Well, it is hard to argue with the stats. But I must say that I'm surprised to hear that on average teams score a touchdown 30% of the time when starting a 2:00 minute drill on their own 34 yard-line. I wonder how exhaustively those stats are collected? In my experience teams that go for it on 4th and 2 at their own 28 with a 6-point lead will lose the game 100% of the time.
But assuming the stats are for real, I must defer to the odd god. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Football Numbers Very cool. And the numbers work out with my approach as well. I was saying that the Colts had a 60% chance of stopping the Patriots, but the actual average is 40%. Colts win if they stop the pats (40%) AND they score (53%) = 21% chance of a Colts win and a 79% chance of a Pats win. On a punt, The odds of the Colts getting a touchdown from their own 34 yard line is 30% = a 30% chance of a Colts win and a 70% chance of a Pats win. If you say the Colts have a better offense than average then the decision gets better because you have a 60% chance of keeping the ball out of Manning's hands. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Steve Ouellette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Actually, this addresses the actual game: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Steve Ouellette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I bet this guy would agree with me and Ray. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I agree with all the commentary about why the Pats never should have been in that position to begin with (poor time management, sketchy play calling, questionable penalty calls, etc.). However, I think Belichek's call was just ridiculous. Steve correctly points out that Manning had moved the team down the field on the previous drive (even that Pass Interference aided drive took 1:49), however the defense had stopped the Colts several times prior to that. They forced them to punt 8 times in the game (I think that was a record) and had 2 INTs. It is much tougher to score in 2 minutes from your own 30 than your opponents 30 - I don't think that is up for debate. You have simply GOT to give your defense a chance to keep the Colts from gaining ~70 yards on a drive in the final two minutes with one timeout (I stand corrected) left. It was just a bad call, and in an honest moment I think even BB would admit it. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Steve Ouellette Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:17 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Football Numbers First, they still had one timeout, plus the two minute warning. And second, you must have missed the previous drive where they went through the Patriots like a hot knife through butter (albeit helped by a bogus 30-yard pass interference call) in less than two minutes, using no timeouts. Steve O On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: OK, Since we're talking about imaginary numbers.... I think your estimate is a little on the low side, but for the sake of argument I will give it to you. I think the Colts have a less than 30% chance of scoring with no time outs if we kick it away. Any other coach in the league would be in danger of being fired today after that call. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:08 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Football Numbers I'm saying that their chances of scoring from the 30 with 2 minutes to go is 50% and the chances of stopping the Pats was 60%. So the odds of the Colts winning was 30%. I'm OK with that. Ray On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Steve Gendron <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: You guys are really drinking the Belichek Kool-aid. Are you really telling me that the chances of Manning scoring from the Colts 30 with no time outs are equal to that of them scoring on the Pats 30 under the same conditions? No matter how you slice it, it was a bad call. It cost the Patriots home field advantage in the playoffs, which can be the difference in a Superbowl drive. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Football Numbers Steve O has cleverly summed up my numbers approach 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 bow to his explanatory powers! -- Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in Just 12 Weeks" www.leadingafteralayoff.com<http://www.leadingafteralayoff.com> -- Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in Just 12 Weeks" www.leadingafteralayoff.com<http://www.leadingafteralayoff.com> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
