Should Colts have gone for 2

by Ian Simcox
So there I am, browsing my Twitter feed and I see this

Re HOU FG scenario: IND should still have gone for 2. Failed att means being down 15, which still gives 2 more bites at the 2-pt apple.
— Brian Burke (@Adv_NFL_Stats) November 4, 2013

Predictably the replies featured people as sure of the value of kicking the XP as Brian was of going for the 2.

At a 45% success rate on the 2-pts, the WP calculator says Indy have a 0.10WP if they kick the XP, comparing favourably to 0.09WP if they go for it (0.12 on success, 0.07 on failure). So, marginally the XPers have it. I must admit though, I plugged starting the 4th qtr down 10, 11 and 12 on 1st down into the calculator, to simplify the second part of this article.

What really interests me is the uncertainty around these numbers, which is always important on these tight calls. The XPers may have it on the WP calculator, but if those numbers are +/- 0.03WP then it’s impossible to say which is right.

The Colts and their New “Run-Heavy” Offense

By Sal Cacciatore

When the Indianapolis Colts hired Pep Hamilton to be their offensive coordinator in January, the team’s buzzword this past offseason was “balance,” with coaches stressing the need to run the ball to win.

While that may be cringe-worthy for anyone familiar with this site and Brian’s work on the topic, the Colts stand at 5-2, so there is a sentiment of vindication for Hamilton and head coach Chuck Pagano’s conservative coaching. Mike Wells of ESPN.com, formerly of the Indianapolis Star, went as far as to say the team “got their record by being a run-first team.”

Leaving aside how foolish molding a team led by prodigal quarterback Andrew Luck into a “run-first” club seems, we can use numbers to assess if Wells’ statement and others like it are true.

Are the Colts actually a run-based team and are they winning because of a newfound emphasis on running?