those coaches are secure in their employment. If the experiment combusts, they have little to lose (i.e., their jobs).
Is it coincidence that New England Patriots coachBill Belichick opts to go for it on fourth down more often than any of his colleagues do? True, Belichick is a cerebral sort who understands risk aversion and probability as well as anyone, but he’s also won three Super Bowls since 2001 and has more job security than any other coach in the NFL. We noticed that before he became a coaching star, Belichick approached the game quite differently. In his first head coaching stint in the NFL, with Cleveland, Belichick amassed an unimpressive 45 percent winning percentage and had only one winning season in five years. In Cleveland, he never exhibited the penchant for risk-taking that he shows with the Patriots. Back when he commanded the Browns, he went for it on fourth downonly about one out of seven times. Since taking the helm at New England in 2000, Belichick has gone for it on fourth down a little more than one in four times.
But this tells only part of the story. In Cleveland, Belichick’s team trailed more often, and so many of the fourth downs he went for were in desperate situations—trailing near the end of the game. In New England, he had better teams and hence was ahead much more frequently, facing fewer “desperate” fourth-down situations. Looking only at fourth-down situations in the first three quarters with his team trailing by less than two touchdowns, we found that in Cleveland he went for it on fourth down only about one in nine times, but in New England he went for it about one out of four times in the same situations. Belichick was almost three times more likely to go for it on fourth down in New England than he was in Cleveland.
One could argue that having a better team in New England meant he was more likely to convert more fourth downs, which is why he chose to go for it more often. True, his Patriots converted more of their fourth-down attempts than his Browns did, but the differences weren’t big (59 percent versus 51 percent), certainly not three times larger. Plus, in Cleveland, since he attempted more “desperate” fourth downs, sometimes with more than ten yards to go, you’d expect the success rate to be lower. Controlling for the
same
yardage, Belichick’s Patriots were only slightly better than his Browns at succeeding on fourth down.
So what changed his appetite for risk? Belichick didn’t have great job security in Cleveland, as evidenced by his eventual dismissal in 1996. Even in New England the first couple of years, when his job was less certain, he remained conservative. Only after his teams had won multiple Super Bowls and he was hailed as “the smartest coach in football” did his risk-taking increase. His job security at that point wasn’t an issue.
But even a secure coach bucks convention at his own peril. In November 2009, theIndianapolis Colts, undefeated at the time, hosted the New England Patriots. The latest installment in the NFL’s most textured rivalry, it was a Sunday night affair televisedon NBC. New England led comfortably for most of the game, but in the fourth quarter the wires of the Colts’ offense started to connect. Indianapolis scored a late touchdown to close the score to 34–28. The crowd noise at Lucas Oil Stadium reached earsplitting levels.
On the Patriots’ next possession, they moved the ball with deliberate slowness and faced fourth and two on their own 28-yard line. It was a compelling test case for risk management in the NFL. If the Patriots punted, it was a virtual certainty that Indianapolis would get the ball back, leavingPeyton Manning slightly more than two minutes and two time-outs (one of their own and one from the two-minute warning) to move the ball 65 or 70 yards to score a touchdown—a feat he had achieved on many occasions, including the last time the two teams had met in Indianapolis.
If the Patriots went for
Is it coincidence that New England Patriots coachBill Belichick opts to go for it on fourth down more often than any of his colleagues do? True, Belichick is a cerebral sort who understands risk aversion and probability as well as anyone, but he’s also won three Super Bowls since 2001 and has more job security than any other coach in the NFL. We noticed that before he became a coaching star, Belichick approached the game quite differently. In his first head coaching stint in the NFL, with Cleveland, Belichick amassed an unimpressive 45 percent winning percentage and had only one winning season in five years. In Cleveland, he never exhibited the penchant for risk-taking that he shows with the Patriots. Back when he commanded the Browns, he went for it on fourth downonly about one out of seven times. Since taking the helm at New England in 2000, Belichick has gone for it on fourth down a little more than one in four times.
But this tells only part of the story. In Cleveland, Belichick’s team trailed more often, and so many of the fourth downs he went for were in desperate situations—trailing near the end of the game. In New England, he had better teams and hence was ahead much more frequently, facing fewer “desperate” fourth-down situations. Looking only at fourth-down situations in the first three quarters with his team trailing by less than two touchdowns, we found that in Cleveland he went for it on fourth down only about one in nine times, but in New England he went for it about one out of four times in the same situations. Belichick was almost three times more likely to go for it on fourth down in New England than he was in Cleveland.
One could argue that having a better team in New England meant he was more likely to convert more fourth downs, which is why he chose to go for it more often. True, his Patriots converted more of their fourth-down attempts than his Browns did, but the differences weren’t big (59 percent versus 51 percent), certainly not three times larger. Plus, in Cleveland, since he attempted more “desperate” fourth downs, sometimes with more than ten yards to go, you’d expect the success rate to be lower. Controlling for the
same
yardage, Belichick’s Patriots were only slightly better than his Browns at succeeding on fourth down.
So what changed his appetite for risk? Belichick didn’t have great job security in Cleveland, as evidenced by his eventual dismissal in 1996. Even in New England the first couple of years, when his job was less certain, he remained conservative. Only after his teams had won multiple Super Bowls and he was hailed as “the smartest coach in football” did his risk-taking increase. His job security at that point wasn’t an issue.
But even a secure coach bucks convention at his own peril. In November 2009, theIndianapolis Colts, undefeated at the time, hosted the New England Patriots. The latest installment in the NFL’s most textured rivalry, it was a Sunday night affair televisedon NBC. New England led comfortably for most of the game, but in the fourth quarter the wires of the Colts’ offense started to connect. Indianapolis scored a late touchdown to close the score to 34–28. The crowd noise at Lucas Oil Stadium reached earsplitting levels.
On the Patriots’ next possession, they moved the ball with deliberate slowness and faced fourth and two on their own 28-yard line. It was a compelling test case for risk management in the NFL. If the Patriots punted, it was a virtual certainty that Indianapolis would get the ball back, leavingPeyton Manning slightly more than two minutes and two time-outs (one of their own and one from the two-minute warning) to move the ball 65 or 70 yards to score a touchdown—a feat he had achieved on many occasions, including the last time the two teams had met in Indianapolis.
If the Patriots went for
Similar Books
