A poker analogy for you Belichick haters
jdip9
Posts: 1,894 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
You are playing Phil Ivey heads up for $5 million. If you win you get $5m, if you lose you get nothing. You have a slight lead, say 55% of the chips in play. You get dealt 9h9d. Before the flop, Ivey pushes all-in and turns over AhKd before you decide what you want to do. You know you have a 54% chance of winning the hand if you call, and winning the 5 mil. If you call and lose, you will almost certainly lose the match, as you will be down to almost nothing.
Do you make the call?
Of course you do!!! It would be absolutely foolish to fold, you have the statistical advantage! What do you think your chances are ouplaying Phil Ivey if you fold? Probably not very good - he's the best in the world!
That was the EXACT same scenario facing Bill Belichick on Sunday night. He KNEW that the statistical probabilities favored him winning the game by going for it (just Google "Belichick fourth down conversion" and there are plenty of mathematical conclusions supporting the decision). By punting, he would not be adhering to statistical probabilities, and not giving the Pats the best chance to win. It's sad that so few people understand this fundamental concept.
Do you make the call?
Of course you do!!! It would be absolutely foolish to fold, you have the statistical advantage! What do you think your chances are ouplaying Phil Ivey if you fold? Probably not very good - he's the best in the world!
That was the EXACT same scenario facing Bill Belichick on Sunday night. He KNEW that the statistical probabilities favored him winning the game by going for it (just Google "Belichick fourth down conversion" and there are plenty of mathematical conclusions supporting the decision). By punting, he would not be adhering to statistical probabilities, and not giving the Pats the best chance to win. It's sad that so few people understand this fundamental concept.
0
Comments
Belichek has brought NE to 4 Superbowls winning 3 out of those 4, anyone INCLUDING Pats fans that are hating on him for that call are being flat out ridiculas bottom line.
Bill Belichek is the BEST thing next to Tom Brady that has ever happened to Patriots football, I couldnt care less what any of my fellow Pats fans think either- stand by him through thick & thin or root for another team how about that?
he's got guts!! many coaches don't they worry about their jobs instead of winning
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
There were only two ways the Pats were going to win: 1) Get the first down and run the clock out, or 2) Punt and stop Manning.
Think about what the realistic odds are of each situation. I'd estimate:
- Pats getting 2 yards on one play- 60-70%
- Pats D stopping Manning from his 30 yd line with 2 minutes to play- 30-40% (based on Manning's history and how the Pats D faired against him thus far).
It's really not even a close call. Belichick has to go for it. The "gamble" (according to the odds) would be if he punted away. So many coaches ignore percentages for the most part, which is hilarious to me. Probably because they don't understand them and are too pig-headed to try and learn. Romeo Crennel was horrible (which is funny because he learned under Belichick). Norv Turner always plays it about 8 notches too conservative. Herm Edwards might not be able to add numbers, much less figure out percentages ("We were playing for the win!!"). I'm not sure Rex Ryan gets it. Andy Reid isn't great at it either. Guys like Belichick, Cowher (when he was coaching), Wisenhunt and Sean Payton always seem to make the right decisions, and the few times it backfires they catch hell but at least they knew in their minds it was the right call.
I think it wouldn't even occur to most coaches to even think about going for it because it's been ingrained in them that they automatically punt with the lead in their own territory. A lot of coaches run on autopilot without giving a whole lot of thought to situations like this. In most other cases I think you're right though- XP vs. 2pt conversion, pass vs. run, etc...
- Pats getting 2 yards on one play- 60-70%
- Pats D stopping Manning from his 30 yd line with 2 minutes to play- 30-40% (based on Manning's history and how the Pats D faired against him thus far).>>>
CDs...you're actually pretty close to the actual percentages. In one of my other posts, I linked to an economic thesis that used coaching decisions on 4th down to illustrate why people make choices with money that are statistically the wrong choice.
The actual conversion rate is 63% for 4th and 1. Interpolation between data yields 60% for 4th and 2. But this takes every team (i.e. the dreadful Cleveland's, Detroit's, etc) into account. Given the Patriots status, and their history of converting 4th and short, I put the odds at 70%.
But the analysis doesn't stop there. What people seem to forget is that there are still 2 other ways the Pats can still win the game even if they do not convert:
1. The Pats stop the Colts from scoring. Even though the percentages are likely much higher, I'll say the Pats stop them 5% of the time (1 of 20).
2. The Colts score so quick that the Pats have time go down a kick a winning FG. Given that Addai almost scored with 1:10 left, I give that a 5% chance as well.
Odds of stopping the Colts from going 70 yards is probably closer to 50-60% (although I agree with you that given their history and the events of the 4th quarter, it might closer to your 30-40%).
I'm glad there is someone out there that agrees with these points. I've been pulling my hair out listening to sports radio blast his decision non-stop.
<<<A lot of coaches run on autopilot without giving a whole lot of thought to situations like this.>>>
Coaches screw up so many decisions week-in, week-out, it's not even funny...it took most of them 6-7 years to figure out that you shouldn't go for 2 until absolutely necessary - but there are still some coaches that screw that up....
I totally agree...unless it's extraordinary circumstances...ya play the percentages.
Also:
"You are playing Phil Ivey heads up"
that would be a very bad idea. LOL
Were you guys defending Grady Little when he left Pedro in too long in 2003?
