No One Remembers Shockdome Comment Count

Brian

Originally intended as a UV bit, but then it got long.

tom-brady-shockdome math

As you've probably heard, Bill Belichick went for a first down on fourth and two from his 29 with about two minutes left and his team leading by six points. The Patriots didn't get it, the Colts made the short march for the game-winning score, and commentators duly exploded at how awful the decision was. Tony Dungy evidently kept saying Belichick "should have gone with the percentages."

He did. Of course he did, he's Bill Belichick:

With 2:00 left and the Colts with only one timeout, a successful conversion wins the game for all practical purposes. A 4th and 2 conversion would be successful 60% of the time. Historically, in a situation with 2:00 left and needing a TD to either win or tie, teams get the TD 53% of the time from that field position. The total WP for the 4th down conversion attempt would be:

(0.60 * 1) + (0.40 * (1-0.53)) = 0.79 WP

A punt from the 28 typically nets 38 yards, starting the Colts at their own 34. Teams historically get the TD 30% of the time in that situation. So the punt gives the Pats about a 0.70 WP.

This is obvious in retrospect, right? Bill Belichick is one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NFL. There is a slight chance he knows what he's doing. And even if you are one of the folk who really believes emotion and momentum overwhelm probability in football, not even broaching the idea that Belichick might be on to something is simultaneously stupid and arrogant—neat trick. If you are a caveman when it comes to football and see Belichick go for it there, your first thought should be "hmmm… maybe I don't know something." This, obviously, has not happened. Caveman status is self-perpetuating.

Big Ten Wonk's civilian alter-ego notes that Joe Posnanski may have disagreed with the decision but at least showed Belichick—and math—respect by mentioning the percentages:

Really, no matter how you play with the numbers, it will come out about the same. Try it. There is almost no way–without suppressing the numbers–to make the percentages even out. The Patriots’ best PERCENTAGE chance was to go for it on fourth down. Of course, football is not really a percentage game for most of us, is it? No, it’s a game about emotion and passion and momentum.

This is where Posnanski needs to play a lot of poker. Emotion and passion and momentum are great for football players. For coaches they are ways to go on tilt and make dumb decisions that are safe but go against the percentages. Belichick is ruthless and in a position where media criticism means nothing as far as his job goes. Most other NFL coaches would take the safe route and decrease their chances of winning because they perceive that it would increase their chances of keeping their job.

But, you know, at least Posnanski brought it up. Many thousands didn't, and just did some blah blah about how it was dumb, thereby implying they were smarter than Bill Belichick. This is why he is the traditional journalist who's bridged the internet divide more successfully than any other. Clark Wonk:

In other words, ”traditional sports punditry” is denoted not by what kind of resume you have, how old you are, whether you sit in the press box, or even whether your thoughts are packaged in 800 words of ink, 1600 words of pixels, or two minutes of streaming video. No, “traditional sports punditry” denotes merely that you’re not staying current within your own field: “What the hell is Belichick doing?” as opposed to “Whoa, talk about trusting the percentages–what the hell is Belichick doing?” …

To be aware of what Posnanski calls the “PERCENTAGE”s, ones that indicate that probability was in Belichick’s favor over the course of a thousand tries, does not rule out disagreeing with the coach in this single instance. But to not be aware of these percentages is to fail in the most basic journalistic sense. To write about a decision, much less try to criticize it, without displaying any understanding of its self-evident context is to fall down on the job in the ”why” department, even if you do get the who, the what, the when, and the where.

Humans would be well-advised to nail the “why,” by the way. Computers can now do those other four pretty well. 

Seriously. Does anyone remember SHOCKDOME XXXVI*? The Patriots get the ball back in a tie game with about two minutes left. Tom Brady is the Patriot's first-year starting quarterback. John Madden, embodiment of conventional wisdom-type substance, is publicly begging Belichick to run the clock out and head to overtime instead of putting the game on the kid's shoulders. Belichick says screw that noise, I've seen Tom Brady play football, let's go, and two minutes later Adam Vinateri is kicking a game-winning field goal and no one remembers the ballsy decision that won the damn game. The reason Belichick is so untouchable that he can defy conventional wisdom is because he defied conventional wisdom.

And yet no one mentions this.

