Yes, I was shocked. Why would Pete Carroll make that play call and lost SuperBowl 49 for SeaHawks? Wouldn’t it be obvious to use the “Beast” to punch through Patriot’s wall and score the game winning touch-down? What was he thinking?<\/p>\n
This is called the 20-20 hind-sight wisdom. It is a known fallacy in decision making.<\/p>\n
The quality of the decision is not necessarily related to the outcome, particularly when random factors play a role. Pete Carroll has basically two options: use Marshawn Lynch to ram through, or use a different play that Patriots do not expect. Facing New England’s defensive team, Marshawn Lynch may very well be stopped with several inches short. The alternative approach may actually have better odds. This decision could be a sound one. What happened next could be just bad luck.<\/p>\n
If there is a lottery with 10% chance of winning and the pay-out is better than 10 times the ticket price, then the rational decision is to buy the ticket. If the ticket does not win, it is simply bad luck.<\/p>\n
Don’t learn the wrong lesson.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yes, I was shocked. Why would Pete Carroll make that play call and lost SuperBowl 49 for SeaHawks? Wouldn’t it be obvious to use the “Beast” to punch through Patriot’s wall and score the game winning touch-down? What was he … Continue reading