The Game Goat Thread: Wk. 16 at Indy

[Van Everyman]

I mean, I didn't feel great about them converting it either. If the Pats don't give up that 10-mile TD run to Taylor (which was an incredible play by him, honestly)when they were down by 3, and they get the ball back with a bit of time back (and I believe a timeout or two), that decision looks pretty good.

 

[loshjott]

He talked about it a bit more today

View: https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/1472927044203958277

And this tweet has the transcript of his longer answer. Much more detailed than I'd expect, which would be "I made the decision that I thought gave us the best chance to win the game. We're on to Buffalo."

View: https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/1472953799866298375?s=20

 

[NobodyInteresting]

With the new rules, last I saw onside kick recoveries are at a 4% chance of success. There have been a couple recently so maybe that is a bit higher, but it's still EXTREMELY unlikely to succeed. Not recovering one certainly can't be considered a special teams mess up.

This isn't really accurate. It's about right for last year, but that was clearly a particularly bad year. Plus they changed the rules (again) before this season and recoveries are much better this year. (Small sample size applies).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/12/15/onside-kick-rule-change-nfl/

2017: 12 of 57 (21%)
[Rule change]
2018: 4 of 52 (8%)
2019: 8 of 62 (13%)
2020: 3 of 67 (4%)
[Rule change]
2021: 8 of 43 (18%)

Now that's not to say the Pats would have that chance - clearly some teams are doing innovative stuff here that it's very plausible the Pats are not doing, but I think it's reasonable to think the chances would still be ~10%. Not great, but not nothing.

FWIW I would've preferred the onside kick there. Not recovering doesn't lose the game, it just means you have further to travel if you can get the 3 and out you would need either way.

 

[lexrageorge]

And this tweet has the transcript of his longer answer. Much more detailed than I'd expect, which would be "I made the decision that I thought gave us the best chance to win the game. We're on to Buffalo."

View: https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/1472953799866298375?s=20

HIs answer makes a lot of sense. You need the defense to make a stop regardless, so you cannot coach assuming the D is going to be useless. A 3-and-out on the final Colts drive gives the Pats a fighting chance of a tying FG in a dome. It's fair to disagree as well.

 

[tims4wins]

Right, and regardless of what would have happened, they also would have had to stop the Colts on the final drive no matter what. Say they went for it and scored the TD... 20-14... got the ball back and drove for another TD (which they did) and made it 21-20... they still would have needed a stop to win the game. Indy would have had plenty of time and timeouts to drive for a potential GW FG. Who knows how their offensive strategy would have changed being behind with 3 minutes to play, but they ended up running for a 67 yard TD even when the Pats knew they'd be running. All this to say, even if the Pats converted a TD they may well have lost anyway due to all of the first half mistakes that dug the hole so deep.

 

[Justthetippett]

I mean, I didn't feel great about them converting it either. If the Pats don't give up that 10-mile TD run to Taylor (which was an incredible play by him, honestly)when they were down by 3, and they get the ball back with a bit of time back (and I believe a timeout or two), that decision looks pretty good.

Agreed. The plan was conservative but was also working. Just couldn’t get the stop. And who knows how the offense does with the ball back, 1:10 on the clock, and no TOs needing a FG to tie, but that’s at least a punchers chance.

He was conservative against TB too, and that also almost worked. BB really picks his spots to take chances at all with this QB and team.

 

[loshjott]

HIs answer makes a lot of sense. You need the defense to make a stop regardless, so you cannot coach assuming the D is going to be useless. A 3-and-out on the final Colts drive gives the Pats a fighting chance of a tying FG in a dome. It's fair to disagree as well.

I'm not questioning his decision just surprised he took the time to explain it. Uncharacteristic.

I should have posted in the quotathon thread.

 

[BaseballJones]

HIs answer makes a lot of sense. You need the defense to make a stop regardless, so you cannot coach assuming the D is going to be useless. A 3-and-out on the final Colts drive gives the Pats a fighting chance of a tying FG in a dome. It's fair to disagree as well.

Right. This is an interesting example of game theory.

4th and goal from the 7, down 20-7 with 9 minutes left

Option 1: Go for the TD
- You need to calculate the odds of converting it into a TD. BB thought they were small.
- Then you need to calculate getting a stop and then coming down and getting another score - FG to cut the lead to three, or TD to take the lead.

Option 2: Go for the FG
- You need to calculate the odds of covering the FG. BB thought it highly likely.
- Then you need to calculate the odds of getting TWO more stops, which then would require you to score TWO more times - one TD and one FG to tie, or two TD to win.

The upside of going for the TD is scoring, making it a one possession game with 8:57 left in the game, and all the momentum on your side. The downside is you don't get it, which means you still need to make two stops and then score two TD to win.

The upside of going for the FG is scoring, and even though it's still a two possession game, you only need a TD and FG to tie the game, not two TDs. The downside is that you still need two stops and two scores.

So game theory holds that the choice with the greatest risk AND reward would have been to go for the TD. Generally speaking, game theory holds that the wise play is to avoid the worst possible outcome. But of course, that's relative, depending on just how bad the worst possible outcome is and the likelihood of the worst case - or best case - outcomes happening.

Obviously BB felt that the odds of converting the TD were low enough, and that he had enough time on the clock to get the ball back twice, such that he felt the FG was the more prudent choice there that gave the Pats the best chance to win.