*(AKA Super Bowl XXXVI. An aging Pat Summerall awkwardly blurted out "this game has turned into Shockdome 36" at some point in the second quarter when the Patriots weren't getting stomped like everyone expected they would, and I died laughing.)

Comments

imdwalrus

November 17th, 2009 at 2:31 PM ^

There's another factor here besides sample size, and that's sample composition. If Michigan has a bad year or a run of bad years, there may be extenuating circumstances that led to those results (like, say, years of lousy recruiting or a coaching change). Because of the sample size, those circumstances can have a substantial effect. If we go back to your example of the last 30 years and we agree to chalk the last two years up to, say, black magic, that's 6.67% of your sample size that isn't "average." That's a significant amount. In game probabilities, on the other hand, have colossal sample sizes that encompass most any combination of team skill level, outside circumstances, coaching ability, weather, or karma imaginable. Somebody made an argument that the Colts offense is better than average; that's irrelevant, because the "average" in those percentages includes teams as good as the Colts, better than, and far, far worse.

jamiemac

November 17th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^

For the record guys, I dont disagree with Belichek's move or the probability analysis behind this post and the defense of him going for it. I just think you probability guys dont lend enouigh credence to the power of program and college football history when it comes to some of the ATS angles/trends. When looking at ATS trends you have to skeptic first. It takes a time to figure out what is a valid trend or not. The two I listed are. When somebody says team A is 6-1 ATS on Tuesdays is not, for example.

markusr2007

November 17th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

is why is this one coaching decision and play is being beaten to death with a shovel by ESPN Sportscenter and all sports networks? Come on! It's one game. Had it worked, the game and all this ridiculous flailing about would be ovah! Oh, and we can be reasonably sure the Pat's season is far from over. Besides, that line judge needs an eye exam. The mark was crap.

sandiego

November 17th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

if you are a reporter, you just write one column the day after with your emotional reaction that Bellicheat is a fool. Then two days later you turn around and write another column, pinching someone else's actual journalism about how it was a great decision and everyone needs to back off. Twice the columns, less than 1/2 the work.

Toomey

November 17th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^

I think these are a bit misleading. Assuming I didn't miss something here, its a 79% win probability against an average team. Pey Pey, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark are not average. You have to figure this increases the average WP of starting from your own 34 above 70% and increases the WP of starting at the Pats 28 above 53% (and thus decreasing the 79% WP). This isn't to say that punting will necessarily be the mathematical choice, but I think using average offensive statistics here doesn't quite tell the whole story.

Toomey

November 17th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^

by not addressing it. There's some fancy hand-waving without showing us the analysis. I mean sure if you assume there is a constant multiplier for the probability of scoring from each field position because they're the Colts and not the Rams, of course its not going to do anything (for example, the Colts are 125% as likely to score as the average team regardless of field position). It probably even makes the decision better. But I think the closer you are to the endzone, the more you have to consider the quality of the offense which tosses a "team multiplier" out the window. I'm not saying that it changes the outcome, I'd just like to their particular reason for dismissing it.

Not a Blue Fan

November 17th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^

I'm not sure that's the assumption here (although, if it is, you're right). I think they're just stating the obvious fact that the Colts offense is better than the NFL average, so any analysis that takes this into account only strengthens the argument to go for it rather than punt (i.e. they are more likely than the average team to score from any particular position on the field - though this may or may not be some constant multiple over the entire domain of the density function). It's really more or a hand-wavey qualitative argument than quantitative argument, but the logic holds. Now, you might be able to make a similar argument based on the relative quality of the Pats' defense compared to the league average, but (and this is highly hand wavey) I would wager that the quality of defenses is normally(-ish) distributed, and the deviation isn't that high. Just vaguely, I'd guess this effect isn't that large (though, obviously, in lieu of actual data this isn't a very convincing argument). The point being, without having a defense that is substantially below the league mean, this probably doesn't change the outcome.

Erik_in_Dayton

November 17th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^

The 2005 season convinced me that sometimes you have take risks on offense to try to keep your defense off the field...I remember OSU getting the ball on the last drive of that game and being completely sure that they'd score.

