Do you agree with Belichick's 4th down attempt? - Page 5 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

I hate BB, but I just gained a lot of respect for him. Whether or not the call was "correct," I can't say for sure. It was probably somewhere between slightly +EV and slightly -EV. I just love the fact that he doesn't give a **** about the results-oriented, math-impaired talking heads who'll automatically say "ZOMG you have to punt there!" if they don't convert.

BTW, all the Pats homers complaining about the spot--shut up.

Last edited by slickpoppa; 11-16-2009 at 01:26 AM.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:21 AM

#103

Thremp

banned

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36,452

I as informed that market price of winning after the fail was 40%. You can derive from that the other things somewhat. Atleast within reason.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:21 AM

#104

Uglyowl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 6,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by | Burton |

one question: if your are a defensive player on that last play and you think the guy you are covering has any chance of catching the game winning TD don't u just tackle the guy and take the PI?

Interesting strategy, can't you just keep doing that until they are left with one play instead they had enough time for 3 or so.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:21 AM

#105

iggymcfly

runs good at HORSE

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 26,042

Based on some numbers from the other two threads on this subject (one in SB and one in SE), the Pats were about 84% to win the game by going for it and 75% to win the game by punting. Punting would have been a huge mistake.

Conversion probability: 60%
Win probability of the Pats if they fail on 4th: 60%
Win probability of the Pats if they punt: 75% (ldo)

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:22 AM

#106

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thremp

I as informed that market price of winning after the fail was 40%. You can derive from that the other things somewhat. Atleast within reason.

Pats chance of winning, right?

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:22 AM

#107

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

If they convert it's over. If you don't get it you go from like 40% to 70% re: Colts scoring. I'm too lazy to do the math but I'm really, really sure going for it is correct. Especially when you get the first down and the refs say you didn't.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:22 AM

#108

Matt Williams

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumpy

The thing that gets me is that a coach finally has the guts to try something, and one of his former players is on TV immediately afterword saying that it was the worst decision that he has ever made.

Yea but if it worked out, Rodney would be blowing BB saying that play shows why he's such a good coach.

I think he went for it because if they get it, they win. If not, Manning will probably score and they only need to get FG to win with Brady as the QB. He just didn't think Manning would be smart enough to milk the clock to 15 seconds or something along that line.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:23 AM

#109

MyTurn2Raise

Drug Free MVP

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 40,622

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

sadly, they converted it, but the official botched the call

even with the bobble, receiver clearly has the ball with his left heel on the 30 and his body upfield from that left foot

THEY MADE IT and should've been able to kneel out the game

the 3 angles shown on sportscenter confirm this

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:23 AM

#110

disjunction

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thremp

I as informed that market price of winning after the fail was 40%. You can derive from that the other things somewhat. Atleast within reason.

No you can't.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:23 AM

#111

shipitkthx

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,094

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...-vs-colts.html

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:23 AM

#112

NickMPK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,569

According to Advanced NFL Stats, the Pats were 77% win before going for it, and 66% to win after failing. These stats seem to underestimate Manning in both circumstances in my judgment, especially the second, but they make it look like an easy call to go for it.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:24 AM

#113

iggymcfly

runs good at HORSE

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 26,042

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thremp

I as informed that market price of winning after the fail was 40%. You can derive from that the other things somewhat. Atleast within reason.

Yeah, I was using this and the fact that atrain said win probabilty for an average team is 33% from the opposing 30 down 6 and 21% from one's own 30 down 6 as my basis. I figured that if the Colts were 40% to win the game after the miss, then giving similar adjustments for the offense, they'd be about 25% to win if the Pats had punted. That last estimate is on the low side if anything and it still shows going for it to be >>> punting.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:25 AM

#114

AGx19

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 12,002

good call ainec

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:25 AM

#115

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Hey guise,

They got the first down.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:26 AM

#116

Uglyowl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 6,384

Listening to sports radio is maddening.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:26 AM

#117

GREEAR10

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 70,909

get this bum Dilfer off my t.v. ffs man it isn't an attrocious decision or w/e word he just used. ffs do they not have a clue as to how to go about figuring this **** out

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:26 AM

#118

Thremp

banned

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 36,452

Pretty interesting. I wonder what the chance of the FG for Pats is for the pats with no TOs and 30s left. I can't imagine its greater than 10% against the prevent there.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:27 AM

#119

PartyGirlUK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 23,530

Ok so basically the stats now seem to say that going for it increases their winning percentages by about 10%, yet 31/32 nfl head coaches would likely have punted? Is that correct?

Last edited by PartyGirlUK; 11-16-2009 at 01:53 AM.

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:27 AM

#120

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by GREEAR10

get this dumb Dilfer off my t.v. ffs man it isn't an attrocious decision or w/e word he just used. ffs do they not have a clue as to how to go about figuring this **** out

+1

agreeing w/ greear, head asplode

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:27 AM

#121

Ponies

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,726

idk if we got the 1st down but it was prob only a few inches off either way. the spot was terrible though

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:28 AM

#122

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK

Ok so basically the stats now seem to say that going for increases their winning percentages by about 10%, yet 31/32 nfl head coaches would likely have punted? Is that correct?

yes

and 2+2 hates the decision somehow

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:28 AM

#123

Dudd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 54,241

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

yes

and 2+2 hates the decision somehow

You know there's a poll to go along with this thread, right?

Quote

11-16-2009 , 01:28 AM

#124

NickMPK

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,569

Also, the biggest mistake the Pats made was tackling Addai at the 1 with 1:20 left.
If they just let him score, they get the ball back and drive down for a FG at least 1/3 of the time.