Have the Patriots been uncommonly lucky?

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
It was raised as part of discussing Eli (and his luck in SB42) that the Pats may (or may not) have been quite lucky in the course of their run.

One dimension to get at that question is the idea that while rates of fumbling are matters of coaching and skill and are repeatable, the rate of recovery once a football is on the ground (summing recoveries of your own plus opponents' fumbles) is pretty much random. So by that measure, have we been lucky?

Year: total own fumbles + Opponent fumbles recovered by NWE / total NWE+Opponent fumbles = %

2000: 13 + 13 / 23 + 27 = 52%
2001: 16 + 13 / 29 + 23 = 56%
2002: 14 + 11 / 24 + 21 = 56%
2003: 14 + 12 / 25 + 31 = 46%
2004: 11 + 16 / 24 + 31 = 49%
2005: 10 + 8 / 19 + 13 = 56% -- seriously, we only forced 13 fumbles?
2006: 12 + 13 / 27 + 24 = 49%
2007: 8 + 12 / 14 + 25 = 51% -- seriously, we only fumbled 14 times?!
2008: 7 + 8 / 17 + 17 = 44%
2009: 8 + 10 / 17 + 28 = 40%
2010: 4 + 13 / 9 + 20 = 59%
2011: 9 + 11 / 14 + 21 = 57%
2012: 7 + 21 / 14 + 42 = 50% -- 3x disparity? whoa
2013: 18 + 12 / 27 + 21 = 63% (!)
2014: 12 + 9 / 16 + 19 = 60% (!)
2015: 7 + 9 / 14 + 29 = 48%
2016: 18 + 10 / 27 + 26 = 53%
2017: 9 + 6 / 13 + 15 = 54% -- YTD, obviously

18-year total: 197 + 207 / 353 + 433 = 51.3%

Summary:
- The Pats have a sliiiiiightly above expectation recovery rate, so they've been a wee bit lucky, but probably within the noise range. This represents 11 more recoveries in those 17.7 years than what would be even (50%).
- Total recovery rate of their own fumbles: 55.8%. Recovery rate of their opponents' fumbles: 47.8% (i.e., opponents recover 52.2% of their own fumbles against the Pats)
- The one meaningful thing - going back to what's a skill - is that the Pats fumble 19% less, overall, than their opponents.

So if you go by fumbles, the Pats have been pretty skilled, but not particularly lucky.

What about in other respects?
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
- The one meaningful thing - going back to what's a skill - is that the Pats fumble 19% less, overall, than their opponents.
That's because of Deflategate. The Patriots fumble less because they deflated the balls to make them easier to carry and less likely to fumble. Look at 2016, that's 100% proof!

/GangGreenForms/Carlton in Norwell/Haterz
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
Great topic. Would be interested to see whether there is any fumble luck in the playoffs as well, though obviously a smaller sample size.

Also, is there any luck / bias in penalties called since some say there's there is a foul being committed on most every play that goes uncalled. Or is that a coached skill - i.e., to avoid them and conversely to draw penalties on / from opponents?
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Also, is there any luck / bias in penalties called since some say there's there is a foul being committed on most every play that goes uncalled. Or is that a coached skill - i.e., to avoid them and conversely to draw penalties on / from opponents?
It's obviously both, right?
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
Lucky to be in the AFC East during a stretch where the other 3 teams have been horrid has been huge in securing countless byes for the first round of the playoffs.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Lucky to be in the AFC East during a stretch where the other 3 teams have been horrid has been huge in securing countless byes for the first round of the playoffs.
The Patriots record inside and outside the division over the past 16 years has been uniformly consistent. The reason the AFC east sucks is because they each have to play the Pats twice.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,086
One dimension to get at that question is the idea that while rates of fumbling are matters of coaching and skill and are repeatable, the rate of recovery once a football is on the ground (summing recoveries of your own plus opponents' fumbles) is pretty much random.
This is always mentioned, but I’m not sure I’d even call that a given. While there certainly is the variability of a bouncing ball that may or may not end up in your team’s possession, I’ve seen quite a few times where the Patriots have recovered a fumble simply by playing until the whistle and not giving up on a play early. This is clearly an effect of good coaching and having the proper motivation to finish the play and put yourself in the right place to recover a possible fumble.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,364
Somerville MA
This is always mentioned, but I’m not sure I’d even call that a given. While there certainly is the variability of a bouncing ball that may or may not end up in your team’s possession, I’ve seen quite a few times where the Patriots have recovered a fumble simply by playing until the whistle and not giving up on a play early. This is clearly an effect of good coaching and having the proper motivation to finish the play and put yourself in the right place to recover a possible fumble.
I'd also say that the type of fumble also would likely determine recovery rate. Strip sacks probably get recovered by the defense more commonly given that the defenders' eyes are on the QB, the OL's are not, and the QB is being tackled. Similarly, muffed punts are probably more commonly recovered by the coverage team since there are a number of players bearing down on the returner.

