I thought I was the only one who actually approved of the decision. I'm sure Belichick has much more accurate numbers than that -- did anyone see the story about the Arkansas high school coach who goes for it on every fourth down, and has the mathematics to support the idea? -- but it seems to make sense that the Patriots had a much better chance of making two yards than they had of stopping the Colts.
I'm impressed that BB had the guts to make that call though. Steve O On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Ray Salemi <[email protected]> wrote: > I calculate that Belichick's decision to go for it gave us a 70% chance of > winning the game. Here's my logic. Indy needed two things to happen for > them to win. They needed us not to convert, and they needed to score a > touchdown from the30 with 2 minutes and no time outs. Their chances were > the product of two probabilities. > > 1. Chances of stopping the Patriots conversion -- call it 60% > 2. Chances of scoring from the 30 with 2 minutes left and no timeouts -- > call it 50% (remember all the punting they did that day.) > > Indy's chances of winning: (60%) * (50%) = 30% > > Patriots chances = 70%. > > In addition, I think that Indy had the same 50% chance of getting a > touchdown whether they were on our 30 or theirs. > > If Faulk were 3 feet downfield Belichick is a genius. If Reggie Wayne > doesn't make a fingertip catch, Belichick is a genius. If the O-Line > doesn't get gashed just when they needed to make a stop, Belichick is a > genius. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