I understand his thinking. I also get the idea of going for it. Huge momentum killer if they don't score at all, but they'd be giving Indy the ball inside Indy's 10 yard line, so if they could get a quick stop, they'd be in pretty good field position to try again.

Very tough call there. I get both sides of the argument. But just imagine if they HAD scored the TD there. Huge. But damn...that false start penalty was KILLER.

 

[lexrageorge]

Right. This is an interesting example of game theory.

4th and goal from the 7, down 20-7 with 9 minutes left

Option 1: Go for the TD
- You need to calculate the odds of converting it into a TD. BB thought they were small.
- Then you need to calculate getting a stop and then coming down and getting another score - FG to cut the lead to three, or TD to take the lead.

Option 2: Go for the FG
- You need to calculate the odds of covering the FG. BB thought it highly likely.
- Then you need to calculate the odds of getting TWO more stops, which then would require you to score TWO more times - one TD and one FG to tie, or two TD to win.

The upside of going for the TD is scoring, making it a one possession game with 8:57 left in the game, and all the momentum on your side. The downside is you don't get it, which means you still need to make two stops and then score two TD to win.

The upside of going for the FG is scoring, and even though it's still a two possession game, you only need a TD and FG to tie the game, not two TDs. The downside is that you still need two stops and two scores.

So game theory holds that the choice with the greatest risk AND reward would have been to go for the TD. Generally speaking, game theory holds that the wise play is to avoid the worst possible outcome. But of course, that's relative, depending on just how bad the worst possible outcome is and the likelihood of the worst case - or best case - outcomes happening.

Obviously BB felt that the odds of converting the TD were low enough, and that he had enough time on the clock to get the ball back twice, such that he felt the FG was the more prudent choice there that gave the Pats the best chance to win.

I understand his thinking. I also get the idea of going for it. Huge momentum killer if they don't score at all, but they'd be giving Indy the ball inside Indy's 10 yard line, so if they could get a quick stop, they'd be in pretty good field position to try again.

Very tough call there. I get both sides of the argument. But just imagine if they HAD scored the TD there. Huge. But damn...that false start penalty was KILLER.

I also think Belichick took into account what was happening in that series of downs. Mac couldn't find an open receiver on first down. The sweep to Bolden gained a couple. He was probably ready to take 2 shots in from the 2 yard line. Then the false start. And then on 3rd down Mac got instantly chased from the pocket and essentially had to throw it out of the corner of the end zone. I certainly would not have felt good about making a 4th-and-7 had Bill went for it.

 

[BaseballJones]

I also think Belichick took into account what was happening in that series of downs. Mac couldn't find an open receiver on first down. The sweep to Bolden gained a couple. He was probably ready to take 2 shots in from the 2 yard line. Then the false start. And then on 3rd down Mac got instantly chased from the pocket and essentially had to throw it out of the corner of the end zone. I certainly would not have felt good about making a 4th-and-7 had Bill went for it.

Yep, that's all quite fair. And the "book" - the analytics - might say one thing, but the book doesn't take into account what's happening on the field in real time. So maybe BB was like, yeah, even if the book says the right play here is to go for the TD, I'm not at all liking what I'm seeing and I don't feel comfortable with it right now.

 

[lexrageorge]

Yep, that's all quite fair. And the "book" - the analytics - might say one thing, but the book doesn't take into account what's happening on the field in real time. So maybe BB was like, yeah, even if the book says the right play here is to go for the TD, I'm not at all liking what I'm seeing and I don't feel comfortable with it right now.

I would have difficulty believing the "book" said one choice was hugely different from the other, as in more than 5% probability. The reality is that there tend to be multiple "books", so it was probably a jump ball as far as win probabilities go, given the fact that the error bars in these calcuations tend to be wider than some appreciate.

 

[tims4wins]

Yep, that's all quite fair. And the "book" - the analytics - might say one thing, but the book doesn't take into account what's happening on the field in real time. So maybe BB was like, yeah, even if the book says the right play here is to go for the TD, I'm not at all liking what I'm seeing and I don't feel comfortable with it right now.

I would have difficulty believing the "book" said one choice was hugely different from the other, as in more than 5% probability. The reality is that there tend to be multiple "books", so it was probably a jump ball as far as win probabilities go, given the fact that the error bars in these calcuations tend to be wider than some appreciate.

Agree strongly with these takes. At best we are talking about increasing their chances of winning very slightly. How about don’t get a punt blocked for a TD or give up a 67 yard rushing TD when you know they are rushing. Pretty sure those plays had a significantly higher impact on winning %.

 

[Van Everyman]

Also: “stats are for losers” (he never actually said that did he?).

I’ve never gotten the sense that Belichick uses statistics directly. Oh, I don’t mean that no one does on his staff. If I had to guess, Ernie Adams spent a lot of time, as a former financial analyst, pouring over statistics. Which is to say, I think he probably has somebody in his ear during the games who tells him what “the book“ says, and then he weighs that with his own judgment and eyes for what he’s seeing on the field.

Which in this case told him that the Colts were doing a better job of covering his guys then his guys were getting open.

Honestly, short of a really good play by Henry, I think we’d have gotten stuffed there had we gone for it.