Patriots vs Colts (11/15/09)

[Cman]

more stats showing it was a good decision (% wise)

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/patriots/blog/_/post/4660828

I especially don't buy this math:

If the Pats failed to convert the fourth down (which happened), they would give the Colts the ball (with a first-and-10) on roughly the New England 29-yard line with 2 minutes to go. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 66 percent.

Really?  66% of the time they're going to win, with Peyton Manning 30 yards away from the winning TD?  I don't see it that way.  That's even worse when you take account of the following argument:

3) If they punted the ball, using Patriots punter Chris Hanson's average of 44 net yards per punt in the game, the Colts would have gotten the ball (with a first-and-10) at the Indianapolis 28. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 79 percent.

So, getting the ball 29 yards away from the end zone, rather than 62 yards away, only increases your chances by 13%?  Doesn't that seem like an unbelievably small difference to people?

I don't know about the specific "win probabilities", but I do agree with the general premise that whether the Colts got the ball at the Indy 28 or Pats 28, the probabilities would not be that different.  Keep in mind Manning had just put up 2 TDs on the Pats in that quarter alone.  13% seems small.  Maybe 20%.  But "unbelievably small"?  Nope.

In any case, this was the exact type of thinking that BB was going though in his head when he made the decision.  And I think it is the right type of thinking.

[Boris Badenov]

more stats showing it was a good decision (% wise)

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/patriots/blog/_/post/4660828

I especially don't buy this math:

If the Pats failed to convert the fourth down (which happened), they would give the Colts the ball (with a first-and-10) on roughly the New England 29-yard line with 2 minutes to go. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 66 percent.

Really?  66% of the time they're going to win, with Peyton Manning 30 yards away from the winning TD?  I don't see it that way.  That's even worse when you take account of the following argument:

3) If they punted the ball, using Patriots punter Chris Hanson's average of 44 net yards per punt in the game, the Colts would have gotten the ball (with a first-and-10) at the Indianapolis 28. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 79 percent.

So, getting the ball 29 yards away from the end zone, rather than 62 yards away, only increases your chances by 13%?  Doesn't that seem like an unbelievably small difference to people?

I think that the wording is a bit confusing but the math is clear. To say that the win probability is 66% in the "go for it" option does not mean that "66% of the time they're going to win, with Peyton Manning 30 yards away from the winning TD." Once Peyton is 30 yards away from the winning TD, Indy will win most of the time. But the 66% probability is calculated up front and includes the probability that the Patriots convert the 4th and 2, which is well above 50%.

Similarly, saying that "getting the ball 29 yards away from the end zone, rather than 62 yards away, only increases your chances by 13%" does not mean that the difference in Indy's chance of scoring from the two distances is only 13%. The difference comes from that, but is also affected by the probability of making the 4th and 2 conversion.

I was initially upset about the call, but the more I look at the math the better I feel about it (and see my point about what happens if you think that Manning is more likely than an average QB to score, from anywhere on the field).

[Jon]

Don't know if this has been touched on, but for all the bashing of Bill, I haven't heard a lot about whether it was actually a first down or not.  While I'll concede that the ball was bobbled, Faulk had possession closer to the first down marker than the refs gave him credit for.  I don't know if it would've been enough, but it definitely would've been a enough for a measurement.  Thoughts?

[star18]

Why is it when a coach makes a controversal call it is criticized, chastized and questioned by absoluetly everyone in the media, and by fans, readers writers and journalists.  Yet when a contoversal call is made by a ref, or ump, everybody is scared to talk about it?

Fans do not get paid at sports games.    The coaches do, the players do, the owners do, and so do the refs.   What makes the refs any different than the coaches player or owners?   Yet when a coach makes a call everybody sounds off on it.   Mike & Mike ran their mouth for 2 straight hours about this play this morning.  If it was a ref call, they would have spent 2 seconds on it saying "give the other team credit"

Fans are scared to talk about calls made by refs and umps like they are over in the Middle East and are being prevented to do so by militias and military personnell.  This is a free country.  

Look I'm not agreeing with Beliceck's call, but I don't think it is the worst call ever.   You have to try and keep the ball out of Peyton's hands, especially at home and the best way to do that is go with the guy you have Tom Brady.  So it isn't the worst decision in the world, yet it is being treated as such.   Obviously the coaches call affected the outcome of the game, SO WHY IS A REFS CALL NEVER QUESTIONED AS BEING ONE THAT AFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME??.   All you ever hear is "give the other team credit", when it is infact the REFS WHO ARE GIVING THE OTHER TEAM CREDIT BY MAKING THE CALL FOR THEM!!

