Bill Simmons's article on 4th and 2 is crap
I'm in the Belichick camp on this one and fascinated with the controversy (seems maybe Brian is too). I'm a Simmons fan, but I think his column on this is pretty weak - (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120 )
Among the many flaws in his argument: using stats on the number of times a team has had 3 fourth quarter TD drives to win games is misleading. You'd have to look at the number of times teams scored two fourth quarter tds to come within 6-4 points (because 3 points or less and the team will be driving for a FG, not a td), and then see how many of them will succeed on their final drive. Also, I think him bringing up the poorly-called series leading up to fourth down is inapposite: no one is arguing about whether blowing those timeouts was bad. It obviously was. And the play calling is a different argument. The argument here is do you go for it or punt, and the statistics show that it is smart to go for it. Does emotion override the statistics? I say no. Besides, it is a professional athlete's job to execute in the face of emotion and pressure.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^
The article is crap. Bill Simmons is also crap.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
One of the many things I dislike about sports journalists is their propensity to question coaching decisions. I guarantee you, 100% guarantee, if the Pats make the 4th down conversion Bill Belichick is once again praised for his genius and guts.
People like Bill Simmons who question these calls are complete morons.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:02 PM ^
the first two TDs were already in the bag. Which means you just have to look at the stats for teams executing game winning TDs in the last two minutes, period....which is much higher. It would be like saying the odds of flipping heads on a toss of a coin is 12.5% after you've just flipped two heads, on the basis that the chances you flip three in a row is 12.5%.
And if you want to talk about emotion and other factors that cause the stats to matter less, then don't you have to mention the momentum that the Colts had by scoring those two TDs in that quarter?
But that said, I'm not hating on Bill. He's a writer, not a statistician...not to mention a passionate and biased fan.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:46 PM ^
He's right, but his argument sucks. If he's simply illustrating that stats don't cover everything that goes into a football decision (see PSU punting in our territory), or that you can skew stats to say what you want, he's right, and illustrates a problem I have with the stat obsession here.
But he tries to say there are situational factors that matter, ignoring the ones that go against his argument (like how many of those game winning drives were attempted by Peyton freaking Manning...that's gotta increase your odds for losing if they get the ball back), then using HIS starts to say he is right. A bit hypocritical...and illogical.
But he's a fan. I was pissed they lost too. But it was the right call. I kinda thought so at the time, and even moreso since. Happiest guy is that Gopher fuck who fumbled a TD away...because now no one's talking about that. HIM I'm pissed at.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:06 PM ^
the number of times a team has scored three 4th quarter TDs has nothing to do with anything
wtf is he thinking
November 20th, 2009 at 10:07 PM ^
Bill Simmons is a very good writer that relates well to the younger male demographic. That being said Simmons knows little about football and even admitted as much (http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/011231) in a story he did for a bowl game a few years back. It's hard to take a guy seriously about a subject when he doesn't understand its basic vernacular.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:16 PM ^
Belichick made the right decision - it just didn't work out. Multiple credible analysts have demonstrated as much. Simmons "analysis" is akin to sports talk-radio blathering. Even if you don't want to go through the numbers consider this: There were two minutes left in the game. The way Peyton Manning was going he could made up the 30-40 yards to be gained by a punt in a couple of plays. If you want to argue Belichick should have run the ball, okay, but going for it was the right call. See any or all of the following for serious discussion.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-four…
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichick-is-grea…
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/zeus-computer-program-sup…
November 20th, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^
It's not terrible for journalists not to understand statistics. That said, he shouldn't be using them when he doesn't understand them.
Also, saying that emotion should be a factor in this case is stupid. The vast majority of fourth-downs are emotionally charged situations because of their importance and the fact that NFL coaches are so conservative in general. Furthermore, the emotional situation typically benefits the defense, who just stopped the offense on downs 1-3. So arguing that emotional situations are not reflected in the statistics is stupid.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
To me, the most egregious part is when he says that the Colts were so hot there was no way they only had a 34% chance of winning if they start at the 30 and then later totally flips his argument and talks about how their passing game was weak so the Colts couldn't possibly march it down the field.
Statistically, if you think the Colts are "hot" offensively, that may decrease the chance of winning if you go for it but it much more drastically decreases the odds of winning if you punt so the whole argument is moot anyways--and I must say that I wasn't expecting him to catch on to that fact but to make two fairly contradictory arguments was pretty ridiculous.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:59 PM ^
They have great writers. (sarcasm)