It might be random over the long term, and in the aggregate. But if you have a QB who gets strip sacked at an appreciably lower rate than the average opponent, maybe your expected recovery % goes up a percentage point or two, etc.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,092
Duval
I’d be interested to know what fumble recovery rates are based upon position on the field. My theory is that you are more prone to recover your own team’s fumble in your own backfield. You are less likely out in the field of play. This would just simply be based on the number of hands compared to opponents hands in the ball’s vicinity.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
Maybe we can create a list of Pats’ lucky plays to jog our memories. I forget this stuff so quickly.

2001 Raiders: Tuck Rule. I’ll allow it even though I think the “luck” portion is seriously overstated by basically everyone.

2001 Rams: Vrabel gets away with smacking Warner in helmet leading to Law Pick 6.

2003 Titans: Drew Bennett? drops perfect throw from McNair that would have put them at like the 15 or 20, if my memory is correct.

2006 Chargers: Brown strips Chargers DB after INT, which enables Pats to stay in game and ultimately win it. Lights out, Chargers.

2006 Colts: Reche Caldwell did not get lost on way to team bus.

2011 Ravens: Lee Evans can’t secure perfect throw from Flacco that Moore knocks out. Billy Cundiff shanks FG.

2015 Chiefs: Pass to Gronk tips right up Edelman to seal game. Could have easily been INT.

2016 Falcons: Edelman makes ridiculous catch that should have been intercepted by Alford. We all know what happened.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
That’s really not a huge list considering they have played in 34 playoff games during this era. Granted there are probably some more plays that belong on this list but still

Edit: when it comes to their close wins though, this seems to be a pretty complete list. Struggling to remember a lot more.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
How about an unconscious David Patten fumbling but touching the ball while part of his body lay OOB, thereby preventing Buffalo from recovering it? Pats won that game in OT, which obviously helped them secure the bye.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I’d be interested to know what fumble recovery rates are based upon position on the field. My theory is that you are more prone to recover your own team’s fumble in your own backfield. You are less likely out in the field of play. This would just simply be based on the number of hands compared to opponents hands in the ball’s vicinity.
I wrote for ITP recently about fumbles: http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/2017/09/08/where-do-fumbles-come-from/



Muffed punts are actually recovered at a high rate by the receiving team, because there are a lot of muffs that the returner immediately picks up. Caught balls are lost at a higher rate than normal, lending some credence to your theory there. Note also that fumbles out of bounds stay with the fumbling team.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
If the list has Vrabel getting away with smacking Warner, shouldn't a note be added to the Tuck Rule game about Woodson smacking Brady in the helmet?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Eagles kicking kickoff out of bounds before Pats final drive in the Super Bowl.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
The Patriots record inside and outside the division over the past 16 years has been uniformly consistent. The reason the AFC east sucks is because they each have to play the Pats twice.
I did the math and you’re absolutely right... which blows me away. I didn’t think it was even close, yet it’s dead even.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
If the list has Vrabel getting away with smacking Warner, shouldn't a note be added to the Tuck Rule game about Woodson smacking Brady in the helmet?
The league was not calling the hit to the head the same as they are today.

