Statistical Analysis Explaining Why Belicheck Was Right

[DarthMonk]

Expected Value of Punt vs. Going for It

Suppose the Pats punt. Let’s assume the punt is always successful, i. e., not blocked, etc. I seek a reasonable estimate for how often this produces victory. Saying 100% of the time is inaccurate and makes Belichek look bad. Saying 0% is also unrealistic and makes him look great. The Colts had 14 possessions. They scored 5 TDs, punted 7 times, and threw 2 picks. Based on this stat alone I could estimate a punt produces a victory 9/14 = 64% = 0.64 of the time but there are other factors at work. On the Colts punts they did not go for it on 4th down. On a final drive they would. Also, the Colts had been driving well late in the game. In the 4th quarter they had 4 possessions which produced 3 TDs and a pick. That would imply a punt producing victory only 25% of the time. Also, the Colts scoring a TD after a punt is not an automatic victory for them since the Pats would only need a FG to win anyway. It seems reasonable to say a punt produces victory around 50% = 0.5 of the time. A range of 1/3 = 33% = 0.33 (makes Belicheck look good) to 2/3 = 67% = 0.67 (makes him look worse) seems fair.

So on the low end I have a punt giving an expected value of 0.33, on the high end 0.67, and in the middle 0.5 where an expected value of 1 means certain victory.

Suppose the Pats go for it. How often do they make the 2 yards in this situation? I have very good reasons to say the Pats make this about 50% of the time in this situation. Here is a very good link

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11 ... colts.html

explaining why. This pretty much correlates to certain victory if the 4th down play is successful.

If the fourth down play is not successful the Pats still probably win at least 1/3 = 33% = 0.33 of the time (based on earlier analysis). Thus, the expected value of going for it is (0.5)(1) + (0.5)(0.33) = 0.67 and this is on the low end trying to make Belichek look bad.

Belicheck made the right call. At worst it is a wash. Doing it his way gave both his offense and his defense a chance to win.

PS – I expect many uninformed / ludicrous replies. The link above probably addresses almost all of them. If this thread gets any action I’ll wait a while and then make a blanket reply.

DarthMonk

[KazooSkinsFan]

I always thought he made the right call. I grew up a baseball fan in which every decision is always made on the slimmest of stats. I've always found it odd how in Football that stats have so little to do with most of these decisions.

Punt - Manning needs to drive 60 or 70 yards for a win.

Go for it -

First down - game over
Miss - Manning needs to go 30 for a win instead of 60 or 70.

Your QB is Tom Freaking Brady and theirs is Peyton Freaking Manning. The odds are you go with your own HOF QB, not theirs. There is no doubt in baseball. In football, the reverse. You ignore the odds and go with what won't get you yelled at by the fans and the media.

[VetSkinsFan]

explaining why. This pretty much correlates to certain victory if the 4th down play is successful.

Belicheck made the right call.

Obviously in hindsite you can't say he made the right call. It's nice statistical evidence suporting the probability that the call could have been successful, but it's a debate of theories at best.

In the NFL, we know it's any given Sunday, and that's what happened.

Personally, I'm glad, I still loathe the Pats, except when my fantasy team wins...

[DarthMonk]

Obviously in hindsite you can't say he made the right call.

Sure I can. Working doesn't make it right and not working doesn't make it wrong. THAT would be 20-20 hindsight. It's right or it's wrong and then what happens happens. Calling a pot sized bet when you are behind in a poker hand when only one card in the deck will save you is wrong whether you actually hit that card or not. Sometimes bad decisions don't cost you but they are still bad decisions.

My kid ran out in front of traffic. A lightning bolt hit the driver who was about to kill him. My child lived. He still made a horrible decision. He just got lucky.

Belicheck was right or, at worst, going for it was just as likely to produce victory as punting. My guess is he already had considered the scenario and was therefore not guessing. He knew what he'd do in the situation before kickoff. The guesser was Tony Dungy when he said Belicheck should have "played the percentages." Dungy probably didn't actually know the percentages while Belicheck did.

