Could have sworn that I heard that pats had 2 time outs left. If I'm wrong about that I don't think it changes anything (assuming I'm right about the 1:45).

Here's the crux of the question.

A= Chance of Colts scoring a TD from the 30 with essentially no time constraints

B=Chance of pats scoring FG after receiving a kickoff and having 1:45 (and no TOs)

I think that A = about 60% and B= about 65% (but maybe I've been influenced by too many Tom Brady comebacks)

If you disagree with my idea, what values for A and B are you assuming?

By the way, I was wondering why he didn't challenge. I thought that was a bad decision, but if he had no TO's, then that makes sense also.

Your answer assumes that in the case of A, the Colts score with (almost) no time remaining on the clock. Sometimes, the Colts score on their first play, and the Pats get B probability of winning the game anyway. Sometimes, they score with 1 minute left, and the Pats get some smaller chance of getting the FG.

In any case, I think your A and B values are too high. I think A would be ~50% and B ~40%, but I am just guessing.

If A is the probability of the Colts winning the game assuming the Pats play a standard D and not just the probability of a TD, it's way off. The betting markets had the Colts as only 40% to win the game right after the 4th down.

1. We're all guessing and you're guess is reasonable, so I can't fault you for that. But I definitely think that A=50% is too low. From the analysis from that advanced stats website alluded to earlier in the thread, apparently the historical average is 53% for teams in that situation, and the Colts have got to be higher than that.

2. Your're right that I needed to add a term in my calculation for colts scoring against resistance and then pats scoring anyway. That does make it closer. But I do think that if the colts march down the 30 yards with resistance, most likely they will probably have more opportunity to intentionally milk the clock. But I guess this term probably is big enough to make up the 5% difference that I see. So, I guess the decision is closer than I had originally thought.

I defined A as I meant to. Probability of colts win will obviously be lower.

All I can say is that I wish I had access to that line.

i did this once in a game of madden down 4. 1st and goal from the 2 because the guy i was playing couldnt be stopped on offense it was an absolute shootout. that is, until i did that and he stopped me.

running backwards for a safety may have been a better option than punting

Obv BB made the correct call here ainec. There is no set of reasonable numbers you can come up with that would make punting the better play. This is why BB is the genius of football coaches and everyone else is a huge donk.

The thing that will make my head asplode is hearing talk radio and ESPN today. I considered preparing an email to send out to shows like Mike & Mike in case they are all "OMG what a questionable call," but I doubt it would even get much consideration. Just saw NBC Sports on morning news and the lead in was "Patriots coach throws the game away on a questionable gamble." It's like when the NVGtards start giving strategy advice for nosebleed online games.

And then doing an onside with the free kick? I'm a Colts fan and just wanted him to punt it.

It's kind of funny. I bet if you asked 1000 Colts fans if you would rather see the pats punt the ball to you or go for it that 95% of them would insta beg for the punt

Yet somehow all of sports nation thinks it's a bad play

pats convert 4th = 25%
pats win if convert = 60%

the EV is: .15

pats win if punt = 18%

the EV is: .18

punting is clear choice.

I think 25% is a gross underestimate there, but point taken, numbers can be skewed either way to make the decision look right/wrong. I don't think that's what is annoying most people, it's the media just blatantly calling this a horrid decision when we all know that wouldn't be discussed had the Pats picked up the 1st down. They're acting like this was a pass/fail situation, and it's not.

Sounds like something you'd hear in a live game...

I feel like I just got taken by a used car salesman.

You got a pencil I can borrow?

All these numbers are horrible.

Covert is >50

Win if convert is >90 (the fact that you put it at 60% suggests you have no idea what the situation was)

Win if punt is also too low.

The conversion is between 40-60% imo. No way it's lower or higher.

40% of people itt voting for reducing the pats chance to win

BTW I wasn't actually saying a free runner like that shouldn't take the touchdown, just stop next to the goal line and when someone's close fall down or hold the ball out for the touchdown. And the defense guys should be attempting in theory to make sure he gets the touchdown ASAP (like they have such fine control of tackles in the first place...)

Anyway, the situation probably won't ever happen where conditions are right to do this and the person actually does it.

It indicates at the very least that the betting market has a somewhat more realistic perception of Peyton Manning's abilities than the talking heads in the media / posters in SE. 60% to win is still Godly all the same.

% Pats convert 4th down = 60%
% Pats win if they convert 4th down = 99%
% Pats win if they don't convert 4th down = 10%
% Pats win if they punt = 50%

Win =1
Loss=0
EV of going for it =.6*.99 + .4 * .1 = .634
EV of punting = .5

Great call Belichick.

listening to mike/mike this morning, greenberg really likes the call, based on the 'if they make it the game is over' logic.

edit: golic: no sane football person will agree with you.

I can't be results oriented so I voted yes. At the time he did it, I said, wow the guy got balls, I like it. And the Colts offense is so dynamic with that much time, short field or long field probably doesn't matter.

^^^^^THIS!!!

Bill Belichick must be a poker player - and a good one.

This.

Except I think the Pats make the first down > 60%.