If a player shoots the ball at the buzzer, down by 1, and it goes in they win the game.  If the ref calls an offensive foul they lose the game.   SO OBVIOUSLY THE REFS CALL AFFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.   Yet when you read the newspapers and listen to the medial NOBODY EVER SAYS THE REF CALL AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.  It is always "Well, he made the shot at the end of the game to win so give him credit", or "Well, he made an offensive foul at the end of the game to lose, so give the defense credit".    Even though it is the exact same play, if the call goes one way, that team "gets credit from the media and fans" and if the call goes the other way, that team "gets credit from the media and fans"

I would love for someone explain to me why a coaches decision is always 2nd guessed and a refs or umps call never is under and circumstances.
  

[Redz]

Why is it when a coach makes a controversal call it is criticized, chastized and questioned by absoluetly everyone in the media, and by fans, readers writers and journalists.  Yet when a contoversal call is made by a ref, or ump, everybody is scared to talk about it?

Fans do not get paid at sports games.    The coaches do, the players do, the owners do, and so do the refs.   What makes the refs any different than the coaches player or owners?   Yet when a coach makes a call everybody sounds off on it.   Mike & Mike ran their mouth for 2 straight hours about this play this morning.  If it was a ref call, they would have spent 2 seconds on it saying "give the other team credit"

Fans are scared to talk about calls made by refs and umps like they are over in the Middle East and are being prevented to do so by militias and military personnell.  This is a free country.  

Look I'm not agreeing with Beliceck's call, but I don't think it is the worst call ever.   You have to try and keep the ball out of Peyton's hands, especially at home and the best way to do that is go with the guy you have Tom Brady.  So it isn't the worst decision in the world, yet it is being treated as such.   Obviously the coaches call affected the outcome of the game, SO WHY IS A REFS CALL NEVER QUESTIONED AS BEING ONE THAT AFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME??.   All you ever hear is "give the other team credit", when it is infact the REFS WHO ARE GIVING THE OTHER TEAM CREDIT BY MAKING THE CALL FOR THEM!!

If a player shoots the ball at the buzzer, down by 1, and it goes in they win the game.  If the ref calls an offensive foul they lose the game.   SO OBVIOUSLY THE REFS CALL AFFFECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.   Yet when you read the newspapers and listen to the medial NOBODY EVER SAYS THE REF CALL AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE GAME.  It is always "Well, he made the shot at the end of the game to win so give him credit", or "Well, he made an offensive foul at the end of the game to lose, so give the defense credit".    Even though it is the exact same play, if the call goes one way, that team "gets credit from the media and fans" and if the call goes the other way, that team "gets credit from the media and fans"

I would love for someone explain to me why a coaches decision is always 2nd guessed and a refs or umps call never is under and circumstances.
  

They are.

A lot (and not just by you)

[star18]

Refs and umps are 2nd guessed nowhere near what coaches and players are criticized for when they make a decision.   Maybe there are some fans who question the calls, but the media, writers, journalists and people on TV never question the call.  And no matter what the call is, it is always right.   Always.  It is always admitted to be the right call after the fact.    Yet Bellicek's call is being talked about as the 100% horrible mistake call. It is supposed to be the worst call made by the Patriots for the Patriots team

Yet if a ref or ump makes a call, that call too may decide a game.  So if this was a different play in the game and it came down to a call that went against the Patriots, like the Santonio Holmes TD last year, or Kurt Warner's supposed fumble, nobody would say it was the wrong call for the Patriots.   They just give credit to the Colts and how they played.   

Because Belicek made the call and the Patriots lost the call was 100% wrong.   However if a ref made a call on a similiar play and the Patriots lost, the call would go down in the media as 100% the correct call.   

[star18]

When you read a recap, or watch highlights or people on TV or in the papers talking about the conclusion of a game, never is it stated anywhere how the calls of the game affected the outcome, the stats, and certain plays.  It is always, well he had 320 yards passing, well he had 103 yards rushing, well they had 3 more turnovers than the other team, well they got out rebounded on the offensive glass.  It is never ever, how this call or that call LED to the outcome of the game.   The stats are always the stats, and NEVER IN ANY BOX SCORE IS A CALL EVER LISTED AS A STAT, and in many many many games, especially ones that are close, is it THE MOST IMPORTANT STAT OF THE GAME. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Please do not hijack this thread.

