In an article in today's WSJ, the writers focus on the question of whether or not Bill Belichick's decision to punt on Sunday night (a decision that ultimately led to the Patriot's 35-34 loss to the Colts) was the right decision. To give this topic a more interesting slant than the usual Monday morning quarterback diatribes, they dig into the statistics of the situation. Here's an excerpt:
The truth depends of course on how you slice the numbers. Brian Burke, a statistician who has studied the results of fourth-down situations in the NFL, says a team in the Patriot's situation had a 79% chance of winning by going for it (either by converting the 4th-and-2 or stopping the opponent thereafter). That compares favorably to a 70% probability of preventing a foe from driving down the field for a touchdown following a punt.
Above all, though, the essence of Mr. Belichick's "crime" may be something simpler than all this: His decision went against the natural instincts of all human beings when they're forced to make high-stakes decisions. In a recent study, researchers found that when faced with a decision involving risk, people have an overwhelming tendency to make the supposedly safe choice - to err on the side of caution - even though doing so may lead to worse results.
At issue, it seems, is the very idea of what constitutes gambling. If going for it gave the Patriots a statistically better chance of winning - and if aggressive deviations are often better than passive ones - then the gamble would have been to punt, even though that was the seemingly safe play.
Special thanks to Demetrios Frangos for showing me this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment