Can you elaborate on what you mean here? The legitimate factors I can think of should all go into the win probability, though I think you could argue - and perhaps you are arguing - it isn’t being measured precisely enough.
There are illegitimate factors, though, that don’t go into win probability, and should not be considered, though we all know that they are. Such as which decision, should it not go well, will lead to greater criticism to the coach.
The first problem I have is with the very concept of determining win probability based on past performance. As my financial advisor always reminds me: past performance is not indicative of future results. The fact that the Patriots scored a TD instead of a field goal against the Jets with 2:15 left in 2018 (or whatever past events are being used to create the win probability) is great and all, but it really doesn’t fit my teams’ situation in this game. Breaking down every teams actions to create a single standard of “average NFL team/game/situation” to compare your current situation to ignores so much of what really matters.
My particular issue with the above NFL.com quote was that the 2% win probability decrease was so small as to be insignificant. There are like 10-30 different groups creating “win probability percentages” and they don’t all agree. They aren’t the steadfast rules, just guidelines. And deciding someone was wrong based on just a 2% decrease in win probability is just silly.
I think you’re saying that you don’t think it’s being measured accurately/precisely enough, which I largely agree with.
I actually meant to reply to this the first time: I completely agree. That’s well within the margin of error, and in this case, I don’t think their conclusion is supported.
Your way of saying it is much more concise. But you ended the sentence with a preposition, so you decreased your winning an argument probability by 6.32%.
Why did they only have 21 points? Did they go for 2 and fail? I don’t see how being up 6 would have been any advantage to being up 5; either way a FG wouldn’t be enough for the Patriots to get out of the hole and a TD would give the Patriots the lead. Or did they miss the extra point kick? If so, then I wouldn’t have trusted the kicker to make a short field goal, and the TD he had was clearly something nobody could criticize.
I’m too lazy to look this up, but something didn’t seem right there.
They went for two and failed.
The reason they went for two was because being up 22-17 offers absolutely zero advantage if the Patriots scored a touchdown (the Giants would lose no matter what,) whereas being up 23-17 would at least mean that if the Patriots scored a touchdown but missed the extra point, the game would be tied 23-23 and go to overtime.
Granted, missed extra points were extremely rare back then. But every tiny bit of advantage helps.
Interesting article about how bad rookie QBs have been.
There’s only been one win and that’s Mac Jones against the pathetic Jets
And that, against another rookie quarterback in Zach Wilson, meaning that, barring a tie, some rookie QB was going to get a win out of that game.
I was looking at the NFL scores at some point during the weekend and one team (might have been the Raiders) had 19 points. That’s an unusual score for an NFL game, I thought. I think it turned out they had two touchdowns, a field goal, and a safety. Did the field goal and safety come first? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a football team with 5 points.
I suppose it depends on how you feel about your short yardage game and the opposing team’s QB. Also if you have time outs. If you’re Tom Brady with an uncanny ability to successfully convert QB sneaks, I think I’d always want to have the ball in his hands with 20 seconds left. If I have a time out left, that counts double. Even without a time out I feel good about getting a second attempt lined with on 4th down with 20 seconds on the clock. Same basic rules apply if I have the Browns or Titans RBs.
Conversely, if I’m facing a rookie QB (or the Bears in any situation) I’m OK giving them the ball back.
This is one case where I think the Chargers actually defied convention. We saw this in the Falcons-Giants game. Atlanta had the ball in a tie game, 1st and 10 on the 25 yard line with about a minute left. The Falcons basically centered the ball for 3 downs and kicked the FG with zero time on the clock. You could argue that the Chargers did a really stupid thing by throwing the ball in the end zone in that situation, and if Mahomes had pulled a Rodgers you’d have the 7 Chargers fans that exist calling for the coach’s head.
The Cowboys many years ago beat the Lions 5-0 in the 1970 playoffs (I remain a stat geek and that score stuck in my mind).
19 points isn’t rare at all; it’s seen every now and then (usually a touchdown and four field goals).
Some unusual scores are: Eagles 23-11 Giants (only 23-11 score in history)
Link to the excellent Jon Bois video on Scorigami: the practice of getting never-before-seen football scores, including the massively-unlikely-but-still-technically-possible score of 6-1.
Ah, that makes sense. I hadn’t thought about the possibility of the Patriots getting a TD and missing the point after. I guess that’s why I’m not a coach. 
There’s only been one 43-8 game ever. It was a Super Bowl.
Hurts throws an interception on a very poorly underthrown ball. Not a great start for the Iggles.
I don’t think Hurts is a starter; he could be a backup or a gadget QB but he can’t throw the ball deep with any reliable accuracy. That was why he lost his starting job at Alabama. Fortunately, the Eagles front four is for real.
And Dak gives it right back. Ugly.
I’m really interested to see the Eagles front four against the Cowboys offensive line. The first drive went to the Cowboys but the Eagles clearly responded with that strip.
I’m actually digging the Manning thing. I didn’t think I would but I dig it, especially when they bring in guests.