Hyperbolic Discount Bowl?

So, did Coach Belichick use his knack for Incremental Analysis Sunday? (And, given the Panthers' point-after strategy yesterday, note Sackrowitz's statistical critique of the two-point conversion.)

Comments

[Mo]

I liked the call, even though it didn't work. The Panthers were having problems driving on the Pats D and could not have forseen the offensive explosion in the 4th quarter. The problem with waiting until the last second is that you may not get another chance to go for two. In fact, analysis shows that coaches often go for two too little, rather than too much. More power to Fox for trying to put his team in the best position to win and putting his rep on the line. It didn't work out, but sometimes you have to go for the gold.

[Brad S]

Mo - I'd be interested in seeing the analysis that you're referring to. The two-point conversion has a historic success rate of just under 40%. So, statistically speaking, your expected point value when going for two is about 0.8 points. By way of comparison, the best kickers in the NFL have a success rate of about 99% on PAT kicks. So, the expected point value of a kick is about 0.99 points.

Now, there are certain situations where having the additional point really does matter (i.e. when, after scoring a TD very late in a game, you now trail by 2 points, or by 5 points). In those situations, it makes sense to go for two, otherwise, it doesn't. I guess the key point of contention here is what constitutes "very late in a game". Those who would defend Fox's decision (as you did) would contend that, given the circumstance (i.e. tough Pats D, no points scored in the 3rd quarter, etc) that points were at a premium and Carolina might not have another chance to get a TD - hence, 12 minutes left in the fourth quarter is sufficiently late in the game to justify going for two. Here, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[J. Alexander Lowman]

re Kasay's kick - the other thing that makes it not the _worst_ thing in the world is that the Panthers obviously had plenty of oppourtunities to make it so that that wasn't the killer that it was...in fact in almost every sport you have many, many oppourtunities to assert yourself and stake your claim to victory. Often people only remember the last one because it _could have_ gone the other way if the outcome of that one play had been different.

However, I would have to disagree that his kick had absolutely nothing to do with coaching. Whether it was intentional or not, one of the coach's main jobs (if not _the_ main job), is to make sure his players are prepared for every eventuality and don't choke under pressure. Now I'm not saying it was the coach who failed (obviously he didn't kick it), but he does have an effect on his team's play.

[fyodor]

J. Alex,

Your first point is well taken. Why single out one play? Sports fans are kind of boneheaded themselves that way.

But your second?!!?? Unless the poor kick was affected by some decision the coach made, I stick to my point that it's a totally different issue than second guessing the two-point conversion. What did he do wrong, neglect to stress to his kicker to kick it in bounds? Or that the kick mattered? Either would have been obvious and it's the proverbial stretch to put any specific responsibility on the coach. And in general, I think we can hardly fault Fox for lack of proper preperation of his players considering he inherited a 1-15 team and took it to the Super Bowl in two years.

But again, I agree with your first point! 🙂

[fyodor]

The triumph of the egghead!!!

[Brad S]

The Panthers broke one of the cardinal rules of football coaching strategy - never, NEVER go for two unless the game is in the last three or four minutes and you absolutely have to!

[fyodor]

Of course the only effect of the missed two point conversion was to give New England a more relaxed scenario as they drove for the winning field goal. Would New England have choked on that drive had they been behind by a point rather than tied? There's really no reason to think so and therefore no reason to think the blown two point conversion and the decision to try it had anything to do with the Panthers' loss.

But it was still a dumb decision!

[fyodor]

Though I should add that if they HAD made it, they would have had the chance to try it again on their last touchdown and if they had made that one too, N.E.'s waning seconds FG would only have tied the game and Fox would have looked quite clever.

Of course that's a lot of ifs.

[Brad S]

fyodor - actually, had Carolina never gone for two, New England would not have gone for two either. The game would have gone to overtime. Here's how it would have gone down:

Foster's run makes it New England 21, Carolina 16. Carolina PAT (which they didn't try because they went for two) makes it New England 21, Carolina 17.

Delhomme's 85 yard strike to Muhammad makes it Carolina 23, New England 21. Carolina tacks on the PAT (wouldn't have needed to go for two here) and it's Carolina 24, New England 21.

Brady's TD pass to Vrabel on the tackle-eligible play would have made it New England 27, Carolina 24. No reason for New England to go for two here (in fact, kicking the PAT is definitely the right move), so the PAT makes it New England 28, Carolina 24.

Delhomme's TD to Proehl on the beautiful play-action pass makes it Carolina 30, New England 28. Carolina tacks on the PAT to make it Carolina 31, New England 28.

Vinatieri's FG with 0:09 to play would have tied the game at 31 and sent it to OT.

[matt]

I think Fox made the right call in going for two...he probably figured with 9 minutes or so left and against the pats defense there may not be that many possesions left to score.

The real bonehead play was kasay kicking the ball out of bounds and giving the pats the ball on the 40 with just over a minute left to play.

[joe]

Brad, I think Vrabel lined up as a TE, not an eligible tackle. Five down linemen + Brady, Vrabel, Seymore, Graham, Fauria, and a running back (Smith, or maybe Faulk). Do you know of any sites that give play be play to this level of detail?

[Brad S]

joe - you may be right. Still, as much as Brady does spread the ball around, Vrabel is not one of his primary targets.

And, I still say that you never go for two unless you absolutely have to, and I submit that you are never in a situation where you absolutely have to until the final five minutes of a game.

[joe]

Right on both counts. When Vrabel, Seymore and (earlier in the season) Klecko come in on offense, it's almost always a running play.

Can Seymore open up a hole or what?

[fyodor]

Brad S,

You're right. I didn't realize Carolina missed two conversions!

matt,

Apples and oranges. Kasay's kick may have been damn poor play at an inopportune time, but it's not analagous to a bad coaching decision because it wasn't intentional.

[Jason Ligon]

"Can Seymore open up a hole or what?"

Pickin' on Peppers. I keep hearing about the athlete he is, but he doesn't seem to have the size to keep from being pushed around on running plays.

Maybe he should be an OLB ...

[Jason Ligon]

The genious of Belichick was lost on the Dog Pound ...

[Andrew Lynch]

I have no idea what you people are talking about.

[p mac]

Ironically, the Pats did go for a two point conversion, for the first time all year. Up by 5 (or 1) with a few minutes to play, it's statistically the only time you should do it. And it worked. Pats go ahead 29-22.

[lis]

tattoo vorlagen - backrezepte kochrezepte kochen backen - graffiti zeichnen - horrorfilme index - bewerbung lebenslauf muster - die neuesten kinofilme - datensicherheit netzwerk - handylogos klingeltone - erotik filme - lachen witzig spruche witze - lustige video clips -