email sparano. he proly knows this.

Suzzer already explained this but just to say it again in different words in case someone's confused about this (like I was):

Assuming a 45% 2-point conversion rate, in terms of total number of points it is better to kick the extra point than go for two. This is because 1 is larger than 45% of 2. So during most of the game you are trying to increase your score by as much as possible, which is accomplished by kicking.

At the end of the game, however, you are not trying to maximize the total number of points you score in the average case...you are trying to maximize your chance of WINNING. Going for 2 when down 14 late in the game works out because if you're going to lose, you don't care how much you lose by...losing by 2 points is equally as bad as losing by 1 point.

If you kick when down 14 late, you'll almost never lose by 2 points. But you don't care about losing by more points, so you increase the chance of losing by 2 points in order to increase the chance of winning the game.

This emotional reaction isn't because people have some intuitive knowledge of the best mathematical play in football. Fans ALWAYS want their team to go for it on 4th and 1 because (A) it's more exciting and people like action and aggressive play, and (B) it's consistent with most fans' internal locus of control, meaning they want their team's fate to be in its own hands, and not the hands of the other team. If you punt it, you're giving the other team the opportunity to win the game rather than doing it yourself.

Also people think it's easy to gain two yards because it happens all the time on first and second down but when the defense can play a short field, it's a lot harder.

Flee,

I think he gets that, the question is at what point does maximizing expected points no longer maximize win equity.

honestly, if you want the colts to win, what would you prefer?

One thing I believe is that if you ask Cowhead and other blabbermouths what they'd want Pats to do if they were rooting for Indy, they'd say punt. If you asked them why, I think they'd eventually get around to it being a better chance to win. And even then, they'd still see no inconsistency in criticizing the call.

is that rhetorical?

i had the colts moneyline and i was unhappy when the pats left the offense out there.

its not rhetorical.

I recorded MNC because I missed some of the middle and wanted the LOLs. I just rewatched this and wow again. Using their numbers the Patriots win at worst 68.5% of the time by going for it and at worst 35% punting and they are all saying to punt cutting their chances in half.

My ****ing god, I was reading some of the comments on the ESPN article..

Awesome.

I'm not so sure he gets it...I had the same question GREEAR posed and it really didn't make sense to me in an A-HA! manner until I thought about it in the way that I posted.

Maybe I'm just slow though, and he really was asking what you think he was asking.

In response to the question of when does maximizing expected points start to hurt your chances of winning, I'd say whenever time is short enough that you know it's very unlikely you will get the ball more than twice. Exactly when this is can't be pinned down exactly, but in many instances it's clear.

I don't have the answer either but it obviously depends on the teams involved. Say you find yourself down two TDs just 5 minutes in but after an injury I go in as QB for the other team. I think in this spot you want to go for it no matter what.

In other words the worse the other team is offensively the earlier that point should be. I'm not sure though as this gets a lot more complicated further out.

Yeah, this is right, though whether good/well-suited-to-2-yards offenses should go for 2 every time is another question.

I would really like to see some low-end coach do this exact same thing and succeed. I'm almost positive that he would be lauded for his gutsy call, and "he really won his team over by having the confidence to do this.". **** ESPN and everyone that says Belichick is a ****** for this. Saying "well, I don't think it's a good decision because ____" is fine, but "LOL NOT CLOSE WTF R U THINKING" makes me mad.

JaredL: Why? I'm assuming that with you in as quarterback, your offense is not going to score anymore points unless they get super lucky. So once the trailing team ties it's a virtual lock to win because you'll go three and out every time. And if you want to tie then you just kick the extra point.

Pretend JaredL is going out and the real QB is coming back in if it gets to Overtime. That makes more sense/is his point, I think.

Yeah I didn't think about OT in my extreme case. I still think it's true that the worse the other team is at scoring the earlier you'll shift into end-of-game mode for these decisions. I would think the loss in expected points will hurt only if there is likely to be some back and forth on the scoreboard.

If the other team is really bad at scoring, and you're good at scoring, then you should easily outscore them regardless of what you do (though you'll probably be a favorite to convert for two so you should do that). If you're also bad at scoring, and/or they have a great defense, then you're probably not going to be 45% on 2-point conversions, you'll be worse, and then it certainly won't make sense to go for two.

I really liked a section of Dan Wetzel's column today on yahoo sports. Although he maintains his belief that there is more to a coaching decision than the numbers and probabilities whatnot, he acknowledges their existence and explains how they were used to show that going for it was the right play. The comments on buzz are ******ed as expected, but I gained a good deal of respect for him from this.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

Being Bill Belichick

ROFL

if it's 0EV I go for it b/c my QB is my highest paid player. All else being equal I keep the ball in his hands.

haven't read every page .... has anyone in the media said they liked it and further said it was the right call based on %'s?

Everyone's shocked at Tedy Bruschi's comments and I was at first too. But it's evident to me now that Belichick must have told Bruschi that he was going to cut him but would let him retire first if he wanted. His remarks smack of a bitter man.

I don't think he gives a **** about the media but it would be a real shame if all this ridiculousness actually did get BB to start doubting himself.

I can't wait to read TMQ today, Easterbrook had to have been creaming himself over that call.

The way I have been explaining this to people is to take it to the extreme while simplifying the problem.

I will basically get people to agree with me that if for some reason they knew NE was 100% to convert the 4th down they would go for it. And if they knew they were 0% to convert they would punt it, no brainer. Both pretty simple to understand. Then I ask them about 99% to convert, then 98%, which are both yes/yes. From there it is easy to point out that there is a break even point, and it is just a matter of finding it.

I know it ignores a couple of things, but it gets people thinking properly about it imo.

should be careful with this technique imo, sounds like it might cause head explosions or something