Chris of Dange…

November 17th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^

Reason #umpty-zillion why I love MGoBlog:
If you are a caveman when it comes to football and see Belichick go for it there, your first thought should be "hmmm… maybe I don't know something." This, obviously, has not happened. Caveman status is self-perpetuating.
makes me think of my favorite paper in Psychology: "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments:" http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

PhillipFulmersPants

November 17th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^

don't account for is any kind of human element, regardless of the W or L. Whether BB was playing the percentages or not, the team's perception of the call is something he's having do deal with this week (along with an opinion about the call from every corner of the earth, obviously). Maybe he's good enough to convince his defense that he has all the confidence in the world in them, but that's going to be a tough sell. From my point of view, I like the contrarian call, but it wasn't made in a mathematical vacuum where the only outcomes were A) first down and win or B) turn over on downs and lose. Had he punted, the Colts very well may have marched the field and still won, but the Pats would be dealing with fewer distractions this week.

Gus_possessive…

November 17th, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^

"But, you know, at least Posnanski brought it up. Many thousands didn't, and just did some blah blah about how it was dumb, thereby implying they were smarter than Bill Belichick." And here's the worst I've seen of the thousands who didn't (pay heed to percentages), coming from MGoBlog's new favorite punching-bag, the one-and-only Michael Wilbon: http://views.washingtonpost.com/world-wide-wilbon/wilbon/2009/11/belich… Wilbon, a sportswriter with no coaching or psychiatric experience, has the arrogance to identify a character flaw in Belichick and cite it as the purpose for him losing a game?

Ann Arbor Cardinal

November 18th, 2009 at 12:43 AM ^

I love how he makes going for it on fourth down a huge unknown, but punting a sure thing. In Wilbon's mind, the worst thing that can happen going for it is a fumble, or the QB trips, things like that. But if they punt, the worse thing that can happen is a 70-yard drive. Really? Punts never get blocked? Snapped over the punter's head? Shanked? Returned for TDs?

JeffB

November 17th, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^

I also heard someone on SiriusXM radio (it was on the Mad Dog channel, but wasn't Dog himself) actually say that a reason to punt there was so Belichick wouldn't have to listen to the press second-guess him if they didn't get it - so a coach should make his decisions based on the media perceptions? Although, I wonder if this is a reason more coaches don't do stuff like this - going against "conventional wisdom" can be a problem if your job's at stake. (I think there was a post a month or so ago all about the punt/go-for-it decision bringing up this same point). Jeff

KzooRick

November 17th, 2009 at 9:59 PM ^

The problem with basing the 4th down decision on historical data is that it none of the historical data takes into account 4th and 2 from your own 28 with a 6 point lead and 2 min left. Unless this situation has been played out before which I seriously doubt. In football little details change the strategy significantly. It would be interesting to see, historically, how many of those 4th down attempts where runs and passes and the conversion rates of each. I think Belichick is a great coach who probably made a bad decision. Like a great coach, I doubt he evaluated the aggregate generalized historical data as much as he focused on the factors involving his specific situation. Many of the factors we fans watching the game on TV know little about.

Token_sparty

November 18th, 2009 at 10:09 AM ^

I heard the talk radio bloviators bloviate and yammer on endlessly about what a terrible, indefensible call it was blah blah blah yada yada yada. Even without resorting to stat geek numbers the decision was the right one. NE's defense was exhausted, having just been shredded by Manning to the tune of a 70-yard-plus TD drive consummated in just under 2 minutes. His defense was also wracked by injuries to the point that Harrison and Bruschi would have been upgrades had they suited up. I mean, they were playing Leigh Bodden, a guy who wasn't considered good enough BY THE LIONS to keep around. Belichick had a good offense that moved the football well throughout the game, an outstanding QB in Brady, and if they get 2 yards they win the game. Forget about the position on the field; if you can get 2 yards and win, you should do that. Besides that, they had the whole 'are they going to go for it or just try to draw the defense offsides' thing going for them, meaning they should have had a slight initiative advantage as the defense makes sure to wait and see the ball snapped. Belichick should do the exact same thing in a similar situation. I am pleased that people who KNOW football (Brian, Chris from Smart Football, Easterbrook, stat geeks everywhere), as opposed to people who talk about football, support the call. Conventional wisdom often isn't, and common sense DEFINITELY isn't.