A post on something I've been thinking about since Sunday's win, and it has to do with perspective and the 'quality' of wins or losses. Sunday's last play is the Miami 'miracle', and sure enough, the odds on something like that working out in any given instant are most likely very low (I'm not a probability guy). As such, Miami's win is being considered a fluke win, and the Patriots' loss equally 'unlucky'. Of course, this isn't the first such game in NFL history - far from it. Nor is the idea of gauging the supposed quality of a result an uncommon occurrence. It's something a lot of us do all the time in order to get at what we believe is the 'true' nature of any given team or game, and it seems perfectly reasonable - based, I think, on the notion that the "best" team should win any given match and therefore when the "best" team loses there needs to be something to account for that. At this point I've decided it's nonsense - or at best - worthless. There's no such thing as a fluke win or loss except maybe in some very rare, bizarre cases (and maybe someone here can think of one). Let me explain. Miami's last play had a statistically low outcome. Fine. But what happened before all that? Brady had a great game we're told. Okay. Good. - So that means Miami hung with that great game. What about the rest of the Patriots? Did they have a great game? - Then Miami must have had one too, because the game was within one score most of the time. Or did the rest of the Patriots have a bad game? - Then that's their fault, and Miami did enough to take advantage. Either way, Miami played well enough to match up to New England for the entire game. Thus, it came down to one last play, one that the players had to go out and make happen. Did the Pats screw it up? Their fault. Belichick? His fault? Did Stills, Parker, Larsen, Drake and Tannehill ball? To their credit. One play. One win earned - on the back of the rest of the game. There was no fluke there. This wasn't a coin toss. It was grown men playing football, and on that day, they played the way they played and decided the outcome. Boom. Done. Miami beat New England. Fair and square, as they say. Had it been Brady on that final drive? Belichick calling that play? We all know what the headlines would have been. The media want to talk about New England? Fine. They've been more successful, it's normal. The point is, the win wasn't a fluke. It wasn't luck - at least, no more than any other given play. Probability is nice, but there are always assumptions you have to make. You have to say "all else being equal". And therein lies the problem. There are 22 men on a field, 22 minds, 22 bodies, tired as they may be. And the coaches too. 22 histories. In short, there are too many variables for probability to be locked in. Why did any given player make any given choice or reaction? How much of their life up to that point weighs in on the instant? Who know?! The answer doesn't matter, but the question is why we love sports. Because that invisible reality is what gives us incredible outcomes, and mundane ones too. Either way - it wasn't a fluke. It's just something we can't measure. Is Miami a better team than New England. Most would say not. The better question though, is, is one game a reasonable measure of that question? Should the better team always win? How much better? In what conditions? Here's the answer - no. The best team won't always win any given game. But the best team will win more games over time (all else being equal). So that brings us back to the adage - you are what your record says you are. And I think that works. Wins and losses aren't flukes, aren't luck. They happen for a reason. Your team's record is what it is for a reason. For many reasons. Forget "should have won" or "should have lost". The result happened for a reason. There's more than one way to win a game. You don't want to lose in the last seven seconds? Then put yourself ahead by a greater margin in all the seconds prior to those last seven. If you don't and you lose you lost because you were foolish and lazy. If you try and they stop you and you lose, you lost because you weren't good enough. It wasn't a fluke. You just lost. They won. End of story. Now go and learn something from it, and know that you will lose again. And you will win again. Because no-one, and nothing, is perfect. PS - As for discovering the 'true' nature of a team? Maybe you're looking for something that isn't there? Or maybe you're looking for something static when you should be thinking in terms of something fluid, something dynamic? The 'true' nature of a team sounds like a Platonic ideal, not a human reality. Isn't that why people go to support a team? Because we can backup and encourage a team? Because we can affect things? If there were such a thing as a 'true' nature, then perhaps it would always come out. I suspect that it's simply not human reality. The best we can do is to go back to a team's record. That is, at least, a record of what they were able to do, physically, mentally, emotionally, individually and together. It's the best measure we've got.
My opinion is this: You play 60 minutes. Nothing within that time frame counts as a fluke. It doesnt matter if you return the first kickoff or last kickoff for a TD it still counts as 7 points. Score the first play or last....same. The only reason teams dont try to gain yards on plays like those is the risk factor. If we ran that play the first down we had the ball we may also have scored who really knows. It took staying close the entire game to make that play happen. Im also a percentages type person and the play itself may contain some luck but we fought another 59+ minutes to get there.
