The Problem with Discussing the 4th and 2 Play

**Filmstudy** · 11-16-2009, 07:33 PM

Watching the ESPN guys (Ditka, Keyshawn, Carter, Jackson) beat each other silly over going for it on 4th and 2, one thing is clear. Players, coaches, and most fans are completely pigheaded with regard to their point of view.

Most players (all but Carter on ESPN) believe it was wrong to go, but they point to the impact on the defense going forward and not the win probability for the game. If you want to make a mathematical argument to these folks, you can't, because to do so is demeaning them. Ditka in particular, came across as an arrogant fool in the discussion.

It can be easily demonstrated mathematically that it was the proper call and Advanced Football Statistics as well as other sites have done some good analysis to that effect. Being an actuary, I'm solidly in the math camp, but I'd also acknowledge that anyone who is interested in the probability is going to be intolerant of arguments as to:
1. How it will impact the defense of the Patriots going forward
2. How you have destroyed the psyche of your team and may create an us vs. them situation in the locker room
3. How the coach will lose his players going forward
In fact, I believe these things are real risks, but I still say the increased win probability, which I think might have been 14%, not the 9% I've seen quoted elsewhere, is well worth the other risks involved. I also believe that BB should be able to sell his defensive players on exactly that fact.

The other discussion was about Jones-Drew kneeling at the 1. As one might predict, the same players were opposed, but the decision comes down to this. Would you rather:
1. Have a 98% (actually, XPs were 99.5% successful in 2008) chance to make a game-winning kick on the games final play or
2. Lead by either 5 or 7 and give a rookie QB the chance to score a TD against your defense.

Set your own probability for the Jets winning had Drew scored, I'd submit it's a lot higher than 2%.

And every single person who just read this and agrees with me already felt that way when they began.

**JimZipCode** · 11-17-2009, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Filmstudy

If you want to make a mathematical argument to these folks, you can't, because to do so is demeaning them
...
anyone who is interested in the probability is going to be intolerant of arguments as to:
1. How it will impact the defense of the Patriots going forward
2. How you have destroyed the psyche of your team and may create an us vs. them situation in the locker room
3. How the coach will lose his players going forward
In fact, I believe these things are real risks

There are places in the league where that could be a real risk. I can't for a single second believe that New England is one of those places.

Even more than most coaches, Belichick is a cold son of bitch who will cut you from the roster the instant you lose half a step. Every player on that team knows it. They know that the only thing, the ONLY thing Belichick cares about at all, is giving himself a greater chance to win the next football game. He doesn't care what they think, he doesn't care if they love him, he doesn't care what the rest of the league thinks, he just does not care.

Seriously, does anyone think Belichick is going to lose the Patriots? It's absurd.

**WxKevin** · 11-17-2009, 07:33 AM

I was waiting for ESPN to go to their Janitors for analysis.

I am so glad I only "saw" the pregame show and didn't hear it.

**Mr. Mojo Rizon** · 11-17-2009, 07:45 AM

The only math that matters is the final score, PERIOD!

END OF STORY!

Does your math account for Peyton Manning on the other side of the ball Filmstudy?

I do agree that ESPN employs a collection of knuckleheads, especially Ditka whose tough guy, blowhard rap wore out for me oh, the day he was hired by ESPN.

**JimZipCode** · 11-17-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by JimZipCode

Even more than most coaches, Belichick is a cold son of bitch who will cut you from the roster the instant you lose half a step. Every player on that team knows it. They know that the only thing, the ONLY thing Belichick cares about at all, is giving himself a greater chance to win the next football game. He doesn't care what they think, he doesn't care if they love him, he doesn't care what the rest of the league thinks, he just does not care.

SI's Joe Posnanski puts this better than I did:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ick/index.html

**Jeremiah W** · 11-17-2009, 09:28 AM

I doubt Bill B has any trouble motivating his defense. He played the percentages and lost anyway, but it was a gamble he could afford to make.

