From the Simmons article


"Put it this way: The Colts weren't exactly on fire. Admittedly, I am terrified of Manning and have written as much. But Indy had already started and completed two long touchdown drives in the fourth quarter against a good defense. Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005. Here's how the list looked before that fourth-and-2 call.

2005: 1
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 1
2009: 0

In 78 weeks of football dating back to 2005, it happened a whopping four times. Four! If you're playing the statistics card, why not play that one? By punting, the Patriots would have been asking Peyton Manning to pull off something THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVEN ONCE EVERY EFFING SEASON. You're damned right I just went all caps. Hold on, I have to repeatedly bang my head against my desk again.

(Ow.)

(Damn!)

(Ouch!)

(Uh-oh, my left eye is starting to swell up like Brad's after Darrell whupped his ass on "The Ruins" this week. Let's keep going.)"


GOTTA HIT, WE'RE DUE!!!!

Simmons should travel with a bomb in his bag every time he flies. Or two, to be safe.

The part about teams scoring 3 touchdowns in the 4th quarter or whatever is so terrible.

The only part I agree with, and this has been discussed quite a bit ITT, is that 4th down call seemed very spur of the moment and the events leading up to that call probably weren't ideal (playcalling and TO usage).

Wow, this article is horrid.

Only Simmons could find a way to go on a two paragraph Tim Thomas rant to try to convince people that the Patriots made the wrong call.

I got to this sentence, knew what was coming, knew I had to stop reading before I started beating MY head against the desk...couldn't do it. It was like a horrible car accident.

LOL Bayesaments.

Man, it must be tough to be those research guys and have to bite your tongue lest upsetting the talent. Simmons needs to go back to writing running diaries of WWE ppv events, he's just horrible as a serious analyst (although to be fair, if this week has taught us anything, it's that 90% of football analysts are horrible).

I guess he doesn't show comments to the article, but the "contact" link by his name let's you send BS a message.

fyp

He's the Norman Chad of the sports world. You can't take what he says at face value. I don't mind him.

Ugh the Simmons article was a trainwreck. Dude really just needs to stick to being funny and not trying to analyze the game. His only decent points were trying to show that the historic numbers used in the analysis of the situation were perhaps not relevant, and other factors such as job security and angry fans might have made it +EV for Belichick to punt in such a close decision. Just a terrible job backing these points up though.

From Advanced NFL Stats

Hopefully is an interesting segment.

Ha, as soon as I read the part about teams scoring 3 TDs to win in the 4th quarter I knew you guys would be jumping all over it. I know that Simmons is a gambler, yes he uses a lot of ridiculous logic when talking about blackjack, but come on, how could he write that with a straight face? I can't even imagine casual readers would read that without thinking, "wait a second..."

That said, he did come up with some good points near the end, which is what I think made this play not as smart as it should have been - the Pats didn't really seem to know what they were doing in the events leading up to the 4th-and-2 try, and if Belicheck had told his team from the start of the series that they were going to go for it, I think they would have made it. I didn't like Simmons' comments about how the Colts were a big favorite to stop them there considering the fact that they were very close to making it anyway. I also didn't like how he said, "well, they say the probability was 55%, but the Colts could easily stop them since they knew what was coming"...doesn't that 55% figure also account for defenses knowing what was coming? How often do defenses take a loose, "be prepared for anything" stance on a 4th-and-short try? Furthermore, I don't see how giving Peyton the short field was pretty much a lock to him whereas when he's talking about them going long, suddenly they're all misfire. The 92% win probability if they convert seems pulled out of thin air...isn't it 100%? (don't know the exact clock + timeouts, but 92% seems really low). And he doesn't even address the "well if they score quick, the Pats can still win with an FG" argument either.

Also, what the hell was the point of the story about driving out of Seattle? Was he just trying to make the article longer?

Yeah, he always does that.

I hope so too, but I'm not optimistic. I think they'll heavily edit out most of the intelligent stuff. Just like on the WSOP telecasts, they might occasionally briefly mention something like "he called because of the pot odds" but they'll never discuss any of the calculations in detail. They don't want their viewers to realize they're as bad at math and logic as they are.

It's hilarious because had they converted the 4th down, the column this week would ldo be: "BILL BELICHICK: GREATEST PERSON EVAR!!!"

I love Simmons NBA stuff, but I had to come here to post how awful his article was today. I've never written a columnist before, but I had to let him know how poorly written and argued the piece about the 4th and 2 call was.

LOLbad indeed.

No kidding, I can see him being overly praiseworthy, saying that Belichick is amazing even though everyone hates him, that he's the only guy who would take such chances and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to win games. I could see him saying things like "he knew the Colt defense would be too disoriented to stop a 2-yard play" and how giving a short field would be pretty much the same as a long field, bla bla bla

I'll give him credit for trying to find a reason that the Pats don't convert 55.7%. IMO there is a legit argument that historical averages might not capture the true percentage of converting in that exact situation under those exact circumstances. The rest is awful.

Oh, sure. But that completely misses the point. The point wasn't that, given historical percentages, the call was a good one. The point was that even if you heavily adjust the historical percentages it's going to be at worse a push. It's a far cry from the worst decision ever.

Wow, one more thing:
"Kevin Faulk hauled in a pass on the 30.3-yard line. It was spotted at the 29."

So Simmons basically admits that they converted the attempt, but just didn't get a good spot? Doesn't that kind of hurt the "the Pats were big dogs to make this anyway" argument?

"If you were sitting next to a bookie after the Pats blew fourth-and-2, and that bookie said to you, "The odds of the Colts winning here are 34 percent; I will give you 3-to-1 odds that they score,"

Wouldn't this be 2-to-1 odds? I mean shouldn't a guy who is apparently a huge sports better know this??

November 13th:

It would be funny to compile all the stuff he's written about Manning lately and compare it to this new column. iirc, everything has been about how you can't give him the ball back with any time on the clock because he will score and win (especially in 4 down territory, trailing by 6).

It's also funny because of how big a stats/numbers guy he is in baseball and basketball, but I guess stats don't work in FOOOOOOTBALLLLLLL!!! Yes there are more variables, but he should be smart enough to know (especially given his article indicating that he's thought about this) that this call is close, and totally fine. It didn't work out, oh well. This really might be the worst thing he's ever written.

simmons is a giant crybaby and always points stuff like this out

"I am not disputing the numbers or the methods for achieving them. But by Monday night, based on various columns and message boards (as well as e-mails to my reader mailbox), you would have thought Belichick was a genius for blowing the game. He played the percentages! It wasn't as crazy as it looked! 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!""

Sorry to keep posting, but I'm reading this again and really trying to comprehend the stupidity. I mean, at BEST this is an argument for results-oriented thinking. Like people have ever defended any accidental death by saying "people usually don't die in that situation". I just don't understand this at all.