Mathematical illiteracy

Colts 35 Patriots 34

Score was Patriots 34 Colts 28 with slightly less than 2 minutes to go. Patriots have the ball on their own 28 and are on 4th down with 2 to go. They go for it, don't make it, the Colts take over and then score to win the game.

It seemed like a gamble and my first thought was that their chances would have been better punting - but given that man who made the decision was a professional football coach (and considered one of the smartest) I figured that there may be more to the story. There may be a reason. The reason was not hard to find:
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/11/17/percentages_say_coach_made_the_right_call/

Finding that took about 2 minutes of searching. Statistics indicate that in that situation there was a better chance of winning the game by going for it on 4th down (79%) vs. punting (70%). OK, so it was not so stupid after all. Didn't work but not stupid.

Yet much of the media is filled with howls of outrage against this decision and the coach who made it (Bill Belichick) and much of the criticism seems oblivious to the statistics. It's like there are two utterly different planes of reasoning. Much of the sports media is just filled with hyperbolic "What was he thinking!?!?" stories. Stories filled with sarcasm, emotion and exaggeration. A few stories where the author colorfully claimed to have searched far and wide looking for a rationalle for the decision - but failed to find any. Bob Kravitz of IndyStar is typical. Concludes the the decision must have been based on "arrogance" and "hubris" because he can find no other explanation:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091116/SPORTS15/911160369/1034/SPORTS15/Kravitz-Belichick-helps-Colts-win

The lead story in the Boston Herald sports section is titled "Brain Cramp."

Do these guys not know about the statistics or do they not care. Both? Are they playing to a public that is mathematically illiterate and does not especially like to be enlightened?

Some pundits even disparaged Belichick for "not playing the percentages" obviously ignorant as to what the percentages actually were!

OK, At first blush it does *seem* like the wrong decision and 'a gamble.' The thought process probably goes something like this: "if the 4th down conversion fails then the Patriots lose because the other team is deep their end and can score easily, but if the Patriots punt the Colts have to go practically the whole field so the Patriots will probably win, hence punting is the correct option."

That was my first thought.

But this just isn't accurate. You have to think things through like a chess game in order to see why the statistics back up the 4th down try:
- Making the 4th down means the Patriots can run out the clock and win.
- Failure to gain the first down does not guarantee a loss. A first and goal on the other teams 22 yard line does not always result in a score and even if it does:
- Scoring as a result of a drive from the opponents 22 yard line is likely to take less time than from farther away (after receiving the punt) and hence more likely to give the other team time to come back. In this case the Patriots would only have needed a field goal to win even after being scored on.
- Going 60 or 70 yards (what the Colts would have had to do) was more likely than it seemed because it was "4 down territory."

When these factors are considered and numbers run, the statistics show the best chance of winning in this particular situation came from attempting a 4th down conversion - and not punting. Two independent computer programs have come up with the same result. The first one is discussed above and the second is called Zeus:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091117/SPORTS03/911170346/1058/SPORTS03/Opinions-vary-on-Belichick-s-decision

So it's a pretty open and shut case: the correct decision was to go for it on 4th down.

But the national sports media is overwhelming in in condemnation of the decision and the condemnation is largely emotional. "You know it's wrong", "In football you just don't do things like this." Some commentators have dug in their heels even in the face of clearly knowing the statistical evidence and just re-iterated their emotional arguments in the face of the math.

Part of it is that the decision is is easy to criticize because it didn't work out but there is something more going on here. The opposing camps are really occupying two different planes of reality. Dealing with truth in two very different ways. One looks for truth in the physical/mathematical sphere - and typically keeps an open mind, the other seeks to establish what I would describe as "social truth". It's the kind of truth based on "everybody says so" kind of reasoning. People do not seek this second kind of truth they aim to establish it. In the Patriots 4th down decision case, it is probably an example of an opportunity to trash someone many people didn't like. The decision looked bad at first blush and many don't like Bill Belichick. Hence there is an opportunity to construct a social truth that he screwed up. In this case it runs headlong into a more substantial mathematical truth that he made the correct decision. It's not a judgment call like drafting player X vs Y. There is clear math on the side of the decision. But that does not matter to people engaging in constructing social truths - which occupy a different plane of reality. In the social truth plane of reality if everybody says so, it's true. People engaged in constructing social truths typically use in heavy doses of emotion. Social truth is not necessarily at odds with physical/mathematical truth but it often is and in this case it is.

This truth dichotomy exists in many spheres other than football. I think it's an important distinction in the real world in many places.

In my opinion, this episode exposes (as if we need more evidence) American anti-intellectualism. I noted above that Bill Belichick is "not well liked". He isn't. He's considered one of the smartest coaches in football and probably one of the smartest of all time. Much of the sports media and fan base throughout the country does not like them man. If this was an isolated case you could chalk it up to factors other than intellect, but (sadly for America in my opinion) it's not an isolated case. The criticism of Bill Belichick bears a similarity to criticism of Al Gore who was trashed on a personal level vs. the "likable" -and obviously un-intellectual George W. Bush. Same thing with Mike Dukakis. The intellectual Republican of recent times has been Newt Gingrich. He got the same negative treatment. This is not limited to sports and politics. Unfortunately it goes pretty deep in America right now and Bill Belichick is just the latest "smart guy" to receive the ire of the American "yahoo" mobs.