[angryguy77]

I think that application of the"bobbling" rule is really stupid. It basically cost the Pats the game on a technicality. Also, I thought the initial spot sucked whether or not they moved it after a challenge (did that happen? I missed that part of the game).

Tuck rule anyone?

[star18]

I'm talking about the Patriots Colts game and the Bellicek call and how people are reacting to the Bellicek call so I don't see what is wrong with that.

[LB3533]

more stats showing it was a good decision (% wise)

http://espn.go.com/boston/columns/patriots/blog/_/post/4660828

I especially don't buy this math:

If the Pats failed to convert the fourth down (which happened), they would give the Colts the ball (with a first-and-10) on roughly the New England 29-yard line with 2 minutes to go. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 66 percent.

Really?  66% of the time they're going to win, with Peyton Manning 30 yards away from the winning TD?  I don't see it that way.  That's even worse when you take account of the following argument:

3) If they punted the ball, using Patriots punter Chris Hanson's average of 44 net yards per punt in the game, the Colts would have gotten the ball (with a first-and-10) at the Indianapolis 28. The Patriots' win probability in this situation would be 79 percent.

So, getting the ball 29 yards away from the end zone, rather than 62 yards away, only increases your chances by 13%?  Doesn't that seem like an unbelievably small difference to people?

Prior to last night's Indy game, the Pats defense has allowed only three 4th Quarter touchdowns.

So basically, the Pats defense is rated relatively high in regards of not giving up late (4th Qtr) TD's from any spot on the field.

This may explain why the % for a win from last night's game is high if Manning had the ball on the Pats 29 or his own 29.

[Redz]

I'm talking about the Patriots Colts game and the Bellicek call and how people are reacting to the Bellicek call so I don't see what is wrong with that.

It's a really self serving, and extremely loose tie. You're talking about how people never react to refs blowing a game, which is a major pet peeve of yours, which has been discussed at length in other threads.  If you have a point that the refs were to blame for last nights game then relay it.  Otherwise, it' is indeed "hijacking a thread".

[LB3533]

Don't know if this has been touched on, but for all the bashing of Bill, I haven't heard a lot about whether it was actually a first down or not.  While I'll concede that the ball was bobbled, Faulk had possession closer to the first down marker than the refs gave him credit for.  I don't know if it would've been enough, but it definitely would've been a enough for a measurement.  Thoughts?

That Faulk bobble and catch was most certainly a 1st.

If seen from the QB's view (Brady's) after the initial bobble by Faulk, he regains control and has both feet touching the ground as the Indy defensive player brings Faulk down to the ground.

Now that we've established Faulk as control after the initial bobble and that he has two feet on the ground we can proceed at see the play from the side line view and watch where Faulk's feet were on the field and, clearly both feet were passed the 1st down yellow marker.

Forward progress should have been given, it's always given when it is known or determined that the receiver "completes" or "finishes" the catch.

1st down all the way.

[star18]

I dont' see how it is a loose tie.   You can see how Bellicek is getting talked about non stop in the media.     He is getting grilled from everyone on sports center to Trent Dilfer, etc.   People are questioning the call because of what the outcome was.

Also I don't see how the word hijack and thread are even used in the same sentence.
I am not in some organization half way around the world, I am typing in words on a computer about sports games.   Two completely different things.  

[fairweatherfan]

I would love for someone explain to me why a coaches decision is always 2nd guessed and a refs or umps call never is under and circumstances.
 

Not that it'll matter, but

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR4m0ZThDYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJT8q0MMwQ

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=4581598

On topic, the Belichick call was probably the right one - you can talk about not trusting your D, but he was trusting the offense to get 2 yards and seal the deal entirely.  The worse call was not deciding it was 2-down territory on the 3rd and 2 and running a draw.  If he'd've done that, the 4th down play would have been after the 2 minute warning, and booth reviewable.  That makes it pretty clear that he decided to go for it on 4th only after the prior play.

And I haven't heard anyone mention what I think was the worst decision of all.  It would've been an even bolder one to make though - simply let the Colts score once they got a 1st and goal on the 6 with over a minute to go.  Why tackle Addai on the 1 and let the Colts bleed the clock, then give Manning 3 shots from the 1?  Give Brady one more chance with a minute left and they've got a decent chance at a FG.  As soon as they brought Addai down they were almost certainly doomed.