If it was a poker game, it was like he had ace king suited, hit top pair on the flop vs a pocket pair short stack who went all in. It was a good gamble becaue there was more to win than there was to lose. It was for all of Indy's chips not his, and he was a favorite.

**BlackSunday** · 11-17-2009, 10:11 AM

I haven't reviewed the whole sequence, but the 4th and 2 call seems to be the wrong place to criticize the Pats. IIRC, didn't the Pats pass on 3rd and 2, stopping the clock? And, for that matter, what about the timeouts they took during their drive?

The 4th and 2 itself was a good call, IMHO. The clock management beforehand, however, may have been a bit suspect.

BS

**Ravenswarrior19** · 11-17-2009, 11:17 AM

I agree with Belichick's decision, and it doesn't really have much to do with statistics.

Peyton is the game's best player. Peyton in that 4th quarter was playing at a level practically unmatched in history. Peyton has been burning teams at the end of games consistently for the last 4 years (Patriots included).

Belichick has an opportunity to win outright, while completely removing the game's most dynamic player from the equation.

Oh, and he has Tom Brady, Moss, Welker, and Kevin Faulk (a veteran who has been a poised role player in similar pressure situation).

I love that he had the stones initiate the endgame.
(I also love that it blew up in his face, because I still hate him)

**NC Raven** · 11-17-2009, 11:33 AM

If Faulk gets the first down, everybody would say Beilchick's a genius and the paradee of ESPN fake-outrage would have been almost zero. Trent Dilfer would have hailed it as a "brilliant" strategy. Mike Ditka would have pointed out that he, like Belichik, knows what it takes to win a Super Bowl and Super Bowl winners have to have big balls and take big risks, and that's what they get paid for and that's why they make the big bucks, and it was a big call by a big coach. Ditka MIGHT have allowed that MAYBE he wouldn't have made the same call, but he would have reiterated that Belichik is a great coach. If the play had worked, maybe only one guy on ESPN would have gone on and disagreed with it to any significant degree.

Since it didn't work, only Cris Carter stood up to agree with it. Everybody else piled on like the hindsight-is-20-20 chumps they pathetically are.

Meanwhile..... in Jacksonville, MJD takes a knee instead of scoring. Now imagine there's a bad snap on the kick, or the holder fumbles (a -la Tony Romo in the playoffs against Seattle a couple years ago) or the kicker shanks the kick or the kick gets blocked (we saw both of those happen last night in the Clowns game). All those same guys on ESPN would have just taken their material and changed the name from Belichik to Jack Del Rio. And they would have blasted Del Rio as the dumbest coach in the history of organized human activity.

Since it worked, I have yet to hear one talking head criticize it. IMO it was massively stupid, and when you can get 6 points you take them. There is no way in hell I'd worry about Mark Sanchez and the Jets driving the field for a last minute TD. Against ANYBODY.

Plus, Jacksonville could have gone for 2 and put themselves up 7 to remove the possibility of losing on a TD. It might not have worked, but I'd rather do that than risk a screwup on a kick. Again... given that THEY HAD A TD AND JUST DIDN'T TAKE IT!!!!

That to me is far stupider than taking a "one play for 2 yards wins it" approach. Espeically given that the QB on the other side is a near-lock to drive his team downfield and score. And I liked them leaving him a short field -- less time to get in rhythm, and more defenders in a short space. It's always harder to pass in the red zone than elsewhere on the field, and the Pats D essentially proved the point -- if they're so **** ing great, then why couldn't they keep the Colts from going 26 yards for a TD? Why should anyone think that tacking on an extra 35 (estimated net following the punt) would make a real difference? Manning would have gotten those 35 yards back in 2 plays.

**psuasskicker** · 11-17-2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo Rizon

The only math that matters is the final score, PERIOD!

END OF STORY!

No it's not! Not even close! It's actually the worst possible way to think about a decision!