<< <i>Were you guys defending Grady Little when he left Pedro in too long in 2003? >>
No way, but leaving Pedro in at that point didn't look like a good idea to anyone in the entire universe except Grady Little, apparently.
Connecticoin - don't even try to compare the two situations - THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE IN SCOPE!
Belichick evaluated the odds, and made the correct decision that gave his team a better chance to win the game based on those odds.
Grady Little, on the other hand, ignored the fact that the entire season, Pedro dropped off a cliff after 105 pitches and that the Sox bullpen was lights out that entire 2003 postseason. In other words, he ignored what the odds told him to do, and left Pedro in because it was easier for him to justify going down in flames with a Hall-of-Fame pitcher on the mound, rather than a journeyman reliever.
Steve
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
<< <i>I love how in our society disagreeing with someone makes you a "hater". >>
Im not sure if the "hater" part is in refference to my post or not ( either way no big deal )
If it was then it was a figure of speach on my part but if you look at some of these posts you got guys calling him Stupid? Its more than disagreeing with the call its basically calling the guy an idiot which is ridiculas.
<< <i>
<< <i>I love how in our society disagreeing with someone makes you a "hater". >>
Im not sure if the "hater" part is in refference to my post or not ( either way no big deal )
If it was then it was a figure of speach on my part but if you look at some of these posts you got guys calling him Stupid? Its more than disagreeing with the call its basically calling the guy an idiot which is ridiculas. >>
More a reference to the topic title. I'm also making a mention to the term "hater" in our society. I work with young people and hear that term used quite a bit in various forms.
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I love how in our society disagreeing with someone makes you a "hater". >>
Im not sure if the "hater" part is in refference to my post or not ( either way no big deal )
If it was then it was a figure of speach on my part but if you look at some of these posts you got guys calling him Stupid? Its more than disagreeing with the call its basically calling the guy an idiot which is ridiculas. >>
More a reference to the topic title. I'm also making a mention to the term "hater" in our society. I work with young people and hear that term used quite a bit in various forms. >>
Huh that would be a breath of fresh air to me if I mostly heard them say Hate. Instead its underwear showing talking gangsta "N" this and "N" that, its completely disgusting.
Steve
I agree with Steve here...it was definitely a gutsy call, and I'm still not sure it was the wrong call, but if you're going to go for it in that situation, you better be damn sure the play you call gets you at least two yards. The route they ran on that play was RIGHT AT the marker, and there was no room for error, so when the receiver made the catch that bobble cost him the Pats the game. If the receiver runs that route three-quarter of a yard deeper, we're all talking about how great a call that was. In the press conference, Bill stated that we "just needed to get a yard" and some question whether NE knew exactly how far they had to go to get that first down. At the very least, I'd thought that if NE were thinking about going for it that they'd call for a measurement.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I guess I just don't agree that Manning would have had this magic carpet ride to the end zone if he had to start at his own 30 yd line after a punt. Could he have done it? Yes, most certainly. But some of his deeper passes were poorly thrown that night, and he had already been picked off twice, and the likelihood of a turnover increases exponentially if a team is deperate and needing a TD on the last drive.
Converting on 4th and 2 is normally a fairly high pct play (as has been statistically shown here already), but the problem is that if you DON'T make it (or if you fail to call for a measurement to see how far you need to go so you can call the right play or have the receiver run the right route to put you in the best possible position to make said conversion), you are almost certainly going to lose, so while the odds were in NE's favor when they went for the first down on 4th and 2, those odds were drastically swung against them when the play they called did failed to yield yield the desired result. And that makes it more frustrating, I suppose, for a NE fan (I know I'd be if I were one), in that the pass was completed by Brady but they STILL couldn't make the 1st down. It might have been better if the pass were incomplete in that regard, from a heartbroken fan's perspective..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I was trying to stay away from discussing the actual 4th down play, but since you brought it up.....they needed to make the 30, the route was ran to the 31. There was ONE slight bobble by Faulk, and he secured the ball at the 30 yard line - I am convinced of it. The spot was atrocious, and was made by a guy that couldn't have seen when Faulk gained control based on where he was standing in relation to the play.
Now the real risk would've been for Belichick to let the Colts score on the 1st play after they didn't make it and give Brady the ball back with 1:45 left to get 45 yds and in FG position. One could argue that would've been the correct call statistically, but then you have to factor in the odds that Gostkowski makes the kick.
I was trying to stay away from discussing the actual 4th down play, but since you brought it up.....they needed to make the 30, the route was ran to the 31. There was ONE slight bobble by Faulk, and he secured the ball at the 30 yard line - I am convinced of it. The spot was atrocious, and was made by a guy that couldn't have seen when Faulk gained control based on where he was standing in relation to the play.
I watched the replay and disagree. The spot was accurate because the receiver did not secure the ball until he came back behind the first down marker. Not sure what you were looking out. If the spot were "atrocious" as you put it, there'd have been some backlash aginst the call and there is very little of that, and for good reason. Sounds like you were watching thaty play through hometown blinders.
Edit: I think if he were facing with the ball upfield, he'd have gotten the spot, but the ball was facing on the other side of the 30, and that's why they spotted the ball on that side of the yard marker.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That would have been the correct call, given his lack of faith in his "D" --- I was surprised they didn't do that.
Dave
The reason nobody is talking about the spot, is because the call to go for it was so unconventional and that is dominating the discussion. Besides, nobody is saying the spot lost them the game - they had plenty of opportunities to salt that game away long before anything happened in the final 2:30.