Can't We All Just Get Along?

All right, fine. K.L. wants it, and here it is--a response to the following:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/091120

First up:

"I am not disputing the numbers or the methods for achieving them. But by Monday night, based on various columns and message boards (as well as e-mails to my reader mailbox), you would have thought Belichick was a genius for blowing the game. He played the percentages! It wasn't as crazy as it looked! By this logic, Belichick also should have held a loaded pistol to his head on the sideline, spun the chamber and tried to shoot himself like Chris Walken in "The Deer Hunter." If those 1-in-6 odds came through and he succeeded, we could have said, 'Hey, he played the percentages: 83.6666 percent of the time, you don't die in that situation! You can't blame him for what happened!'"

Phew. I'm already out of energy. This analogy doesn't work. To his credit, Bill doesn't even really think it works. Or, alternatively: if allowed to coach an NFL team, Bill would scoff at moves that gave his team an 84% chance to win. Either way is fine with me, I guess.

"The "Belichick made the right move" argument was nearly as dense. In the biggest game of the regular season, when a football coach tries something that -- and this is coming from someone who watches 12 hours of football every Sunday dating back to elementary school -- I cannot remember another team doing on the road in the last three minutes of a close game, that's not "gutsy." It's not a "gamble." It's not "believing we can get that two yards." It's not "revolutionary." It's not "statistically smart." It's reckless."

Really, Bill? You can't remember it? Because, you know, there are some stats that actually compile all of the times these things have actually happened, and--Bill? Are you still listening? Bill?

(I get that he's saying that no one ever made that specific call before, which I don't doubt. But, kind of wrongheaded to say stats don't tell the whole story and use "I can't remember this ever happening" as your logic).

"So we're saying 55.7 percent, huh? That's the success rate for a road team playing its biggest rival, in a deafeningly loud dome, coming out of a timeout -- a timeout that allowed the defense to get a breather and determine exactly how to stop the obvious five-receiver spread that was coming because the offense's running game sucked -- along with that same defense getting extra fired up because it was being disrespected so egregiously/willfully/blatantly/incomprehensibly. I say lower. By a lot.

Statistics can't capture the uniqueness of a particular moment, and in this case -- with the Pats self-combusting, with a sure victory suddenly slipping away, with the crowd going bonkers, with a fired-up defense gearing up to stop them, with an obvious play looming (a short pass), and with everything happening during a drive that was already so disjointed that they had called two timeouts -- I find it really, really, REALLY hard to believe they would have completed that play 56 times out of 100 times with how they lined up."

Bill is saying, basically, that the context overrides the statistics. A very reasonable argument--but I disagree with his context. Here are his argument:

-The Pats were playing their biggest rival: So were the Colts.

-The Pats were on the road: That's true. That also matters about 1%.

-Deafeningly loud dome: Not so sure about that one.

-Coming out of a timeout: Ehhh. Both teams got a breather. It's a wash.

-Obvious/bad formation: True. But we're talking about going for it or not (at least I am), not how best to get those two yards.

Not mentioned: how depleted the Pats' D was, how Tom Brady is more likely to get two yards than the average QB.

So, no: stats don't tell the whole story. But how convinced are you by the reasons to ignore the stats and punt? I'm not very.

"One other note: The "disrespecting the defense" card doesn't show up in stats. There's no way to measure the collective ability of a defense to raise its game for one play, as the fans shout the team on with every ounce of air in their lungs, while being fueled by a legitimately mind-blowing slight. In postgame interviews, four Colts defensive starters mentioned the words "disrespect" or "disrespected." And they were. We cannot account for this variable."

I'll factor it into my recap of how horribly the Pats' D played following this shocking slight.

"The Colts brought pressure -- happily -- ensuring a quick pass and a short field (so Indy's D-backs could hug the line of scrimmage). Given these realities, if you're feeding me "Here's what happened in this situation historically" numbers, shouldn't we be looking at the data for two-point conversions?

After all, this was essentially a two-point pass play."

I kind of see the point, but I really don't think so. Defenses always bring pressure on 4th-and-2. The Pats had the option, theoretically, to go for more than two yards, and the Colts had to defend against that, which makes this different from a 2-point conversion. What it is, exactly, is a 4th-and-2. So, why don't we just use those numbers?

"Insane Angle No. 2: "If they punted, Manning would have rolled down the field and scored, anyway." Really? That's what would have happened? He would have needed something between 65 and 72 yards, with one timeout and no help from a two-minute warning, against a relatively rested New England defense that was thin in the front four. The Colts had run only 22 plays in the second half; the Patriots had run 37. It's true. And it's not as though Indy's passing game had been lighting it up. The young guys flubbed a few relatively easy catches during the game; on their drive to cut the lead from 34-21 to 34-28, the biggest play was a dubious 31-yard pass interference penalty. Of their previous seven drives, two ended in interceptions and three in punts, and two were six-play, 79-yard drives for touchdowns."

I've said it before and I've said it again: to disagree with what's happened in games in the past, you'd need a reason why, SPECIFICALLY, the difference between Manning and an average QB would be exaggerated by a short field and downplayed by a long one. This doesn't address that point--if Bill thinks the Colts offense was so "dubious," they would have been equally so after taking over on downs in Pats territory. Bill was wrong, as it turns out--they scored easily, and so it seems likely they would have either way.

"But Indy had already started and completed two long touchdown drives in the fourth quarter against a good defense. Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005. Here's how the list looked before that fourth-and-2 call.

2005: 1

2006: 2

2007: 0

2008: 1

2009: 0

In 78 weeks of football dating back to 2005, it happened a whopping four times. Four!"

Hey, Bill? Remember when you said, like, four paragraphs ago that you can't remember another coach making a similar decision on 4th-and-2? The point is, things you can't remember ever happening before happen quite a bit. Maybe, instead of Bill Simmons's trusty ol' noggin, we could actually look at everything that's ever happened in every game, to see how things typically shake out. With some kind of stat, or something. Just saying.

Insane Angle No. 3: "I thought we could get the 2 yards."

Bill refutes this "insane angle" with a story about how he once tried to weasel out of a speeding ticket by talking about basketball. So, not going to delve too far into that one. Read it, though--it's good fun.

Insane Angle No. 4: "The Pats acted like men! They went for the kill! Had they converted that, they would have made a strong statement to everyone that they were back on top and everything was right with the world!"

Stupid. Last time I checked, winning makes the strongest statement. As the great Herm Edwards once said, "You play to win the game. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" That's really it. The Patriots dominated that entire game, played better football and deserved to win. And they lost.

1. Insane Angle No. 4 is a stupid argument, is anyone really saying that? 2. Aren't playing to win the game and doing whatever makes you most likely to win the same thing? 3. Don't get me STARTED on the list of reasons they lost that are more to blame than 4th down. For example: 3rd down.

"Insane Angle No. 5: "The decision might not have worked out, but it came from a well-thought-out place."

No, it didn't."

We're going to end on this note, and it's not a nice note to end on. I don't get this at all. I don't think everyone has to agree with me; I'd settle for people at least admitting there are two sides to the issue. There's no rationale for going for it? Really? None at all? Bill? Bill?