If Wooden/Vrabel gets called for that in 2001, both fan bases would have (rightfully) gone absolutely apeshit.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,014
0-3 to 4-3
I’m convinced to this day that McNabb suffered a concussion on the 2nd play of that game. Speculation alert and all.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
I know we’re talking about the current run but the Jags going to Denver and beating the Broncos, thus saving the Pats a trip there for the AFCCG before the Packers Super Bowl was pretty lucky.
 

BillMuellerFanClub

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,388
I did the math and you’re absolutely right... which blows me away. I didn’t think it was even close, yet it’s dead even.
Just bearing witness to the second-hand realization of this has me grinning. It's amazing when it sets in and we can take a break from the micromanagement in all things Boston sports and truly admire our embarrassment of riches as Patriot fans.

I'd also volunteer the eye test to these great statistics being thrown around - great insight guys. It seems like over the past few seasons, maybe by virtue of play style, but the number of Patriot defenders that are actively attempting to punch the ball out when making an open field tackle seems to have skyrocketed. I don't see it nearly as frequently by other teams, which is a bias I know, but even in comparison the good and bad defensive units of years past. The ball awareness with the few times the front 7 reaches the QB also stand out (Hightower's hit on Ryan).

I'm not sure if anyone is debating that fumble rates / recovery could definitely be considered coachable and a skill, but I think the fact that they seem to be generally more aware of the ball than the opposition (by virtue of preparation, the ultimate Bill characteristic) more frequently than not would ultimately translate to a slight net positive over a large enough sample. Which is I think is exactly what the numbers bear out.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
The panthers kicking the kickoff before the Patriots final drive out of bounds.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
ImageUploadedBySons of Sam Horn1512005753.815252.jpg
Brady should have been called for grounding on this play on the final drive of XXXVI.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Karen she's the silver sun, you best walk her way and watch it shine,
watch her watch the morning come.
A silver tear appearing now I'm crying, ain't I?
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,044
Maybe we can create a list of Pats’ lucky plays to jog our memories. I forget this stuff so quickly.

2001 Raiders: Tuck Rule. I’ll allow it even though I think the “luck” portion is seriously overstated by basically everyone.

2001 Rams: Vrabel gets away with smacking Warner in helmet leading to Law Pick 6.

2003 Titans: Drew Bennett? drops perfect throw from McNair that would have put them at like the 15 or 20, if my memory is correct.

2006 Chargers: Brown strips Chargers DB after INT, which enables Pats to stay in game and ultimately win it. Lights out, Chargers.

2006 Colts: Reche Caldwell did not get lost on way to team bus.

2011 Ravens: Lee Evans can’t secure perfect throw from Flacco that Moore knocks out. Billy Cundiff shanks FG.

2015 Chiefs: Pass to Gronk tips right up Edelman to seal game. Could have easily been INT.

2016 Falcons: Edelman makes ridiculous catch that should have been intercepted by Alford. We all know what happened.
good list - nice work on this

My main 'nit' is the Edelman play. by win percentage it really wasn't all that big of a play - a drop there wouldn't have drastically changed the game. Pats did get plenty lucky that game, but that wasn't it. My memory isn't on the same level as yours but I remember some key drops by the Falcons that could have iced the game. Or you could point to the injury to Coleman - if he doesn't get injured they win that game. Or some other stuff. Anyway, it's a nit.

Looking over that list high level - one game that feels like it's missing is 2014 Ravens. That was a game that 95% of teams lose after the Pats got down. Not sure which play to use as the 'luck' play - the 'formation' play, that BAL bit so hard on the flea flicker, but I remember being amazed they pulled that one out
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
View attachment 18720
Brady should have been called for grounding on this play on the final drive of XXXVI.
Hard to tell exactly where the RT was lined up from that angle, but looked like Tom may have run outside of the RT prior to throwing the ball (and clearly past the LOS), in which case it isn't grounding by rule.

The telecast replay provides a better angle - it's a close call.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
That's because of Deflategate. The Patriots fumble less because they deflated the balls to make them easier to carry and less likely to fumble. Look at 2016, that's 100% proof!

/GangGreenForms/Carlton in Norwell/Haterz
Carlton from Norwell is my all time favorite caller; he's so fucking defeated now regarding the Patriots he doesn't know whether to shit or wind his watch at this point.

