Super Bowl XLIX - Seahawks v. Patriots

[tifosi77]

Does Warner throwing the pick six to Harrison count?

I wouldn't count it as dumb. Harrison made a great play by faking the blitz and baiting the throw. By rights, that should have only been a 3-7 pt swing in the game. The fact that it was returned for a TD (making it between a 10-14 pt swing) was and remains one of the most bonkers things I've ever seen in sports.

[shmenguin]

It's just basic game theory; make your opponent's reactions more predictable using the unpredictability of your own actions.

here's basic game theory...

the chances of seattle scoring is much higher than 50% regardless of what we do. therefore it is my responsibility to try to give us the opportunity to tie the game. any other approach isn't basic. it's just irrational.

there's probably about a 1% chance of an interception there. so lets say the way way way most common thing happens and it's just incomplete (or a TD, but ok). now what we have is belichick's master plan resulting in a 3rd and goal from the 1, with seattle being able to rush lynch twice. so where are we? seattle still has a higher than 50% chance of winning, and he ensured that there's no chance of his team coming back.

[tifosi77]

SEA may have better than a 50% chance of winning, but if the odds of stopping a score are better than the odds of giving Brady the opportunity to gain 40 yards in 20 seconds then it's not really a complicated decision. Clearly, Belichick thought his best chance of winning the game was preventing SEA from scoring.

[shmenguin]

SEA may have better than a 50% chance of winning, but if the odds of stopping a score are better than the odds of giving Brady the opportunity to gain 40 yards in 20 seconds then it's not really a complicated decision. Clearly, Belichick thought his best chance of winning the game was preventing SEA from scoring.

that's a laughably marginal advantage here for the defense, despite the outcome.

at best, he potentially influenced the outcome of ONE play out of 3 from the one yard line, while forfeiting his ability to try to go back on offense. one play. and then seattle has 2 more to do whatever they wanted. so he gets his stop on that one play, and seattle ends up scoring on 3rd and goal or 4th and goal (the likely outcome). what does his game theory look like then?

[tifosi77]

Someone with better math skills than me needs to answer that. A 46% chance on each of three plays works out to what total probability for completing a goal line stand? (I don't know if that 46% chance is the right number, just using it for the argument) If that aggregate probability is greater than the probability of Brady gaining at least 40 yds in 20 seconds, then that's what you roll with.

The Pats were terrible on goal line defense this year, I do know that. But I have a hard time believing that one of the greatest sports coaches of my lifetime suddenly became stupid.

[mikey287]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

[Rocco]

Someone with better math skills than me needs to answer that. A 46% chance on each of three plays works out to what total probability for completing a goal line stand? (I don't know if that 46% chance is the right number, just using it for the argument) If that aggregate probability is greater than the probability of Brady gaining at least 40 yds in 20 seconds, then that's what you roll with.

The Pats were terrible on goal line defense this year, I do know that. But I have a hard time believing that one of the greatest sports coaches of my lifetime suddenly became stupid.

Benjamin Morris already ran the math:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-h ... e-carroll/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried posting an image of the chart but it cuts it off and if there's any way to resize images on the board I don't know how. Not taking the timeout lowered their chances of winning because Seattle's likely to score there. That it worked out doesn't make it a good decision.

[Troy Loney]

I'm convinced. The Brady led Patriots win despite Belicheck.

[count2infinity]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

but the clock can, thus why the seahawks had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. they chose 2nd, and didn't get a 3rd.

[shmenguin]

let's say there's a 50% chance of scoring on each individual 1 yard rush from lynch...

-with 3 running plays, there's an 87.5% chance one will go in.
-with two running plays, there's a 75% chance one will go in. add a say...15% chance of that pass play working, and you're looking at a very negligible difference with belichik's actions. even if that passing play was 0%

and evem if 50% is actually 40%, it's pretty similar

[tifosi77]

And they only had to throw because NE didn't take a timeout.

What is not being talked about much is how poor SEA/Wilson was at clock management in the final 2 minutes. Didn't they burn the two timeouts they used when the clock was already stopped? (After an incompletion and after a player ran out of bounds.)

[shmenguin]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

but the clock can, thus why the seahawks had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. they chose 2nd, and didn't get a 3rd.

the clock still gave them 2 runs. and even with just 2 runs, the success rate (both in a vacuum and adjusted for each team's abilities) shows that it was temporary stupidity or just being slack jawed after the kearse catch from belichick

[shmenguin]

And they only had to throw because NE didn't take a timeout.

yes...which didn't move the needle on the probabilities of them scoring. all it did was ensure that NE wouldn't score.

...ignoring the fact that it led to the deciding interception

[MWB]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

but the clock can, thus why the seahawks had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. they chose 2nd, and didn't get a 3rd.

They had plenty of time to run as much as they wanted. Didn't have to throw.

[Rocco]

And they only had to throw because NE didn't take a timeout.

What is not being talked about much is how poor SEA/Wilson was at clock management in the final 2 minutes. Didn't they burn the two timeouts they used when the clock was already stopped? (After an incompletion and after a player ran out of bounds.)

They technically didn't have to throw. If they run there, they have to throw on 3rd, assuming there is a 3rd down. If the goal was to waste a play and score on 3rd or 4th down (as Carroll indicated) then spike the ball so there's no risk of a turnover.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

they wasted so much time between first and second down, they really didn't have to throw.

[shmenguin]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

but the clock can, thus why the seahawks had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. they chose 2nd, and didn't get a 3rd.

