There’s a Model for that too.

The New England Patriot’s coach Bill Belichick has been taking a lot of flack from Monday morning quarterbacks around the country for his decision to go for it while up by 6 on 4th and 2 from the Pat’s 28-yard line with two minutes left on the clock. Why didn’t they punt? That’s the question everyone is asking because it seemed like the answer was obvious. They should have punted!

Not necessarily. Why? The guys over at Permutations will probably enjoy this: According to computer simulation models, Belichick made the right decision.

The Boston Globe tells the story of Brian Burke:

Burke is a football-crazed, math-inclined single father who works for a military contractor. Three years ago, he found himself with nothing to do once he put his children to bed. “I was pretty bored,’’ Burke said. He used software leftover from grad school to create a simulation tool that could solve football arguments for his friends at work.

…

Late Sunday night, Burke compiled the data and ran the numbers. When Burke began, even though he believes coaches are too conservative, his gut told him Belichick had made the incorrect decision. His outcome proved him wrong.

According to Burke’s tabulation, going for the first down gave the Patriots a 79 percent chance of winning. Punting gave them a 70-percent chance to win. Even after Burke made tweaks, the win probability never dipped in favor of the punt. If anything, factoring in how explosive the Colts’ offense is, the team-specific adjustments only made going for it more favorable.

You can still argue that Belichick made the wrong decision, but at least he had the numbers on his side. More importantly, this shows that mathematical models do in fact have a place in the social sciences. If there are any macro economists reading this, remember that you could always quit and focus your talents on something more productive with far fewer negative externalities for society!

• Josh McCabe