If you go jump off a bridge and happen to survive and wash ashore next to a giant trunk filled with money, did you make the right decision jumping off the bridge?

Results oriented thinking is a TERRIBLE way to think about whether a correct decision was made or not.

- C -

**Dave Lap** · 11-17-2009, 12:15 PM

I think that the strategy of going for it on 4th has shifted a bit towards the positive since the NFL continues to make rule changes that allow receivers more space. Last week a large number of QB's passed for over 300 yards.

More and more it seems that the last team with the ball in a close game comes out on top, or at least comes very close to making a game winning drive.

Trying to hold on to the ball on offense by going for it on fourth down has become a slightly more effective strategy these days.

Having said that, I still would have punted in the Pats Colts game due to field position.

**JimZipCode** · 11-17-2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswarrior19

I love that he had the stones initiate the endgame.
(I also love that it blew up in his face, because I still hate him)

This.

**jonboy79** · 11-17-2009, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by NC Raven

If Faulk gets the first down, everybody would say Beilchick's a genius and the paradee of ESPN fake-outrage would have been almost zero. Trent Dilfer would have hailed it as a "brilliant" strategy. Mike Ditka would have pointed out that he, like Belichik, knows what it takes to win a Super Bowl and Super Bowl winners have to have big balls and take big risks, and that's what they get paid for and that's why they make the big bucks, and it was a big call by a big coach. Ditka MIGHT have allowed that MAYBE he wouldn't have made the same call, but he would have reiterated that Belichik is a great coach. If the play had worked, maybe only one guy on ESPN would have gone on and disagreed with it to any significant degree.

Since it didn't work, only Cris Carter stood up to agree with it. Everybody else piled on like the hindsight-is-20-20 chumps they pathetically are.

Meanwhile..... in Jacksonville, MJD takes a knee instead of scoring. Now imagine there's a bad snap on the kick, or the holder fumbles (a -la Tony Romo in the playoffs against Seattle a couple years ago) or the kicker shanks the kick or the kick gets blocked (we saw both of those happen last night in the Clowns game). All those same guys on ESPN would have just taken their material and changed the name from Belichik to Jack Del Rio. And they would have blasted Del Rio as the dumbest coach in the history of organized human activity.

Since it worked, I have yet to hear one talking head criticize it. IMO it was massively stupid, and when you can get 6 points you take them. There is no way in hell I'd worry about Mark Sanchez and the Jets driving the field for a last minute TD. Against ANYBODY.

Plus, Jacksonville could have gone for 2 and put themselves up 7 to remove the possibility of losing on a TD. It might not have worked, but I'd rather do that than risk a screwup on a kick. Again... given that THEY HAD A TD AND JUST DIDN'T TAKE IT!!!!

That to me is far stupider than taking a "one play for 2 yards wins it" approach. Espeically given that the QB on the other side is a near-lock to drive his team downfield and score. And I liked them leaving him a short field -- less time to get in rhythm, and more defenders in a short space. It's always harder to pass in the red zone than elsewhere on the field, and the Pats D essentially proved the point -- if they're so **** ing great, then why couldn't they keep the Colts from going 26 yards for a TD? Why should anyone think that tacking on an extra 35 (estimated net following the punt) would make a real difference? Manning would have gotten those 35 yards back in 2 plays.

Selective viewing? Ditka was harder on MJD then Bellichek... almost the exact same people that didn't like Bellicheat's decisions lambasted MJD as well..

So there goes your whole point.
It was conventional wisdom vs Math. Conventional wisdom says you don't take points off the board when you are losing, and you make it as hard for yoru opponent to score as possible when you are ahead. I agree with conventional wisdom on both accounts. You punt that ball and you score that TD.