No doubt he's going to stroke out at some point in the middle of one of his anti Patriots rants; my favorite part of his calls is how his voice gets whinier the longer they go on...............fucking idiot.
 

alydar

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2006
921
Jamaica Plain
I once had an Uber driver who claimed to know Carlton from Norwell, which he said was a pseudonym. To prove it, we called him from the car. It was definitely him, and he brought his A game right out of the gate.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,091
good list - nice work on this

My main 'nit' is the Edelman play. by win percentage it really wasn't all that big of a play - a drop there wouldn't have drastically changed the game. Pats did get plenty lucky that game, but that wasn't it. My memory isn't on the same level as yours but I remember some key drops by the Falcons that could have iced the game. Or you could point to the injury to Coleman - if he doesn't get injured they win that game. Or some other stuff. Anyway, it's a nit.

Looking over that list high level - one game that feels like it's missing is 2014 Ravens. That was a game that 95% of teams lose after the Pats got down. Not sure which play to use as the 'luck' play - the 'formation' play, that BAL bit so hard on the flea flicker, but I remember being amazed they pulled that one out
Not really sure that 2014 Ravens qualifies, as I don’t recall any plays where the Pats really got lucky. That game to me was just a real grind-it-out thriller.

On the unlucky front, could add the 2005 Broncos game and the touchback that never was. I’ll never agree with that call.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,743
Rotten Apple
Billy Cundiff comes to mind in the 2012 AFCCG.

Then again, we had the great Jason Staurovsky miss of 1990. In fact, the Pats were so historically unlucky for so long that whatever luck we have now could be seen as reversion.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
The helmet catch, the Woodson touchback, the flu in Indy, and Ben Dreith say hi when it comes to luck. Shit evens out.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,826
Needham, MA
Brought up in the other thread, but the blocked field goal return by Troy Brown (lateral to Antwan Harris) in the 2001 AFCCG should probably be on the list. Maybe not the FG block, but the ball bouncing right to Troy to allow the clean recovery without him losing stride, and then the lateral was very, very close to being a forward lateral that easily could have been called.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Brought up in the other thread, but the blocked field goal return by Troy Brown (lateral to Antwan Harris) in the 2001 AFCCG should probably be on the list. Maybe not the FG block, but the ball bouncing right to Troy to allow the clean recovery without him losing stride, and then the lateral was very, very close to being a forward lateral that easily could have been called.
It wasn’t really that close, honestly, it was a good yard forward at least. However, the calls in that game were generally terrible. Young Hochuli fudged about 7-8 calls and most of them after the benefit of replay. That game evened out.

Overall, the luck has about evened out. I could come up with plenty of luck against the Pats. The sample size at this point is too big for it not to be about even.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
It wasn’t really that close, honestly, it was a good yard forward at least. However, the calls in that game were generally terrible. Young Hochuli fudged about 7-8 calls and most of them after the benefit of replay. That game evened out.
I've always wondered about this, and maybe someone here can educate me. It's completely possible to pitch a football backwards and still have it land ahead of where you released it because you're in motion. It's effectively the same reason you can't just jump at the last second if you're in an elevator that's falling to the ground and be OK.

And that's exactly what happens on that play. Brown clearly pitches it backwards, but in doing so while running at or near full speed, the ball has his forward velocity and is caught ahead of where he pitched it.

So what is the actual rule? Is it that the ball has to be directed backwards or that it actually has to travel backwards?

Also, from that 2001 season:

 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
Well we did Draft Brady after 198 other guys so the easy answer is Yes.

I am curious, do you think the Pats Brain trust had any idea he would be an average NFL QB (Let alone the GOAT). With Bledsoe here and still in his prime (28/29) He had to be considered the Franchise QB for the next 3-7 Years.
Brady had to be a flyer for a backup right?
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,027
Well we did Draft Brady after 198 other guys so the easy answer is Yes.

I am curious, do you think the Pats Brain trust had any idea he would be an average NFL QB (Let alone the GOAT). With Bledsoe here and still in his prime (28/29) He had to be considered the Franchise QB for the next 3-7 Years.
Brady had to be a flyer for a backup right?
They carried an extra QB his rookie year just to hold on to him.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
Which may have said more about Micheal Bishop then Tom Brady.

