, no timeouts to talk about the play, a team frustrated by a perceived bad spot on the 3rd down play, raving lunatic fans screaming at Brady trying to call coverage from the line...his odds diminish greatly with all of those factors.
At Foxboro, I'd probably (though hate to say it) give him well over 50%.
john stumpf - Provides no argument. Only the speculation that Belichick wouldn't go for it under different circumstances. I've already covered this earlier. He probably wouldn't go for it earlier in the game because earlier in the game, making a first down wouldn't guarantee a win. Dumb argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
rob - The percentage used in the Advanced NFL formula was specifically for 2 yards to go. Not a one yard QB sneak. That's why the person who explains the math refers to his 4 part study of 4th down conversions.
jim - Doesn't understand statistics. If we isolated data collection down to only events that were similar in every conceivable aspect, there would be no such thing as a data set. His claim that other 4th and 2 conversions or drives starting from the 30 are not remotely similar is simply false. The ball needed to be moved 2 yards to convert, the exact same criteria for including that data in an average result. There are always exceptions. That's why we also can measure standard deviation or apply a modifier for some circumstance. You're welcome to identify what circumstance would have altered the result 9% from the average.
If I'm arguing for arguing's sake, for what sake are you arguing for?Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
I'm simply defending my point of view here. It's a subject that interests me.
If anything is high school about our patterns here, it's you not admitting when you're wrong and resorting to personal attacks.
First of all, yes they do. Most of the percentages involved are based on field positions and situations (down and yards to go). All of the statistics involve a lot of different opponents, momentums, 12th men, etc. That's what averages are. The middle point between lots of different circumstances surrounding a certain criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
Secondly, are you seriously trying to argue now that, when you stated that it was fantasy to believe that Belichick's decision was the statistically correct call that it was because you were factoring in the 12th man and all of these other nuances you list?
If the statistics, without nuances, support Belichick's decision, doesn't it really come down to a rather subjective call over how much exceptional circumstances change things? Elements that Belichick was probably in a better position to judge than you?
Yes, I am. And succeeding brilliantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
One step at a time. So, you are now acknowledging then that the statistics, without nuances, support Belichick's decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
I split the thread, curse me out later.
A thread within a thread is usually fine, it's the CL for ****'s sake, but I'm definitely in the mind that this deserved it's own thread.
Carry on...