**Filmstudy** · 11-17-2009, 06:43 PM

Mojo,

Here are the key assumptions as I set them:

Probability of Pats making the 1st down = 55%
Probability of Colts scoring from approximately 28 yards = 80%
Probability of Colts scoring from approximately 65 yards = 50%

I know many of you folks know the formula here, but with the assumption that the next drive is the last, the probability of winning under either decision is thus:

Win probability with Punt: 1 - Prob(Colts 65-yard drive) = 1 - .5 = .5 = 50%

Win Probability with Going for it: Probability of making the 1st down + (1 - Probability of making the 1st down) * (1 - Probability of the Colts scoring from 28 yards) = .55 + (1 - .55) * (1 - .8) = .64 = 64%

So, I'd say Belichek's decision increased the Pats chance to win from 50% to 64%.

Substitute whatever probabilities you like for those 3 key parameters and you can create 2 win probabilities to compare. Or simply post them and I'll calculate any combination you like unless psuasskicker beats me to it.

There is actually a missing probability element favoring the Patriots under either scenario and that is what we refer to as "having redraws" in poker. Since the Colts needed a TD to take the lead and you can't often time that to the exact second like a FG, the Patriots could have had a shot to drive for a FG with some time on the clock. That exact scenario would have emerged had Addai scored the TD with over 1:00 left. I am intentionally leaving out that advantage, which is greater with a shorter field, for purposes of these calcs.

So please have at it and give any 3 probabilities you'd assign to those events.

**Galen Sevinne** · 11-17-2009, 07:25 PM

There is no question Belichick went with the higher success probability. I am curious to see if the "Belichick Experiment" leads to an increase in 4th down attempts?

I have been engaged in long standing debate that it is clear an NFL offense would be more successful if it approached every drive with the mentality that it had 4 downs to get the 10 yards. The unknown for me is the impact that it would have on the defense factoring in the advantage that the punt net yardage would provide to the defense. I think the average is somewhere in the mid 30's.

I would love to see a team take the 4 down approach, can the punter and see how it factors out when you take the mid 30 yard net gain away from the defense after an unsuccessful drive. Cleveland would have had an optimal time last night to try it without Zastidul (sp?) playing and considering their season is over anyway.

The way the NFL is trending right now it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen one of these days.

**4G63** · 11-17-2009, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

There is no question Belichick went with the higher success probability. I am curious to see if the "Belichick Experiment" leads to an increase in 4th down attempts?

I have been engaged in long standing debate that it is clear an NFL offense would be more successful if it approached every drive with the mentality that it had 4 downs to get the 10 yards. The unknown for me is the impact that it would have on the defense factoring in the advantage that the punt net yardage would provide to the defense. I think the average is somewhere in the mid 30's.

I would love to see a team take the 4 down approach, can the punter and see how it factors out when you take the mid 30 yard net gain away from the defense after an unsuccessful drive. Cleveland would have had an optimal time last night to try it without Zastidul (sp?) playing and considering their season is over anyway.

The way the NFL is trending right now it wouldn't surprise me to see it happen one of these days.

It doesn't happen because coaches are worried about the backlash they'd get from fans and the media. The reason it wasn't as bad was because its Belichick and he's "earned" the right to take a chance and fail.

Back to your point: The odds are in the offenses favor, as long as you have a good offense....and your likelihood of winning goes up bigtime. I don't like the "canning the punter" as they should be utilized when you're within your own 35yd line.

**Filmstudy** · 11-17-2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by NC Raven

If Faulk gets the first down, everybody would say Beilchick's a genius and the paradee of ESPN fake-outrage would have been almost zero. Trent Dilfer would have hailed it as a "brilliant" strategy. Mike Ditka would have pointed out that he, like Belichik, knows what it takes to win a Super Bowl and Super Bowl winners have to have big balls and take big risks, and that's what they get paid for and that's why they make the big bucks, and it was a big call by a big coach. Ditka MIGHT have allowed that MAYBE he wouldn't have made the same call, but he would have reiterated that Belichik is a great coach. If the play had worked, maybe only one guy on ESPN would have gone on and disagreed with it to any significant degree.