Plus Bledsoe had played 122 of the previous 128 regular season games. (missed 2 in 98, 1 in 95 and 3 his rookie year).

I am not saying they didnt see promise in Brady. Its the level of that promise that I question. I have to assume that at 199, with Bishop and Bledsoe (and a tail end of his career Friesz) that they had to be thinking "He could become an adequate backup to Drew, And we need a Backup".

I think timing is also important. Drafting him 199 was very lucky. After having him in house for a few months they may have realized what a real steal they had. But no way they knew he was starter material and a possible usurper to (at the time "Future HOFer") Bledsoe on Draft night and yet wait till 199 to secure him.

Even if you buy the idea that Belicheck was unhappy with Bledsoe and looking to move on, if he felt Brady was that guy he drafts him earlier then 199. Remember 199 wasn't their only Pick around there. They had 127,141,161 and 187 as well.
If your BB and you think "This guy could replace Bledsoe" he has proven time and time again that he takes him at 127 (or whatever) and lets all the pundits sit there mouth open and aghast.

They also had 201 which they used on David Nugent (DE). In Between were the Saints who picked Sherrod Gideon (wr, Never played). The Saints had also picked a QB (Bulger) at 168 so the odds of doubling up for Brady at 200 Was very low especially when they also had the 195 pick bypassed him again and took a DB (Mike Hawthorn).

So actually it was terrible use of resources by Belicheck. He should have waited and taken him 201. Imagine how pissed off and "out to prove everyone wrong" he would have been then. :)
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Billy Cundiff comes to mind in the 2012 AFCCG.

Then again, we had the great Jason Staurovsky miss of 1990. In fact, the Pats were so historically unlucky for so long that whatever luck we have now could be seen as reversion.
Cundiff horked the kick, but the Ravens screwed up on the sidelines by not getting him onto the field earlier during the 24 second clock. When you see the replays Cundiff is running out there with only 11 or 12 seconds left on the clock, and they have to rush to get set up. He hooked the kick meaning he rushed it. The Ravens had a time out left, so they could have easily called it and calmed things down but Harbaugh outsmarted himself and let the play continue.

So yes, the Pats had some luck, but that was because their opponent as usual made more mistakes than they did.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
A % of opposing coaches also would be so clueless as to call a time out to freeze Cundiff, thus bailing the Ravens out.
(I know not this game but...) "Something didnt look right with the way they were rushing around".

Sometimes you make your own luck.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,027
Which may have said more about Micheal Bishop then Tom Brady.

Plus Bledsoe had played 122 of the previous 128 regular season games. (missed 2 in 98, 1 in 95 and 3 his rookie year).

I am not saying they didnt see promise in Brady. Its the level of that promise that I question. I have to assume that at 199, with Bishop and Bledsoe (and a tail end of his career Friesz) that they had to be thinking "He could become an adequate backup to Drew, And we need a Backup".

I think timing is also important. Drafting him 199 was very lucky. After having him in house for a few months they may have realized what a real steal they had. But no way they knew he was starter material and a possible usurper to (at the time "Future HOFer") Bledsoe on Draft night and yet wait till 199 to secure him.

Even if you buy the idea that Belicheck was unhappy with Bledsoe and looking to move on, if he felt Brady was that guy he drafts him earlier then 199. Remember 199 wasn't their only Pick around there. They had 127,141,161 and 187 as well.
If your BB and you think "This guy could replace Bledsoe" he has proven time and time again that he takes him at 127 (or whatever) and lets all the pundits sit there mouth open and aghast.

They also had 201 which they used on David Nugent (DE). In Between were the Saints who picked Sherrod Gideon (wr, Never played). The Saints had also picked a QB (Bulger) at 168 so the odds of doubling up for Brady at 200 Was very low especially when they also had the 195 pick bypassed him again and took a DB (Mike Hawthorn).

So actually it was terrible use of resources by Belicheck. He should have waited and taken him 201. Imagine how pissed off and "out to prove everyone wrong" he would have been then. :)
There is video footage of Belichick’s expressions and comments on draft day when he sees that Brady is falling.

Go find it and watch it.