We got very, very lucky. Everyone can see the very last play which obviously has low expectancy was fortuitous to say the least, but there were quite a few other times where the ball bounced our way. I think that the last two minutes, Bellichick fell asleep at the wheel. I think on third down, he should have called a play-action pass with the cerebral Brady. If his guy was open in the end zone, he should have put the dagger in our hearts and ended the game. If his man was covered, Brady should've been instructed to fall down, take the sack, and send out the FG unit. Essentially the same result but with the upside of ending the game yourself. I was shocked to see Bellichick lose his killer instinct. Gronk on special teams was completely absurd. Tannehill was hobbling around the entire second half. There was no chance that he was throwing the ball 75 yards in the air. Bellicheck should have known that a Hail Mary was not the play. Tom falling asleep at the wheel was another big unexpected moment. After a second blocked punt deep in Dolphins territory, he had to prioritize walking away with some points over getting a TD. Again, another instance of usually heady guys falling asleep at the wheel. Stephen Gostkowski, who is usually very reliable, missed an extra point and a 42 yard FG. Had he just made the FG, everything else that you have read about in my post would be completely irrelevant. If you really analyze our win MULTIPLE low probability events transpired, and each one by itself would have negated our win. I am happy. I am a realist. I am realistically happy.
You can say the same things in reverse though to an extent. Id say blocking two punts is also a highly improbable event for example.
Sorry, I call BS. If you look at my review of the game, we put ourselves in position to win when Gase punted on 4th and 3. Then Minkah held to keep 7 points off the board and the D held on the goal line. We EARNED that chance to win the game and not a single bit of it was given to us. If it was lucky for us to outrun the Pats on the last play of the game, then it was luck that Minkah was flagged for holding (I mean, he did hold.....but Drake also ran the ball into the end zone). We can't play it both ways- either we earned it or we didn't. The only real luck involved was Belichek putting Gronk in at safety- but was that luck or stupidity? I mean, why take a corner off the field that's trained at defending passes? That's on the Pats and they might have lost the game because of it. Plain and simple, Miami stood toe to toe with NE and beat them for a 6th time out of 7 match-ups outside of Gillette. Are we having a lucky decade against the NFL's top team? Or did we simply find yet another way to "spank that ***"? You already know my opinion on the matter.
And did you calculate all, or most, of the possible luck from which the Pats might have benefited? And did those things happen because of luck or was there a reason behind them? There's no such thing as luck. There's no theoretical, perfect, platonic game.
Also, with regards the decision to put Gronk on, one thing said by commentators on the night but I haven't heard any pundit address since, is that the Dolphins could have gone for a quick out and then a second passing attempt. Gase is known for liking a hurry up offense. It might have felt safer for him to just get Gronk on when he did. It's somewhat inconsistent to say Miami's play was an extreme rarity and then say Belichick should have seen it coming or prepared for it. It's more consistent to say that Belichick was aware of the possibility but correctly rated the chance of a runner getting to Gronk as slim. And if so, that sets the stage to make the 'miracle' possible, or more likely. We could even say it was a gutsy but wise move by Gase.
I guess it was lucky we also ran for almost 200 yards against them and put up 28 prior to that. Why is it when the Dolphins lose it's we suck for so many people and when we win it's just luck? Huge stop at the end of the 1/2. Leading for most of the game.
You're right. I just gotta ask, why don't we incorporate the ole hook and multiple laterals more often. Why base our entire offense around it. We are averaging something like 70 yards per play on it. Who knows, maybe all teams will start putting their TE at safety.
Who on Earth would say establishing a run game would be considered luck? The whole purpose behind running the ball is antithetical to luck. You are trying to string together a bunch of high probability plays in order to achieve sustained, low risk, low reward plays. If we ripped off three sixty yard run, and otherwise were virtually stopped at the line, that would be luck. If you look at the amount of depth and commitment that we have placed on the run, you could say that this has been a primary focus.
At this point, I’m trying to enjoy the win, be excited about being playoff relevant while reminding myself that they should have lost this game and we caught lightning in a bottle.