Since it didn't work, only Cris Carter stood up to agree with it. Everybody else piled on like the hindsight-is-20-20 chumps they pathetically are.

Meanwhile..... in Jacksonville, MJD takes a knee instead of scoring. Now imagine there's a bad snap on the kick, or the holder fumbles (a -la Tony Romo in the playoffs against Seattle a couple years ago) or the kicker shanks the kick or the kick gets blocked (we saw both of those happen last night in the Clowns game). All those same guys on ESPN would have just taken their material and changed the name from Belichik to Jack Del Rio. And they would have blasted Del Rio as the dumbest coach in the history of organized human activity.

Since it worked, I have yet to hear one talking head criticize it. IMO it was massively stupid, and when you can get 6 points you take them. There is no way in hell I'd worry about Mark Sanchez and the Jets driving the field for a last minute TD. Against ANYBODY.

Plus, Jacksonville could have gone for 2 and put themselves up 7 to remove the possibility of losing on a TD. It might not have worked, but I'd rather do that than risk a screwup on a kick. Again... given that THEY HAD A TD AND JUST DIDN'T TAKE IT!!!!

That to me is far stupider than taking a "one play for 2 yards wins it" approach. Espeically given that the QB on the other side is a near-lock to drive his team downfield and score. And I liked them leaving him a short field -- less time to get in rhythm, and more defenders in a short space. It's always harder to pass in the red zone than elsewhere on the field, and the Pats D essentially proved the point -- if they're so **** ing great, then why couldn't they keep the Colts from going 26 yards for a TD? Why should anyone think that tacking on an extra 35 (estimated net following the punt) would make a real difference? Manning would have gotten those 35 yards back in 2 plays.

NC,

The question I have for you:

If MJD and the Jags were so stupid for wanting to kneel out the clock and try the FG, why were the Jets so obviously attempting to let him score?

It's so obvious that the announcers were commenting on it in real time and MJD is lucky he did not take a punishing hit in the back to try to push him in.

**RavensDomination** · 11-18-2009, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswarrior19

I agree with Belichick's decision, and it doesn't really have much to do with statistics.

Peyton is the game's best player. Peyton in that 4th quarter was playing at a level practically unmatched in history. Peyton has been burning teams at the end of games consistently for the last 4 years (Patriots included).

Belichick has an opportunity to win outright, while completely removing the game's most dynamic player from the equation.

Oh, and he has Tom Brady, Moss, Welker, and Kevin Faulk (a veteran who has been a poised role player in similar pressure situation).

I love that he had the stones initiate the endgame.
(I also love that it blew up in his face, because I still hate him)

I agree with all of this. It made sense to go for it. And for the record, I thought the call was horrible, he got the first down. Of course Mike Pereira defended the call, no surprise there.

**highwater** · 11-18-2009, 06:15 AM

What has been often overlooked in this discussion is the play call itself -- not the decision to go for it, but the actual play that they ran. If you have a fourth and two, and decide to throw, shouldn't you throw more than two yards past the line of scrimmage? They completed the pass and still didn't make the first down! And yes, I thought the spot was poor, but don't let it up to the refs in a situation like that, just run a play designed to get more than two yards.

**RavensDomination** · 11-18-2009, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by highwater

What has been often overlooked in this discussion is the play call itself -- not the decision to go for it, but the actual play that they ran. If you have a fourth and two, and decide to throw, shouldn't you throw more than two yards past the line of scrimmage? They completed the pass and still didn't make the first down! And yes, I thought the spot was poor, but don't let it up to the refs in a situation like that, just run a play designed to get more than two yards.

The Colts blitzed them. If Brady had waited another split second he wouldn't have gotten the ball out of his hands. Not to mention on NFLN they showed Welker was wide open after running a slant over the middle. Brady just went with the easier target I guess.