They had plenty of time to run as much as they wanted. Didn't have to throw.

they pretty much had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. unless this...what do you think happens if they run on 2nd down and then hurry up to the line again to do a quick QB sneak. if it doesn't work, use your timeout and get one last rush in.

i bet, if wilson lines up for a sneak, coach genius snaps out of his coma and uses one of his timeouts there.

[tifosi77]

And they only had to throw because NE didn't take a timeout.

What is not being talked about much is how poor SEA/Wilson was at clock management in the final 2 minutes. Didn't they burn the two timeouts they used when the clock was already stopped? (After an incompletion and after a player ran out of bounds.)

They technically didn't have to throw. If they run there, they have to throw on 3rd, assuming there is a 3rd down. If the goal was to waste a play and score on 3rd or 4th down (as Carroll indicated) then spike the ball so there's no risk of a turnover.

I meant they were in a position where, barring a score, they had to throw on one of those downs, not on that specific down. The option to run the ball three times was no longer on the table.

[tifosi77]

let's say there's a 50% chance of scoring on each individual 1 yard rush from lynch...

-with 3 running plays, there's an 87.5% chance one will go in.
-with two running plays, there's a 75% chance one will go in. add a say...15% chance of that pass play working, and you're looking at a very negligible difference with belichik's actions. even if that passing play was 0%

and evem if 50% is actually 40%, it's pretty similar

Now for the sake of argument, presume SEA runs on 2nd and they score. Ensuing kickoff is a touchback, Brady gets the ball on the 20 with 20 sec left. What is the probability of him gaining 45 yards in no more than 19 seconds to attempt a FG to tie? Remember, the Pats had four separate drives in the game that failed to gain that much yardage combined.

[MWB]

Marshawn Lynch was held to how many negative plays? Please, he's six foot tall and fell forward every time. He needed three feet. That's the math problem, and it's a problem for the Patriots. There's a ~0% you can stop that guy, in that spot, in that game, on three tries from that distance...

but the clock can, thus why the seahawks had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. they chose 2nd, and didn't get a 3rd.

They had plenty of time to run as much as they wanted. Didn't have to throw.

they pretty much had to throw on either 2nd or 3rd down. unless this...what do you think happens if they run on 2nd down and then hurry up to the line again to do a quick QB sneak. if it doesn't work, use your timeout and get one last rush in.

i bet, if wilson lines up for a sneak, coach genius snaps out of his coma and uses one of his timeouts there.

It was first down with 1:06 to go and there was a timeout. They could have had plays planned out and used their one timeout. They didn't have 26 seconds to run 3 plays, they had 66 seconds to run 4 plays.

[Rocco]

they wasted so much time between first and second down, they really didn't have to throw.

Wasting time wasn't a bad move.

[dodint]

let's say there's a 50% chance of scoring on each individual 1 yard rush from lynch...

-with 3 running plays, there's an 87.5% chance one will go in.
-with two running plays, there's a 75% chance one will go in. add a say...15% chance of that pass play working, and you're looking at a very negligible difference with belichik's actions. even if that passing play was 0%

and evem if 50% is actually 40%, it's pretty similar

Now for the sake of argument, presume SEA runs on 2nd and they score. Ensuing kickoff is a touchback, Brady gets the ball on the 20 with 20 sec left. What is the probability of him gaining 45 yards in no more than 19 seconds to attempt a FG to tie? Remember, the Pats had four separate drives in the game that failed to gain that much yardage combined.

Prevent defense, though.

[Rocco]

And they only had to throw because NE didn't take a timeout.

What is not being talked about much is how poor SEA/Wilson was at clock management in the final 2 minutes. Didn't they burn the two timeouts they used when the clock was already stopped? (After an incompletion and after a player ran out of bounds.)

They technically didn't have to throw. If they run there, they have to throw on 3rd, assuming there is a 3rd down. If the goal was to waste a play and score on 3rd or 4th down (as Carroll indicated) then spike the ball so there's no risk of a turnover.

I meant they were in a position where, barring a score, they had to throw on one of those downs, not on that specific down. The option to run the ball three times was no longer on the table.

That's assuming they have to run plays on all three downs. Score on 2nd down and the rest is moot. I don't think throwing was the worst call in the history of football but Seattle got caught playing the long game when there wasn't really any need to play the long game.

[shmenguin]

let's say there's a 50% chance of scoring on each individual 1 yard rush from lynch...

-with 3 running plays, there's an 87.5% chance one will go in.
-with two running plays, there's a 75% chance one will go in. add a say...15% chance of that pass play working, and you're looking at a very negligible difference with belichik's actions. even if that passing play was 0%

and evem if 50% is actually 40%, it's pretty similar

Now for the sake of argument, presume SEA runs on 2nd and they score. Ensuing kickoff is a touchback, Brady gets the ball on the 20 with 20 sec left. What is the probability of him gaining 45 yards in no more than 19 seconds to attempt a FG to tie? Remember, the Pats had four separate drives in the game that failed to gain that much yardage combined.

so in that scenario, belicheck probably gave his team probably like a 7-10% higher chance of stopping seattle.

ask every coach who ever coached in the NFL the following question..."it's the last minute of the super bowl and you can either have the ball back with 20 seconds left OR give the other team an 80% chance of scoring instead of an 87.5% chance of scoring. which do you take?". be honest and let me know how many would choose the latter. zero? less?

[count2infinity]

That's assuming they have to run plays on all three downs. Score on 2nd down and the rest is moot. I don't think throwing was the worst call in the history of football but Seattle got caught playing the long game when there wasn't really any need to play the long game.

this is pretty much my thought on the whole matter.