DarthMonk

[KazooSkinsFan]

Obviously in hindsite you can't say he made the right call.

Sure I can. Working doesn't make it right and not working doesn't make it wrong. THAT would be 20-20 hindsight

Exactly. You're not disagreeing with him.

What he meant was if he could have known ex-ante what he knew ex-post then he wouldn't have made the call he did.

You're saying knowing ex-ante what he knew ex-ante it was still the right call.

You're both right and not disagreeing. Man, being the peace maker on this site is a FULL TIME JOB! But somebody's gotta do it. Or was I the piece maker? I always get those confused...

[DEHog]

The one thing no one talking about is the fact that they were outside of 2 min with no TO's meaning they didn't have the albility to challege...For that reason I don't go for it....Even though I thought he made it!

[SkinsJock]

I don't particularly like Belicick but I do think that he's not as upset with the fact that (a) they did not get the first down and (b) they lost the game as the fans and maybe some of his team

I am fairly sure that he thought it gave him the best chance to win - that is it in a nutshell - think about that - why would you choose to give Manning the ball when you know that you have a better chance to win the game by getting the first down - some coaches or media types might say that you are taking too big a chance but Bill does not coach "not to lose" he only thinks about what gives him the best chance to win - in his estimation, the team would make the first down, not making it did not occur to him

I still do not like Belichick but he's one of the best coaches in the NFL because he does not consider that his decisions might give the opponent a better chance to win - Belichick only thinks about winning, refreshing isn't it?

[Countertrey]

Any decision Belichick makes is the wrong one...


...because he is Belichick.














As much as I hate to admit it, I have to admire a coach with the stones to put his faith in his players, instead of playing it safe. Ughhhhh

[jeremyroyce]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

[VetSkinsFan]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

I completely understand why he made his decision. He based it on the fact that Peyton had TWO drives of ~2 min each to score TDs in the game, and didn't want to give Peyton the third chance. I think the routes were dumb; it's like Zorn called 'em. The choice, IMO, was the right thing to do, the actual play called was the FUBAR.

[DarthMonk]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

So would Belicheck. Problem is, you are missing at least half the point. If the question were simply "Should we make him go 30 or make him go 70?" then making him go 70 is clearly correct. The problem with your logic is you are completely ignoring the fact that the Pats get the first down around half the time (a very reasonable estimate) which ends the game. In very simple terms it pretty much boils down to this: Is Manning twice as likely to get it done from 30 yards out as he is from 70? If so, it's close to being a wash. If he is even more than twice as likely from 30 then the punt finally starts to look like the better choice. Also, even if he gets it in from 30 the game is STILL NOT OVER. Addai nearly scored with over a minute to go. Good thing for the Colts a Pat tackled him at the one.

One last tidbit which reveals if people really get it: The better you think Manning is, the more correct the decision to go for it becomes.

DarthMonk

[VetSkinsFan]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

So would Belicheck. Problem is, you are missing at least half the point. If the question were simply "Should we make him go 30 or make him go 70?" then making him go 70 is clearly correct. The problem with your logic is you are completely ignoring the fact that the Pats get the first down around half the time (a very reasonable estimate) which ends the game. In very simple terms it pretty much boils down to this: Is Manning twice as likely to get it done from 30 yards out as he is from 70? If so, it's close to being a wash. If he is even more than twice as likely from 30 then the punt finally starts to look like the better choice. Also, even if he gets it in from 30 the game is STILL NOT OVER. Addai nearly scored with over a minute to go. Good thing for the Colts a Pat tackled him at the one.

One last tidbit which reveals if people really get it: The better you think Manning is, the more correct the decision to go for it becomes.

DarthMonk

Especially since he drove down the field 2x earlier that game and each drive was similar length and similar time. And Peyton doesn't crack under pressure.

[SkinsJock]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

I completely understand why he made his decision. He based it on the fact that Peyton had TWO drives of ~2 min each to score TDs in the game, and didn't want to give Peyton the third chance. I think the routes were dumb; it's like Zorn called 'em. The choice, IMO, was the right thing to do, the actual play called was the FUBAR.

I agree also - the decision was right the execution was not - if the play had 'worked' it would not have garnered anywhere near the second guessing that this has

not doing whatever it takes to win is what separates the better teams from the others in the NFL today - 'playing the percentages' is for baseball and losers

[KazooSkinsFan]

not doing whatever it takes to win is what separates the better teams from the others in the NFL today - 'playing the percentages' is for baseball and losers

Wouldn't the most likely option to work be to take the most likely option to work AND execute rather then just as you advocate ignore the odds and execute?

[Bob 0119]

I have no doubt the Belli-cheat made the right call. Fourth and 2, game on the line, a first down can end the game, hall of fame QB, high powered offense needing only two yards; it's the right call.

For me, I just giggled myself silly FINALLY seeing the ball not bounce his way. Finally seeing the refs give him a "Redskin mark" on the spot of the ball, and watching him stand the helpless because he burned up two of his timeouts (on that very drive) so he couldn't challenge and since the play happened before the two-minute warning it wasn't eligable for a booth review.

I still giggle a little about it now just remembering how great it was!

[SkinsJock]

right on Bob - i live up here and felt pretty close to that when I realized that the call was not going to go his way, finally - Bill knew without a shadow of doubt that his best chance to win was not to give the ball to Manning - he knew that getting the first down was easier than giving Manning the ball just like if the situation was reversed and the Pats had to stop Manning (and the Colts) from getting a first down he would be hoping the Colts would give Brady another chance by punting

[Irn-Bru]

I agree that decision shouldn't be judged solely on whether or not it works. I also agree that Belichick deserves credit for making a gutsy decision like that. Clearly, it wasn't something that was out of reach, and came down to inches (and a spot by the ref). I like a lot of the analysis regarding thinking about it as Peyton versus Brady, not Peyton versus the Pats D.

However, I disagree in part with the analysis which uses the past performance in that game (or in other NFL games) to try to predict future chances of success. One can line up the stats based on lots of assumptions to say that there was a 64% of success (or whatever), but reality doesn't correspond to that kind of statistical analysis. Decisions like this one have to take into account the psychology of the players, momentum, the will to win, how much you trust your personnel, crowd noise and involvement, the leadership qualities of certain players, and other factors that can't be captured in statistics.

I'm not privy to that information . . . but if its me, it would take pretty strong doubts in my D not to punt and play this one out according to a more classic strategy. Obviously Belichick liked his chances.

But I think the title of this thread is misleading. Statistics can't show why Belichick was right any more than my bold-faced asserting it was wrong could show that it was wrong. It doesn't even come close to adequately explaining the factors that would have to be considered by a competent coach. (And too many assumptions, besides.)

[SkinsJock]

I certainly don't think that successful coaches EVER make decisions based on stats - they only make decisions based on their knowledge of their team and their opponent - baseball managers and fools use stats

I heard that Brady and Bill had decided on the play before that they were not going to give Manning the ball and were going to be able to run out the clock - just did not happen

[KazooSkinsFan]

However, I disagree in part with the analysis which uses the past performance in that game (or in other NFL games) to try to predict future chances of success. One can line up the stats based on lots of assumptions to say that there was a 64% of success (or whatever), but reality doesn't correspond to that kind of statistical analysis. Decisions like this one have to take into account the psychology of the players, momentum, the will to win, how much you trust your personnel, crowd noise and involvement, the leadership qualities of certain players, and other factors that can't be captured in statistics.

Everything you say IS part of what anyone who is using statistics in an informed way would do. Statistics give you a base line, then you weigh all the factors as you accurately point out using the the experience of the coach or whoever is making the call. Statistics as raw numbers to anyone who understand them NEVER stand on their own in making decisions. You could use probability, which statistics is based on for purely mathematical decisions. But the idea of statistics itself is you are using sampling because you can't evaluate the entire population. So you're always dealing with the assumptions made, data collection methods, and the level of certainty.

Then again if you pass a guage R&R, you take it to the bank! Bam! That was a six sigma joke for any blackbelts out there (crickets).

