They also have the game simulator on their website, where you can factor in more things, including t.o.'s, and whether the next play will be run or pass etc.

Anyway the guys behind that site have already said their models say passing instead of runnning on 2nd down cost Seattle ~8% equity http://www.slate.com/articles/sports...call_ever.html, and BB not calling timeout cost NE ~4% http://www.advancedfootballanalytics...lled-a-timeout

ya unfortunately the win probability cant plug int eh QBs percentage when throwing the ball over 20 yards....

It's similar in that it's not similar at all. No matter how much time you leave New England(if you score a touchdown), they have unfavorable odds to win once you score. You still have to score first and calling plays that yield those points is the most important. People saying your touchdown expectancy drops from 90%-85% or whatever if you forfeit a down seems pretty wrong since that's 33% of your remaining plays gone.

the matchup thing is getting absurdly overrated due to the result imo. Even if you knew they were gonna let the clock run to 26s or whatever and then throw incomplete 100% of the time (due to your awesome matchup), I think calling the TO is still better.

In other words, I think the WP given up by seattle going from 2nd down to 3rd is < the WP NE gives up by letting the time run off.

obviously this doesn't factor in the INT possibility but given that it was the first one thrown in that spot all year i'd having a hard time buying the odds being all that high no matter how good the matchup was.

edit-just saw the math in the few posts above saying 8% vs 4%, maybe i'm wrong.

I number crunched wrong, thanks

THIS IS SOME GOOD STUFF!

that cant be right

Bill should have called a timeout. The guy walks on water and somehow gets away with it.

Lately I have noticed some flaws in his clock/game management. How he handled the Ravens endgame was horrendous. That was something I wouldn't even expect to see in a preseason game.

This entire hypothetical debate would be much better if NE needed a field goal to win and not to tie.

90 to 85 wouldn't be possible but it's pretty close. I mean I'm just making up numbers but say you think they are 55% to score on any given play, then it drops from 90% to 80% roughly forfeiting a down.

Now that's imperfect obv because I made it up and doesn't factor in penalties, losses, advancing the ball a half yard etc

I know this thing isn't perfect but it's showing SEA giving up only like 3% by going from 2nd down to 3rd down.






And here we have Pats getting the ball with 55s vs 25s.





Obviously this doesnt factor in the times that BB calls TO and then SEA still bleeds the clock before scoring etc. But when you factor in the matchup of lynch vs pats D on 3rd/4th down and factor in Brady being the one who gets the ball back with some amount of time left down 3, I think it certainly can be right.

Down four your biggest concern should be not scoring too quickly inside of a minute. Got it.
Collective FPS ITT.

If only BB had taken on 2p2 consultants he might not have lost either of those two other Superbowls.

For the record, you're dealing with a situation where at very worst you're going to OT if you "score too quickly"

this is what Burke says

even though Carroll said this:

and BB said this:

IOW both coaches are saying that it was obvious as soon as the subs went in that SEA was going to throw. and that subbing took place quickly. but Burke says he can't buy that Lynch was out of the equation for a play??

feel like these are the scenarios where guys like Burke and Barnwell, who are good at math but much more limited at X's and O's, should pay more attention to what coaches on both teams are saying. and that their models are really lacking in specific context like this.

now, I think it's then an open question how much you factor in the matchup, but Burke is dismissing out of hand that that stuff even matters.

Why do the first 2 charts even have a FG probability...? I really do not trust these numbers at all. Going from 3 chances to score a touchdown, to 2 chances, is obviously more than 3 percent

it looks like they show the TD probability going down 17 percent after wasting that down?

the good thing for pete caroll is next time they are in a super bowl at the goal line, they can go run/run/run and the defense wont know what to expect because they have pass in their range

thanks for the explanation. I think it's fair to think that Marshawn has a greater chance to score than 55% per play as well considering that it's one of the best goal line offenses in the league vs one of the worst goal line defenses in the league.

I am not saying that it is, but shouldn't this calculator be taking into account the times Sea scores early and the other team has a chance to score? To me it looks like it is(with the adjustment in points scored), but I'm not sure

If it's not then I am a little surprised that a loss of one play would only drop their win expectancy 3%.

Exactly. Plus you're playing your teams greatest strength every play and know what the opposing offense will be trying to do(get quick passes to the sidelines).

You do realize this is the same Seattle D that allowed two Patriots 4th quarter TDs, right? All-time great was the storyline coming into the game, but the Pats had no trouble moving up and down the field against them (Brady had 328 yards passing).

the thesis for the second half of Simmons' latest article is a giant, homerific defense of the no-timeout. I imagine it reads well to someone who is up in the air but I read it after reading AdvNFL's take and while it's some fancy writing, ignoring that much forgone edge will always be ridiculous

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ru...ttle-seahawks/

agree the Simmons take is basically BS.

but I think the Burke take above is pretty flawed as well. as stated above, his stance is "there's no way BB knows that Lynch is out of play there" even though both coaches have said it was pretty obvious. he's also ignoring any possibility that BB thought his defense was really well prepared for what was about to happen. I know that's hard to quantify and can easily be justified after the fact, but Burke is willfully ignoring any possibility that context matters.

or maybe the guy whose been analyzing football since he was 9 years old can do what you can't?

I think just it's a pretty lol stance to take - "here's what the model says and nothing else matters". at least say that there's some leeway based on what BB thought.

I think if both coaches acted optimally, seahawks are coming out in a more standard set, and we never see it becsuse BB calls the snap TO upon completion of the prior play

The final sequence is really interesting from both sides, but it's been like the ultimate display of results-oriented thinking.

The more I've thought about Carroll/Bevell's decision, the more it kinda makes sense to me. Does this make me a fish? I mean, if that 2nd down pass falls incomplete, everything is lined up pretty much perfect for Seattle - and a huge % of the time, the story is gonna be how Bill Belichick lost the Super Bowl with timeouts still in his pocket.

This is prob true, ya.