Belichick made the right call
In life, you don't make decisions based purely on fear of the worst-case scenario.
But in sports, for some reason it's the conventional wisdom. It's only recently that we've started to see people who can look past that kind of thinking.
In baseball, if a guy strikes out at a record-setting pace, but easily is responsible for more total bases than a teammate who looks scrappy running out failed grounder after failed grounder, who do you think traditional baseball scouts fell in love with?
In basketball, if letting an opposing superstar torch your team while his teammates stand around seems to give you the best chance of winning, what do you think your fans will have to say about that?
Last night the worst case scenario happened, and it sucked to watch. But that's sports. Bill Belichick's job is to prepare his players and make decisions to put them in the best possible position to win. He does that better than anyone else in history.
How he arrived at the decision was simple:
1. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots offense of converting a 2 yard play, in the context of their performance last night?
2. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots defense of withstanding another Peyton march down the field, in the context of the other Colts drives in that last quarter, let alone Colts end-of-game drives in recent history?
If you're being at all objective about it, the answers speak for themselves. In fact, it's not even that close.
Is it fair to criticize that particular play call on 4th and 2, throwing a 2 yard pass into essentially a goal-line defensive package? Absolutely.
The general decision though? Not crazy.
What if Belichick had followed the conventional wisdom in this scenario? He punts to the Colts and there's a very good chance, certainly greater than a coin flip, that they march down the field and score with no time left. Only no one would say Belichick lost the game; in fact, the thought wouldn't cross anybody's mind because he did what was expected.
Instead, he went with the scenario with a higher probability of success. Knowing full well he'd potentially be skewered for the following week, and likely the rest of his career to some extent.
He also can't fully explain himself, because he's not the type of coach who would say something perceived to throw his players under the bus (even if it's the logical conclusion). He would never say something like, "I didn't have as much trust in our defense to stop a 70 yard drive."
Belichick doesn't shy away from assigning blame to the coaching staff when it's due. He has stopped short of that so far this week and I hope it continues, because there was no mistake made.
We are fans; sports journalists are largely fans with a mouthpiece. Fans hate seeing the worst case scenario. Good coaches, visionary coaches, don't let that scare them.
If a gut-wrenching loss to the Colts in Week 10 is the price to pay for a coach whose instincts give him the edge 99 times out of 100, I'll take it every time and twice on Sundays.
But in sports, for some reason it's the conventional wisdom. It's only recently that we've started to see people who can look past that kind of thinking.
In baseball, if a guy strikes out at a record-setting pace, but easily is responsible for more total bases than a teammate who looks scrappy running out failed grounder after failed grounder, who do you think traditional baseball scouts fell in love with?
In basketball, if letting an opposing superstar torch your team while his teammates stand around seems to give you the best chance of winning, what do you think your fans will have to say about that?
Last night the worst case scenario happened, and it sucked to watch. But that's sports. Bill Belichick's job is to prepare his players and make decisions to put them in the best possible position to win. He does that better than anyone else in history.
How he arrived at the decision was simple:
1. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots offense of converting a 2 yard play, in the context of their performance last night?
2. What percentage chance would you assign the Patriots defense of withstanding another Peyton march down the field, in the context of the other Colts drives in that last quarter, let alone Colts end-of-game drives in recent history?
If you're being at all objective about it, the answers speak for themselves. In fact, it's not even that close.
Is it fair to criticize that particular play call on 4th and 2, throwing a 2 yard pass into essentially a goal-line defensive package? Absolutely.
The general decision though? Not crazy.
What if Belichick had followed the conventional wisdom in this scenario? He punts to the Colts and there's a very good chance, certainly greater than a coin flip, that they march down the field and score with no time left. Only no one would say Belichick lost the game; in fact, the thought wouldn't cross anybody's mind because he did what was expected.
Instead, he went with the scenario with a higher probability of success. Knowing full well he'd potentially be skewered for the following week, and likely the rest of his career to some extent.
He also can't fully explain himself, because he's not the type of coach who would say something perceived to throw his players under the bus (even if it's the logical conclusion). He would never say something like, "I didn't have as much trust in our defense to stop a 70 yard drive."
Belichick doesn't shy away from assigning blame to the coaching staff when it's due. He has stopped short of that so far this week and I hope it continues, because there was no mistake made.
We are fans; sports journalists are largely fans with a mouthpiece. Fans hate seeing the worst case scenario. Good coaches, visionary coaches, don't let that scare them.
If a gut-wrenching loss to the Colts in Week 10 is the price to pay for a coach whose instincts give him the edge 99 times out of 100, I'll take it every time and twice on Sundays.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