[Irn-Bru]

Everything you say IS part of what anyone who is using statistics in an informed way would do.

But it also undermines the very project of predicting things using statistics, because it introduces assumptions layered on assumptions. There's more human judgment than stats at that point. In fact, I think stats are markedly less useful than analyzing what the play calls were, how the players executed the call, and a few other things that have no statistical correlation. That 4th and 2 is precisely when how well the team practiced in August factors heavily into one's chances for success.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Everything you say IS part of what anyone who is using statistics in an informed way would do.

But it also undermines the very project of predicting things using statistics, because it introduces assumptions layered on assumptions. There's more human judgment than stats at that point. In fact, I think stats are markedly less useful than analyzing what the play calls were, how the players executed the call, and a few other things that have no statistical correlation. That 4th and 2 is precisely when how well the team practiced in August factors heavily into one's chances for success.

You seem to be mixing the use of stats in general versus whether stats are useful in this particular case and I'm having a hard time separating them in your argument.

If you're saying using stats in general is faulty then OK it's an opinion, but as a math major, MBA and Six Sigma black belt one I won't waste my time arguing because everything I know says you're wrong.

If you're arguing that calling a specific play based on stats is overusing them then I agree with you. I see no point in figuring out the chance of a run versus short pass versus screen... Or in this case, you have two HOF QBs, how do you interpret that in the stats? I agree stats can be way overused. I more meant in this case in my view using unscientific data that based on my experience the odds of the Pats were higher for winning if they went for it then if they didn't. Ironically they made it and lost on a bad call.

[Irn-Bru]

The main thing I disagree with is saying anything along the lines of "Belichick faced a 64% chance of winning if he goes for it on 4th and 2," meaning that if we ran a simulation of that 10,000 times, 6,400 times he wins. I'm not disputing the usefulness of statistical analysis in retrospect or as predictors for the things stats can predict. But performance on the football field isn't actually one of those things, IMO, because the human element is too great.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The main thing I disagree with is saying anything along the lines of "Belichick faced a 64% chance of winning if he goes for it on 4th and 2," meaning that if we ran a simulation of that 10,000 times, 6,400 times he wins. I'm not disputing the usefulness of statistical analysis in retrospect or as predictors for the things stats can predict.

I agree with this, but...

But performance on the football field isn't actually one of those things, IMO, because the human element is too great.

With all else equal, would you rather have 4th and 2 or 4th and 7. Why?

[Irn-Bru]

Obviously. But that doesn't mean I think you can say "with 4th and 7 my odds decrease to 41%" with much confidence.

[jeremyroyce]

I said before the play that the should punt the ball and trust your defense to make a stop. And after seeing this, I think it was one of the dumbest decisions I have seen. I keep hearing well they only needed to go two yards, or that was the best way for them to win. Oh really? Giving Peyton Manning 30 yards to work with, two minutes left in the game? That's the best way for them to win? How about making Peyton Manning go 60 or 70 yards down the field? I'd rather take my chances him going 60 or 70 yards then 30 yards.

So would Belicheck. Problem is, you are missing at least half the point. If the question were simply "Should we make him go 30 or make him go 70?" then making him go 70 is clearly correct. The problem with your logic is you are completely ignoring the fact that the Pats get the first down around half the time (a very reasonable estimate) which ends the game. In very simple terms it pretty much boils down to this: Is Manning twice as likely to get it done from 30 yards out as he is from 70? If so, it's close to being a wash. If he is even more than twice as likely from 30 then the punt finally starts to look like the better choice. Also, even if he gets it in from 30 the game is STILL NOT OVER. Addai nearly scored with over a minute to go. Good thing for the Colts a Pat tackled him at the one.

One last tidbit which reveals if people really get it: The better you think Manning is, the more correct the decision to go for it becomes.

DarthMonk

I'm sorry I disagree. The Pats burned two timeouts on that drive and should have punted that ball. It would have been different if the Pats were maybe at midfield or a little in Colts territory. But the fact is you are at your 30.